Sunday, May 11, 2014

Doug Vogt's Now Un-Sealed Evidence at the Supreme Court

As I detailed in my last post, the granting of discretionary rather than mandatory jurisdiction in the Supreme Court by Congress in 1925 was premised on Chief Justice Taft’s promise that only petitions that were “frivolous” or addressed to principals of law that were “well settled.” would be summarily denied.

Doug Vogt’s Petition is not frivolous.  It argues that as a citizen he has the right to bring to the Grand Jury’s attention serious matters.  Of course, the Grand Jury can ignore Doug Vogt and that would be the end of it.  However, the Attorney General with the complicity of the Judiciary has blocked the Grand Jury from hearing Doug’s significant evidence of criminal behavior most foul.

That behavior was detailed in public and sealed affidavits that Doug filed first with the District Court in Washington, then with the Circuit Court in San Francisco and now with the Supreme Court. Curiously, in ostrich-like fashion, the Supreme Court refused to accept the sealed affidavit hence Doug was forced to un-seal it so that the Supremes would have actual notice of the evidence in the sealed affidavit. Indeed, I recently went to the Supreme Court Clerk’s office and saw the affidavit in the file.  (See photo above).

Is it “frivolous” for Doug to ask the Grand Jury to investigate Lorreta Fuddy’s finances?  For the uninformed or forgetful, Lorreta Fuddy was appointed Director of the Hawaiian Department of Health in January 2011.  On April 25, 2011, pursuant to President Obama's request, Director Fuddy publicly attested that she witnessed the copying of Obama’s original Certificate of Live Birth and to the authenticity of the two copies that have been released.

Curiously, among other evidence detailed in Doug's now unsealed affidavit is that Lorreta Fuddy’s Financial Disclosure forms for 2011 and 2012 show a decrease in her mortgage liability of $100,000 from owing $200,000 in 2011 to owing only $96,000 at the end of 2012.  I readily admit there could be many good reasons why someone who only makes $100,000/year could have their mortgage reduced by $100,000 but I also can think of one very bad reason why that could be so. And isn’t this what the Grand Jury is established to determine and resolve: Was Loretta Fuddy paid a $100,000 bribe to authenticate Mr. Obama’s birth certificate?  

Of course, as most everyone knows, Loretta Fuddy will not be filing a Financial Disclosure Form for 2013 as she regrettably died on  December 11, 2013, under circumstances that have raised more questions than provided answers.

The “public interest” is great on these and other issues raised by Doug Vogt and they most certainly cannot be characterized as “frivolous”. As such, upon the promise of Chief Justice Taft in 1925, the Supremes must hear Doug’s case.


HistorianDude said...

Doug Vogt’s Petition is frivolous.

Anonymous said...

Vogt's petition is frivolous as Sibley's (excuse me, Vogt's) misreading of the law wouldn't survive the first day of law school, let alone the real world.

Note how Sibley and Vogt are cowards: they tease the existence of the not-under-seal affidavit, but refuse to publish it. It is as if they know it is full of lies.

Stan said...

Given the amount of time that Doug Vogt has spent on this project, and the amount of evidence that he has amassed as to the inauthenticity of the Obama-released LFBC - let's call it what it well appears to be: a fabrication (and not even a very good one at that) - let's see what his case is. And then you debunkers can debunk away, if such is still your take on the matter. Okay? Fair deal??

Anonymous said...

can you tell us what the affidavit says? who did the forgery?

Anonymous said...

The role of the court is to review the evidence and make a decision based on the evidence. The problem with Obama's eligibility issues, is that much of the evidence has been reviewed in the court of public opinion, and not a court of law. In fact, Obama, and his lawyers, have gone to great lengths to keep the evidence out of any court of law. Usually, when the accused acts that way, they appear guilty of whatever they are accused. Of course, that is the biggest problem for his defenders, especially the debunkers. No matter how hard they try, the accusations will never go away, until they are resolved in court. Even worse, new evidence is being discovered, fairly regularly. Eventually, the weight of evidence may become impossible to ignore, even for the court of public opinion.

Anonymous said...

