Main Menu

Archive | Supreme Court

Klayman files appeal of obscure ruling on Alabama law to the US Supreme Court

Late as usual

In a move that left Obots open-mouthed with incomprehension, birther attorney Larry Klayman (who has never been convicted of criminal failure to pay child support), started the process of appealing his loss in McInnish v. Chapman to the US Supreme Court on June 19, reports the Supreme Court docket. Klayman moved for more time to submit his appeal. Perhaps he is hoping to get some momentum by a favorable ruling.

The McInnish case dealt with an obscure provision of Alabama law, called the “jurisdiction stripping statute,” that prevents Alabama courts from getting involved in the conduct of elections. McInnish wanted to force the Alabama Secretary of State to investigate the eligibility of presidential candidates as a duty of office. Klayman lost the case before the Alabama Supreme Court last March on a 7-2 vote, Chief Justice Roy Moore and Tom Parker dissenting.

Klayman’s timing of this request for an extension is odd. An appeal must be filed within 60 days of the judgment (28 U.S. Code § 2101) and Klayman’s motion for more time (which the statute permits) was filed precisely on the 60th day; however, the rules of the Supreme Court require that the request for an extension be filed 10 days before the deadline. Supreme Court Rule 13 (5) states:

For good cause, a Justice may extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari for a period not exceeding 60 days. An application to extend the time to file shall set out the basis for jurisdiction in this Court, identify the judgment sought to be reviewed, include a copy of the opinion and any order respecting rehearing, and set out specific reasons why an extension of time is justified. The application must be filed with the Clerk at least 10 days before the date the petition is due, except in extraordinary circumstances. The application must clearly identify each party for whom an extension is being sought, as any extension that might be granted would apply solely to the party or parties named in the application. For the time and manner of presenting the application, see Rules 21, 22, 30, and 33.2. An application to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari is not favored.

The request for an extension was not even docketed until June 25, long after the deadline. I don’t even know if it is possible for a Justice to grant an extension after the deadline has expired, and if that’s true then the extension must have been granted on the 19th, or not at all; the Supreme Court docket indicates no extension granted. It is hard to fathom a reason for this case to be considered  having "extraordinary circumstances." Klayman could have filed the request for an extension any time he wanted to. There’s certainly no new evidence in the interpretation of the Alabama jurisdiction stripping statute. The election, which is the subject of the case, is long over, making anything to do with that particular election moot.

Read more:

Paige and Vogt fail at the Supreme Court

Folks reading comments here already know that the Supreme Court published decisions today: H. Brooke Paige and Douglas Vogt came up losers. The Supreme Court will not take up their cases.

If you want to read more, check out RC’s article, “It’s a twofer at the Supreme Court.”

Breaking news: Dr. Conspiracy named as birth certificate forgery conspirator

Foggy just called to tell me that I have been named by Douglas Vogt as part of the Obama birth certificate forgery ring. What a hoot!

I don’t know nothin’ ’bout forgin’ no birth certificates!

– Dr. Conspiracy

The birther reporter at Newsblaze, Randy Foreman, according to Birther Report, obtained a copy of Douglas Vogt’s previous sealed affidavit most recently filed with the Supreme Court not under seal, and it names the forgers of Obama’s birth certificate. The images appear to have come from the court document itself. The affidavit names as forgers:

  • Miki Booth (not mentioned in the Birther Report article)
  • Johanna Ah’Nee
  • Kevin Davidson (me)
  • Loretta Fuddy
  • Alvin Onaka

I guess it’s natural that someone like Vogt with no forensic document examination experience would name forgers with no forgery experience. :roll:

Johanna Ah’Nee is a person born the same month as Barack Obama, who (foolishly, in my opinion) provided copies of her birth certificate through birther Miki Booth (who also had a son born in Hawaii and published a certificate) to Orly Taitz and Jerome Corsi. Corsi and Taitz both published copies in various stages of redaction, proving among other things that Mike Zullo lied about penciled race codes on Obama’s certificate, and that birthers in general were wrong about how certificates were numbered in Hawaii in 1961. Rather than make his theories fit the evidence, Vogt made the evidence fit his theories by declaring most of the August 1961 Hawaiian birth certificates including that of Booth and Ah’Nee to be forgeries. Vogt, unable to keep it in his pants under his hat, gave enough clues on birther talk radio, that it became obvious that innocent bystander Ah’Nee was his forger.

