Federal Judge Dismisses Report of Obama Birth Certificate Forgery, Request for Grand Jury Review

“LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION”

by Sharon Rondeau

(Nov. 16, 2013) — The Post & Email learned a short time ago that Judge James L. Robart of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington has dismissed without prejudice a filing reporting alleged crimes and request to present the evidence to a grand jury.

Douglas Vogt had submitted a document titled “Notice of Commission” to the court on October 18 with extensive evidence of alleged forgery, fraud, and conspiracy relating to Barack Hussein Obama’s long-form birth certificate.

Over two and one-half years, Vogt and typesetter Paul Irey investigated the origins of the long-form birth certificate image and quickly denounced it fraudulent.  Vogt stated that he knows the identity of the person who committed the forgery as well as that of several co-conspirators, including a corporate media entity.

Irey and Vogt are finishing the manuscript for a book which explains their findings that the short-form Certification of Live Birth released by an unknown party in June 2008 and the long-form image posted on the White House website in April 2011, both of which bear Obama’s name, are forgeries.

On November 5, the court responded that it did not have “subject matter jurisdiction” in the case, which it characterized as a lawsuit entitled “Vogt v. Obama.” Robart also claimed that a private citizen cannot enforce criminal statutes.

Vogt submitted a response to the court on November 12 stating that he was not suing Obama, but rather, reporting a crime as required by two federal statutes which he believed merited the review of a grand jury.  Vogt had told The Post & Email that according to Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (FRCP), Rule 6, the judge was obligated to present his evidence to a grand jury because of the high degree of public interest associated with his allegations.

The Fifth Amendment states that before a potential defendant can be charged with a crime, the evidence against him must be reviewed by a grand jury of citizens.  Grand juries were once powerful community entities which investigated all manner of possible crimes, including those committed by elected and public officials.

On November 14, the court responded to Vogt by stating that “(1) there is no private right of action under either 18 U.S.C. §4 or 18 U.S.C §2382, (2) private parties generally lack standing to institute a federal criminal prosecution, and (3) private citizens or voters, such as Mr. Vogt, lack standing to challenge President Obama’s qualifications to hold office through the use of misprision of felony or misprision of treason statutes, or otherwise, because they have suffered no particularized injury.”

On Saturday, Montgomery Blair Sibley, who assisted Vogt in preparing both the original filing and the November 12 response, told The Post & Email that “the judge issued a brief two-page order in which he said, basically, ‘This is a lawsuit,’ although Doug does not maintain that it is, and when you style it as a lawsuit, it doesn’t meet the requirements for going forward.”

The Post & Email asked Sibley if Judge Robart violated a law by dismissing Vogt’s affidavits, to which Sibley responded, “It’s Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 6a, which states that if the judge determines it’s in the public interest, he must summon a grand jury.  So the question is, ‘Does the evidence that Doug presented amount to public interest?'”  He continued, “Obviously, Doug is advocating that it is in the public interest and the grand jury should answer various questions, because we as citizens are entitled to know the answers.”

THE POST & EMAIL:  Including the allegations of forgery and conspiracy?

MR. SIBLEY:  Yes. The fact that the judge refused to acknowledge that is, I believe, going to prompt Doug to file a Motion to Reconsider, which then sets the table to take it on appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and from there, on to the U.S. Supreme Court.

THE POST & EMAIL:  Do you believe he will take it that far?

MR. SIBLEY:  I believe he is so motivated, yes.

THE POST & EMAIL:  In his response, Mr. Vogt pointed out that he was not suing Obama.

MR. SIBLEY:  Correct.  When you start manipulating the facts to have it come out the way you want, you’ve undermined the whole integrity of the judicial system.  If you can make up stuff, there’s no fact-finding; there’s no adjudication process.  The victor always writes history, so to speak. That’s why the papers were filed at PACER, because now they’re stuck there for the public to see for all time.

THE POST & EMAIL: And people will see that the judge doesn’t seem to want to do anything with it.

MR. SIBLEY:  Remember, these judges are not gods; they do have life tenure based upon “good behavior,” so the fact that perhaps the judge isn’t doing anything raises the question, “Is this good behavior?”  If not, he can be removed from office for violating that condition subsequent to maintaining his office.

THE POST & EMAIL:  How would a judge in his position be removed?

MR. SIBLEY: That’s a wonderful question which in fact I have litigated up to the U.S. Supreme Court.  We know under the Constitution, Congress can remove a judge for treason, bribery or high crimes and misdemeanors.  But there’s a way to commit bad behavior and not be involved in treason, bribery or high crimes and misdemeanors.  Nevertheless, you should lose your office.  So that means the Constitution envisioned a non-congressional way of removing a judge for bad behavior.  Even Justice Scalia has recognized that there’s an ancient, common-law writ for doing that very thing.  It remains to be seen what the Ninth Circuit makes of all this.

THE POST & EMAIL:  The court’s response appears to strengthen the evidence that a citizen today cannot gain access to a grand jury.

MR. SIBLEY:  The grand jury sits there five days a week, and all they have to do is give Doug 30 minutes.  Let him walk in, and if the grand jury says, “You’re a crackpot; take a hike,” then that’s that.  If  they say, “You know what…we’re issuing subpoenas to Hawaii and the White House and Occidental College” and all the rest of them, and they get those returns back, because you can’t stop a grand jury subpoena, then maybe the grand jury has something else to say in the form of an indictment or presentment.  Why the judge is protecting Obama & Company from that very legitimate inquiry is the real question here.

Vogt had told The Post & Email last week that if the judge dismissed his request, he would appeal the decision.