Friday, November 8, 2013

The First Volley in the Final Battle is Fired

My numerous attempts to have a judicial branch determination of the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama, II, to be President have met with a unanimous refusal by the Courts to address the merits of that significant and reasonable question.  Instead in my cases – as in every other case filed nationwide – the Courts have stated that I don’t have “standing” to raise that question.  Of course, by saying so, the Courts are holding that yes, Mr. Obama may not be eligible, but you are only a Citizen and thus have no basis to demand that the Government be administered according to law. Only the government’s officials can raise that issue.  Absurd.

Yet I am not deterred.  There is one last venue that retains the Constitutional authority to investigate and lay before the public its determination of Obama’s eligibility through Indictment or – secured by the Fifth Amendment – Presentment.  I speak of course of the Grand Jury which in 1895, Supreme Court Justice Brewer in Frisbie v. United States described: “[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.”

So it is to the Grand Jury to which I wish to repair and “suggest” that they consider the two Certificates of Live Birth that Obama has foisted on the public to quell any questions about his legitimacy.  Yet I am blocked from making such a “suggestion” for to do so is a felony under 18 U.S.C.§1504. Obviously, asking Obama’s Department of Justice to present the matter to the Grand Jury is not an option: I, and others, have tried without getting the courtesy of a response.

Thus there remains only 625 people – the judges of the federal district courts – that have the authority to call a Grand Jury to hear the allegations of Obama’s ineligibility. The first to receive that plea or – poetically, volley – in this, the last legal battle to be waged over Obama’s eligibility is Judge James L. Robart of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.

What he received was two affidavits – one 95 page public and one 75 page sealed – from Douglas Vogt who, pursuant to his duty under the misprision of felony and misprision of treason statutes, proved that Obama's two Certificates of Live Birth (COLBs) are forgeries.

I challenge anyone to read the public affidavit and not come away convinced that the COLBs are forgeries.  If you could read the sealed affidavit, you would know who the forger was and see the direct line to Obama and his April 27, 2011, Press Conference when he made the following statement about his COLB: “As many of you have been briefed, we provided additional information today about the site of my birth . . .”

Depending upon raising the funds necessary to reprint the original color public affidavit and distribute it to the 625 sitting federal district court judges, there will be more volleys fired in the hope that there is – as Diogenes sought – one honest judge out there who will let a Grand Jury see, consider and, if they deem worthy, act upon the facts proved in Douglas Vogt’s public and private affidavits.  If you want to join in this final battle, you are welcome to do so by donating here.


CaMaven said...

What about Citizens' Grand Juries?

Montgomery Blair Sibley said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Montgomery Blair Sibley said...

Citizen Grand Juries are fine, but they have no ability to force anyone to do anything. No subpoena power, no contempt power and, most importantly, no power to incarcerate those who ignore its indictments.

Anonymous said...

Sorry... but I took your challenge to read the public affidavit. I came away convinced that the author is an amateur with essentially no skill or experience in forensic document analysis. The entire thing reads like a wild speculation with no actual basis for the assumptions it depends upon or the conclusions it reaches. No court of law or Grand Jury could possibly take it seriously.

Anonymous said...

What a crock. Evidence means nothing to an obot.

Anonymous said...

You keep using that word "evidence". It doesn't mean what you think it means.

Anonymous said...

I believe Administrative Law Judge Malihi explained that the glop being produced by Taitz and her ilk of seditionists is not evidence. And that the experts who offer their opinions don't know what they are talking about.

Judge Malihi is a real Obot, too. He offered Taitz a default judgment. And she decided to overplay a losing hand.

Anonymous said...

Vogt is so amusing with his scary, scary threats about Obots facing prosecution and prison time and even hanging. He doesn’t seem to realize that real prosecutors don't go after normal people based on wild fantasies from deranged whack jobs.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Vogt and Paul Irey are writing a book together. Much of Vogt's typography evidence appears to be based on Irey's work. Here is what an Indiana judge said of Paul Irey's expert testimony:

“Mr. Irey, over the objections of the State Defendants, was found to be an expert in type-setting only and was accepted as an expert on that topic only. See also Hannan v. Pest Control Services, Inc. 734 N.E. 2d. 674, 679 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (an expert in one field of expertise cannot offer opinion in other fields absent a requisite showing of competency in that field”). Further, plaintiffs offered no evidence that the principles upon which he was testifying are reliable or used by others in the field or peer reviewed in any way, shape, or form. See Ind. R. Evid. 702(b) (expert testimony only admissible where the proponent demonstrates that the scientific principles upon which the expert testimony rest are reliable”); Steward v. State, 652 N. E. 2d 490, 498 (Ind. 1995).”

Later judge Bird added,

"“Plaintiffs provided no competent expert opinions as to the authenticity of President Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth. See Ind. R. Evid. 702(b) (expert testimony only admissible where the proponent demonstrates that the scientific principles upon which the expert testimony rest are reliable”); Steward v. State, 652 N. E. 2d 490, 498 (Ind. 1995).7”

And for good measure added in a footnote:

“At most, Mr. Irey’s admissible testimony is that he reviewed a copy of what had been downloaded from the White House site and that within that single document he noticed differences between the sizes of some of the letters, difference of spacing between some of the letters, and a while “haloing” around certain letters. It is unclear whether “expert” testimony was needed for such observations. All other testimony provided by Mr. Irey, however, is hearsay, irrelevant, not based on personal knowledge, and not scientifically reliable; thus it is inadmissible. Ind. R. Evid. 401, 402, 602, 702(b), 802, 805. As for the demonstrative summaries he presented, again, these were admitted for a limited purpose and do not prove that the Certificate of Live Birth is a forgery or that President Obama is not constitutionally qualified for office.”

I suspect any other judge would come to the same conclusion about Mr. Vogt's testimony.

Anonymous said...

Birth Certificate a forgery? He stated he was born in Hawaii and his father was a Kenyan citizen, so by his own mouth he was not qualified presidential material. The question I have is who vetted him? Why haven't they been held accountable. He does not stand for the united States of America or for Me. I see him as a ...

Anonymous said...

Obama is Not a Natural born citizen: Being born of two parents who hold the same citizenship. We are being manipulated and distracted away from the facts. Also did he register as a foreign student Columbia? this needs to be investigated. Should there be a large contingent of fellow students coming forward who can attest they were in his class?

Post a Comment

Play nice!