Doug Vogt’s Now Un-Sealed Evidence at the Supreme Court

“CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR MOST FOUL”

by Montgomery Blair Sibley, ©2014, blogging at Amo Probos

(May 12, 2014) — As I detailed in my last post, the granting of discretionary rather than mandatory jurisdiction in the Supreme Court by Congress in 1925 was premised on Chief Justice Taft’s promise that only petitions that were “frivolous” or addressed to principals of law that were “well settled” would be summarily denied.

Doug Vogt’s Petition is not frivolous.  It argues that as a citizen he has the right to bring to the Grand Jury’s attention serious matters.  Of course, the Grand Jury can ignore Doug Vogt and that would be the end of it.  However, the Attorney General with the complicity of the Judiciary has blocked the Grand Jury from hearing Doug’s significant evidence of criminal behavior most foul.

That behavior was detailed in public and sealed affidavits that Doug filed first with the District Court in Washington, then with the Circuit Court in San Francisco and now with the Supreme Court. Curiously, in ostrich-like fashion, the Supreme Court refused to accept the sealed affidavit hence Doug was forced to un-seal it so that the Supremes would have actual notice of the evidence in the sealed affidavit. Indeed, I recently went to the Supreme Court Clerk’s office and saw the affidavit in the file.  (See photo above).

Is it “frivolous” for Doug to ask the Grand Jury to investigate Lorreta Fuddy’s finances?  For the uninformed or forgetful, Lorreta Fuddy was appointed Director of the Hawaiian Department of Health in January 2011.  On April 25, 2011, pursuant to Mr. Obama’s request, Director Fuddy publicly attested that she witnessed the copying of Obama’s original Certificate of Live Birth and to the authenticity of the two copies that have been released.

Curiously, among other evidence detailed in Doug’s now unsealed affidavit is that Lorreta Fuddy’s Financial Disclosure forms for 2011 and 2012 show a decrease in her mortgage liability of $100,000 from owing $200,000 in 2011 to owing only $96,000 at the end of 2012.  I readily admit there could be many good reasons why someone who only makes $100,000/year could have their mortgage reduced by $100,000 but I also can think of one very bad reason why that could be so. And isn’t this what the Grand Jury is established to determine and resolve: Was Loretta Fuddy paid a $100,000 bribe to authenticate Mr. Obama’s birth certificate?

Of course, as most everyone knows, Loretta Fuddy will not be filing a Financial Disclosure Form for 2013 as she regrettably died on December 11, 2013, under circumstances that have raised more questions than provided answers.

The “public interest” is great on these and other issues raised by Doug Vogt and they most certainly cannot be characterized as “frivolous.” As such, upon the promise of Chief Justice Taft in 1925, the Supremes must hear Doug’s case.