Thursday, May 1, 2014

Jugdment Day -- May 15, 2014

On May 15, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court will consider Doug Vogt's Petition for Certiorari at their regularly scheduled conference.  The question that Doug's Petition presents is seminal to the operation of our Federal System which envisions four branches of government: (i) Executive, (ii) Legislative, (iii) Judicial and (iv) the Federal Grand Jury.  Indeed, none other than Justice Scalia in U.S. v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36, 47 (1992) recognized:
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).
As all should know, the Federal Grand Jury is made up of 23 citizens who sit for 18 months to hear evidence of criminal behavior and -- if 12 agree -- issue an indictment or presentment for prosecution by the U.S. Attorney. This bar to criminal prosecution is contained in the Fifth Amendment which states in part: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury".

But the Constitution is silent on the issue of how the Grand Jury is to learn of crimes to investigate. The common law which preceded the formation of our Republic was clear on this issue.  As stated in 1895, by Justice Brewer in Frisbie v. United States, 157 U.S. 160, 163 (1895): “[I]n this country the common practice is for the Grand Jury to investigate any alleged crime, no matter how or by whom suggested to them, and after determining that the evidence is sufficient to justify putting the party suspected on trial, to direct the preparation of the formal charge or indictment.” 

However, as part of the gradual usurping of the power of the People, the federal government has -- since 1946 -- slowly quarantined the Grand Jury from investigating crimes by limiting access to the Grand Jury to only U.S. Attorneys. Indeed, as Supreme Court Justice William Douglas wrote in 1973, it is: “common knowledge that the Grand Jury, having been conceived as a bulwark between the citizen and the Government, is now a tool of the Executive.” United States v. Dioniso, 410 U.S. 19, 23 (1973)(Douglas, J., dissenting).

Painfully aware of this seminal transformation of the balance of power in our federal system, I embarked several years ago on a process of documenting this usurpation which will come to completion on May 15, 2014, when the Supreme Court decides Doug Vogt's case.

Besides through the U.S. Attorney, there are two other avenues to submit evidence of criminal behavior to the Grand Jury. First is 18 U.S.C. §3332 which obligates the U.S. Attorney upon: "receiving information concerning such an alleged offense from any other person shall, if requested by such other person, inform the grand jury of such alleged offense, the identity of such other person, and such attorney’s action or recommendation."  Congress left no discretion in the U.S. Attorney to refuse to present such "information".

Yet, in Sibley v. Obama et al, Case No: 12-cv-001 (D.C. Dist. Ct. 2012); summarily affirmed, Case No.: 12-5198 (D.C. Cir. 2012); cert. den., U.S. S. Ct. Case No.: 12-736 (2013) the district court held: “The Court will deny the mandamus request, in keeping with prior decisions that 18 U.S.C. §3332 cannot be enforced by private individuals.” Thus, while Congress under §3332(a), obligated the U.S. Attorney to “inform the grand jury of such alleged offense” when requested by a Citizen, the U.S. Attorney can now ignore that mandatory obligation to “inform” with impunity as there is no right to enforce §3332(a) by one who seeks to invokes it. 

Second,  Congress enacted Federal Rules Criminal Procedure, Rule 6(a) which states: “When the public interest so requires, the court must order that one or more grand juries be summoned.”  But what is exactly meant by the term "public interest"?  That legal-term-of-art has never been judicially defined.  Hence, Doug Vogt's Petition which seeks such definition is a case of "First Impression" for the Supreme Court.

If the Supreme Court on May 15, 2014, refuses to define “public interest” it would then sanction the use of legal indeterminacy in legal-terms-of-art and thus permit the unregulated and un-reviewable exercise of brute federal Judicial and Executive power employed to assault the fundamentals of the rule of law to the end of creating a 21st Century federal Volksgebundenheit and Artgleichheit.  Stated simply, if "public interest" can mean anything at anytime, then there is no rule of law, only the rule of whim and caprice exercised to advance institutional objectives rather than protect individual rights.