Both Fuddy (former Director of Health for the Hawaii Department of Health) and Onaka (Registrar of Vital records for the Hawaii Department of Health) were natural candidates for Vogt’s fantasies, since they verified and certified Obama’s own certificate.

I got tagged as the one who “did the research,” which is pretty silly when you think about it, since Dr. Onaka knows a thousand times more about a Hawaiian birth certificate than I do, since he has them all at his fingertips. I know something about birth certificates, having worked in the field almost all of my professional career, but I don’t have specialized knowledge about certificates in Hawaii, and could provide no help to any putative forgers of one. Absurd as it is, I predicted being named John Doe #8 last October, writing:

I wondered whether or not I could be one of the John Does in the complaint, and the best fit I could come up with is John Doe #8…

Vogt makes the claim that I agree with his certificate numbering scheme in one of my articles, where I said:

To forge Obama’s birth certificate, it would be necessary to create a fake certificate in early August of 1961, filled out to look like it came from Kapi’olani Hospital, with a fake signature from Dr. Sinclair (or an authentic one if he were the forger). Once inserted into the work flow at the State Department of Health, the certificate would have been registered, numbered, filed and reported to the newspapers just like certificates for all the rest born that month.

Vogt reads something into that statement that I never intended, that the list of work flow elements were listed in the order performed.

In another flight of fancy, Vogt writes:

After looking at [Dr. Conspiracy's] articles and other obots (stands for “Obama Robots”) who post comments on his web site, it was obvious to me, that his web site was part of the disinformation program orchestrated by the White House through Jim Johnson a supporter of Obama and former head of Fannie Mae. [footnote to WorldNetDaily]

Predictably, Vogt zeroes in on my 2009 reconstruction of Obama’s long form and can’t figure out why I would have made such a think. Vogt, usually so very imaginative, couldn’t guess that I was using a graphic format to present the known information about what would be round on the Obama certificate, should it ever be released. Vogt makes a big point that the “06” number in my reconstructed certificate is just like the off-baseline number in real certificates from that month, oblivious to the fact that I was just following the published Nordyke certificate, which I listed as one of my sources in the article. Vogt says that the available Nordyke certificate was too poor in quality for me to have gotten the information that way, but the Nordyke image linked in the article clearly shows the offset. Vogt notes that my 2009 reconstruction was updated in 2010, and wonders why. The answer is that I made a number of incremental improvements in the reconstruction as I learned stuff or decided things. The oldest version is found on the Wayback Machine and the newest version here. The specific changes were:

  1. Increasing the font size of the word “African” in Box 9
  2. Adding “Stanley Ann D. Obama” signature to Box 18a
  3. Changed placement and font size of “Wichita, Kansas” in block 16

imageVogt in the available portions of the affidavit, repeats nonsense previously debunked by me (here and here) and by Frank Arduini. I hesitate to say this, but Douglas Vogt is a pretty dim bulb.

Miki Booth agrees, according to this comment at Birther Report:

doug vogt is a f***ing idiot!! He’s gonna get his ass sued. My friend Johanna had nothing to do with this except to give her birth certificate to me to give to Dr. Corsi and Mike Zullo. vogt was jealous not being privy to the investigation and figured we were hiding something because we wouldn’t share with him.

Forensically speaking

I was reading Douglas Vogt’s petition to the Supreme Court and noticed this sentence (presumably ghost-written by Montgomery Blair Sibley).

Attached to the Notice of Commission was Vogt’s publicly-available, 95 page affidavit in which he demonstrated forensically the existence of twenty (20) separate points of forgery in the Certificate of Live Birth (“COLB”) of Barack Hussein Obama, II (“Obama”).

