Saturday, March 22, 2014

- image credit: wikimedia -
Sneak Peek: Doc Expert Files Obama ID 
Fraud & Treason Case At US Supreme Court

Document expert Doug Vogt has taken his Obama ID fraud and treason case to the U.S. Supreme Court...

Filed at the U.S. Supreme Court on March 20th, 2014:


Douglas Vogt, Petitioner,
United States District Court, Western District of Washington, Respondent.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States District Court for the 
Western District of Washington and the United States Circuit Court for the Ninth Circuit

Petitioner’s Motions to: (i) Expedite and (ii) Seal Affidavit

Petitioner, Douglas Vogt, respectfully requests that this Court: (i) expedite its consideration of the petition for a writ of certiorari in this case and (ii) seal the attached affidavit of Douglas Vogt which demonstrates the forgery of the Certificate of Live Birth of Barack Hussein Obama.


It states the obvious to say that this is a case of the utmost national importance and urgency involving the Constitution’s most fundamental rights as exercised in the Nation’s most important election. It is imperative that the United States Supreme Court hear Petitioner’s claim as soon as practicable. This Court’s expedited consideration of the petition for writ of certiorari is warranted in order to ensure that Vogt’s allegations related to the ineligibility of Barack Hussein Obama, II, to be President be promptly heard by the body Constitutionally designated and empowered to initially investigate and then determine that question, to wit, a Federal Grand Jury.

Needless to say, if Vogt is correct, the implications are staggering. If Vogt is wrong, then the Grand Jury can make that informed determination and no harm has occurred save the minimal trouble occasioned by those public and private record custodians who would be compelled to promptly respond to the Grand Jury’s subpoenas duces tecum. Those subpoenas would seek solely to compel production of records related to Barack Hussein Obama, II from: (i) the Hawaiian Department of Health (ii) U.S. Center for Disease Control, Department of Vital Statistics, (iii) Occidental College, (iv) Columbia University, (v) Harvard Law School, (vi) the Social Security Administration, (vii) the Selective Service Administration, and (viii) the Law Firm of Perkins Coie.

Should this Court grant the petition for certiorari on an expedited basis, an expedited briefing schedule is necessary for the same reasons that warrant expedited consideration of the certiorari petition. This Court has previously granted expedited treatment of cases involving substantial questions of national importance. See, e.g., Dames & Moore v. Regan, 453 U.S. 654 (1981); United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974); Youngstown Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952); Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942). The importance of this case is at least equal to, if not greater than, those landmark decisions. The Presidency and the stability of our democratic process will be in dire jeopardy if this Court does not act soon.

Accordingly, Petitioner respectfully requests that Respondent – and any amicus curiae – should be directed to file responses to the Petition on an expedited basis. Likewise, if certiorari is granted, Petitioner respectfully requests that opening briefs of both parties, together with any amicus curiae briefs and any reply briefs should be set to be filed on an expedited basis.

For purposes of this motion, Petitioner waives the 10-day period provided for in this Court’s Rule 15.5 between the filing of a brief in opposition and the distribution of the petition and other materials to the Court. Should certiorari be granted, Petitioner is ready to prepare his merits brief on whatever schedule the Court deems appropriate in order to have the matter calendared, argued and decided this Term.

WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests that this Court expedite consideration of the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari and set an expedited schedule for briefing and argument.


Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 32, Vogt files two attached affidavits. First, an extensive Public Affidavit detailing the overwhelming forensic evidence pointing to the forgery of Barack Hussein Obama’s certificates of live birth (“COLBs”). Second a Sealed Affidavit which identifies the “John and Jane Does” who were involved in the creation of the forged COLBs and how they created their forgeries. Both documents are formed part of the evidence taken in the Courts below and thus are necessarily brought to this Court so a full and fair review may be had.

As to the Sealed Affidavit, Vogt respectfully requests this Court continue to keep that affidavit sealed from public view. Vogt acknowledges that there is a “strong presumption” against sealing documents that are filed in court proceedings. Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F. 3rd 1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995). That presumption may be overcome “only by an overriding right or interest based on findings that closure is essential to preserve higher values . . .” Oregonian Publishing Co. v. United States District Court (Oregon), 920 F2d 1462, 1465 (9th Cir. 1990).

Further, the party seeking to seal all or part of a document must articulate “compelling reasons” supported by specific factual findings. Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006). Accord: Publicker Indus., Inc. v. Cohen, 733 F.2d 1059, 1073 (3rd Cir. 1984)(The presumption of openness under the First Amendment is even stronger than the common-law presumption and can be overcome only by showing “an overriding interest based on findings that closure is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.”). Here, Vogt offers two “compelling reasons” to keep sealed his Sealed Affidavit.


The “secret” nature of the Grand Jury proceeding is well established. “We consistently have recognized that the proper functioning of our grand jury system depends upon the secrecy of grand jury proceedings.” Douglas Oil Co. of Cal. v. Petrol Stops Northwest, 441 U.S. 211 (1979). Here, Vogt’s sealed affidavit reveals the names of those involved in the preparation of Barack Hussein Obama’s forged COLB. To publicly reveal that information at this time would undermine the rationale for that secrecy. As detailed in Douglas Oil Co of Cal.:


Questions Presented For Review

Petitioner Douglas Vogt presented a “Notice of Commission” to U.S. District Court Judge Robart requesting: (i) acknowledgment that Vogt had discharged his “notice” obligations under the federal Misprision statutes, and (ii) that Judge Robart "summon" a Grand Jury to hear Vogt’s forensic evidence which demonstrated that the Certificate of Live Birth publicly proffered by Barack Hussein Obama, II, to prove his Constitutional eligibility to be President was indisputably a forgery.

In response, Judge Robart intentionally mischaracterized Vogt’s Notice of Commission as an Article III “case” or “controversy” complaint and then – ignoring Vogt’s requests – dismissed Vogt’s Notice of Commission for lack of Article III subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, presented for review are the following questions:

WHETHER, the mischaracterization by Judge Robart of Vogt’s Notice of Commission mandates this Court’s supervisory intervention to insure the “waters of justice are not polluted”. WHETHER, the “public interest” in the compelling evidence of the forgery of the Certificate of Live Birth of Barack Hussein Obama, II obligated Judge Robart to “summon” a Grand Jury.

WHETHER, the refusal by Judge Robart to summon a Grand Jury is a reviewable judicial act.