In Re: Douglas Vogt — Part II


by Montgomery Blair Sibley, ©2013, blogging at Amo Probos

(Nov. 27, 2013) — I have received numerous messages arguing that sending the Vogt Affidavit to dozens of federal judges requesting that their Grand Juries investigate the legitimacy of Obama’s Certificates of Live Birth (“COLBs”) must fail.  The suspiciously collective reasoning of these messages is that as Obama only released his COLBs in Washington, D.C. that is the only jurisdiction that could investigate and potentially indict Obama.  Their argument continues that given the vice-like grip control that the Executive Branch has over the Federal judges in Washington, D.C., none of those judges will call a Grand Jury to investigate Obama.  Thus, I am wasting my time.  I beg to disagree.

Federal criminal law, to wit, 18 U.S.C. §1343, “Fraud by wire, radio, or television” makes it a Federal felony offense to: “having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice.”

In particular, the event which may constitute Obama’s potential criminal behavior is his posting on the Internet at of Obama’s putative “Certificate of Live Birth” (“COLB”) on April 27, 2011, when Obama made the following statement regarding his Certificate of Live Birth: “As many of you have been briefed, we provided additional information today about the site of my birth. Now, this issue has been going on for two, two and a half years now.  I think it started during the campaign.  And I have to say that over the last two and a half years I have watched with bemusement, I’ve been puzzled at the degree to which this thing just kept on going.  We’ve had every official in Hawaii, Democrat and Republican, every news outlet that has investigated this, confirm that, yes, in fact, I was born in Hawaii, August 4, 1961, in Kapiolani Hospital. We’ve posted the certification that is given by the state of Hawaii on the Internet for everybody to see.” Accordingly, Obama clearly was involved in posting his Certificate of Live Birth on the Internet towards the end of representing that he was born in Hawaii when it now appears that the Certificate of Live Birth is a forgery and thus his United States nationality questionable.

As for which Grand Jury can investigate, the law is well settled that any Grand Jury in the 50 states has jurisdiction to so investigate.  The “use of the Internet for transmission of images or messages satisfies the [§1343] requirement of interstate commerce.” See, e.g., United States v. Carroll, 105 F.3d 740, 742 (1st Cir. 1997). Moreover, to seek to obtain public money – here the salary of the President of the United States – has been recognized as satisfying the “money” element of §1343.  See, e.g., Pasquantino v. United States, 544 U.S. 349, 356-57 (2005) (recognizing that money in the public treasury is the government’s “money” for purposes of the mail fraud statute.)  Finally, the “scheme” that Obama appears to have intended is to obtain a job that he is not eligible to hold given his lack of “natural born Citizen” if not “citizenship” status.  See, e.g., United States v. Granberry, 908 F.2d 278, 279 (8th Cir. 1990)(The defendant obtained the job of school-bus driver by concealing a murder conviction, which would have prevented his hiring if known to the school district. The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of the mail-fraud indictment, holding that the defendant’s alleged scheme deprived the school district of money because the district did not get what it paid for – a school-bus driver who had not been convicted of a felony.)

As such, any grand jury in the United States has jurisdiction to investigate whether Obama has committed the felony of “Fraud by wire, radio, or television” in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1343.

One Response to "In Re: Douglas Vogt — Part II"

  1. richard gorman   Thursday, November 28, 2013 at 8:07 AM

    So it seems that the former USA has at least 36 or more chances for a grand jury to act and offer a ( criminal ) presentment. What is the process that follows, should one or two presentments find the light of day ?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.