In re Douglas Vogt Part I

As I reported last time, Douglas Vogt has filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington a Notice of Commission. This document asked the court to refer the evidence contained in Doug’s 95 page public affidavit and 75 page sealed affidavit to the Grand Jury to investigate.

In response, the Court has mis-characterized Doug’s filing as a “complaint” and dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction and “standing”. This case is far from over.

In addition, the first wave of 25+ mailings to district court judges across the country has commenced.....

.....So . . . why is the Obama DOJ and the Chief Justice Roberts Court System blocking Vogt's affidavit from a Grand Jury investigation? If the government can prevent 23 citizens to determine if a crime has been committed -- a power reserved unto the People by the Fifth Amendment -- by blocking public access to the Grand Jury, then what are we the People to do?

Montgomery Blair-Sibley has an original and inexorable approach. He apparently knows the laws and how to use them. Step by step, the powers that be are being forced to a decision, whether to be Criminals or not. The odds upon the Obots and their pawns maintaining the legal and media shutdown are lengthening day by day.

Who will jump ship first? Or will the Criminals running the regime throw Obama overboard first?

“Such an investigation may be triggered by tips, rumors, evidence proffered by the prosecutor, or the personal knowledge of the grand jurors. Costello v. United States, 350 U.S., at 362.” _MSB

Vogt needs a grand juror to submit the affidavit or establish standing by stating a claim Obama, as President, has inflicted or caused a direct and particularized injury to Vogt. Then, Vogt could ask for a personal waiver of any law or regulation signed by Obama because he is ineligible for the office.

In Federal court, the allegations made in a complaint are assumed to be true. If the defendant denies the allegations, the plaintiff can request discovery to prove his allegations. Vogt can subpoena certified copies of Obama’s birth records, SSN application, Occidental College application, Student Loan applications, immigration records and Tax Returns for 1981 to 1985.

A direct and particular harm to a citizen may be a loss of health insurance or an increase in premiums for the cost of health insurance due to the ACA. Or an increase in Federal tax due to legislation signed by Obama. Anything Obama has signed and resulted in a direct, unwanted action against a citizen may be objected to in Federal court because Obama is ineligible.

A citizen does not have standing to sue on behalf of all of those who have been harmed by any law or regulation signed by an ineligible POTUS.

A citizen does have standing to sue if they have suffered a particular injury; i.e. lost their health insurance coverage due to the ACA, because of a law or regulation signed by an ineligible POTUS. The citizen cannot have the Court declare the law null and void or demand POTUS be removed. The citizen can demand a exemption from any law or regulation signed by the usurper and demand payment for Court cost and attorney fees.

The Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution to protect the people from the government. The De Facto Officer Doctrine protects the government from the Will of the People if the people vote for an ineligible POTUS. The laws and regulations signed by a usurper are valid and enforceable until an individual objects after they have suffered a particular harm caused by the action of the usurper. Waivers are obtained after an objection is lodged in Federal Court. Otherwise, it is assumed the individual agrees with the Will of the People and does not object to an ineligible POTUS.

The people who had standing because they had particularized injury directly related to the election of an ineligible candidate did not choose to file suit.
Those people are the other candidates who received votes from the electors and therefore they could demonstrate injury that was particularized to them being denied the office due to the actions of an ineligible candidate: John McCain, Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney, and Paul Ryan. Certainly any and all American citizens could have joined lawsuits as co-plaintiffs along with the prospective plaintiffs mentioned above who had standing.
Additionally, if any Senator along with any Representative had filed a written objection to the certification of Obama’s electoral votes on the grounds of ineligibility, they would have had standing to sue as well.
In 2005, Senator Barbara Boxer and Representative Stephanie Tubbs-Jones submitted written objections to the certification of George W. Bush’s electors in Ohio on grounds of election fraud. Both Houses of Congress overruled the objections.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/06/electoral.vote/

Can you imagine what would have happened if every Republican member of Congress had submitted a written objection to the certification of Obama’s electors from their state?

Judge Robart disagreed. His dismissal order said: “Mr. Vogt fails to address any of the case authority cited by the court in its order to show cause indicating that (1) there is no private right of action under either 18 U.S.C. § 4 or 18 U.S.C. § 2382, (2) private parties generally lack STANDING to institute a federal criminal prosecution, and (3) private citizens or voters, such as Mr. Vogt, lack STANDING to challenge President Obama’s qualifications to hold office through the use of misprision of felony or misprision of treason statutes, or otherwise, because they have suffered no particularized injury . (See generally OSC.) The court, therefore, concludes, consistent with the authorities cited in its prior order to show cause, that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Mr. Vogt’s action and DISMISSES this action in its entirety without prejudice.”

