If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts. Thanks for visiting!


by Sharon Rondeau

Will the U.S. Supreme Court decide that Vogt’s evidence on the forgery of Obama’s long-form birth certificate is in the “public interest?”

(May 12, 2014) — Early on Monday afternoon, The Post & Email interviewed former attorney Montgomery Blair Sibley, who assisted researcher Douglas Vogt in assembling a petition with two affidavits filed with the U.S. District Court in Seattle, WA; the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals; and the U.S. Supreme Court in March with the purpose of having a federal grand jury empaneled to examine the evidence contained in the affidavits regarding the forgery of Barack Hussein Obama’s long-form birth certificate and other alleged crimes.

One of the affidavits was submitted unsealed, while the other, shorter affidavit was sealed.  However, the U.S. Supreme Court objected to the sealing of  any affidavit, after which Vogt submitted it in the routine unsealed manner.

Sibley appeared during the first hour of Erik Rush’s radio show last Wednesday to detail the upcoming conference on Vogt’s submissions on Thursday, May 15.  Sibley also discussed an item contained in the now-unsealed affidavit referencing a possible “bonus” or “bribe” awarded to the late Loretta Fuddy, former Hawaii Health Department Director, and a mortgage reduction amount of approximately $100,000 as detailed in her 2011 and 2012 financial disclosure forms.

Vogt and veteran typesetter Paul Irey are writing a book about the evidence they compiled over more than two years from which they concluded that the image posted on the White House website on April 27, 2011 purported to be Obama’s long-form birth certificate from Hawaii is a forgery.  In his court submissions, Vogt contends “20 points of forgery” which he asks a federal judge, in keeping with U.S. law, to provide to a grand jury, which is tasked by the Fifth Amendment with review of criminal evidence before seeking an indictment against one or more defendants.

Although the petition is not a lawsuit, legal representation for a “respondent” is indicated by an attorney working for the Solicitor General’s office within the U.S. Department of Justice.

Sibley released a post on his blog, Amo Probos, on Sunday explaining why he believes the Supreme Court should remand the petition to one of the lower courts because of the issue being one of “public interest.”  Sibley also provided a photograph which he took of the cover page of the affidavit upon his own visit.

The Post & Email asked Sibley if any citizen could visit the Supreme Court clerk’s office and copy the now-unsealed affidavit, to which he responded, “I believe they should be able to do that now that Doug has refiled it as an unsealed affidavit.  There’s a photocopy machine in the clerk’s office, and you can pay for it or just make copies of the pages.”

Sibley said that Vogt is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to “remand the case back to either the District Court or Ninth Circuit to command the judge to give the case to the grand jury.”

Sibley further explained:

It’s a very complicated and subtle legal question, but Congress told federal district court judges that, when it was in the public interest, they must summon a grand jury.  The legal term of art “public interest” has never been defined by the Supreme Court or any court, so this is a question of first impressions:  “What does it mean?”  They can’t answer that question unless they know which facts were presented to the district court. By saying they weren’t going to look at the sealed affidavit, they were denying themselves the opportunity to see what was in the sealed affidavit, thereby easing their way to saying that what was in the public affidavit isn’t “public interest.”  I think the now-unsealed affidavit pushes it over the edge and absolutely makes it in the public interest and therefore, they will be compelled to remand it and have a grand jury empaneled.

The Post & Email then asked, “So they have to review the material in the now-unsealed affidavit to make an argument one way or the other if it’s in the public interest?” to which Sibley responded:

In a perfect world, that would be a true statement.  However, this is 2014, and our nine justices do whatever they want.  There are no consequences for doing anything to them because they are immune from and above the law.

That’s not the way the Constitution says it was supposed to be.

Right.  But on the other hand, we’re creating the record that if, in fact, in due course, this turns out to be all true and they refused to do anything about it when they had actual or at least constructive knowledge of the facts contained in the sealed affidavit, that is “bad behavior,” which justifies their removal from the Supreme Court.  All federal judges serve only for “good behavior” and can be removed if they violate that condition subsequent to their appointment by congressional law.

Regarding the $50,000 added to Fuddy’s pay, Sibley said, “Maybe there’s a legitimate explanation for it.  This all could be legitimate and innocent, but after a while, if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck and quacks like a duck, you have to believe it is a duck.  That’s what the grand jury should be determining rather than all the speculation because of people hiding things that should be made public.”

Historically, grand jury members operated independently of prosecutors, judges and attorneys, collecting evidence, inquiring into allegations of wrongdoing on the part of public officials, and inspecting the conditions of local jails.  In order to “educate” individuals hypothetically selected for any grand jury which might review Vogt’s information, Sibley said, “You’ll see Doug and me standing outside the courthouse handing out a flyer to make sure they know what they can do in this situation.”

Sibley said that he has an electronic copy of the formerly sealed affidavit but has been asked by Vogt not to release it.  As this article was going to press, Birtherreport.com reported that Randy Foreman of NewsBlaze was able to obtain a complete copy of the unsealed affidavit.

The Post & Email then asked Sibley, “If anything in the affidavits is incorrect, does that harm the case?” to which Sibley replied, “I’m not sure that’s a question that has an answer.  Doug may be wrong, and that’s what a grand jury will determine.  They will have to look at the totality of what Doug is saying.  He’s not saying, ‘I saw a car run the red light;’ he’s saying, ‘I looked at the photographs of the car running the red light, and this is my opinion based upon what I see.’  He’s offering a forensic opinion on the documents that have been presented to the American people as authentic when, in fact, they may not be.”

On March 7, Sibley posted an article entitled “Six Minutes, Fifty Two Seconds Well Spent” about his son, who is a videographer and produced a film which was a finalist in the International Film Festival held in Washington, DC.  The Post & Email asked if the “mysterious” tone of the post alluding to a grand jury indicated that he knew at that time that a grand jury “had the evidence in its hands.”  Sibley responded, “I was referring to the fact that we sent this evidence to over 150 federal District Court judges, and six have responded in a way that leads us to believe that they are presenting it to the grand jury for their investigation.  These investigations can take months because they have to issue subpoenas, get them served, receive the evidence, review it, issue more subpoenas…so we have a reason to believe that an investigation is ongoing, but I cannot confirm or deny that because the grand jury operates in secret.”

Sibley said that the Supreme Court is expected to issue an “affirm” or “deny” statement to Vogt’s petition on Monday or Tuesday of next week.

Join the Conversation

1 Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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

  1. I pray that they follow the law, and do not pull out their ” you have no standing, so get out of here ” stamp.