Forensics is a science, the scientific method of gathering and examining information about the past, a discipline that to my knowledge Vogt has never practiced nor received training in. Vogt’s affidavit doesn’t cite any published works on forensic science, nor does he allude to having any background whatsoever in questioned document examination. He is a self-made expert. Indeed Vogt expresses disdain for the forensic certification, characterizing it as meaningless at Birther Report:

Paul Irey and myself have over 83 years experience in the graphics/type and scanner business. A forensic document examiner takes a course over the internet, pays $800 and 98% of them pass and get the certificate. I had to send my chapter on evidence of computer manipulation to the Arizona Sheriffs office who sent it to Reed Hayes so he would learn more about Photoshop and how Adobe created the JBIG2 compression layer. He did not know it. He is a hand writing expert and worse yet he only worked from the PDF copy that there was no chain of custody. He is NOT an expert on type and what Paul and I covered in my affidavits.

It serves Vogt’s purpose to make sweeping generalized aspersions about document examiners and their qualifications, because Vogt himself has no such qualifications. It is true that there are forensic certification diploma mills, but the organization certifying Reed Hayes is not one of them, nor is the American Board of Forensic Document Examiners that requires, for example, an undergraduate degree plus two years of full-time training at an accredited forensic laboratory and current employment in the field, and in order to apply to take oral, written and practical certification tests, must provide references from three certified examiners. In short, Douglas Vogt could not become ABFDE certified.

Vogt himself seems to have been completely unaware of JBIG2 compression until the anti-birthers told him about it (it is completely absent from his earlier reports) and he certainly has no “chain of custody” associated with his puttering around. Given that Obama’s birth certificate appears to the first document Vogt has ever examined “forensically,” I would think it fair to call him a “beginner” rather than an “expert.”

The reason that Vogt is not an expert, and the reason he is not qualified to make the claims he does is:

  • Vogt uses no recognized methodology: he makes it up as he goes along
  • Vogt cites no recognized authority
  • Vogt doesn’t look at evidence objectively, discarding, for example, any published birth certificate that contradicts his numbering theories
  • Vogt freely misrepresents regulations and statutes to try to prove false statements.
  • Vogt has no prior experience in examining forgeries.
  • Vogt has never even taken so much as a single course in forensic document science.

Judge Malihi, an administrative law judge in Georgia, summed it up in his decision in the case of Farrar v. Obama, speaking of Douglas Vogt and Felicito Papa:

neither witness was properly qualified or tendered as an expert in birth records, forged documents or document manipulation

As for Paul Irey, he said that he was certain Obama’s birth certificate was fake before he looked at and was just trying to justify that belief–he lacks scientific objectivity. Here’s a section from the transcript of Irey’s appearance on Reality Check Radio:

Irey: … I started to study it, knowing it had to be a forgery, and just looking for what I could find.
Foggy: You knew it was a forgery before you started studying it?…
Irey: Yes, yes. I knew it was a forgery.
Foggy: How’d you know that?
Irey: I had information from a government worker who had a friend at one of the agencies who come back to me after we had a big debate during the time Obama had been, uh, announced for office [inaudible] legitimacy, where’s the birth certificate? We were talking about that way back when, and he debated with me. Went down to his agency and advised me that, uh, that I was right basically. That there was no birth certificate in the records. But his agency was not going to, uh, do anything about it more or less. So I kind of went in with his background. It sort of converted his attitude. I could tell how his attitude changed after that, because he was no longer supporting Obama. I was supporting Colin Powell….
Foggy: I’m not asking you to identify the guy, but can you tell us like what agency? Was it an intelligency agency? I mean can you give us a hint?
Irey: Yes, I can. It was the Secret Service.
Foggy: OK
Irey: As you know, the Secret Service is, one of their responsibilities is to vet. …

Of course, the Secret Service doesn’t vet presidential candidates, and there is no reason that they would have a birth certificate in their files for any of them.

Irey’s analysis consists primarily of blown up copies of typewritten text. Irey claims 57 years experience in typesetting, but nothing in his report is about typesetting; it is about typewriters, and Irey describes his typewriter experience as: I’m also four years experience in typing with a typewriter (Taitz v. Elections Commission testimony). Irey also says that he used Photoshop from the beginning, but the best Irey could hope to  do with such expertise would be to show that the White House PDF could have been created by Photoshop, not that it wasn’t created by something else, like a Xerox WorkCentre 7655. (I should add that no birther has ever produced a fake birth certificate using Photoshop that has all of the characteristics of Obama’s certificate.) Irey has no experience with the electronic format of a PDF so as to find any unique signature of Photoshop.

