It’s just 46 shopping days until Christmas. Have you picked out that special federal judge for that special someone?
There have been over 200 lawsuits filed against Barack Obama’s eligibility to be President. Almost all have been lost. Just a few are still in the courts, and a few losses are still being appealed. Still it’s a pretty dismal picture. Some of the judges have distinguished themselves with pithy sayings like DC Federal District Judge James Robinson, memorably writing:
The issue of the President’s citizenship was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered, and otherwise massaged by America’s vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama’s two-year-campaign for the presidency, but this plaintiff wants it resolved by a court.
or the unforgettable reply to Orly Taitz from Judge Clay D. Land in Georgia (Rhodes v. MacDonald):
Unlike in Alice in Wonderland, simply saying something is so does not make it so
Others provide a mini legal education for those who choose to learn, like Judge R. Barclay Surrick’s scholarly explanation of standing in Berg v. Obama.
Judges have striven mightily to make sense of the tangled prose submitted by pro se birther plaintiffs and sometimes by their incompetent attorneys. They do our court system credit.
Most recently was the case of In Re: Douglas Vogt where Vogt filed a lawsuit to try to get a federal judge to convene a grand jury to investigate Barack Obama’s birth certificate, when the FBI and the US Attorney refused him. Seattle judge Robart has issued an order to show cause why he should not dismiss Vogt’s action, an order with no hint of sympathy for Vogt’s cause (sometimes a judge will suggest ways to fix a pleading, but not here). So we can expect within a month or so to see this thing dismissed.
So are we soon to be rid of Vogt’s gambit? Perhaps not. The legal brain (using the term loosely) behind the Vogt legal essay appears to be Montgomery Blair Sibley, a former attorney who has filed several birther cases on his own without success. Sibley, writing at Birther Report:
Thus there remains only 625 people – the judges of the federal district courts – that have the authority to call a Grand Jury to hear the allegations of Obama’s ineligibility. The first to receive that plea or – poetically, volley – in this, the last legal battle to be waged over Obama’s eligibility is Judge James L. Robart of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.
The key word there is “first,” implying that if one judge refuses, then there are plenty more to submit lengthy computer files of nonsense to. I think Vogt opens himself up to sanctions if he files the same thing over and over again in different courts. Word will get around what he and Sibley are trying to do.
Update: Vogt indeed suggests that he does intend to send his file to all of the judges. On his ObamaForgeryBook web site, he writes:
If the judge in Seattle does not act as he should we intend to mail the complaint to other Judges around the county until we find one Federal Judge that sees what Barack Obama is doing to the country and also wants to get him legally out of office before he destroys the country and turns it into a socialist hell. So if you can contribute to our ends please do so. It will cost $26 to mail the complete filing in color to a Federal Judge. There are over 600 Judges.
Since he does mention the $350 filing fee, it appears that these will not be filed as lawsuits.
Even if they found a judge who is, along with his staff, so technically incompetent as to think Vogt’s claims are worthy of investigation, there still remain two other insurmountable barriers. Sibley himself admits that no US Attorney is going to act on his claims, and without the consent of the US Attorney, a grand jury cannot issue an indictment and their internal deliberations are by law secret. Even if he convinced a grand jury, no one would ever know. And even if Sibley miraculously got the sign-off from a US Attorney, there is one more insurmountable hurdle: grand juries cannot indict the President while still in office. Impeachment is the only route, and that’s not going to happen either.
So given that the whole scenario is impossible, why do it? I guess it comes from the craving of all derided conspiracy theorists—to have their day in court and to be judged “not crazy.”