Reality Check has an interesting overview of Douglas Vogt’s strange case.
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,
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 Circuit
Petitioner’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.
On January 13, 2014, Vogt filed the following motion
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.
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.  (BJB)
Saturday, November 30, 2013
In Re: Douglas Vogt – Part III
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.)
Perhaps he meant prerogative although pejorative does appear to describe the petition much better imho.
Expect a simple denial in a few weeks. There is no foundation for an extraordinary writ of mandamus, and there is no support for criminal behavior on the part of the court, who merely gave Vogt the choice to either file a complaint or have his submission be ignored and filed under miscellaneous filings. Assuming that Vogt intended to file a miscellaneous case, he failed to provide sufficient reason as to why the case should have been filed as such. Regardless, the court would have found in either instance, that Vogt lacked standing and thus the suit would be dismissed.
If Riddle intended to simply file a miscellaneous case giving this type of notice, then there is nothing more for this court to do, and this case should be administratively terminated.
Riddle v. Internal Revenue Service, Dist. Court, D. Oregon 2004
The Court and the Clerk realized that the notice had no legal relevance unless Vogt were to file a real legal complaint, otherwise, it would be a document that it could ignore or decide to file as a miscellaneous filing and ignore it. In an effort to help the plaintiff, the clerk advised him to file the document appropriately. This was done in several cases relating to the American Grand Jury petitions.
Miscellaneous case numbers are normally assigned to a variety of matters filed with the court which are not considered a civil case. They are ancillary and supplementary proceedings not defined as a civil action. If the miscellaneous case is contested before a district judge, it then receives a civil case number. Miscellaneous cases could be directly or indirectly related to a case, such as an application to perpetuate testimony as defined in Rule 27, Fed.R.Civ.P., Etc. Miscellaneous actions require resolution through the judicial system.
- A filing fee is required.
- Filings in a miscellaneous case must follow the same guidelines set out in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and our Local Rules.
For the Federal Circuit of Western WA
Filing a Miscellaneous Action
the Clerk’s Office
In this court the Miscellaneous mantle covers a large variety of cases. All supplemental proceedings in a federal post judgment action, such as a garnishment or debtor exam, become a miscellaneous case.
To determine if a case is a miscellaneous matter.
- It is an action which does not qualify as a civil case, OR
- It is an action which requires the decision of a U.S. district court judge, or magistrate judge, such as disbursement of a deceased seaman’s personal effects or perpetuation of testimony.
Miscellaneous cases cannot be opened on CM/ECF by the attorney or pro se party. They must either be delivered to the courthouse in person, via mail, or electronically through our e-mail box for new case filings (firstname.lastname@example.org or email@example.com). Please be aware that some cases require certified copies for the court and may not be transmitted electronically. The filing fee for a miscellaneous action is $46.00.
The Clerk’s Office cannot tell you what documents you need to file for your case, but we will assist you in understanding the filing procedures. Some examples of miscellaneous actions are:
- Motion to Compel or Quash a Foreign Subpoena
- Applications for Writs of Garnishment
- Judgment Debtor Examinations
- Registrations of Foreign Judgments
- Notices of Receivership
Vogt, or rather his ghost writer Montgomery Blair Sibley (author of the PDF) has now petitioned the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal for a writ of mandamus. He insists that the court issues three writs of mandamus:
[Dr Conspiracy has a fascinating post as well]
(i) correct the docket in the District Court to accurately reflect the proceedings below, (ii) acknowledge Vogt’s discharge of his obligations under the Misprision statutes, and (iii) in so much as the “public interest so requires”, summon a grand jury to hear Vogt’s forensic evidence which demonstrates that the Certificates of Live Birth (“COLBs”) proffered by Barack Hussein Obama, II (“Obama”) to prove his eligibility to be President are indisputably forgeries.
Let me predict why they will fail again.
Jordan withdrew her case, now the docket reflects the situation. Another one bites the dust.
12-05-12 Order terminating Review – Filed
12-05-12 Decision Filed – Status Changed
01-31-13 Check case Information – Due