Vogt’s Supreme Court petition will be denied.

High-class judge shopping

Funny how quickly yesterday’s big story fades. I gave quite a lot of attention to an action Douglas Vogt filed in Seattle federal court, trying to force a judge to empanel a grand jury and let Vogt present his unqualified image analysis to it. It was pretty exciting with it’s sealed affidavit and bread crumbs left all over Internet radio leading to his mystery Jane Doe forger of Obama’s birth certificate. In the end, it didn’t work. The judge dismissed whatever it was.

Vogt and his “not an attorney anymore” associate Montgomery Blair Sibley (Sibley left his name in document metadata)  appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for a Writ of Mandamus to force the court in Seattle to give him his grand jury. That was denied January 14, and the case closed. (Vogt filed a motion to reconsider in January 24).

Undaunted Vogt started mailing his big package-o-papers to 175 federal judges asking them for a grand jury. That’s some judge shopping list. Vogt tried to drum up excitement by publishing the heavily-redacted reply from one judge that he took to be favorable, but nothing must have come of it because…

Having failed with everything so far, Vogt is taking the ultimate step of going before the US Supreme Court (although his motion for reconsideration is still pending before the 9th Circuit), says Vogt in a letter to the Post & Email blog. In the copyrighted letter, dated today, Vogt asks for money, $800, to defray the cost of printing 40 copies and the filing fee. Is it just me, or is it weird that a successful businessman who owns a photocopier company is asking for money to make copies? OK, I expect there are special printing requirements and maybe it makes sense to let a professional in Supreme Court filings do the work, but $800 is not all that much money for big-time executives.

The Vogt Press Release says: “Douglas Vogt will be lodging with the United States Supreme Court this month the compelling forensic evidence contained in his 95 page public and 75 page sealed affidavits.” I don’t think Supreme Court Rules are going to let him submit 170 pages—not even close, but then I wonder if the Supreme Court ever got a petition like this one before.

In his begging letter Vogt mentions, but does not explain, some urgency in getting this to the Supreme Court now because 9th Circuit delays were making were going to make it too late to file with the Supreme Court. This presumably refers to his motion for reconsideration, so far still pending. There is a limited time (90 days) after denial by the circuit during which an appeal to the Supreme Court may be filed.

This all seems silly to me unless it’s a publicity stunt for Vogt’s upcoming book, “From Forgery to Treason.” Folks who donate $25 towards his expenses will get an autographed copy of the Supreme Court filing, but alas no book. Vogt has clearly gone around the bend describing the 9th Circuit as afraid of his case.

Read more:

Apuzzo submits SCOTUS appeal in Paige case

A document has surfaced on the Internet which appears to be a petition for writ of certiorari to the US Supreme Court in the case of H. Brooke Paige v. James Condos, Vermont Secretary of State. In this case Paige, with some assistance from Mr. Apuzzo, argued that US Presidents must have US citizen parents. The lower court rejected that view, saying:

While the court has no doubt at this point that Emmerich de Vattel’s treatise The Law of Nations was a work of significant value to the founding fathers, the court does not conclude that his phrase–”The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”–has constitutional significance or that his use of “parents” in the plural has particular significance. This far, no judicial decision has adopted such logic in connection with this or any related issues. In fact, the most comprehensive decision on the topic, Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana, examines the historical basis of the use of the phrase, including the English common law in effect at the time of independence, and concludes that the expression “natural born Citizen” is not dependent on the nationality of the parents but reflects the status of a person born into citizenship instead of having citizenship subsequently bestowed. The distinction is eminently logical.

I wrote why the Supreme Court is unlikely to grant cert in my article: “Why the US Supreme Court will not hear the Paige case,” so I won’t repeat that discussion here.

At this point, a search of the Supreme Court docket does not show the case, nor is there a case number on the petition document uploaded 7 hours ago. Nothing at Apuzzo’s blog yet. Paige writes on his Constitutional Reset blog that the petition was filed yesterday (March 6).

Read more:

333333 44444
5555555
6666666