Wednesday, November 27, 2013

In Re: Douglas Vogt -- Part II

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 whitehouse.gov 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.  


MarsTheDestroyer said...

This is very very bad legal advice that you are giving. It has the potential to do a great deal of harm to your client. The best thing you could do for Mr. Vogt would be to advise him to get a second legal opinion from a competent counselor.

Frank Bailey said...

I thought you were disbarred? Of course crapping the work of these two buffoons Vogt and Irey on the courts would probably fall short of the (unauthorized) practice of law.

Anonymous said...

Federal District Court judges have dismissed 50 or more CIVIL lawsuits against Obama by ruling that the Plaintiffs lacked proper "standing" (being directly and personally damaged) to file their CIVIL lawsuits, thus erecting and maintaining an unbreachable protective legal wall around President Obama. Vogt, with Sibley's help, has obeyed the US Criminal Code, which does not require "standing" and which REQUIRES any person with knowledge of a federal crime or treason to inform, and to provide any existing evidence, to a federal judge that a Federal crime has been committed-- in this case by President Obama. Under the US Criminal Code, a judge who receives notice of a crime, which is "in the public interest" to investigate, MUST convene a federal grand jury to investigate the crime and, if appropriate, indict the perpetrators of that crime. Voght's obedience to the US Criminal Code is admirable, and coincidently avoids having to breach Obama's protective legal wall based on the "standing" doctrine. If Vogt fails, at the District Court level, it will be because all 625 Federal District Court judges chose to ignore, and to disobey, applicable sections of the US Criminal Code, thus making themselves party to the crime Vogt has brought to their attention.

Post a Comment

Play nice!