IN THE SUPREME COURTOF THE UNITED STATES

Douglas Vogt,

Petitioner,

vs.

United States District Court, Western District ofWashington at Seattle,

Respondent.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United StatesDistrict Court for the Western District of

Washington and the United States Circuit Court for the

Ninth Circuit

Petition for Writ of Certiorari

Douglas VogtPetitioner12819 S.E. 38th StreetSuite 115Bellevue, WA 98006425-643-1131

- i -

Questions Presented For Review

Petitioner Douglas Vogt presented a “Noticeof Commission” to U.S. District Court Judge Robartrequesting: (i) acknowledgment that Vogt haddischarged his “notice” obligations under the federalMisprision statutes, and (ii) that Judge Robart“summon” a Grand Jury to hear Vogt’s forensicevidence which demonstrated that the Certificate ofLive Birth publicly proffered by Barack HusseinObama, II, to prove his Constitutional eligibility tobe President was indisputably a forgery.

In response, Judge Robart intentionallymischaracterized Vogt’s Notice of Commission as anArticle III “case” or “controversy” complaint andthen – ignoring Vogt’s requests – dismissed Vogt’sNotice of Commission for lack of Article III subjectmatter jurisdiction. Accordingly, presented forreview are the following questions:

WHETHER, the mischaracterization byJudge Robart of Vogt’s Notice of Commissionmandates this Court’s supervisory intervention toinsure the “waters of justice are not polluted”.

WHETHER, the “public interest” in the compelling evidence of the forgery of the Certificateof Live Birth of Barack Hussein Obama, II obligatedJudge Robart to “summon” a Grand Jury.

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

- ii -

Table of Contents

Questions Presented for Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

Table of Authorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

Opinions below . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Statutes and Procedural Rules Involved . . . . . . . . 2

Statement of the Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Reasons for Granting the Writ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

I. Judge Robart Has Polluted The “Watersof Justice” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

II. Judge Robart Was Obligated to Summona Grand Jury . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

III. The Refusal of Judge Robart to Summona Grand Jury is Reviewable . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Contents of Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix-1

The November 14, 2013 order . . . Appendix-2

The January 14, 2014, order . . . . Appendix-5

- iii -

Table of Authorities

Cases

James B. Beam Distilling Co. v. Georgia, 501 U.S. 529(1991) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Bowen v. Michigan Academy of Family Physicians,476 U.S. 667 (1986) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264 (1821) . . . . . . . . . 8

District Court for the Southern District of WestVirginia, 238 F.2d 713 (4th Cir. 1956) . . . . . . . . . 13

Ex parte Merryman, 17 F. Cas. 144 (C.C.D. Md. 1861). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Frisbie v. United States, 157 U.S. 160 (1895) . . . 10

In re Texas Co., 201 F.2d 177 (D.C. Cir. 1952) . . 13

McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332 (1943) . . . 1

Mesarosh v. United States, 352 U.S. 1 (1956) . . 6, 8

Morris v. United States, 128 F.2d 912 (5th Cir. 1942). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Sibley v. Obama et al, Case No: 12-cv-001(D.C. Dist.Ct. 2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

- iv -

United States v. Dioniso, 410 U.S. 19 (1973) . . . . 11

U.S. v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36 (1992) . . . . . . . . . . 10

Other Authorities

Title 22 C.F.R. §50.10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

- 1 -

Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United StatesDistrict Court for the Western District of

Washington and the United States Circuit Court for the

Ninth Circuit

Douglas Vogt (“Vogt”) prays that a writ ofcertiorari issue to review the below described ordersof: (i) the United States District Court for the WesternDistrict of Washington and (ii) the United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Opinions Below

The November 14, 2013, Order of the DistrictCourt is attached to the Appendix hereto, Appendix-2.

The January 14, 2014, order of the CircuitCourt is attached to the Appendix hereto, Appendix-5.

