Saturday, November 30, 2013

In Re: Douglas Vogt – Part III

Judge Robart mis-characterized the nature of Douglas Vogt’s Notice of Commission in his order to dismiss it thereby allowing Judge Robart to avoid addressing the three distinct duties that Notice of Commission imposed upon Judge Robart.

In response, Doug has now filed an extraordinary pejorative Writ of Mandamus asking that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal order Judge Robart to “do his duty” in those three regards. Each “duty” presents a Hobson’s Choice for the Ninth Circuit. (A Hobson's choice is a free choice in which only one option is offered.)

First, Doug petitions the Ninth Circuit that in so much as Judge Robart, along with the Clerk of his Court, clearly misrepresented the name and nature of Doug’s filing in the public docket, that the Ninth Circuit order Judge Robart to correct the docket to accurately reflect what was filed. Note that it is a felony to so “falsify” a court record.  18 U.S.C. §2071(b) – “Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally” states in pertinent part: “Whoever, having the custody of any such [Court] record . . . willfully and unlawfully . . . falsifies . . . the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States.”  Obviously, a pretty heavy consequence for Judge Robart if the Ninth Circuit orders him to fix the record of proceedings in his Court.  Hobson’s Choice #1 because if the Ninth Circuit refuses to order the docket corrected, they are arguable accessories-after-the-fact, another felony found at 18 USC § 3: “Whoever, knowing that an offense against the United States has been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessory after the fact.”

Second, Doug petitions the Ninth Circuit to order Judge Robart to acknowledge that Doug had discharged his duty under the Misprision of Felony/Treason statutes.  To refuse to so order Judge Robart would establish a defense to these crimes in the future by allowing a defendant to claim that he had alerted a judge to crime/felony but never received an acknowledgment.  Hobson’s Choice #2.

Finally, and most importantly, Doug’s Petition asks the Court to order Judge Robart to discharge his Congressionally-imposed duty to “summon a grand jury” as required by Rule 6(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure as – based upon the forensic evidence in Doug’s two affidavits – it is clear by a preponderance of the evidence, if not beyond a reasonable doubt, that Barack Hussein Obama’s two Certificates of Live Birth are forgeries.  Thus, Hobson’s Choice #3: If the Ninth Circuit rules that it is not in the “public interest” to allow a Grand Jury to hear Doug’s forensic evidence, then the Ninth Circuit will have established that the Grand Jury has been completely emasculated and is now just a tool of the government – the antithesis of what that Fourth Branch of government was conceived to be.

Regarding this Fouth Branch of government, none other than Justice Scalia observed in U.S. v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36, 47 (1992):
Rooted in long centuries of Anglo-American history, the grand jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the branches described in the first three Articles. It “is a constitutional fixture in its own right.” In fact the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional Government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people. (Citations omitted).
And this really is the rub of all this.  Obama's second term-of-office will pass, the harm he has and will do to this Republic – though grave – I believe will not deal a fatal blow to the aspirations built into our Constitution.

However, if our federal government has now taken the position that it can prevent a Grand Jury of citizens from hearing well-founded allegations of the most despicable fraud ever perpetrated upon the People of this Republic, then we are so advised and it is time to invoke the retained power We The People possess to readjust that organic document by means of a Constitutional Convention to rein in the usurpation of power by those resident in the I-495 Beltway around the District of Columbia.


MarsTheDestroyer said...

Three days and no comments? So what is pejorative about this?

Frank Bailey said...

I read Scalia’s complete decision in the United States v Williams. There is nothing in the decision that supports your contention that a federal judge should empanel a grand jury based on the conclusion of two ordinary citizens that a crime has been committed. As a matter of fact Scalia’s opinion suggests he would not support this intrusion into the working of a grand jury.

Scalia also quotes Blackstone in his opinion:
“As Blackstone described the prevailing practice in 18th century England, the grand jury was "only to hear evidence on behalf of the prosecution[,] for the finding of an indictment is only in the nature of an enquiry or accusation, which is afterwards to be tried and determined." 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries 300 (1769); see also 2 M. Hale, Pleas of the Crown 157 (1st Am. ed. 1847).”

It is clear that the grand jury operates under the auspices of the federal prosecutor and not at the whim of ordinary citizens. The idea that two deluded individuals like Vogt and Irey can demand that a judge sit a grand jury to hear imagined evidence of imagined crimes is ludicrous. Such a system would quickly lead to chaos where every crackpot could cook up tales of crimes they believe have been committed by both government officials and private citizens they do not happen to like.

The issue in Williams was whether a court should have overturned an indictment because the prosecuted had withheld evidence that Williams considered exculpatory. The case was about the behavior and interaction of the prosecutor, the grand jury and the court. Scalia determined that in this case the court should not have interceded.

If Vogt and Irey think a crime was committed they had only the obligation to report it to the proper authorities. Having done that they were told they were wrong or were answered by inaction on the part of law enforcement. At that point the issue is closed.
Judge Robart clearly explained in his Order to Show Cause for dismissal that a private party cannot use a civil action to enforce criminal statutes. He backed up the finding with several clear citations none of which you refuted in your answer written for Vogt. The argument that Robart mischaracterized Vogt’s complaint is complete nonsense. The Ninth Circuit will dispose of this legal mumbo jumbo quickly.

Anonymous said...

I am not brilliant. However the fact the man representing as potus, has a CT Social Security # speaks volumes. I memorized my card when I applied for jobs at 15 and still actually have the original doc. It has only ever been mine.

Pastor emeritus Nathan Bickel said...

Frank -

Your implication that "two ordinary citizens" don't count for "standing" in the judicial system, is simply without merit.

If only 1 citizen's American future freedom is negatively affected and abridged by the White House occupier's corrupted ID fraud; that is enough reason to hear their legal complaint. After all, every citizen of this United States is guaranteed by its Constitution to be able to live their lives without restriction of Bill of Rights restraints that are now being imposed upon them by the Obama regime.

With the Obama [illegal] corruption of the Constitution, every "ordinary" citizen is grossly affected by the corrupted Obama illegitimate de facto government. Take for instance, the recent signed federal legislation restricting First Amendment rights of an “ordinary” citizen, protesting.

The point being – no one citizen need be turned away by the courts because of the flimsy excuse that they don’t have standing. There is (already on the one hand) enough standing to be the recipient of all that which negatively affects that one citizen. If that one citizen is left without standing recourse; then, that same citizen has every reason to ignore the laws that he or she takes exception to.

Finally, suffice to say that the cockamamie idea that no "ordinary" citizen cannot bring a legitimate complaint against a sitting White House politician; that, in and of itself defies common sense, logic and sensible law itself!

Post a Comment

Play nice!