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.

Continue reading


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. :^o:^o:^o

9th Circuit is in catch 22. :lol: This is a clear discrimination. [-( I believe that this discrimination in 2 similar cases will reach both the supreme Court and the Interamerican court for Human rights. =))

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. :^o

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. :^o

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, [-X 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.

Continue reading