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.  (CW)
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.