In Doug Vogt's case, the question is whether the U.S. Attorney and the Judiciary -- by (i) denying enforcement of 18 U.S.C. §3332's plain import and and (ii) defining that the overwhelming forensic proof of the Forgery of Obama's birth certificate does not rise to the level of "public interest" -- can prevent a grand jury from investigating this most serious of federal crimes -- Treason.

I maintain that such was not within the distribution of powers by the People in the Constitution and for the Executive and Judicial branches to so maintain is a breach of that fundamental compact upon which the present federation of states stands.

Accordingly, I maintain with conviction that May 15, 2014, is indeed Judgment Day for this Republic.


Anonymous said...

Sibley said the same thing when his case was before SCOTUS. And when they disagreed with him, he called them Nazis.

According to Sibley, the republic has already been destroyed by these Nazis. So it will be doubly so on May 19!

Because the alternative is that Sibley and Vogt are just wrong.

Anonymous said...

Sibley can't even describe the case he ghostwrote correctly: the issue isn't what "public interest" means; the issue is who gets to decide that. And the courts have been clear: The decider isn't Douglas Vogt.

Anonymous said...

Biggest problem is your "evidence" is all bullshit. Just like your numerology theories about the age of the earth and when important events are predestined to occur.

The U.S. Attorney would be interested in real evidence of real crimes. Not some loon's dissatisfaction with two national elections and the minority status of the fellow elected in those two national elections.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Sibley

Will you be filing a lawsuit against the Supreme Court on May 19th?

HistorianDude said...

The very first sentence of this blog post is false. Sibley writes that:

"On May 15, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court will consider Doug Vogt's Petition for Certiorari at their regularly scheduled conference."

In simple point of fact, no. The Supreme Court will not consider Doug Vogt's petition on that or any other day. The Court has already dead-listed the petition for denial without comment. It will not be discussed. It will not be acknowledged. It is already over.

How do we know this?

We know this because the SCOTUS docket reveals that the Appellees have declined to respond to the petition, and SCOTUS has not demanded one. SCOTUS never actually considers certirorari without a brief from both parties. So whenever there is as much as a single Justice interested in considering a case, the court will order a response if one has not already been presented. When the court distributes a case for conference without having a brief from both sides in hand, they have already denied the case without comment. They just haven;t issued the formal order yet.

We will get that on Monday May 19th.

Anonymous said...

Déjà-vu -

The European

Anonymous said...

The real shame is that Mr. Vogt did not get Reed Hayes to file an amicus brief with the SCOTUS. A real document expert's stamp of approval on Vogt's work might have been enough to convince the Justices to hear the case.

Martha Trowbridge said...

Fascinating, Montgomery - your visitors' fascination with May 19th.

As in aka Obama's mother's [FBI Most Wanted Fugitive Domestic Terrorist Elizabeth Duke] "May19CO" [May 19th Communist Organization].

As in May 19th, birthday of Malcolm X, aka Obama's father.

Anonymous said...


Did you save the farm?

BTW, May 19th is the day the SCOTUS will release the cert list. That's the list of cases from the May 15th conference and whether or not the Justices will hear the case.

Anonymous said...

Anon on May 1 at 4:45PM said:

"The real shame is that Mr. Vogt did not get Reed Hayes to file an amicus brief with the SCOTUS. A real document expert's stamp of approval on Vogt's work might have been enough to convince the Justices to hear the case."

Hayes is not an expert at examining computer files. His affidavit would have added nothing and would have been ignored. The issues in the appeal have nothing to do with documents. It is about whether the lower court had subject matter jurisdiction to even consider Vogt's complaint and whether a private citizen may bring criminal charges before a federal grand jury. Judge Robart ruled the court did not have subject matter jurisdiction and that Vogt cannot try to pursue his own criminal prosecution through a grand jury. The Ninth Circuit agreed. Those are the issues before SCOTUS and nothing else.