1) It does not matter how much time Vogt has spent on this project. His unsealed affidavit already proves that it was wasted. Not a single one of his "20 Points of Forgery" can survive critical scrutiny. But that is not why SCOTUS has already dead listed this petition. They have dead listed it because it is frivolous... because it poses no actual case or controversy to the court.

2) Per Anonymous question: Vogt identifies the forger as Joannah Ah'Nee Randolph, a woman whose actual sole participation in this case was the bad judgment to give a copy of her birth certificate to Miki Boothe (who Vogt names as a co-conspirator).

HistorianDude said...

Obama and his lawyers have done exactly nothing to keep any evidence out of any court of law. For starters, in only the tiniest fraction of the 220 or so Birther cases was Obama and his lawyers even involved. And in at least one case, Vogt has had the opportunity to testify.

The judge declared him unqualified and his "evidence" worthless.

Anonymous said...

Vogt's co-author Paul Irey had a similar experience in Indiana where his testimony was vacated by the judge.

Anonymous said...

Johanna Ah’Nee, Kevin Davidson, Loretta Fuddy, Alvin Onaka, and Miki Booth?


Unknown said...


Anonymous said...

I expected Vogt's unpublished daffydavit to be stupid but this exceeded all expectations. The good news for Doug is the stupidity defense will shield him from Miki Booth's potential libel claims. No one will take this pile of stinking tripe seriously.

Anonymous said...

It appears that at least 2 of these forgers have invalid birth certificates themselves. (Boothe and "ah knee").

Iteresting that both these certificates have exactly the same fake features as AKA "Obama".

I say deport all three of them now and let them try to sort it all out if they ever try to come back.

Anonymous said...

The only person who says their birth certificates are fakes is Doug Vogt, and he's an incompetent nobody. No one will be deported based on his opinion.

And on Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court will announce that it has denied his cert. petition, which will officially end this charade.

HistorianDude said...

@ Anonymous 12:10 AM

1. The two Booth birth certificates that Vogt absurdly claims were forged are for Booth's husband and son. Miki Booth's own birth certificate is never mentioned.

2. Another explanation for why the three certificates have the same characteristics is that they are all authentic.

3. The Ah-Nee certificate was declared absolutely authentic by Paul Irey in a WND article centered entirely on his analysis of the Ah-Nee document and a comparison of it to the President's long form. It is clear that any analysis by either Vogt or Irey is not worth the bandwidth it takes up on line.

Anonymous said...

>>>The Ah-Nee certificate was declared absolutely authentic by Paul Irey in a WND article

Ha! Paul Irey is no expert. WND is NOT a reliable source.

These certificates are as fake as the day is long. Real experts have examined 7 different Hawaiian birth certificates from the pre-1962 period. All of them exhibit at least 18 of the 20 degrees of forgery. It appears that forging birth certificates was (is) a major industry in the Island State.

HistorianDude said...

It's a bit difficult for any supporter of Vogt to declare Irey "no expert." Irey is, after all, the co-author of Vogt's affidavits as well as the "book" they are preparing to publish.

But the real bottom line is that Vogt's "20 points of forgery" have all been comprehensively demonstrated to actually be "20 points of delusion." There is a very good reason why several of the "20 points" show up in all of them. That's because they show up in any document that was ever produced on a manual mechanical typewriter. They are not "points of forgery at all." They demonstrate not fraud on the part of Hawaii, but complete technical incompetence on the parts of Vogt & Irey.


Anonymous said...

"Real experts have examined 7 different Hawaiian birth certificates from the pre-1962 period."

Who are these "real experts"? Names, please.

Anonymous said...

It is funny how Birthers change stories to fit their current crazy theory of the month. In a September 11, 2011 article in WND Jerome Corsi quotes Paul Irey as saying the then unidentified Ah.Nee certificate was genuine and that he used it to compare with the Obama LFBC to claim it was a forgery.


Now Irey, who is apparently a coauthor of the Vogt affidavits, is saying the Ah'Nee certificate is a forgery. Which is it?

No wonder no one except the Birthers takes these analyses seriously.

Anonymous said...

