Vogt is unhappy
The Honorable Judge Robart is attempting to dismiss Vogt’s filing under the grounds that the Courts “lack of subject matter jurisdiction” not because Vogt has standing or not.
Uh, the Judge already dismissed the filing. Vogt just failed to explain why the Court had subject matter jurisdiction as there is no private right under the misprision statutes, he is lacking standing and private citizens lack standing to initiate a criminal prosecution. The court had presented the relevant court cases which bind the court and Vogt had done little to rebut them.
Vogt does have standing because the two laws attach criminal liability if he don’t report the crimes.
That is incorrect. The law attaches criminal liability if he actively conceals. Worse, until a prosecutor decides to file charges, there is no real case. One cannot enforce a criminal case using civil charges.
The Judge is stating his court can’t deal with it because what was filled is not a criminal or civil case but rather a duty Congress has put on the court like when a Federal Judge swears in new citizens.
There is not even a duty for the Judge to bring the information in front of a grand jury.
Of course he does have the authority to deal with Vogt’s filing but he must be scared to venture in that direction and do his duty.
There is no foundation for the _of course_ claim. In fact, by failing to explain why the judge has a duty, Vogt has failed. Merely filing something in the hope that a Judge forwards it to a grand jury, is just not really a legal strategy, unless Vogt would want to file a case to force the judge to do so. And then he fails.
Of all the other Obama challenges and lawsuits this is the very first time a court has said it lacks subject matter jurisdiction.
I doubt that this is correct. Of course, lack of standing means lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Vogt’s ‘arguments’ get worse…
The Honorable Judge Robart continued to classify Douglas Vogt’s filing as a civil case so he could dismiss it. He still refuses to recognize the actual wording of the two laws Misprision of Felony and Misprision of Treason are not filing a criminal or civil case. It should have been classified as a miscellaneous filing and sent to a Grand Jury to investigate.
The actually wording includes ‘actively conceals’ and only requires that someone brings the information to the attention of the Court or another party and does not require said party to take any action on such information. It could have been classified as miscellaneous and filed, but the Court gave the pro-se the benefit of the doubt.
We will appeal his misguided decision before December 12, 2013. The cost for filing will be $455.00 and we are looking for contributions to cover this cost.
Cool, what a waste of good money as the appeal’s court will have no problems accepting the lower Court’s ruling as it is based on clear precedents.
There are two purposes for my filing. The first is to see that the two laws the founding fathers wrote namely Misprision of Felony and Treason could be used to force a Federal Judge to present the hard evidence to a Grand Jury.
Since the laws do not state that a judge has to bring the evidence to a Grand Jury, this is a losing proposition. Not to mention the fact that Vogt still incorrectly interprets the misprision statutes.
The second purpose was to see if we still had an independent judiciary that was not influenced or controlled by the executive branch of Government. We already knew that there was a very good chance the Seattle court would do what they did because it is a very liberal/socialist city.
Ah, the loser’s response: We lost because they were xxxx. Even though there is no evidence that the judiciary was influenced or controlled by the executive branch here. Remember that Judge Robart was appointed in 2004 under George W Bush and has quite an interesting set of rulings that undermine the ‘socialist/liberal’ city claims
Judge Robart has presided over several notable civil and criminal cases. His opinion in Simmonds v. Credit Suisse, construing the statute of limitations for Section 16(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, was reversed by the Ninth Circuit, but adopted by the United States Supreme Court in an 8-0 opinion. Judge Robart is the judge in United States v. City of Seattle, overseeing a consent decree involving an overhaul of Seattle Police Department practices and procedures. He also authored the first court opinion in the United States setting reasonable and nondiscriminatory (“RAND”) rates for standard essential patents.
In utter despair, Vogt then discusses one of the Judge’s cases in which he deal harshly with the way the government had dealt with the case of liabilities for killing a dog after having tasered it.
Perhaps his own case was more of a dead dog than the case involving a dead dog?