U.S; HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL 219 CANNON HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON, DC (202) FAX: (202)

Similar documents
Case 1:15-cv EGS Document 18 Filed 03/31/16 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND MANDAMUS ADVISORY JURY TRIAL REQUESTED

THE FOLLOWING INFORMAL ADMONITION WAS ISSUED BY BAR COUNSEL ON April 10, Re: Stancil/Jones; Bar Docket No

Supreme Court of the United States

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY, MARYLAND

Case: 4:15-cv CAS Doc. #: 34 Filed: 10/13/15 Page: 1 of 5 PageID #: 503

Case 1:15-cv JEB Document 8-1 Filed 06/03/15 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

1. TRCP 194 created a new discovery tool entitled Requests for Disclosure.

In the Supreme Court of the United States

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. No. A- UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPLICANT JICARILLA APACHE NATION

No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Plaintiff Appellee,

Case 1:14-cv Document 1 Filed 11/21/14 Page 1 of 28 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS. No. 16-cv-41. BRIEF FOR APPELLEE THE HONO BLE MITCH McCONNELL

c e d c Community Environmental Defense Council, Inc. VIA FACSIMILE February 11, 2013

Case 1:18-cv TJK Document 16 Filed 11/15/18 Page 1 of 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA : : : : : Plaintiffs,

THE FOLLOWING INFORMAL ADMONITION WAS ISSUED BY BAR COUNSEL ON June 30, 2006

September Term, 2015 No Montgomery Blair Sibley, Appellant, vs. John Doe, et al, Appellants.

No JIn tlcbe

PREVIEW PLEASE DO NOT COPY THIS DOCUMENT THANK YOU

Case 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 02/08/18 Page 1 of 17 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Plaintiff Appellee,

THE FOLLOWING INFORMAL ADMONITION WAS ISSUED BY BAR COUNSEL ON May 27, Re: In re William H. Wade, Bar Docket No

Information or instructions: Motion Consent of Client & Order to substitute counsel PREVIEW

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA

Case 3:10-cv VLB Document 109 Filed 06/20/12 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

Mary Cummins 645 W 9th St # Los Angeles, CA Direct: (310)

Case 2:08-cv GLF-NMK Document 78 Filed 01/20/10 Page 1 of 5

Information or instructions: Motion Order Affidavit for substituted service package PREVIEW

Case 2:12-cv WCO Document 16-3 Filed 04/06/13 Page 1 of 25. Exhibit C

Information or instructions: Plea in abatement motion & Order to quash service Alternate Form

Auto accident Motion for Summary Judgment complete package

For Preview Only - Please Do Not Copy

Case 1:12-cv RWZ Document 21 Filed 11/15/12 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

Civil Action: County of Burlington, and State of New Jersey, and Plaintiff Pro Se Frederick John LaVergne, residing at

For Preview Only - Please Do Not Copy

Case 1:16-cv Document 1 Filed 06/06/16 Page 1 of 9

BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA : : : : : : : :

Case 1:08-cr EGS Document 126 Filed 10/02/2008 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

For Preview Only - Please Do Not Copy

e Dominion rl)

DEFENDANT MANAL MOHAMMAD YOUSEF'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER. COMES NOW, Manal Mohammad Yousef (hereinafter "Manal Yousef'), by and

Case 3:06-cv JSW Document 122 Filed 10/30/2006 Page 1 of 15

PLAINTIFF S VERIFIED MOTION FOR RULE TO SHOW CAUSE WHY BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, II, SHOULD NOT BE HELD IN CONTEMPT OF COURT

Case 1:15-cv PKC Document 20 Filed 03/07/16 Page 1 of 10. Plaintiffs, 15 Civ (PKC) DECLARATION OF PAUL P. COLBORN

2d Civ. No. B (Los Angeles Superior Court No. BC466547) COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - SACRAMENTO DIVISION } } } } } } } } } } } } } } /

Case 3:16-cr BR Document 1163 Filed 08/31/16 Page 1 of 12

Case 2:08-cv RBS Document 15 Filed 10/06/2008 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

LDB to MLA: Drop Ultra Vires Boycott Resolution

Case 1:16-cv ABJ Document 10 Filed 08/18/16 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. Plaintiff, ) ) (GK) v. )

Supreme Court of the United States

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT NORFOLK COUNTY COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

Case 1:96-cv TFH Document 3846 Filed 07/14/11 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

LegalFormsForTexas.Com

Case 2:13-cv Document Filed in TXSD on 06/04/14 Page 1 of 18 EXHIBIT 5

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA (Before a Referee) The Florida Bar File No ,165(OSC) REPORT OF REFEREE

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

10 Petitioner, PETITION PURSUANT TO RCW (2) FOR ORDER 11 V. COMPELLING COMPLIANCE WITH AGENCY CIVIL ORDER 12 BAILEY STOBER,

THE FOLLOWING INFORMAL ADMONITION WAS ISSUED BY BAR COUNSEL ON October 26, 2004

Case 1:12-cv VEC Document 584 Filed 07/01/16 Page 1 of 11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF FORSYTH COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA. FORSYTH COUNTY BOARD OF ETHICS CIVIL ACTION Plaintiff, FILE NO. 12CV-0027 v.