Now you are blowing at straw men. The WND article in 2011 reflected that Irey (and Corsi!) had been deceived by Booth. We are all undeceived now, but it has been a painful process.

Looking deeply into this, it appears more and more likely that Booth and (A.K.A.) "Obama" had a relationship going way back to Indonesia. Many women had children at a very very early age in Indonesia, particularly back in the 60's. So it is possible that A.K.A. Miki Booth may be the natural mother of A.K.A. Barry Subarka.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Vogt and Mr. Sibley could learn a lot by reading the opinion and order written by Judge Hollander and just issued in the Taitz v Colvin case. Taitz "borrowed" Doug's idea of demanding her charges that President Obama is committing identity fraud be sent to a grand jury. Judge Hollander explained to Taitz why that is not an option.


Anonymous said...

Plenty of Obama dis-information agents commenting in here. Paid by Soros? DNC? Or just like giving Obama 8l0wjobs?

Anonymous said...

You mean the nonsense like Booth is really Obama's mother? (Booth was 11 when Obama was born.)

HistorianDude said...

Call us "disinformation agents" all you want. It is the sort of insult that really can;t hurt much when, as you will discover on Monday, we were right again. There have been more than 220 birther cases. There have been about 100 appeals. More than 25 have made it to the Supreme Court.

We have correctly predicted the outcome of every single one. That's pretty doggone accurate "disinformation."

Anonymous said...

Obviously Anonymous has never seen Niki Booth in person. She is CLEARLY much older than Obama. How do you uncritically take the information from 2 birth certificates that have BOTH been PROVEN to be frauds?

Anonymous said...

The first step would be to prove that they're fraudulent. "Because Vogt thinks so" is only proof that Vogt is a nattering, incompetent moron.

I'll let Booth know that you think she looks older than actual age.

HistorianDude said...

Vogt and Irey could not prove a birth certificate fake even if they had forged it themselves. The level of their technical incompetence is exceeded only by their studied incapacity to assemble a logical chain of reasoning. They cannot place fingers to keyboard without subtracting from the sum total of all human knowledge.

But that is neither here nor there. Monday's SCOTUS order will neatly caramelize the crust of this their latest helping of Fail Brûlée, and then we can all go back to doing what we do best:

Mocking Gallups and Zullo.

Unknown said...

If President Obama were discovered to be a fraud and usurper to the Office of President, born in another country, he would have committed the most supreme criminal deception in history. And would have done it with help of mainstream-media and leaders of both political parties. If true, the firestorm created by this conspiracy would be catastrophic for the nation and world. The country would be a laughing stock. Markets would crash around the world.

And would any and all decisions made by Obama while in office be valid? All laws he signed, judges and others he appointed to offices and the decisions made by those appointees, would they be valid? No one knows for sure.

Do we as a nation really want to deal with such a calamity? The nation’s political system is not set up to for such a crisis. It would be a gigantic Constitutional mess. The most serious debacle since the Civil War.
The matter is so grave it would expose not only Obama, but the national power establishment to recriminations and humiliations from which it would take decades to recover if ever.

It would deeply scar the Democrat Party, Republican Party, all media, right and left, and the nation as a whole.

And how do we get rid of a President who never should have been elected in the first place? Their would need to be a court or tribunal to establish and prove the facts. Does Congress impeach him? Perhaps, but impeachment is designed for lawfully elected officials which if the usurper scenario is true, Obama never was. What if he fights the charges as he most likely would?
How long would this matter drag on. Months or years? Meanwhile does Obama continue to act as President? In all probability he could.
What if a sufficient number of Senators won’t vote to convict him even if the evidence is overwhelming? If Obama chose to fight removal would there be blood in the streets or even civil war? The possibilities go on and on and none are good for the country.

Additionally Obama could grant anyone who helped him in the conspiracy a “get out of jail free card” through the Presidents unlimited power to pardon.

The power players in Washington DC, even those who believe Obama is a fraud, have no intention of allowing that scenario to happen and have chosen a course of action that hides or ignores evidence that would harm or expose him because it would harm and expose them all.

So, the fix is in one way or another, no matter what the evidence reveals. Short of intervention from Heaven, Obama will remain President of the United States.

Anonymous said...

The first word in your rant is the most important: IF.

Because President Obama is neither a fraud nor a usurper. He is the lawfully elected president, your fantasies notwithstanding.

The rest of what you wrote has no basis in reality, and therefore is of no importance.

HistorianDude said...

@ Glen Day. a response by the numbers:

1. President Obama has provided more proof of his eligibility for the US Presidency than any other president or presidential candidate in all of American History. He has further been declared a natural born US citizen in no fewer than a dozen different court cases brought by Birthers in the effort to discredit him. On that particular issue the fat lady has loudly and surely sung, so you can put aside your whinging speculation. No usurpation has occurred. There will be no stock market crashes or foreign mockery. There will be no civil unrest. There will only be a President that finished his term as per the Constitution in January of 2016.

2. Look up “The De Facto Officer Doctrine.” It wouldn’t matter if Obama was born on Mars. It wouldn’t matter if Obama were not even a human being. Each and every law, act, EO, rule, regulation, statute he signed and appointment he made is absolutely legitimate, legal and would persist even after your imaginary exposure as a fraud.

3. It would not matter if the President “never should have been elected in the first place .” Under the De Facto Officer Doctrine he is the President, and so the US Constitution is very clear that there are only two ways to legally get rid of a sitting President. Impeachment under Article 1, Section 2 or a declaration of Presidential inability by the Vice President and the majority of the Cabinet as per the 25th Amendment. No ad hoc court, tribunal or carnival dunk tank required.

4. Obama would absolutely continue as President until the process (either one) was complete, or he voluntarily step aside (without resigning) also under the 25th Amendment.

5. If he was impeached but not convicted by the Senate, he would remain as President.

6. Under no circumstance would there be blood in the streets.

7. Once impeached there is no power to pardon.

8. There are no “power players in Washington DC” who believe Obama is a fraud. Many might not like him, but the reason the “power players” have not acted against him is because they understand that Birthism is errant nutburgery, and they have no doubt that he is a natural born US citizen.

9. Your sense that anybody is afraid of anything is pure projection.

HistorianDude said...

Of course, that was supposed to be January of 2017. Simple typo.

Anonymous said...

It is not at all clear that the "de facto officer doctrine" can be invoked to uphold the legal actions of someone who obtained public office by fraud. It would be helpful if the self-described "historian" Dude visited or revisited federal and state court rulings in "de facto officer doctrine" cases and cited one or more significant cases where the court had either upheld or rejected the invocation of the doctrine where an elected or appointed official had clearly obtained office by fraud. Of course, In Obama's case, an already complicit court may uphold the doctrine and make new law.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous is correct in raising the concerns in his second paragraph. We had a similar problem at a local level with a city official who was found to be in-eligible for his post, and it turned out to be a horrible mess overturning all of his official acts.

Our Dogcatcher had to be removed due to the fact that he was found to be related to another City official, which is prohibited according to nepotism rules. So we had to release all the stray dogs that he had impounded. They were running around and tearing up people's yards for months. Also, he had contracted with a company to euthanize several hundred strays and dispose of the bodies. That contract had to be declared void, and the contractor was not paid, which caused them to excavate several dozen carcasses, which someone dumped in the City Manager's swimming pool. There were a lot of other legal repercussions, which are still tied up in the courts. You can image what a nightmare this would be at a national/international level.

Anonymous said...

The current nightmare of having a criminal and an imposter illegally occupying the office of President is far worse than any national shock to be borne or remedial work required in the wake of Obama's criminal indictment, trial, sentencing, removal,and imprisonment.

Anonymous said...

Officials have been removed from office on many occasions over the last 200 years ago. When that happens, their official acts remain intact.

All this was worked out a long time ago, so don't be silly. Anyway, if you impeach Obama, only 2 outcomes are possible:

1. The impeachment flops, like it did with Clinton, and he becomes more popular.

2. The impeachment succeeds, he is removed from office, and therefore becomes eligible to run for a third term.

HistorianDude said...

