Compelling Evidence of the Forgery of Obama’s Birth Certificate Lodged with the US Supreme Court...

Birtherreport.com ^ | March 29, 2014

[Hotlanta Mike]

Washington D.C. (MMD Newswire) March 28, 2014 -- Douglas Vogt has lodged with the United States Supreme Court his compelling forensic evidence that the Birth Certificate of Barack Hussein Obama, II is indisputably a forgery.

That forensic evidence is contained in Vogt's 95 page Public and 75 page Sealed Affidavits. Barack Hussein Obama, II - at his White House Press Conference on April 27, 2011 - released his Birth Certificate to prove that he was Constitutionally-eligible to be President. The lodging of the Affidavits accompanied Vogt's filing of a Petition for Certiorari with the Supreme Court which has been assigned Case No: 13-1158. That Petition seeks review of the refusal of the Federal District Court to refer Vogt's Affidavits to a federal Grand Jury as required by Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 6(a).

Rule 6(a) states: "When the public interest so requires, the court must order that one or more grand juries be summoned." Vogt's Petition argues that there can be no higher "public interest" than the issue of whether Barack Hussein Obama, II, has foisted a forged Birth Certificate upon the Citizens of the United States. Accordingly, the Petition argues, the lower federal court has breached its Congressionally-imposed duty to "summon" a Grand Jury to hear Vogt's well-founded, forensic proof of the forgery of Obama's Birth Certificate.

[GBA]

I agree with everything you posted except "he wasn't born in Kenya."

You might be right, but at this point in time I have no idea who he really is or where he came from.

All I know about him is what Congressman Joe Wilson said, which has been verified time and time again and I see no end in sight.

My only worldly hope of learning the truth about the one known as"obama" is Sheriff Joe Arpaio and those working with him.

[Nero Germanicus]

Dear KB,
We’ve dealt with this issue, over and over and over. There is no way on earth that we are going to attempt to (ex post facto) undo the electoral will of 70 million voters in 2008 or 66 million voters in 2012. We don’t have that authority under the Constitution.
We are fine with the constitutional determinations of citizenship and natural born citizenship that have been “stare decisis” (legal precedent) since the 19th century. That is why we let lower court rulings stand.
Thanks for writing,
SCOTUS

U.S. Supreme Court Rulings in Obama Eligibility Appeals
1) Anderson v. Obama (Cert* Denied)
2) Barnett, et. al. v. Obama, et. al. (Cert Denied)
3) Berg v. Obama, et. al. (Stay Denied & Cert Denied)
4) Beverly v. Federal Elections Commission (Cert Denied)
5) Craig v. United States (Cert Denied)
6) Donofrio v. Wells (Application for Stay Denied)
7) Farrar v. Obama & GA Sec. of State Kemp (Stay & Cert Denied)
8) Herbert v. United States, et. al. (Cert Denied)
9) Hollister v. Soetoro (Cert Denied)
10) Kerchner, et. al. v. Obama, et. al. (Cert Denied)
11) Keyes v. CA. Secretary of State Bowen (Cert Denied)
12) Lightfoot v. CA. Secretary of State Bowen (Stay Denied)
13) Noonan v. CA. Secretary of State Bowen (Stay Denied)
14) Purpura v. Sibelius (Cert Denied)
15) Rhodes v. Mac Donald (Injunction & Cert Denied)
16) Schneller v. Cortes (Emergency Relief & Cert Denied)
17) ex. rel. Sibley v. Obama (Cert Denied)
18) Sibley v. D.C. Board of Elections (Cert Denied )
19) Welden v. Obama (Cert Denied)
20) Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz (Application for Stay Denied)
*”Cert”= A Petition for a “Writ of Certiorari” which is a request for an appeal to be heard before the Court. It takes four Justices to agree to grant a Certiorari Petition, known as “The Rule of Four”.

[Kenny Bunk]

Stop trying to convince me and my mates by confusing us with mere legal facts, logic, and pure reason.

The controversy is real and of course has a huge emotional, rather than completely factual basis. If the matter is truly res judicata, which I do not quite accept, let the SCOTUS say exactly that. However, as both Thomas and Scalia have both acknowledged, albeit somewhat cryptically, the SCOTUS has sought every excuse to duck the issue.

Please note that the "eligibility issue" is actually not the main event. The process and state of citizenship itself needs to be established, or re-established, not by extra-constitutional government agency regulation, and the lower courts, but by the SCOTUS.

Courage and clear statements are called for, not merely letting the decisions of lower courts stand without comment. Too important for that.

Other than the aforementioned, I of course agree with you.