INSTRUCTION SHEET FOR CHANGING AN ADULT S NAME

Case 2:14-cv DDC-TJJ Document 77 Filed 01/05/15 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATED DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

PREVIEW PLEASE DO NOT COPY THIS DOCUMENT THANK YOU. LegalFormsForTexas.Com

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIVIL DIVISION * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Case 1:08-cv RLY-TAB Document 19 Filed 12/23/2008 Page 1 of 4

NO. Defendants. HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS PLAINTIFF'S WRITTEN INTERROGATORIES. To:, Defendant, by and through its attorney of record,,

Case 1:13-cv RC Document 1 Filed 06/06/13 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Before a Referee

No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Plaintiff Appellee

Case 1:17-cv Document 1 Filed 05/17/17 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) ) )

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE COMMERCIAL LIST

A GUIDE TO PRACTICE BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

Case 1:17-cv EGS Document 19 Filed 09/15/17 Page 1 of 22 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

AGRICULTURAL LAND COMMISSION PRACTICE DIRECTIVE APPEALS UNDER SECTION 55 OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND COMMISSION ACT

Purpose of Mandatory Fee Arbitration

Case 1:96-cv TFH-GMH Document 4315 Filed 12/22/17 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case: 2:13-cv MHW-TPK Doc #: 130 Filed: 07/08/14 Page: 1 of 9 PAGEID #: 2883

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY

Petitioners, * COURT OF APPEALS. v. * OF MARYLAND. MARIROSE JOAN CAPOZZI, et al., * September Term, Respondents. * Petition Docket No.

COURT AUTHORIZED NOTICE OF LAWSUIT

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Information or instructions: Combined discovery requests, admissions, production of documents and interrogatories

Case 1:96-cv TFH Document 4043 Filed 05/23/14 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

INTRODUCTION JURISDICTION VENUE

Case 1:06-cv JR Document 19 Filed 10/01/2007 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case 1:17-cv Document 1 Filed 12/21/17 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Case 1:14-cv CKK Document 1 Filed 08/22/14 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

John W. McConnell, Esq. Counsel Office of Court Administration 25 Beaver St., 11th Floor New York, NY 10004

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO CV-BLOOM/VALLE

Case 1:10-cr CKK Document 161 Filed 09/27/13 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

COUNTERSTATEMENTOF QUESTION PRESENTED

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Case: 5:16-cv JRA Doc #: 8 Filed: 11/30/16 1 of 8. PageID #: 111 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

Transcription:

KERRY W. KIRCHER GENERAL COUNSEL WILLIAM PITTARD DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL U.S; HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL 219 CANNON HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6532 (202) 225-9700 FAX: (202) 226-1360 October 21, 2015 TODD B. TATELMAN SENIOR ELENI M. ROUMEL ISAAC B. ROSENBERG KIMBERLY HAMM SARAH E. CLOUSE SENIOR STAFF ATTORNEY SARAH K, CURRAN STAFF ATTORNEY VIA ELECTRONIC & FIRST CLASS MAIL Montgomery Blair Sibley, Esquire 402 King Farm Boulevard, Suite 125-145 Rockville, Maryland 20850 montybsibley@gmail.com Re: Sibley v. McConnell, etal., 1:15-cv-00730-JEB (D.D.C.) Dear Mr. Sibley: I am in receipt of your electronic mail from this morning (attached), which responds to my letter of yesterday (also attached). 1. Your electronic mail references serving a (i) "First Amended Complaint," (ii) "Request to Admit," and (iii) "Request to Produce." Please be advised that I have received none of those documents from you. 2. In my October 20, 2015 letter, I explained that "[t]his Office represents House Members and staff in connection with their official activities." Ltr. at 1. I further stated that, accordingly, with respect to your lawsuit purporting to state claims against "four hundred thirty five (435) Members of the U.S. House of Representatives," you should direct all communications to this Office, and not to the Members (or their staff) directly. See id. ("[A]ccordingly, to the extent you wish to communicate with any House Member or staff regarding your lawsuit, please do so thorough this Office. Please do not communicate directly with any House Member or staff regarding this lawsuit."). It has now come to my attention that, even after I sent my letter, you again contacted directly multiple additional House Members and staff regarding your lawsuit. These communications are problematic on at least three levels. First, you are communicating with a represented individual, which is inconsistent with bar rules that apply to you. See, e.g., D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct 4.2(a) ("D.C. Rules") ("[Al lawyer shall not communicate... about the subject of the representation with a person known to be represented by another lawyer in the matter, unless the lawyer has the prior consent of the lawyer representing such other person or is authorized by law or a court order to do so."); D.C. Ethics Opinion 258 (Sept. 1995) (concluding that "lawyer who is a party in a matter and is

Montgomery Blair Sibley, Esquire October 21, 2015 Page 2 proceeding pro se cannot communicate directly with another party who is known to be represented by counsel in the matter without first obtaining consent from the other party's lawyer"); Cobell v. Norton, 212 F.R.D. 14, 21 (D.D.C. 2002) ("[K]nowing participation in the efforts of [a party] to engage in improper communications with members of a class action litigation constitutes a violation of attorney ethics rules."). Second, you are providing false information to Members and staff. In particular, you have represented that your "lawsuit will resolve the question of whether Representative [fill-inblank] has breached the oath of office by failing to 'call' a convention to propose amendments to the Constitution of the United States." (Emphasis added). As you are aware, that representation is false because the Members have substantial affirmative defenses - including, but not limited to, the standing doctrine, the Speech or Debate Clause, and the political question doctrine - any one of which, if sustained by a Court, would prevent a ruling on the merits of your claim. Third, your conduct is interfering with this Office's ability to represent its clients in this matter, and may, if it continues, force us to seek relief from the Court. Accordingly, I again urge you not to communicate directly with any House Members or staff regarding your lawsuit. Thank you for your attention. Sincerely, Enclosures William Pittard

Pittard, William From: Sent: To: Subject: Monty Sibley <montybsibleygmailcom> Wednesday, October 21, 201511:11 AM Pittard, William; Maier, Peter (USADC) Re: Sibley v. McConnell, et al, Bill, I am receipt of your email and attached letter of October 20, 2015. Your email went into my spam folder for some reason and I just found it. Thus, in the future if you send me an email and don't get an email back from me after a few days, you might call me to make sure I received it. As to the your request to communicate with you by email, I fully understand and will do so henceforth. I trust you have received my recently filed in the D.C. Superior Court (i) First Amended Complaint, (ii) Request to Admit and (iii) Request to Produce. If. not, please let me know and I will forward by email the same posthaste. As for your request that.1 do not communicate with members of Congress directly, I respectfully decline until you direct me to what authority would compel that result in derogation of my First Amendment Right to Petition. yours, Montgomery Sibley 202-643-7232 On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Pittard, William <William.Pittard(mai1.house.gov> wrote Mr. Sibley: Please see attached correspondence. 1

--Bill Pittard William Pittard, Deputy General Counsel Office of General Counsel, United States House of Representatives 219 Cannon House Office Building; Washington, District of Columbia 20515 Office: (202) 225-970 p. Facsimile: (202) 226-1360; Mobile: (202) 225-8412 Email: William. Pitta rd(8mait. house. guy

KERRY W. I(IRCHER GENERAL COUNSEL WILLIAM PITTARD DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL 219 CANNON HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6532 (202) 225-9700 FAX: (202)226-1360 October 20, 2015 TODD B. TATELMAN SENSOR ELENI M. ROIJMEL ISAAC B. ROSENBERG KIMBERLY HAMM SARAH E. CLOUSE SENSOR STAFF ATTORNEY SARAH K. CIJRRAN STAFF ATTORNEY VIA ELECTRONIC & FIRST CLASS MAIL Montgomery Blair Sibley, Esquire 402 King Farm Boulevard Rockville, Maryland 20850 montybsibleygmail.com Re: Sibley v. McConnell, eta[., 1:15-cv-00730-JEB (D.D.C.) Dear Mr. Sibley: I understand that, with respect to your Article V convention case (purporting to state claims against "four hundred thirty five (435) Members of the House of Representatives"), you recently have contacted multiple Members of the U.S. House of Representatives. This Office represents House Members and staff in connection with their official activities; accordingly, to the extent you wish to communicate with any House Member or staff regarding your lawsuit, please do so through this Office. Please do not communicate directly with any House Member or staff regarding this lawsuit. Because of the stringent mail delivery procedures put in place in the House after various anthrax and ricin attacks, please do not communicate with me by ordinary mail at the address above. Instead, please use facsimile (202/226-1360), or electronic mail (wi1liam.pittardmai1.house.gov). Thank you for your attention. Sincerely, Lh 0---- William Pittard