I’m still waiting to find one honest birther
Douglas Vogt filed something with the US District Court in Seattle, trying to force the judge to refer Vogt’s birther allegations to a grand jury. The Court responded that a civil lawsuit cannot be used to initiate a criminal case. The Court of Appeals agreed. Birthers have failed in every one of their more than 200 legal actions, and sometimes they (including Vogt) blame the judge, rather than their own ineptitude, and lack of a valid legal claim. It is the nature of a crackpot to disrespect authority (or else they wouldn’t be crackpots in the first place).
Federal judges can refer matters to a grand jury for investigation, and I along with others wondered why Vogt didn’t just write the judge a letter rather than waste the resources of the Court by filing it formally. What I did not envision was what happened next: Vogt sent letters and 170 pages of crackpot forensic document stuff to 175 federal judges (their original list had 625)!
My reaction to the results is “the glass is mostly empty” as only 3 judges even bothered to reply, two of whom said they would pass the documentation on to the US Attorney, who normally runs federal grand juries. One judge, however, reportedly responded with something that put some birther hearts all aflutter:
“I was very impressed by the letter and attachments you sent to me. I do not dismiss the allegations you make as untrue.”
One of my pet peeves with US English grammar is the placement of the period in relation to quotation marks: The period always goes inside and so we do not know whether there is a period in the original at that point or not. Here’s the redacted image from Montgomery Blair Sibley, Vogt’s legal ghost writer (Sibley was disbarred and cannot actually represent Vogt):
I don’t think there is a period in the original, and that the second sentence extends beyond the word “untrue” and if so, I would expect a well crafted sentence to either continue in the same tone emphasizing what precedes, or to change direction with a word such as “but.” The redacted portion is unlikely to be supportive, or Vogt/Sibley would not have redacted it. Sibley paraphrases the rest: “The letter continued with the commitment to submit Doug’s affidavit to the Grand Jury for their consideration.” I speculate that the judge has added some additional conditions, such as consulting with the US Attorney, before making a submission to a grand jury, and that’s why there is a redaction.
One of the things I have learned about people lying is that they seldom rely on just their word when that should be enough, but they have to add something to make what they are saying plausible.1 In this case, the quotation from the judge was not enough—Sibley had to present an image of the letter from the judge, albeit bereft of any identifying information or signature, to add plausibility. The letter itself, since it would be trivial to fake, actually adds nothing to the believability of the claim, but apparently Sibley felt something was needed, even though the redaction stands out as a red flag that something is not quite right.
The reader might want to read the entire Sibley article including his fantasy scenario of leading a grand jury with no US Attorney at the helm. Well “good luck” with that.
Some birthers, however, noticed that the redactions didn’t make sense:
Orly Taitz: … this letter maybe a total nothing. the judge might be saying: you wrote a nice letter, but I have no jurisdiction or go to the DA. If there is such a letter, why hide it? It can be used as a precedent to seek jurisdiction in other courts. Until we see an actual letter, it is nothing
An anonymous commenter at Birther Report put it more bluntly:
Guest: This letter, heavily redacted-and in mid-sentence, no less, is proof of absolutely nothing. I am tired of being promised action by these assholes, and nothing EVER happens. No, that isn’t entirely correct: we get our hopes built up by these “experts” with snippets and scraps of incomplete information, and then it just fades away into oblivion. Montgomery Sibley is yanking our collective chains and the “Good Luck!” at the end of the letter certainly doesn’t sound like a concerned District Court Judge about to send damning evidence of the “President’s” Constitutional eligibility to a Grand Jury, now does it? C’mon you ******* morons, use your brains, or at least what’s left of them.
- “Judge shopping” – Obama Conspiracy Theories
- Sharon Meroni petitions court to testify before county grand jury