Reality Check has an interesting overview of Douglas Vogt’s strange case.
Category Archives: Just Plain Weird
WA – In Re: Vogt – SCOTUS motion to expedite denied
Anyone surprised?
Apr 21 2014 Motion to expedite consideration of the petition for a writ of certiorari and for leave to file an affidavit under seal DENIED.
Vogt – Files for recusal
Butterfly Bilderberg and others have demolished Vogt’s attempt to have various Supreme Court justices recuse themselves and to have all actions by President Obama declared null and void.
The attempt to have Obama appointees recuse themselves has already been rejected in several cases, Hollister v Soetoro and Kerchner v Obama. As to the de facto officer doctrine:
Vogt wrote:
Note to “HistorianDude” who is too much of a coward to use his real name. You are wrong regarding “de facto doctrine” only applies to the actions of a government body not an individual as was stated in the filing. Obama has not proven citizenship therefore he was NEVER QUALIFIED to hold any office. Your obot lies are not working any longer. Too many people know the truth. By the way the reference from Frank Arduini is full of lies and misinterpretations and is easy to prove wrong.so no one with an IQ over 80 beleavesit once they read my affidavite. Its over for you.
But more importantly tell us why YOU support the MARXIST in the White House? When did you decide communism/socialism is a better form of government to “live” under.
Vogt is apparently unfamiliar with the meaning of the term de facto officer as it applies to individuals…
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).”
Ryder v. United States, 515 U.S. 177, 180 (1995) (a 9-0 decision)
Educating the Confused – Orly’s illogical ‘logic’
Orly is excited because she ‘argued’ in a draft ‘letter’ that Judge Moore could forward under 18 USC 3332, the information to a Grand Jury and all would be well. Typically, when Orly files a draft, people refrain from commenting until she has submitted, email, mailed or otherwise distributed the document. Orly however has taken strength from the ‘fact’ that she ‘knows’ that ‘Obama’s Personal Attorney’ tracks Orly’s follies on her Blog (who is Fussy btw?) and presumes that therefore, if Orly writes something which is poorly informed, that Tepper or others would properly educate her. Now I am pleased to hear that Orly recognizes the wisdom of the many Obots both those with and without (me included) formal legal training who have managed to successfully predict the outcome of all her cases, and that she is therefore looking for some help in her legal ‘arguments’.
Obama’s personal attorney Scott J. Tepper stated during phone conference to Judge Wingate in MS, in Taitz et al v Democratic Party, Obama, Pelosi, Onaka, Fussy [sic], Astrue that he reads Taitz website daily. Taitz knew that if she is mistaken and there is a precedent stating that the Supreme Court judge of the state court cannot forward evidence of a crime to the federal Grand Jury, Obama’s attorneys will find this precedent and will post it on one of their blogs.
Orly’s draft letter to AL Supreme Court Justice Moore
When the law fails, it’s time for flattery [Warning: Link to Orly’s blog, click at your own risk]… In a draft letter to Judge Moore she ‘observes’ that
Orly: I read your brilliant analysis in McInnish v Chapman, a case relating to Barack Obama’s run for the U.S. President while using a fabricated birth certificate.
Orly insists, without much legal supporting evidence that under 18 USC 3332, any judge may forward information to a grand jury. In fact the only legal cases she does reference have no relevance to the issue, but are meant to remind Moore of what a Federal Judge did when he forced Moore to remove a religious statue.
What Orly, and others, may have failed to realize is that there are two statutes under which a grand jury may be convened and these grand juries are very different beasts.
Why Vogt failed and why SCOTUS will deny cert
Douglas Vogt sent a “notice of commission” to a Federal Judge in the state of Washington insisting that the judge affirms that Vogt had discharged his notice obligations under the Federal Misprision Statutes and that the Judge summons a Grand Jury to hear Vogt’s speculations about crimes that may have taken place with respect to President Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth.
The misprision statutes however require one to willfully conceal the knowledge and fail to be relevant to Vogt.
Vogt v USDC WA – Supreme Court
Douglas Vogt has filed a petition of writ of Certiorari with the US Supreme Court. Apparently unfamiliar with the role of the Supreme Court, Mr Vogt filed his writ and sealed affidavit, failing to recognize that there is only one issue before the Supreme Court: Did the lower Court err in its decision to reject Vogt’s request to bring the case to the attention of a Grand Jury.
The court found that
Nevertheless, Mr. Vogt fails to address any of the case authority cited by the court in its order to show cause indicating that (1) there is no private right of action under either 18 U.S.C. § 4 or 18 U.S.C. § 2382, (2) private parties generally lack standing to institute a federal criminal prosecution, and (3) private citizens or voters, such as Mr. Vogt, lack standing to challenge President Obama’s qualifications to hold office through the use of misprision of felony or misprision of treason statutes, or otherwise, because they have suffered no particularized injury.
Vogt ‘argues’ that
It is imperative that the United States Supreme Court hear Petitioner’s claim as soon as practicable. This Court’s expedited consideration of the petition for writ of certiorari is warranted in order to ensure that Vogt’s allegations related to the ineligibility of Barack Hussein Obama, II, to be President be promptly heard by the body Constitutionally designated and empowered to initially investigate and then determine that question, to wit, a Federal Grand Jury.
Vogt’s allegations are irrelevant to the Supreme Court
Filed at the U.S. Supreme Court on March 20th, 2014:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Douglas Vogt, Petitioner,
vs.
United States District Court, Western District of Washington, Respondent.Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington and the United States Circuit Court for the Ninth CircuitPetitioner’s Motions to: (i) Expedite and (ii) Seal Affidavit
Petitioner, Douglas Vogt, respectfully requests that this Court: (i) expedite its consideration of the petition for a writ of certiorari in this case and (ii) seal the attached affidavit of Douglas Vogt which demonstrates the forgery of the Certificate of Live Birth of Barack Hussein Obama.
Sharon – Obots discrediting Walt?
Sharon writes:
The Obots have watched and regularly written about Fitzpatrick’s blog posts in an attempt to discredit him as they have with Zullo’s investigation of the forgery.
Source: The Post Email
True, as to Zullo: I have shown how the facts do not line up with the fiction. So I would not call it a mere attempt, but rather a successful rebuttal. As to Walt, I leave the discrediting up to himself, I focus on exploring the validity of his claims, many of which I have found to be wanting.
Vogt – Affidavits submitted to Judges
[T]hree (3) federal judges have acknowledge receipt of Doug’s Affidavit. Two of them have forwarded the affidavit to their respective United States Attorneys. The third wrote back stating: “I was very impressed by the letter and attachments you sent to me. I do not dismiss the allegations you make as untrue.” The letter continued with the commitment to submit Doug’s affidavit to the Grand Jury for their consideration. So like a modern-day Diogenes, perhaps we have found one honest federal district court judge.
The letter, which is heavily redacted does not show how the statement was continued. Wake me up when the Judge has really forwarded the affidavit…
Vogt v U.S. Dist. Court – Well what can I say
Poor Vogt, even though the case was closed and no further filings will be entertained, he insists on trying again, with the same predictable outcome… Ah, those pro-se’s…
Petitioner has not demonstrated that this case warrants the intervention of this court by means of the extraordinary remedy of mandamus.See Bauman v. U.S. Dist. Court, 557 F.2d 650 (9th Cir. 1977). Accordingly, the petition is denied.No further filings will be entertained in this closed case
01/24/2014 6 0 Filed Petitioner Douglas Vogt motion to reconsider Panel order of the Court filed on 01/14/2014, captioned as petn for rhrg. No File . Served on 01/22/2014. [8951825] (CW)
Bauman explains
As we have observed, the writ “has traditionally been used in the federal courts only `to confine an inferior court to a lawful exercise of its prescribed jurisdiction or to compel it to exercise its authority when it is its duty to do so.
There is no duty identified which the lower Court has to exercise. But things get worse for Vogt:
1) The party seeking the writ has no other adequate means, such as a direct appeal, to attain the relief he or she desires.
While Vogt insists that he did not file a case in the lower Court, he either admits that he did file a case or he admits to not filing a case. In either instance, Vogt has adequate means to attain the relief he desires. But the standard of convincing the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal that the lower court erred is indeed an uphill battle.
