Douglas Vogt filed a petition in federal court in Seattle in attempt to notify the judge of a crime and to compel him to refer the matter to a grand jury. The case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Vogt complains that the case was mislabeled as a lawsuit, when it was a miscellaneous notification. The case is currently on appeal.
In digging back through old records on this site, I came across a similar case in the District of Columbia, Patriot’s Heart Network v. Soetoro from 2009, also presenting evidence and demanding referral to a grand jury. The complaint is some 185 pages in length, a veritable kitchen sink of birther theories. In a response, plaintiff Penny C. Kelso wrote:
… This petition is not a lawsuit between two adversaries where the petitioners are required to prove that certain, direct damage, injury or legal harm happened to them…
Pacer #09-442 is merely an attempt to inform (a petition, as you will) a public office holder, a judge, the Honorable Royce C. Lambreth (sic), specifically, about a probable cause of criminal activity by certain named defendants.
In dismissing this “Civil Miscellaneous Case,” Judge Lamberth wrote:
It follows, and the Supreme Court has repeatedly held, that an individual has no judicially cognizable interest in the criminal prosecution or non-prosecution of another person. See, e.g., Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973); see also Powell v. Katzenbach, 359 F.2d 234, 234-35 (D.C. Cir. 1965) (per curiam) ("[T]he question of whether and when prosecution to be instituted is within the discretion of the Attorney General."). Furthermore, this principle has been applied to hold that a party lacks standing to compel the impaneling of a grand jury. Brown v. U. S. Attorney’s Office, 53 Fed. App’x. 118, 118 (D.C. Cir. 2002). Since this is the precisely the relief that petitioners seek, they do not have standing. Accordingly, their petition is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.