"Additionally, if any Senator along with any Representative had filed a written objection to the certification of Obama’s electoral votes on the grounds of ineligibility, they would have had standing to sue as well."

I don't think so. After an objection is raised by a Representative (the voice of the citizens divided by districts in various states) and a Senator (the voice of the various states) the members return to their respective chambers for debate and a vote.

An affirmative vote for disallowing electoral votes for an ineligible candidate for POTUS will only occur if the majority of representatives of the various citizens (House) and various states (Senate) if the Will of the People has changed since November. The Courts will not allow the Will of the People to be thwarted.

An individual who objects to an ineligible POTUS can sue in Federal court to object after they can demonstrate they have suffered a particular injury due to the actions of the usurper, i.e. signed a tax law which resulted in the individual paying higher taxes. Individuals who supported the usurper are assumed to comply with the law and pay higher taxes. Those who object to a usurper can seek a waiver through the Court.

The eligibility requirements written into the Constitution cannot be used to prevent a person who receives the majority of electoral votes from being sworn in as POTUS. The eligibility requirements can be used to object on an individual basis after a particularized harm has occurred and the individual objects in Federal court. The individual can only seek a waiver from the laws and regulations signed by the usurper. The individual cannot have the usurper removed from office or have the usurper's laws and regulations declared null and void.

The De Facto Officer doctrine indemnifies the Federal government from the actions of the usurper. While in office, the usurper's laws and regulations are enforced as if they originated from an eligible person unless an individual objects in Federal court. The individual can only seek a waiver for the individual. After the usurper leaves office, the usurper's law and regulations become unobjectionable by the individual.

It is still at the discretion of each individual judge to rule on Article Three Standing but you are probably correct that most judges would rule that determining presidential eligibility is a political question that is not justiciable by the courts.
The judicial remedy for ineligibility is state by state ballot challenges under each state’s election law. Ballot challenges were used extensively in the 2012 election cycle. Those challenges were adjudicated in 22 states without dismissals on grounds of standing and two ballot challenges to Obama’s eligibility are still pending: Taitz, et al v. Mississippi Democratic Party Executive Committee, Obama, Pelosi, et al and McInnish v. Chapman at the Alabama Supreme Court.

The Founding Fathers considered several methods of electing the President. They considered an election by a popular vote, but decided on indirect election through the Electoral College with each State determining how the Electors from their State will be chosen.

Only the individual States are authorized to deal with “faithless electors.” The Federal government is not Constitutionally authorized to prevent a person who receives the majority of electoral votes in the Electoral College from being sworn in as POTUS.

The only judicial remedy available when an ineligible POTUS has been sworn in to the office is to object in Federal Court after an individual has suffered a particular injury, i.e. denied a U.S passport by a SoS appointed by a usurper in violation of the Appointments Clause of the Constitution.

It is conceivable that if enough states refused to certify a president-elect’s electoral votes, that person could be held below the 270 Electoral vote threshold and therefore “fail to qualify.”

The persons who have particularized injury in cases of alleged presidential ineligibility are the opposing candidates who had a chance to be president (also received electoral votes) but were denied the office by the election of the ineligible candidate. This was discussed by U.S. District Court Judge David O. Carter in his ruling on Barnett, Keyes, et al v. Obama et al.

Judge Carter was upheld by the Court of Appeals and the plaintiffs were denied “cert” at SCOTUS, so Judge Carter’s ruling stands.

Carter contemplated granting standing to American Independent Party candidate Alan Keyes, a co-plaintiff, but the Judge didn’t because Keyes was only on the ballot in three states and had no real chance to be elected.

Appointees of a president would not factor in since they only hold their positions on the advice and consent of the Senate. A State Department’s refusal to issue a passport is many steps removed from the direct action of a president.

You may want to review the Appointment’s Clause of the Constitution. It’s further evidence the Founding Fathers did not want the Will of the People to be negated when electing a President who did not meet the eligibility requirements for the office. Any President will appoint officers to conduct government functions on his/her behalf. An appointment by an ineligible President may be challenged by a citizen who alleges a particular harm due to the actions of the appointed officer if the President is ineligible for the office.

A U.S. citizen denied a U.S. passport is denied by the SoS, an appointee of the President. The citizen may object to the decision to deny the passport by an appointee of an ineligible President. A citizen cannot object to an appointee decision on the basis of a violation of the Appointment’s Clause if the President meets the eligibility requirements for the office.

