Main Menu

Tag Archives | Sibley v. Alexander

National Archives corrects label on box; birthers call it a crime

Jerome Corsi looked at INS arrival records for Hawaii for 1961, around the time President Obama was born. He reported that records were missing, or at least that’s how his reporting was described. More accurately, as I understand it, the images on the microfilm were unreadable towards the end of the reel. Someone, I presume Corsi, took a picture of the microfilm box that was labeled: “INS, HONOLULU, July 28, 1961 – August 8, 1961.”1

Now, the box label is changed, or so says Mr. Sibley in an emergency motion in his lawsuit, and in a color report at ObamaReleaseYourRecords. The new label says “July 28, 1961 – August 1, 1961.” ORYR makes a federal case out of this:

Thus, indisputably the box has been tampered with – a criminal offense – to hide the fact that the microfilm for the August 2 through August 7, 1961 arrivals is now missing.

I don’t see what the big deal is. If the records aren’t on the film, it makes perfect sense to change the box label to accurately reflect what’s in it. How is that in any way a crime? And if there really is no other box starting with August 2, then it remains obvious that such records are “missing.”

The other weird thing is that the normal way to get to Hawaii from Kenya in 1961 was to come via New York, and that’s where INS travel records ought to be. The final leg to Hawaii would have been a domestic flight with no INS paperwork at all. Besides, we already know from 1961-62 INS statistical reports that no US citizen made such a flight from Kenya.


1I never have understood why birthers, who doubt just about everything about Obama’s birth certificate, doggedly insist on the actual August 4 date of birth, even on the fake Kenyan certificates.

Shutting that whole Sibley thing down

Since we last visited the Sibley v. Alexander case a lot of legal stuff has happened. As you may recall, Sibley filed his lawsuit in the District of Columbia Superior Court against its three members of the Electoral College. He asked for an injunction against their voting for Obama, and he fired off a number of subpoenas to colleges for Obama’s education records and others. The Defense removed the case to federal court where motions have been filed by the Attorney General of the District of Columbia to:

  1. Dismiss the case as moot, and for lack of standing, and for being in error as a matter of law
  2. Deny Sibley’s motion for remand (return the case to Superior Court)
  3. Stay Sibley’s subpoenas and all discovery as irrelevant
  4. Deny Sibley’s other motions (shut that whole Sibley thing down)
  5. Sanction Sibley for filing a frivolous lawsuit
  6. Enjoin Sibley from pursuing any Obama eligibility litigation in the District without leave of the Court

It is interesting to read the Defense brief in that it recites so many of the birther cases, from Ankeny to Taitz, as precedent for dismissing this one. The Defense describes Sibley’s quest as obsessive:

But none of the discovery sought is remotely relevant to these claims, and is concerned solely with plaintiff’s obsession with the President’s “eligibility” for office.

Here the Defense motion:

Continue Reading →

Sibley moves quickly to hold Obama in contempt

Week-old news

Montgomery Blair Sibley describes his recent run for president as “Quixotic;” I can only describe his recent spate of Obama eligibility lawsuits in the District of Columbia as “Orlyesque.” There are three of them:

It is in the Alexander case where Sibley has subpoenaed the original Obama Certificate of Live Birth shown to the press in 2011, and where he claims Obama has refused to respond. The attempts to serve this subpoena, by a professional process server and then by mail, are detailed in the Sibley motion for contempt. The professional process server failed to serve the President. Sibley was told to mail the subpoena addressed in a particular way, which he did, and it was received by the White House on November 27. Sibley filed his motion for contempt on November 29, the date that the Certificate was commanded to be produced. One cannot help comparing this 2-day demand with the 1-day subpoena demand Orly Taitz made of Occidental College.

I could see an Obama argument that he was given insufficient time to respond to the subpoena or to raise an objection to it. DC Rule 45 does not specify the time allowed to respond to a subpoena, but I get from that rule that 14 days is a normal minimum.

From a legal process point of view, we see a great deal more “professionalism” from Sibley, with grammatically correct filings, accurate citations of law and the use of a professional process server. Sibley, however, is as conspiracy crazy as Orly Taitz in describing the birther clown car occupants as “document experts” and decoding what people said into something they didn’t say. In what alternate reality is Mike Zullo an authority on anything besides used cars?

Read more: