WILL THE GRAND JURY REGAIN ITS RIGHTFUL PLACE IN THE AMERICAN JUSTICE SYSTEM?
by Sharon Rondeau
(Oct. 28, 2013) — On Monday, The Post & Email interviewed a former attorney who played a part in the filing of a Notice in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington relating to probable cause of the forgery of the birth certificates of Barack Hussein Obama.
Montgomery Blair Sibley has himself been seeking a court to rule on whether or not Obama should be permitted to serve as President of the United States based on his questionable constitutional eligibility. Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution requires the president and commander-in-chief to be a “natural born Citizen.” Sibley has also sought redress for the crime he alleges was committed by Magistrate Judge Deborah A. Robinson, who misrepresented herself as an Article III judge when she signed a dismissal of indictments against formerly-accused domestic terrorist Elizabeth Ann Duke in June 2009.
Just as concerning was the dismissal of the indictments for which Robinson has not provided elucidation in response to Sibley’s FOIA requests.
The filer of the Notice, Douglas Vogt, has a background in typesetting and scanning and asserts “20 points of forgery” of the long-form birth certificate image as well as charges of conspiracy, fraud and other crimes on the part of several “John Does” and “Jane Does.”
The Notice is 106 pages, and an accompanying memorandum is six pages.
The memo asserts that “the public interest” requires the court to summon one or more grand juries to investigate Vogt’s claims, citing historical instances wherein grand juries conducted their own investigations independent of a judge, attorney or prosecutor and issued presentments for prosecution. The Fifth Amendment is the only place in America’s founding documents where the grand jury and its role are invoked.
Two years ago, a state grand jury’s findings were termed a “presentment” rather than an indictment, which is issued by a grand jury after a prosecutor presents evidence to it for review.
As recently as October 13, a county grand jury’s conclusions that adequate evidence existed to charge two township supervisors with crimes were called “a presentment.”
In some cases, grand juries are used but are operated illegally or are unduly pressured by county prosecutors.
In 1989, an “ambushed grand jury” was investigating government corruption but was threatened into silence. Over the last four years, CDR Walter Francis Fitzpatrick, III (Ret.) has attempted to present evidence of his allegations against Obama for treason and fraud to a county, state or federal grand jury but has been met with denials by prosecutors and judges as well as an illegally-serving county grand jury foreman. “Grand juries are what make us a republic,” Fitzpatrick has said.
The Post & Email has asked members of Congress to convene a special grand jury to analyze the evidence of forgery, fraud, government corruption, and conspiracy which may have been involved in the ascension to the presidency by Barack Hussein Obama.
The Post & Email has reported extensively on the erosion of the grand jury once used in the colonies and after the American Revolution to the point where today, grand juries are just a shadow of their original powerful presence. While some states have legislated away grand juries, others have stopped empaneling them, substituting the supplying of “information” to a prosecutor.
However, in New York State and across the country, Common Law Grand Juries are forming and demanding that judges follow the U.S. Constitution and respective state constitutions by allowing the people to make decisions about guilt, innocence, restitution, and punishment.
We asked Mr. Sibley if he wrote the Notice, to which he responded, “I’m not the author, but let’s say I provided some material assistance to Doug to get it into the system.”
THE POST & EMAIL: When did the idea to file the document in a federal court and ask for a federal grand jury review of the evidence arise?
MR. SIBLEY: For me, it came up about six months ago when the Supreme Court refused to review a DC Circuit Court opinion in a lawsuit I filed in which I asked the court to enforce my statutory right to contact the grand jury with evidence of criminal behavior. I sued, saying that I had asked Eric Holder to present evidence of criminal behavior to a grand jury under a specific federal statute. He was refusing to do it; I asked the court to force him to do it the way other courts have forced U.S. attorneys to present evidence to grand juries. The DC court said, “No, we’re not going to enforce the statute, and, by the way, we don’t think the statute is constitutional, so you have no right to get your evidence to the grand jury.
So that said, I had to find another way to get to the grand jury, and that’s when my path crossed with Doug Vogt.
THE POST & EMAIL: It used to be that grand juries ran themselves without prosecutors acting as gatekeepers.
MR. SIBLEY: There’s been a concentration of power in this country into fewer and fewer hands, starting in the 1890s to the 1920. In the 1940s, they got rid of the idea that you could even have a presentment, which is a constitutional right in the Fifth Amendment.
THE POST & EMAIL: Walter Fitzpatrick has asked numerous times to present evidence to a grand jury and has been ignored or told “no.”
To your knowledge, has Mr. Vogt received a response to the Notice?
MR. SIBLEY: I checked PACER on Friday and the court hasn’t ruled yet. I don’t expect the court to rule any time soon, quite frankly.
THE POST & EMAIL: It shouldn’t be up to the court, should it?
MR. SIBLEY: Apparently, the people no longer can get to the grand jury. The only people who can get to the grand jury are the U.S. attorney, who has an obvious conflict in presenting evidence of his own criminal behavior to a grand jury, and our 625 federal judges. By statute, a federal judge can convene and present evidence to a grand jury, and in fact, under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, they’re obligated to present that evidence when it’s in the “public interest.” So the actual question is, “Is there evidence of a forged birth certificate of the president of the United States in the public interest to explore?” I don’t know how you can come up with any other evidence than that there is and that the grand jury must have the opportunity to investigate that.
THE POST & EMAIL: Some might say that there is no more compelling reason to present something to a grand jury than that someone has produced forged documentation for the de facto President of the United States who may not even be a U.S. citizen.
MR. SIBLEY: That’s the concern. With the quality of Doug Vogt’s analytical, forensic, expert opinion, I think you’re at the grand jury. Could Doug be 100% wrong? Let’s entertain that possibility, but that’s not the question. The question is, “Is there probable cause to believe he may be right?” I don’t know how you can read the public affidavit and think otherwise. The judge has seen the sealed affidavit now, and that is more than icing on the cake to show that lock, stock and barrel, you’ve got a real problem that only a grand jury can resolve.
THE POST & EMAIL: Did Mr. Vogt present evidence he gathered himself, or did he work with someone?
MR. SIBLEY: I know he and Paul Irey consulted on this, but Doug came up with his own conclusions that you saw. The evidence he presented is really forensic evidence. It isn’t “I saw somebody do something;” it’s “Look at this document; look at that document,” and there’s only one conclusion you can draw from the evidence he objectively presents.
THE POST & EMAIL: Why do you think the court will not act swiftly?
MR. SIBLEY: The way courts work generally, and the implications of this…and if they’ve already referred it to the grand jury, no one is going to know about it because they’re not going to publicize that fact. So we may not know anything one way or the other.
Doug asked the court to give him release of liability under the misprision statute that he cited saying, “You’ve discharged your duties, so you can’t be charged. Whether the judge will give him that courtesy or not, I don’t know. There are two federal statutes that say if you have knowledge of a felony, you have to tell a federal judge or law enforcement officer. That’s called “misprision,” and there’s misprision of felony and misprision of treason. Under that statute, Doug went in and said, “I have knowledge of a felony, and it’s the felony of the forgery of the president’s birth certificate and the other crimes associated with that. Therefore, I’m discharging my legal obligation to give the hue and cry from common law, which is the misprision statute, and say, “Here’s the felony. Now I’ve discharged my obligation; please acknowledge that you’ve received this so that I’ve proved that I’ve done so.”
When we call 911, it’s proven that we called because it’s recorded.
When we file with the clerk, we don’t know whether or not the federal judge has seen it or not, so there’s an obligation with the judge to acknowledge that he’s seen it. The next step would be John Does and Jane Does and other people getting target letters from a federal grand jury, and then we’ll know what the judge has done.
THE POST & EMAIL: Please explain what “target letters” are.
MR. SIBLEY: Briefly, if I’m a federal prosecutor and I have proof against someone to present to a federal grand jury, I’m obligated to send a letter to the person so that he has the right to come in and give his side of the story to the grand jury, but he is now a target of the investigation. So the nest step is really going to be whether or not people start receiving target letters from a grand jury and whether the court appoints a special prosecutor to pursue it.
THE POST & EMAIL: Would Mr. Vogt receive a letter asking him to appear before the grand jury to present the evidence if all the way you would hope it would?
MR. SIBLEY: Yes, he’ll be contacted by the special prosecutor; he would be issued a subpoena to come in and testify, to tell what he knows, and to explain the affidavit in more detail.
THE POST & EMAIL: Do you think the grand jury would be given the freedom that they used to have, before prosecutors directed them? Could it be made to understand that they have a lot more power than they think?
MR. SIBLEY: I have a wonderful little pamphlet I’ve written about “Your Rights as a Grand Juror” which I’m certain will find a way to get to the grand jury when the time is appropriate.
THE POST & EMAIL: Many people are unaware of the function of a grand jury and the fact that they used to hold public officials to account.
MR. SIBLEY: The greatest fear of elected officials is a grand jury because they have no control over it. Once that door closes and those 23 citizens start doing what they want to do and issuing subpoenas and obligating you to testify whether you want to or not… Remember, there is no Fifth Amendment privilege in the grand jury. That is why the scope of the grand jury has become so circumscribed. Mr. Vogt gave that quote: instead of a bulwark against tyranny, it’s now a tool of the Executive Branch.
THE POST & EMAIL: Is there anything you’d like to add in closing?
MR. SIBLEY: Only that this isn’t the last effort. There’s another round that’s coming in a week or ten days.