Anonymous said...

It is really strange that Mr. Zullo has buried Reed Hayes´ ouevre deep down in his dungeons. No one except of him has ever seen it.

Does he want to save us all ? The universe would shatter once Reed´s findings are revealed - or so.

The European

Anonymous said...

Mr. Vogt himself has given us a clue as to the clueless nature of the Hayes report in this comment at Birther Report:

" A forensic document examiner takes a course over the internet, pays $800 and 98% of them pass and get the certificate. I had to send my chapter on evidence of computer manipulation to the Arizona Sheriffs office who sent it to Reed Hayes so he would learn more about Photoshop and how Adobe created the JBIG2 compression layer. He did not know it. He is a hand writing expert and worse yet he only worked from the PDF copy that there was no chain of custody. He is NOT an expert on type and what Paul and I covered in my affidavits. "

First, while Mr. Vogt's claim about forensic examiners may be true for members of NADE like Reed Hayes it is not true for other organizations that have much more stringent requirements.

Secondly, talk about the blind leading the blind. There is no evidence the LFBC PDF was ever touched by Photoshop or any Adobe product. MRC compression using JBIG2 is a compression algorithm that is used by Xerox WorkCentre equipment already known to be installed in the very same White House

Vogt never mentioned JBIG2 compression until recently. Why is that? Could it be because NBC and others figured out it neatly explained many features seen in the PDF file?

Anonymous said...

"explained many features seen in the PDF file?" "...explained many features"? Not every feature? Hmm...
How many remain " (un)explained"? And which?

Anonymous said...

Anon, are you so dumb or do you play dumb ?

The quote:

"Vogt never mentioned JBIG2 compression until recently. Why is that? Could it be because NBC and others figured out it neatly explained many features seen in the PDF file? "

It is clear that "it" is the JBIG2 compression and that this compression already explained many features.

The other features are neatly explained here


Any more questions ?

The European

HistorianDude said...

""explained many features seen in the PDF file?" "...explained many features"? Not every feature? Hmm...
How many remain " (un)explained"? And which?"

In the order asked:

Yes, no, none, and none

Anonymous said...

Here is a partial list of artifacts explained by the compression algorithm in a Xerox Workcentre - Mac OS Preview workflow process:

1. The existence of one JPEG layer and multiple single color monochrome masks.
2. The separation of the document into a background JPEG layer with the green security basket weave pattern, the form lines, and pieces of text.
3. The separation of most of the text into another monochrome layer.
4. Separate monochrome layers for the date stamp and Alvin Onaka’s seal.
5. The rotation and scaling of the layers
6. The creation of pixel for pixel identical letters and shapes.
7. The ability to open the document in Adobe Illustrator and move around objects separately.
8. Existence of a background color layer at 150 dpi resolution and monochrome layers at 300 dpi.
9. The white border and the top level clipping mask.
10. White holes in the background layer where text was lifted.
11.The white halos around some letter and numbers.
12. YCbCr comment string found in JPG layer.

Anonymous said...

And different type faces from different typewriters, of course.

HistorianDude said...

There are no different typefaces from different typewriters. There is only Vogt and Irey's subjective interpretation of an image having experienced five episodes of generation lass. Start reading at Page 19:


HistorianDude said...

Of course, that should have been "generation loss."

Anonymous said...

Of course! How could anyone miss that?

Anonymous said...

I am debating how to celebrate "Cert Denied Monday" coming up May 19th. This is a twofer since Paige and Apuzzo's Vermont case appeal is also going to be denied the same morning. I think that calls for a double!

Anonymous said...

If Sibley and Vogt have really decided to unseal Vogt's oh-so-secret affidavit, why not just post it? Why all the "you have to go to SCOTUS yourself to see it" nonsense?

If it was actually important, you would think Sibley and Vogt would want to spread the information as far and wide as they could. Because it looks like they are con men -- just like all the other birthers.

Post a Comment

Play nice!