Judge Carter’s ruling concerned standing and proffered dicta on some Presidential candidates who may have suffered a particular harm. Judge Carter did not intend for his ruling to be misinterpreted as an opinion that only presidential candidates with a chance of winning the election can suffer a particular harm by an ineligible President.

Of course this is all hypothetical and we are engaging in conjecture since no court has ever ruled any sitting president to be ineligible. Several federal court opinions have ruled Obama to be eligible (e.g. Rhodes v. Mac Donald in Georgia, Taitz v. Obama {Quo Warranto} in D.C., and Tisdale v. Obama in Virginia).

Judge Carter’s written opinion in Barnett, Keyes, et al v. Obama, et al was that Barack Obama was eligible. He said: “There may very well be a legitimate role for the judiciary to interpret whether the natural born citizen requirement has been satisfied in the case of a presidential CANDIDATE who has not already won the election and taken office. However, on the day that President Obama took the presidential oath and was sworn in, he became President of the United States. Any removal of him from the presidency must be accomplished through the Constitution’s mechanisms for the removal of a President, either through impeachment or the succession process set forth in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment.”

“Plaintiffs attempt to subvert this grant of power to Congress by convincing the Court that it should disregard the constitutional procedures in place for the removal of a sitting president. The process for removal of a sitting president—REMOVAL FOR ANY REASON—is within the province of Congress, not the courts.”—U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, October 29, 2009
http://ia600204.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.cacd.435591/gov.uscourts.cacd.435591.89.0.pdf

You’re citing cases that have been dismissed by an order and claiming the Court ruled on the merits of the allegations made in a complaint. With the exception of the Georgia ballot challenge, none of the cases you’ve cited have had evidence submitted and sworn testimony heard which resulted in a ruling.

A ruling to deny Obama an opportunity to appear on the Georgia ballot was offered in the Georgia ballot case because defendant Obama did not appear after an order to appear was rendered. Yet, plaintiffs decided to submit evidence and the Court found it unpersuasive which resulted in an order for Obama to appear on the ballot.

As I mentioned earlier, the Constitution gives the States authority to determine the manner in which candidates appear on their ballot. This does not confer a ruling of eligibility for the office of POTUS. The Founding Fathers did not want the people to be prevented from putting anyone they chose in the office of POTUS. The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution to protect the individual against the Will of the People when the majority chooses an ineligible President.

Trials on the merits occur more frequently in criminal proceedings than in civil actions. The first move that a decent defense attorney makes in a civil suit is to try to get the suit dismissed on procedural grounds. If that legal strategy is successful, it is a victory for the defendant. Lawyers for plaintiffs in Obama eligibility lawsuits have not been very successful in convincing judges of the need to go to trial.

Lieutenant Colonel Terry Lakin was afforded a trial by court-martial before a jury of his peers, fellow Army officers. But Lakin pleaded guilty to all but one of the specifications against him and the jury found him guilty of the other specification that he pleaded not guilty to.

Quite a few of the state ballot challenges were actual trials. You can watch New Jersey’s ballot challenge trial, Purpura, Moran v. Obama on You Tube.

The Republican Secretary of State in Georgia concurred with the Administrative Judge’s ruling in the Georgia Obama eligibility challenge, as did the Georgia Superior Court and SCOTUS refused to hear the appeal.

In 2012 there were eligibility challenges heard in 22 states. None was successful.

You're confusing ballot eligibility with eligibility for the office. In each of the ballot eligibility cases plaintiffs were reminded they could choose not to vote for a candidate they believe to be ineligible for the office, but they could not deny others the opportunity to vote for a person ineligible for the office. This is what the Founding Fathers intended.

In 2011, naturalized citizen Abdul Hassan received an advisory opinion from the Federal Election Commission that his ineligibility to hold the office of POTUS did not preclude him from being eligible to appear on voting ballot in the various states for the office of POTUS. The FEC opined:

The Commission concludes that the Act does not prohibit Mr. Hassan, a naturalized citizen, from becoming a “candidate” as that term is defined under the Act. However, Mr. Hassan will not be eligible to receive Federal matching funds under the Presidential Primary Matching Payment Account Act.

Mr. Hassan indicates that he satisfies all of the constitutional requirements for serving as President, except the natural born citizen requirement in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution.

Like Hassan, Obama did not request Federal campaign matching funds in 2008 or 2012.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.