[Nea Wood]

Yeah, we keep hearing this big, earth-shaking evidence will be revealed on such-and-such date, but nothing ever happens.

[advertising guy]

you must be runnin the show then huh ?

[Lurking Libertarian]

Iirc the first two cases that reached the SCOTUS were not dismissed but used the courts variation of tabled so that they may be revisited at the courts discretion. One of them had the state SoS as the defendants which would probably have not been ruled in our favor as there is no place that they are assigned the job to vet. Don’t remember who the other had as defendants. Both should be O and the individual in the democrat party who put him up for nomination.

Speaking as a lawyer admitted to practice before the Supreme Court, I can tell you that there is no procedure under the Court's rules for a case to "be tabled so that [it] may be revisited at he court['s] discretion." Can you show me any citation for your statement?

[Brown Deer]

I didn’t think you knew what you were talking about.

[hoosiermama]

Dads health is not good now but if you revisit the cases they were not just rejected. I cannot remember the legal term but do know in dads explanation to me that they could be revisited if a later case came up to attach them to. He could only cite from memory one case in which that was done in the past. And it really got his attention At that time I was printing out all the legal decisions for him to read. I certainly didn’t notice anything different but he did! ( BTW he gave a piece of paper to local judge with the Gore decision — what paragraph etc it would be decided on and what the final vote would be. When it was decided he was 100% correct. The judge said if he were twenty years younger he’d nominate him for federal judge. Dad said if he were ten years younger he’d accept)

I do remember a long discussion on when how standing was developed to lighten he judicial case load and the difference between practicing law by quoting other cases and arguing original intent but don’t ask me any legal terms for any of it LOL I just listened and ask questions
It’s the difference in practicing law now and back when he went to law school so he claimed

You would have the expertise and case resources to look that up Please do. Sure wish I remembered the Latin
He said all along that charges should have been filed in criminal court not as lawsuits as no injury had yet taken place therefore there would be no standing — The premise was wrong

[noinfringers2]

I understand/realize many people want the eligibility requirement to go away. However. if Obama is allowed to ride away unexposed there certainly will be a fulfillment of the Hillary Clinton declaration of ‘What does it matter now’. Any substance or meaning to the Founder’s intentions for POTUSA will be wiped out and such a position as POTUSA will be an open field for anyone from anywhere to be POTUSA. I believe we already have big trouble when the sons of a Islamic radical Morsi are taken to be eligible by reason of being born in the USA. No, I believe it is very necessary to act on such situations as Obama now, the sooner the better.

[Nea Wood]

What are you talking about?

[advertising guy]

I don’t cotton whiners......so I asked...what you doin to help, save bitchin ?

[Cboldt]

The laws survive, no sweat there. The courts have a widget to keep from upsetting the legislative applecart.

However, no court will touch it because it would expose the idiocy of the Congress; and plenty of careers would be flushed.

[GBA]

I'm with you and have begun to wonder if it's too late, that we've already lost the Constitution and are no longer a Republic, but that's another conversation.

I've had it explained to me that "Natural Born Citizen" now means that you could be born anywhere in the world but here, have a father that was born anywhere but here and was not/is not a citizen and had never even lived in this country, but as long as the mother is a citizen at some point in her life, then you'd be a NBC!

We've gone from having the most simple and the strictest definition of NBC to having no definition at all.

So, by that standard using your (one of many) worst case examples, a child could be born to an American slave girl in the heart of Islam to a radical father of any nationality and, so long as that child meets the age, current citizenship and time in country requirements, s/he is a completely eligible NBC!

Are we really that desperate to have Ted Cruz be POTUS to blindly open our eligibility doors so wide? Yep, you betcha. Apparently so.

[rodguy911]

AN even bigger question is what did he mean by having more flexibility after the election? Just how tight is zero with pootie?

[rodguy911]

The swing vote these days is Roberts and he’s been blackmailed really well for smuggling his kids into the US illegally. So don’t expect any help from the supremes.

[rodguy911]

Excellent post! Its all about playing the race card and our sides fear of being labeled a racist.

[rodguy911]

You might want to take a look at how Putin took over the Crimea.He did it without even firing a shot. Did it ever occur the you that the best way to takeout zero is....well without ever getting down and dirty just amassing loads of evidence, overwhelming evidence? IT will work.

[JoeProBono]

[MeshugeMikey]

THAT sign sure covers A LOT of Territory doesnt it!!

[MeshugeMikey]

The FREE REPUBLIC is one of the very few forums where Ive never been called a dangerous racist for merely posting an innocuous image of the magic negro!