Main Menu

Archive | Supreme Court

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:

Why the US Supreme Court will not hear the Paige case

The reason is quite simple, and it comes from the Hon. John A. Gibney, Jr.  United States District Judge for the Eastern District for Virginia, writing in his decision in Tisdale v. Obama:

It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.

I like to cite a long list of court decisions on the issue of Obama’s eligibility to refute the crank claims that US Presidents must always have citizen parents. I use the list because it’s impressive, but there’s something more important than its length, and that is its uniformity. Judge Gibney says that the question is well settled, and that list of cases demonstrates that it is settled. All the courts that have ruled on the merits in all the states where Obama’s eligibility has been challenged on the basis of his father’s status have gone the same way.

The Supreme Court gets involved when there are differences between the circuits, or between state supreme courts or between federal and state courts. There are no differences on this issue; it’s settled. The US Supreme Court will not review it. That was a rough summary of Supreme Court Rule 10. Considerations Governing Review on Writ of Certiorari. There is one additional situation where the Supreme Court might review a decision:

(c) a state court or a United States court of appeals has decided an important question of federal law that has not been, but should be, settled by this Court, or has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with relevant decisions of this Court.

I suppose this where the birthers must hang their hopes; however, the essential issues were already decided by SCOTUS in 1898 in the case of US v. Wong and nothing in the more recent decisions conflicts with that. Birthers will say, of course, that the state decisions and the one federal decision are contrary to the Supreme Court’s decision in Minor v. Happersett, but that’s just because they don’t understand that case.

One might argue that the Supreme Court can hear any case it wants to. That’s true, but there have been several birther cases already that it could have heard if it wanted to weigh in on the issue. It didn’t.

Future news: Supreme Court rejects Taitz plea

In a tersely worded decision later today, the United States Supreme Court announced its decision to let stand the California electoral votes for Barack Obama. The Court failed to be persuaded by Taitz’ allegations of stolen social-security numbers and forged Selective Service applications, and they remained unmoved by Taitz’ threats of treason charges against them. The stay requested by Taitz in the case of Noonan v. Bowen was not granted, leaving Barack Obama securely in the position of President of the United States.

In a related story, the Court also announced that it had denied cert in the case of Sibley v. Obama.

Given that it’s a foregone conclusion, I thought I might as well write the article, and scoop the competition.

image

Birthers deny that the Supreme Court even saw the case, and don’t read their own orders.

Orly Taitz ~ U.S. Supreme Court Grants Expedited Decision On Obama Fraud For Tuesday February 19, 2013

Happy Presidents Day, by the way.

I got the title of this article from Twitter this morning. I’ve spent a little time replying to such things online, and what I say is that the only thing “decided” last Friday, and to be announced February 19, is whether the Supreme Court will grant a stay of the counting of votes in the 2012 Presidential Election in California.

pot of melted cheeseGiven that Bender’s time travel codes are as fictional as Taitz’s allegations of a stolen Obama social-security number, there is no way the Supreme Court can stay something that happened already: It would create a time paradox in which both the Obots and the birthers would meld into a vat of temporally overheated Cheese Whiz. Since Taitz hasn’t even filed a petition for the Supreme Court to hear the substance of her appeal, there is nothing for them to decide about “Obama fraud” even if they were inclined to do so; and even if she had filed a writ of certiorari, the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts, and all they would do in any case would to be to refer the case back to the original court for a trial.

Nevertheless, I have grown tired of trying to explain this to birthers, so I give up. The Supreme Court did indeed decide the question of social-security fraud in the case of Obama and they will announce their decision tomorrow, and if dismissed, that means that Orly Taitz’ entire pile of evidence is wrong, her theories are wrong, and the birthers have lost well and truly, let them forever hold their peace. Amen.

Taitz DC protest draws at least 9 people

Orly Taitz recounts the story [link to Taitz web site] of her protest at the Supreme Court yesterday, saying:

My supporters from Tennessee, Nevada, Pennsylvania, New York, California, Virginia, Maryland, New Jersey  and DC were there.

She never says how many, but this makes at least nine.

She also talked to clerks at the Supreme Court who refused to let her see the original signature where her petition was denied. She of course lets us know that they were African-American, and one looked Turkish.

Taitz called the protest a success. Here’s the video: