If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts. Thanks for visiting!
“HE REALLY DOESN’T HAVE A CHOICE”
by Sharon Rondeau
(Nov. 14, 2013) — On October 18, 2013, Douglas Vogt submitted a Notice of Commission to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington to report two federal crimes, misprision of felony and misprision of treason, against the United States relating to the birth certificate image posted on the White House website in April 2011 purported to be that of Barack Hussein Obama.
Since 2007, questions about Obama’s birthplace, background, and constitutional eligibility to hold the office of president have been raised, but Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court have “evaded the issue.”
Vogt is not challenging Obama’s eligibility, having filed the affidavits in keeping with 18 U.S.C. §4 and 18 U.S.C. §2382, which address misprision of felony and misprision of treason, respectively. The statutes mandate that anyone with knowledge of either type of crime having taken place who does not report same to “some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States” faces a fine and a prison sentence. In his submission, Vogt asked the judge to convene a special federal grand jury to examine his evidence, which consisted of a public affidavit and a sealed affidavit with more details of the alleged crimes.
Former attorney Montgomery Blair Sibley provided assistance to Vogt in preparing the Notice of Commission.
On October 29, The Post & Email interviewed Vogt about the crimes he alleged were committed in regard to the forgery of the birth certificate. On a page of his main website, Vogt lists the 20 points of forgery identified in his public affidavit.
Vogt and typesetting expert Paul Irey are working on a book about the birth certificate forgery entitled From Forgery to Treason.
On November 5, Judge James L. Robart issued a response to Vogt which claimed that his court did not have “subject matter jurisdiction” over the matter, citing previous civil lawsuits challenging Obama’s eligibility for the office over the last five years.
A week later, Vogt submitted his response to the court, within which he reveals that the court clerk changed the title of his original submission from “Notice of Commission” to “Vogt v. Obama” in the style of a lawsuit. Vogt explains that he did not seek the Court’s assistance in settling a “case or controversy,” citing language from Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution detailing the function of federal courts, but rather, is adhering to federal statutes governing knowledge of the commission of a crime and requesting necessary statutory action on the part of the judge to summon a grand jury.
The following is our exclusive interview with Vogt following the submission of his response.
THE POST & EMAIL: Did Mr. Sibley assist you with your reply to the court?
MR. VOGT: Yes; in fact, he used this case for his own case in Washington, DC. We did it together, but he did most of it. My impression is that because of his cases in the past, he’s spent a lot of time on the Article III issue. I would say that the court is trying to label this as a different case than what it is. This is merely reporting a crime stated by a law passed by the first Congress, second session, and it’s by obligation. The problem is that the court clerks have only two things they can file: either a criminal case of a civil case. There isn’t anything in between.
It’s pretty simple. What we’re trying to do is give citizens the right to collect evidence and give it to a federal judge to put it to a grand jury. The evidence could be against a bureaucrat or politician. It puts some of the control and justice back into the people’s hands, which is what the Founding Fathers originally intended. The judge has the right to put it into a grand jury. The law says “a court or an attorney of the United States.” So that is what we’re doing. It caught everybody flat-footed, including the Obots. They don’t know what to make of it. Many people did not know about this part of the law.
As an accountant, I looked at the law with a fresh eye. It’s something that Congress gives the court, and it’s by statute. An honest person is supposed to report a crime.
“Standing” means if you’ve suffered a loss of some sort: physical or monetary, and how it affects you. But it has no meaning when it comes to a criminal case. This is not either: this is reporting a crime; it’s as simple as that. By judicial rule 6, I’m told, if it’s in the public’s interest, and certainly, this is, the judge has to put it into a grand jury; he really doesn’t have a choice. So this poor judge is between a rock and a hard place. That’s why they answered me the way they did; they’re trying to make it appear to be a different kind of case than it is. You can tell by my response that we basically answered that question.
If the judge still does the same thing after this, it will be appealed. It’s very clear. I don’t see how an appellate court would rule anything different than, “He has the right to be released from liability for misprision of treason and felony.”
THE POST & EMAIL: And you want an acknowledgement of your report of the crimes?
MR. VOGT: We gave them the one page to sign off already. That’s all the judge has to do. Once he does that, he’s acknowledging that a crime or crimes have been committed against the United States, and he then really has to put it to a grand jury or he could be construed as being an accessory after the fact. That’s the law; it defines what an “accessory after the fact” is.
THE POST & EMAIL: So you’re using the statutes to get the judge to acknowledge the crimes and summon a grand jury, even if you can’t get an audience before one yourself.
MR. VOGT: Yes. He’s obligated, too, because it is in the public’s interest. I presented 20 points of forgery. It’s 17,000 or 18,000 words. The sealed document even says who created the forgery and the other ones who helped. They have the whole thing. They know it. Nobody is going into the evidence I presented; definitely not the Obots. They’re too scared, because it involves some of them; I’m sure they must realize that. Nothing like making them sweat, turning the tables on them. They just didn’t realize I was going to go for the throat. This is how you do it: you do it using your brains, not a lot of verbiage and cursing and Saul Alinsky tactics. I don’t have to.
THE POST & EMAIL: Propaganda…
MR. VOGT: Yes, the “big lie.” No, I’m going for the throat. I did it nice and quietly and just dumped it on them, and now they understand what I’ve done.