@ Anonymous 4:11 PM

Ryder v. United States (1995)

"The de facto officer doctrine confers validity upon acts performed by a person acting under the color of official title even though it is later discovered that the legality of that person's appointment or election to office is deficient. Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 440 (1886). "The de facto doctrine springs from the fear of the chaos that would result from multiple and repetitious suits challenging every action taken by every official whose claim to office could be open to question, and seeks to protect the public by insuring the orderly functioning of the government despite technical defects in title to office." 63A Am. Jur. 2d, Public Officers and Employees § 578, pp. 1080-1081 (1984) (footnote omitted)."

This is not a narrow ruling. The phrase "the legality of that person's appointment or election to office is deficient" is sufficiently broad enough to include usurpation of the office by fraud.

Anonymous said...

"...'the legality of that person's appointment or election to office is deficient' is sufficiently broad enough to include usurpation of the office by fraud." Ipse dixit. Ryder is not on point. Drop the dictum and cite one significant federal or state court ruling which allowed the invocation of the doctrine where the office had clearly been obtained by criminal fraud.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous at 8:03 PM has it backwards. If there were ever a valid application of the de facto officer doctrine it would be the case of the chief executive. The chaos that would ensue if a court were to rule a president to be ineligible would be unfathomable. What would stand and what would be undone? Who would make that decision?

This is precisely why the writers of the Constitution did not grant the courts the power to remove a president. That was left to Congress and Congress alone.

When Richard Nixon resigned in disgrace and it was clear he had participated in criminal acts even before his reelection in 1972 not a single appointment nor act of his was undone. Gerald R. Ford, whom Nixon has appointed to replace Spiro Agnew as Vice President become the new President.

HistorianDude said...

Ryder is absolutely on point, and the quoted excerpt was ratio decidendi, not dicta.

This is not a controversial issue. Partisan pipe dreams are not a challenge to established common law.

Anonymous said...

Miki Booth claims to be Japanese but that is clearly not the case. Japanese people have very light skin. Miki Booth is one of the darker people from south east asia, most likely from Indonesia.

Anonymous said...

Ryder explains the de facto officer doctrine. If some anonymous person believes there is a fraud exception to the doctrine, then the burden is on this anonymous person to provide the citations to support this belief.

And this example of a (mythical) dog catcher proves no verifiable details, like the city or name of the ineligible officeholder. It sounds made up.

Besides, this is putting the horse before the cart: There is no evidence that President Obama's elections were fraudulent, and on Monday the U.S. Supreme Court will announce that Vogt's petition was denied.

Anonymous said...

Nowhere does the Constitution shield this (putative) President from criminal prosecution. A criminal indictment for fraud and other felonies committed before, during and after Obama's campaigns, and subsequent trial, sentence, and imminent incarceration either obviates the Congress's removal authority or compels congressional removal--in this case, a distinction without a difference. Whether or not a Court proceeded to declare Obama's presidential activities to be a nullity, the Congress would be compelled, politically, to void those actions--if only to escape prosecution for complicity. Meanwhile Ryder does not address the invocation of the doctrine where the office has been obtained clearly by criminal fraud, despite HistorianDude"s contrary assertion.

HistorianDude said...

@ Anonymous 7:19AM, By the numbers:

1. Barack Obama is a natural born US citizen, and has provided more proof of that status than any other President or presidential candidate in all of US history. He has been declared NBC by no fewer than a dozen US courts, and the US Supreme Court has declined more than 25 opportunities to consider Birther accusations. There can be no risk of indictment or prosecution for “crimes” that never occurred, or for a “fraud” that is nothing more than a figment of fevered Birther imaginations.

2. Of course the Constitution does not shield a president from criminal prosecution. But to the extent that removal from office is among the outcomes of such indictment, the only relevant mechanism for punishing any president for “high crimes and misdemeanors” is Impeachment. No court can order removal, or compel Congressional action towards impeachment. As such, your red herring is pure hand waving. Nothing obviates Congress’s removal authority. Period.

3. Any imaginary scenario in which Congress is subject to “prosecution for complicity” betrays only the most profound ignorance regarding what “complicity” means under the law. Congress has no legal exposure for failing to remove a President they do not belief is deserving of removal. There are three necessary components for criminal complicity (aiding and abetting): A- A crime was committed by another individual, B- The defendant "aided, counseled, commanded, or encouraged" the other person in the commission of the crime, and C- The defendant acted with the requisite mental state in their jurisdiction (for example, knowingly or purposefully, to assist in the crime). Perhaps the sole exception could conceivably be Nancy Pelosi in her role as Chair of the National Democratic Committee. But even that would be a reach for any prosecutor to successfully argue.

4. Ryder addresses any and all circumstances under which an individual holds office “under the color of official title even though it is later discovered that the legality of that person's appointment or election to office is deficient.” It is not a qualified decision and completely subsumes the circumstance under which office was obtained under criminal fraud.

Again… no amount of wishful thinking can trump established US common law. This is not in the slightest a controversial issue.

Anonymous said...


You should take your opinion to Starbucks. If you lay a five dollar bill on top of it, they will give you a cup of coffee!

Anonymous said...

HistorianDude, by the numbers.:

1. Every word you write in paragraph 1 is a type of "...lie, except for the words .and', and 'the.'"

2. Lawless officials will be responsively lawless on behalf of that which most threatens their careers.

3. Elected officials who commit misprision of felony and have been willfully blind to a fraud upon the republic have aided and abetted the fraudster and are complicit in the crimes committed. (See 18 U.S. Code $ 4- Misprision of felony.)

4. I have asked you to cite one significant ruling in which a defendant official had clearly obtained his position by fraud and in which the court ruled that the de facto officer doctrine was rightfully invoked. You have not.

I look forward to reading your commentaries in the wake of the forthcoming Arpaio/zullo evidentiary revelations.

Anonymous said...

1. Despite your bluster, you fail to actually demonstrate any lies. It is true that: The State of Hawaii has said President Obama was born there; birth in United States is sufficient for natural-born citizenship; around a dozen courts have expressly ruled President Obama is a natural born citizen; and the U.S. Supreme Court has rejected around two dozen birther petitions. And you have no evidence to the contrary.

2./3. You have no idea how misprision actually works (especially in the real world). Regardless, as President Obama has not committed a felony, no one has committed misprision by concealing any felonies.

4. As you are the only person who believes there is a fraud exception to de facto officer doctrine, the burden is on you to demonstrate its existence, not Historian Dude.

5. Apraio and Zullo have nothing; they are grifters. You are the mark.

6. Tomorrow the U.S. Supreme Court will publish its denial of Vogt's petition, and President Obama will continue to hold the office to which he was lawfully elected -- twice. Your wet dreams notwithstanding.

HistorianDude said...

@ Anonymous 6:07 PM

1. Your bald assertions are amusing. They would be even more amusing were you able to actually demonstrate a "lie," but alas… you are not apparently up to the task.

In the meantime, you can go here for a string citation on all the courts that have declared Obama to be a natural born US citizen.


Read it and weep.

2. And law abiding officials will and do follow the law.

3. You apparently have no idea what “misprision of felony” actually means. It requires active concealment of a known felony rather than merely failing to report it. And by “known felony” that means the individual must have been a personal witness to the crime, not just some anonymous nutburger on the internet who has never even seen the (in this case) document in question. See: United States v. Johnson, 546 F.2d 1225 (5th Cir. 1977) at 1227

4. I have cited Ryder vs. US which is a comprehensive ruling that fully subsumes your scenario. You have cited nothing in contradiction or response. If (as you pretend) there is a carve out of the De Facto Officer Doctrine for fraud, then it is your responsibility to come up with the rulings that support your position. To this point, my position stands completely unchallenged by anything other than your wishful thinking.

You will be looking forward to my commentaries for a very long time. There is nothing Zullo can report that is simultaneously nontrivial and true. While you wait for that, you can go to my previous commentaries here:


And here:


Anonymous said...

The incident with the non eligible City Dog Catcher happened in Enid, OK. The reason stated by Anonymous is incorrect. It is true that the Dog Catcher was a relative of another City Officer. However, she had fraudulently misrepresented that she was old enough to obtain a place on the ballot in the city election. That was the reason why all her acts as Dog Catcher were declared void. In addition to releasing all the dogs and cats that she had impounded (that were still alive), nearly 200 vaccination certificates were invalidated, so the owners had to get their pets vaccinated twice.