(2) The petitioner will be damaged or prejudiced in a way not correctable on appeal.
There is no damage or prejudice to Vogt that really has any significance.
(3) The district court’s order is clearly erroneous as a matter of law(4) The district court’s order is an oft-repeated error, or manifests a persistent disregard of the federal rules.
Again, Vogt has failed to show this to be the case.
(5) The district court’s order raises new and important problems, or issues of law of first impression.
Again, nothing of the kind was raised. Vogt is ‘concerned’ about the eligibility of our President and believes that he has ‘evidence’ to support such claims. His beliefs, which are at odds with what is known, do not lead to issues of law of first impression or important problems.
The case is a simple case of subject matter jurisdiction:
Nevertheless, Mr. Vogt fails to address any of the case authority cited by the court in its order to show cause indicating that (1) there is no private right of action under either 18 U.S.C. § 4 or 18 U.S.C. § 2382, (2) private parties generally lack standing to institute a federal criminal prosecution, and (3) private citizens or voters, such as Mr. Vogt, lack standing to challenge President Obama’s qualifications to hold office through the use of misprision of felony or misprision of treason statutes, or otherwise, because they have suffered no particularized injury.
Simple, straightforward…
Orly totally clueless
Orly write on her site:
9th Circuit included Lindsey case in its’February 13th oral argument docket. In Lindsey the district court confirmed that a candidate who is not eligible should be thrown off the ballot, while in Grinols the same district ruled the opposite.This is flagrant discrimination and bias in favor of the establishment candidate Obama
Posted on | January 20, 2014 | No Comments
Both Lindsey case and my case Grinols et al v Electoral college, Obama, Congress, secretary of State of CA, Governor of CA are now before the 9th Circuit.In Lindsey the Eastern District of Ca confirmed decision of the Se of State to throw of the ballot Peta Lindsey who was not Constitutional y eligible, but the same District refused to take action against Obama, who is even less eligible than Lindsey. Lindsey might not be 355 y.o., but she at least has papers. Obama does not have any papers verifying his identification.
9th Circuit is in catch 22.
This is a clear discrimination.
Orly has no grasp of reality here, which is that the two cases are clearly distinguishable. But I doubt that Orly understands these subtleties of law. Any first year law student would have no trouble, explaining the differences between these to cases.
And no neither the Supreme Court nor the Interamerican court of Human rights will ever hear this foolish argument.
Has Orly really passed the California Bar, I wonder… She appears to have forgotten so many of the basic.s
WA – In Re: Vogt – Vogt wins a motion
On January 13, 2014, Vogt filed the following motion
01/13/2014 3 0 Filed Petitioner Douglas Vogt motion to expedite case. Served on 01/13/2014, not dated or signed. [8936535] (CW)
Vogt wrote:
COMES NOW Douglas Vogt (“Vogt”), and prays that this Honorable Court expedite consideration of the Petition for Writs of Mandamus in this matter which has now been pending for forty-one (41) days without resolution…It states the obvious to say that this is a case of the utmost national importance and urgency involving the Constitution’s most fundamental rights as exercised in the Nation’s most important election.It is imperative that this Honorable Court hear Petitioner’s claim as soon as practicable. This Court’s expedited consideration of the Petition for Writs of Mandamus is warranted in order to ensure that Petitioner’s constitutional right to (i) an Article I, [] President and (ii) access a Grand Jury is not irretrievably lost.
The Court immediately took action
01/14/2014 5 0 Filed order (STEPHEN S. TROTT, RICHARD A. PAEZ and CARLOS T. BEA) Petitioner has not demonstrated that this case warrants the intervention of this court by means of the extraordinary remedy of mandamus. See Bauman v. U.S. Dist. Court, 557 F.2d 650 (9th Cir. 1977). Accordingly, the petition is denied. No further filings will be entertained in this closed case. DENIED. [8937972] (BJB)
Denied…. Sometimes even a birther “wins” in court.
MD – Taitz v Colvin – Orly pretty confused
Orly has been making some pretty outrageous claims about the Maryland case. The Defendant is asking for additional time because the attorney on the case is retiring. Orly immediately raises the rhetoric but fails to understand the Judge’s past ruling
01/13/2014 22 MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to the Second Amended Complaint by Carolyn Colvin Responses due by 1/30/2014 (Loucks, Allen) (Entered: 01/13/2014)
Orly ‘claims’ that
Department of Justice [sic] is asking Judge Hollander for additional time yet again to make up a third story about the fraud of the century. See pleadings below. When one tells the truth, it is the same story all the time. When one lies, he has to make up new stories every time he is caught in another lie.
All the Department of Justice did was to ask for additional time to respond to Orly’s claim that the search was incomplete. There is no new story, there are no lies.
It was proven time and again that the Social Security administration is hiding the application for a Social Security number REDACTED, which was assigned to Harry Bounel and later fraudulently used by Obama.
Orly’s poor reading abilities may have caused her to believe that there is such an application but the facts so far show that there are no such records found. Orly is accusing the Justice Department of lying but all she has is a failed understanding of what was found.
Obama failed E-verify and SSNVS and was rejected by the Obamacare, as they also could not verify his identy.
From this Orly jumps to a conclusion that somehow Obama is using someone else’s SSN, even though there is no supporting evidence. The failure in e-verify never suggested that President Obama was not using valid SSN.
Now a new attorney was brought to handle this case and he is telling the judge that they will submit a third version of the story.
That is not what the motion states.
Current attorney was an acting US Attorney for Maryland with a staff of 70 attorneys and 70 support staff. They want additional time until February 7. These people should be fighting the fraud in the White House, instead all of these resources are used to fight one civil rights attorney,
who is trying to restore the sanity, rule of law in the White House and stop usurpation of the presidency.
Orly may believe that she is a ‘civil rights’ attorney or trying to restore sanity and rule of law, but there is not much to support her position here.
So far Judge Ellen Hollander was the only judge (federal or state) who showed some decency and integrity and common sense and denied the prior motion to dismiss by the Feds
No Orly, she denied your motion for summary judgment and approved the motion to dismiss. Hint: Plaintiff is Orly, defendant is the acting Commissioner of Social Security.
12/13/2013 19 ORDER granting Defendant’s 7 Motion to Dismiss without prejudice and with leave to amend; denying Plaintiff’s 9 Motion for Summary Judgment without prejudice; setting deadline for Plaintiff to file a second amended complaint. Signed by Judge Ellen L. Hollander on 12/13/13. (dass, Deputy Clerk) (c/m 12/16/13) (Entered: 12/16/2013)
How clueless can one be? And really, who is “lying” here? A fascinating mindset, to say the least.
Orly’s reading abilities are quite poor, her legal successes are of similar quality and quantity.
The Court explained in its ruling in details, the failures by Orly
One of her biggest failures is the flawed belief that President Obama’s SSN was stolen and that it belonged to Harrison J Bounel.
So be prepared for months of more entertainment.
Taitz in Mississippi Burning Part 6
Orly managed to have her case removed to the Federal Circuit after she filed an attempted RICO suit. Of course, now she is on the hook to actually file a RICO statement
04/25/2012 2 RICO Notice – The Plaintiffs shall file within twenty (20) days a RICO case statement. This statement shall include the facts the Plaintiff is relying upon to initiate this RICO complaint as a result of the “reasonable inquiry” required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. (ND) (Entered: 04/25/2012)
The other defendant is quick to move as well and both parties file their answers to the first amended complaint.
Taitz in Mississippi Burning Part 5
Orly, perhaps unaware of what she will set in motion, files a first amended complaint on April 19, 2012
She continues to ask for declaratory and injunctive relief and adds triple damages for RICO…
She adds Brian Fedorka, Leah Lax, Laurie Roth and Tom MacLaren as plaintiffs and extends the list of plaintiffs to include President Obama, “Obama for America”, Loretta Fuddy, Alvin Onaka, Michael Astrue (Commissioner of Social Security), Nanci Pelosi (chair of the National Democratic Party nominating convention) and many John and Jane Does.
In typical Orly-esque fashion she still does not file a RICO statement. She now has tripped the legal trap that she had set herself…
5 days after Orly set in motion the clock, the Secretary of State of Mississippi files a removal notice with the US District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. By adding RICO, Orly has opened up a pandora box as the defendants now have the opportunity to remove the case from State Court to Federal Court. Let the fun times begin…
04/24/2012 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL by Secretary of State of Mississippi from Circuit Court of Hinds County, Ms, case number 251-12-107 CIV. (Filing fee $ 350 receipt number 34643015410)Pursuant to Rule L.U.Civ.R. 5(b): within 14 days removing party must electronically file the entire state court record as a single filing; and all parties shall, within fourteen days after the Case Management Conference, file as separate docket items any unresolved motions that were filed in state court which they wish to advance. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A – First Amended Complaint, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet)(ND) (Entered: 04/25/2012)
Orly ‘Despicable Me’
Orly still cannot read
Judge Oki-Mollway orders to file a new claim with a new filing fee of $400.
She did not order you to do so, but rather rejected your attempt to change the nature of your original filing. There is no hope for your new complaint.
Taitz in Mississippi Burning Part 4
In Part 1-3, we described Orly’s struggles to get the case properly set in motion. Finally, the Judge issues an order for a hearing.
On March 26, 2012, Judge Coleman issues an order setting a hearing for April 16, 2012
On or around March 27, 2012, Orly sends a letter to Zullo and to Arpaio, claiming that this is a notice to appear as a witness at the April 16, 2012 hearing. Orly makes no attempt to get the court to issue an order or properly file the required documents that could have been used. So, it should not come as a surprise that neither one showed any interests.
On March 30, 2012, the Democratic Party of MS submits an application for admission of counsel pro hac vice for Scott J. Tepper. Mr Tepper is well versed in Orly’s methods and arguments. It’s fascinating to see Mr Begley understands how to properly file for an admission Pro Hac Vice.
Taitz in Mississippi Burning Part 3
In part 1 and 2 we learned how Orly’s decision to file a RICO complained played directly into the cards of the defendants.
Begley and Tepper are quick to go for the jugular and file a motion in limine asking the court to allow them to cross examine Orly about her financial dealings since it is against the law in Mississippi for someone to be involved in champerty, maintenance and barratry, making it a crime to solicit, request or donate any money or other things of value or any other assistance, as an inducement to any person to commence or prosecute any proceedings in a MS court. Furthermore, they observe that a plaintiff in MS may not frivolously file cases when such issues have already denied such claims, especially against the party. In Orly’s case there is sufficient precedent, created by herself, that places her in the middle of sanction territory.
Taitz in Mississippi Burning Part 2
In part 1 we explored Taitz’s early failures in filing for summons, as well as perfecting service. We now arrive at March 7, 2012 when the Democrat (sic) Party of MS files a motion to dismiss and a motion for sanctions.
1. Orly is not a qualified elector of the State of MS and thus lacks standing.
2. Orly lacks general standing
3. President Obama is a natural born citizen
4. The SOS of MS nor the Democrat Party have a statutory duty to determine candidate qualifications
5. State courts lack jurisdiction over presidential candidates
6. Complaint is time-barred under the election code. She filed her petition with the Democratic Party on Jan 8, 2012 and should have filed it within 10 days after the qualification deadline which was Jan 14, 2012. The Democratic Party then has 10 days to rule on the petition and Orly has 15 days to file a complaint with the court. Orly did not file her petition until Feb 14, outside the 15 day window.
7. The court should award sanctions against Orly under 11-55-5 and Rule 1 of the MS Rules of Civil Procedure.
Taitz in Mississippi Burning Part 1
The title references the movie Mississippi Burning which describes the disappearance of civil right workers in Mississippi. In this case, I use it to describe the disappearance of Orly’s MS State Court filing into the Federal system because of her legal failures and the evolution of the Federal case in which Orly desperately tries to file a RICO case, properly serve the parties and is now facing various possible avenues of sanctions. It’s a sordid story of failures.
So let’s start with the State Case which was filed in Miss. Hinds Cty. Cir. Ct. on Feb. 14, 2012. Orly, as the sole plaintiff, filed a petition for injunctive and declaratory against the Democrat (sic) Party and the Secretary of State relief to have President Obama be removed as a presidential candidate from the Mississippi Ballot because of fraud and to have the court declare President Obama ineligible.
Native and Natural Born Citizenship Explored 