Page 7--The Sibley and Walker Lawsuits Subjects Inside: Article
FAQ, Application Counts By Congress, Articles,
AVC Legislative Report, CRS Reports, Convention of States, The Historic Record of COS, COS Laws, COS Articles, John Birch Society, Con-Con, Runaway Convention, Who Called the Convention, Congressional Vote on a "Runaway" Convention, "Obey the Constitution, Only Two More States", Rescissions, The Phony Burger Letter, The Madison Letter, Fotheringham Exchange, JBS Articles, Sibley Lawsuit, General Interest, Article V.org, Robert Natelson, History of Article V, Counting the Applications, The Numeric Count History, Congressional Decision of May 5, 1789, Development of Article V, The Committee of the Whole, The Committee of Detail, August 30, September 10, Committee of Style, September 15, Official Government Documents, History of FOAVC, Founders, Audio/Visual, Links, Contact Us, Legal Page, 14th Amendment, The Electoral Process, Packets
, Numeric Counts of Applications
, Same Subject Counts of Applications
As described in the
April 12, 2015 article below Montgomery Sibley became the second person
in United States history to file a federal lawsuit against Congress in
regards to its failure to obey the Constitution and call an Article V
Convention as required by the Constitution. The first person to do so
was Bill Walker, co-founder of FOAVC who filed two separate lawsuits in
2000 and again in 2004. The latter suit, Walker v Members of Congress,
was appealed to the Supreme Court. Details of these suits may be found here.
Other articles describing all details of the Sibley lawsuit are printed
in publication order. Further information regarding the lawsuit can be
found the front page of our site.
Sibley Files Federal AVC Lawsuit
Blair Sibley, an attorney based in Maryland,
second person in United States history to file a federal lawsuit
members of Congress for failure to call an Article V Convention as
Article V of the United States Constitution with the filing of a
complaint in Washington, DC. The first person to file this type of
the author of this article who filed two cases, Walker v United States
and Walker v Members of Congress is 2004. The latter suit was appealed
announced in his blog Sibley filed his suit on April
9, 2015 in the Superior Court for the
District of Columbia, Civil Division. The defendants in the case are
leader Mitch McConnell of the United States Senate and John Boehner,
the House of Representatives. The complaint seeks a declaratory
judgment and a writ of mandamus by the court
requiring Congress to call an Article V Convention. It requests an
jury trial rather than a decision by the court itself. According to Mr.
the Superior Court was chosen as the court of choice because “it is an
I federal court where ‘standing” is not a legal bar to the claim.”
the past the federal government has asserted standing, or
the right to sue, as the basis to deny any lawsuit filed requiring
obey the Constitution and call an Article V Convention. However, the
Supreme Court ruling made in 1939, Coleman v Miller (the basis of the
rulings made in the two Walker lawsuits) states that any court ruling
the amendatory process in the Constitution is an “advisory” opinion.
opinions do not require standing on the part of the plaintiff bringing
suit. Moreover the decision clearly states that while Congress has
control over the amendment process, nevertheless, it is required to
Constitution. Article V gives no option to Congress on calling a
the states apply meaning Congress is peremptorily required to call the
convention. It has been referred to by the Founders as “peremptory.”
his complaint Mr. Montgomery lists 35 states
which have submitted
applications for a convention call. The Constitution mandates a
if two thirds of the state legislatures submit applications meaning 34
must submit applications. Article V only requires applications by the
for a convention call to occur. It does not require submission of the
application from all states nor does it require the applications be for
amendment subject. In all, 49 states have submitted a total of 766
applications for a
convention call. To date, all applications have been ignored by
Congress which, until
recently, had not even bothered to tabulate
applications for purposes of counting, a necessary step to occur before
can be issued.
to court rules, the government has 60 days in which to respond to the
complaint. FOAVC will publish updates to this story as they occur.
Congress Signals Intent to Disobey Constitution
In what can only be described as Walker v Members of Congress
3.0, Déjà-vu all over again, members of Congress have once again
signaled their intent to disobey the Constitution in regards to calling
an Article V Convention. More...
Government Defies Constitution
As expected, attorneys for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and
Speaker of the House John Boehner filed court pages in United States
District Court for the District of Columbia asking the court to dismiss
the recently filed Sibley v McConnell federal lawsuit. The lawsuit,
filed pro se by Maryland attorney Montgomery Sibley seeks a writ of
mandamus from the court causing Congress to call an Article V
Flurry of Motions, Responses Marks latest Events in Sibley lawsuit
As the time draws nearer for a ruling from a federal judge as to
whether the Montgomery Sibley lawsuit, Sibley v McConnell will be
dismissed in District Court in contradiction to federal law or remanded
back to federal Superior Court as required by federal law where the
issue of the refusal of Congress to call an Article V Convention faces
a decision based on the merits of the case, this week saw a flurry of
legal motions and responses from both sides. More...
Court Signals Bias in Sibley Lawsuit
In what can only be described as opposing obvious court bias, attorney
Montgomery Sibley this week filed a motion in federal district court in
the Article V Convention case Sibley v McConnell requesting the court
withdraw deadlines for filing responses to government filings. More...
Filings Fly in Sibley Suit as Court Deadline Nears
With a court deadline set for the end of the pre-holiday week for the
Sibley v McConnell lawsuit a blizzard of filings continued leading up
to the deadline for the Article V Convention lawsuit. The suit, the
third in United States history, was originally filed April 8, 2015 in
Superior Court for the District of Columbia by Maryland attorney
Montgomery Sibley. More...
Sibley Files Final Response, Case Now in Hands of Judge
With the filing of a response early last week by plaintiff Montgomery
Sibley, the first round of charges and counter charges in the case
Sibley v McConnell came to an end for the plaintiff. The government
filed their final responses on Friday July 10. The matter now rests
with District Court Judge James E. Boasberg. More...
Sibley Wins First Round in AVC Lawsuit
Despite a 14 page opinion of judicial diatribe which could have been
written with a single word--"remanded," Maryland attorney Montgomery
Sibley won the first round in his Article V Convention lawsuit against
defendants Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, and Speaker of the
House John Boehner this week. More...
Sibley Files First Papers in Superior Court; Government Seeks Censorship
Wasting no time following his remand victory in federal district court
Maryland attorney Montgomery Sibley filed his first motion, a motion
for a pre-trial conference of what promises to be a massive volume of
legal paperwork from both he and government attorneys representing
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and formerly, Speaker of the
House John Boehner in Superior Court for the District of Columbia,
Civil Division. More...
Plethora of AVC Activity Marks First Week in November
"Busy" best describes Article V Convention activities in the first week
of November. The week featured filings in two court cases, a report on
the current status of Article V advocacy groups and a request by a
member of Congress for inspection of Article V Convention state
applications currently in the custody of the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA). More...
Sibley's Olive Branch Letter Spurned
A November 19, 2016 hand delivered letter from Maryland attorney
Montgomery Sibley to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Speaker
of the House Paul Ryan, defendants in the Sibley v McConnell/Ryan
lawsuit, offering to negotiate the issue of Congress calling an Article
V Convention was apparently rejected by the defendants. More...
Sibley Rebuts Gov't Motion to Dismiss; Smith Files Reconsideration
In a strongly worded 19 page response Maryland attorney Montgomery
Sibley rebutted the government's motion of dismissal it submitted to DC
Superior Court in the Sibley versus McConnell/Ryan lawsuit. More...
Court Dismisses Sibley, Appeal Underway
With a one sentence dismissal on January 11, 2016, DC Superior Court
Judge Maurice A. Ross kicked the federal lawsuit by Maryland attorney
Montgomery Sibley into the appeal process. More...
Appeal Underway in Sibley Lawsuit; FOAVC Presents New Feature
By Bill Walker
Speaking from personal experience I can tell you nothing moves slower
than the appeals process in federal court. When I filed my second
federal lawsuit, Walker v Members of Congress for example, it took 18
months from the date of submission to the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals until the Court rendered its one page opinion. More...
Sibley Appeal Slows Awaiting Government Response
Events have slowed this past month in the Montgomery Sibley lawsuit
against Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Speaker of the House
Paul Ryan. Despite the fact public record shows Congress is required to
call TEN Conventions and the Constitution mandates Congress must call
if the states apply in sufficient number, Congress has not called a
single convention. More...
Government Responds to Sibley
The government this week submitted its appeal brief to Montgomery
Sibley in his suit Sibley v McConnell. Frankly, the government said
nothing new using the same arguments it had presented at trial. More...
Sibley Lawsuit To Force AVC Call Loses
On December 15, 2016
an appeal by Montgomery Sibley in his suit Sibley v Ryan/McConnell to
the District Court of Appeals was denied by the appeals court on the
basis of lack of standing. Despite the fact Sibley filed his suit in
what is termed an "Article I" court, that is a federal court created
under authority of Article I of the Constitution, instead of an
"Article III" court. The difference constitutionally between the two
courts has been that an Article I court does not require standing while
an Article III court does.
An Article I court, in this case the Superior Court for
the District of Columbia, is equivalent to a county superior court in a
state and generally deals with similar judicial matters. However, under
the law creating the court, any matter may be submitted to the court
for its consideration. Sibley thus filed his suit to order the court to
compel Speaker of the House Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch
McConnell to call an Article V Convention. The record of applications
is clear: the states have applied in sufficient number to cause
11 convention calls. Congress has counted
35 states in its recent counting of applications.
Based on its continued opposition now in several
lawsuits it is clear the government has no intention of obeying Article
V and calling a convention as required. In each instance the
lawsuit seeking to have Congress obey the Constitution has been
thwarted by the courts on the same basis: lack of standing which the
government thus far as successfully used in each case. No federal court
has thus far even bothered to consider the merits of the case which
simply are: Congress is mandated to call a convention which they have.
There is no reason to believe, given the position of Congress in its
legal battles over calling an Article V Convention that of outright
opposition, that Congress will be disposed to call a convention under
any circumstances or even respect a convention called by the states.
Sibley has submitted a petition for an "en banc" hearing by the
entire DC Appeals Court to consider his lawsuit. Further appeal may
follow. A decision by the court whether grant an "en banc"
hearing is expected in mid-spring.
The court's ruling may be read below by clicking the image to enlarge:
The petition for "en banc" can be read here:
Page Last Updated: 5 MAY 2017