Anonymous said...

Yes, when the facts are against you, argue the law; when the law is against you, argue the facts; when both the facts and the law are against you... misrepresent both--in the style of the Anonymous and Historian Dude twins.

HistorianDude said...

@ Anonymous 7:49AM

How funny. You can't even get the aphorism right.It is:

"If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table."

So your attempt to use proves doubly embarrassing. You don't know the aphorism, and your attempt to use it is unrefined irony.

That said, yet here we are...six years into the Birther movement, Obama is still President and Birthers have still lost all the court cases (more than 226 of them). Today SCOTUS will deny without comment two more Birther cases, one of them being this one. That will prove that Obots can add "misprision of felony" to the many other legal theories where we have been proved right and Birthers have been proved wrong.

Why would anyone defer to a Birther opinion regarding the De Facto Officer Doctrine when they have repeatedly proved incapable of getting a single other legal theory correct? Not "misprision of felony." Not "natural born citizen." Not "RICO." Not "treason."

I'll be back later when he SCOTUS orders are published to say "I told you so."

HistorianDude said...



I told you so.

Anonymous said...

HistorianDude's obtuseness prevents him from realizing when someone has deliberately modified an aphorism to ridicule him, but permits him to defend the indefensible.

HistorianDude said...

The deliberate modification of an aphorism is effective as ridicule only when the modification is actually clever.

We can add cleverness to your growing list of cognitive deficits.

Anonymous said...

An Internet search reveals no account of election fraud for Enid, OK. Not even in the town paper's online archives.

It sounds newsworthy, yet no news coverage.

Anonymous said...

Thanks, Anonymous.

Anonymous said...

So what is next Mr. Sibley? A Motion to Reconsider would be a waste of time. It is apparent despite hints to the contrary that the letters to the hand picked judges produced nothing.

CaMaven said...

The huge presence of trolls on this obscure site shows great fear :-)>

But Mr. Sibley, why not publish the evidence, since the courts refuse to process it?

CaMaven said...

The huge presence of trolls on this obscure site shows great fear :-)>

But Mr. Sibley, why not publish the evidence, since the courts refuse to process it?

Anonymous said...

You can always spot an Obot by their use of Alinsky mock and ridicule tactics. The truth is, Obama and his cadre of lawyers have vigorously fought to quash any birther case from being heard on the merits. Until and unless the issue of Obama's alleged document fraud is heard on the merits in a court of law, with testimony under oath, cross-examination, and subject to the penalty of perjury, the controversy over his legitimacy will forever grow. There are over 20 digital forensic experts (including the expert who was instrumental in uncovering Dan Rather's fraud, which led to his dismissal from CBS, as well as an expert frequently used by Obama's lead defense firm of Perkins & Coi) who have opined that the 4/27/11 digital image of Obama's LFBC is a flat-out forgery. In addition, the Maricopa County Cold Case Posse conducted an official police investigation and reached the same conclusion. If the Obots had nothing to fear, they would welcome the convening of a grand jury and/or a presentation of the evidence of fraud/forgery in a court of law. Clearly, the issues of whether our President has lied about his birthplace, has engaged in document fraud, and has concealed his possible illegitimacy to serve as President because he is not a "natural born citizen" is neither a frivolous matter nor a well-settled point of law.

Anonymous said...

I feel unable to breathe when thinking of the far reaching ramification of Obama's deceit. Ramifications so great that they are too great to comprehend all at once. Everything about him is a lie. Mrs. Obama is a lie. The Obama children are lies. More to the important point is Obama's presidency--the executive orders he has made, the bills he has signed in to law, etc. We will necessarily need to undue the last six plus years and start with a new qualified president. God help us, an imposter has been voted into our White House.

Anonymous said...

It's now been months since we have heard about those letters to all the judges and not a peep from Vogt. Paul says he is leaving the country. Could we all acknowledge this is another Birther epic fail?

Anonymous said...

That's Paul Irey. Of course no one believes him for a minute

Post a Comment

Play nice!