Jurisdiction

The jurisdiction of this Court is first invokedunder this Court’s “supervisory jurisdiction over theproceedings of the federal courts”, McNabb v.United States, 318 U.S. 332 (1943) and 28 U.S.C.§2106 which obligates this Court to: “require suchfurther proceedings to be had as may be just underthe circumstances.”

The jurisdiction of this Court is additionallyinvoked under Article III and the Ninth and TenthAmendments to the United States Constitution and

- 2 -

28 U.S.C. §1254(1).

Jurisdiction of the Circuit Court was invokedpursuant to the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. §1651(a). Jurisdiction of the District Court was invokedpursuant to: (i) 18 U.S.C. §4 - Misprision of Felony,(ii) 18 U.S.C. §2382 - Misprision of Treason, and (iii)Federal Rules Criminal Procedure, Rule 6(a).

Statutes and Procedural Rules Involved

18 U.S.C. §4 – Misprision of Felony states:“Whoever, having knowledge of the actualcommission of a felony cognizable by a court of theUnited States, conceals and does not as soon aspossible make known the same to some judge orother person in civil or military authority under theUnited States, shall be fined not more than $ 500 orimprisoned not more than three years, or both.”

18 U.S.C. §2382 – Misprision of Treasonstates: “Whoever, owing allegiance to the UnitedStates and having knowledge of the commission ofany treason against them, conceals and does not, assoon as may be, disclose and make known the same .. . to some judge of the United States . . . is guilty ofmisprision of treason and shall be fined under thistitle or imprisoned not more than seven years, orboth.”

18 U.S.C. §3332(a) – Powers and Dutiesstates: “It shall be the duty of each such grand juryimpaneled within any judicial district to inquire into

- 3 -

offenses against the criminal laws of the UnitedStates alleged to have been committed within thatdistrict. Such alleged offenses may be brought to theattention of the grand jury by the court or by anyattorney appearing on behalf of the United Statesfor the presentation of evidence. Any such attorneyreceiving information concerning such an allegedoffense from any other person shall, if requested bysuch other person, inform the grand jury of suchalleged offense, the identity of such other person,and such attorney’s action or recommendation.”

Federal Rules Criminal Procedure, Rule 6(a)“When the public interest so requires, the courtmust order that one or more grand juries besummoned.” (Emphasis added).

Statement of the Case

After failing to get a response from the U.S.Attorney pursuant to a request to submit evidenceto the Grand Jury as required by 18 U.S.C. §3332,on October, 18, 2013, Vogt presented to the DistrictCourt Clerk for filing as a Miscellaneous matter adocument captioned “In Re: Douglas Vogt” andtitled: “Notice of Commission of (i) a FelonyCognizable by a Court of the United States asrequired by 18 U.S.C. §4 – Misprision of Felony and(ii) Treason against the United States as required by18 U.S.C. §2382 – Misprision of Treason and Motionto Seal Document” (“Notice of Commission”).

Attached to the Notice of Commission was

- 4 -

Vogt’s publicly-available, 95 page affidavit in whichhe demonstrated forensically the existence of twenty(20) separate points of forgery in the Certificate ofLive Birth (“COLB”) of Barack Hussein Obama, II(“Obama”). In addition to the 95 page affidavit,Vogt also filed under seal a 75 page affidavit inwhich he identified the person who forged Obama’sCOLB and circumstantially traced that forgerydirectly to Obama.

In the Notice of Commission, Vogt soughtinter alia from a federal district court judge: (i) anacknowledgment that Vogt had discharged hisobligations under the federal Misprision statutesand (ii) that given the obvious “public interest” inpreserving the integrity of the Office of thePresident from a pretender, the district courtsummon a Grand Jury to consider the public andsealed affidavits of Vogt.

Significantly, the District Court Clerk did notaccurately record the Notice of Commission on thedocket. Instead, the Clerk renamed the Notice ofCommission as a “Complaint against defendant(s)”. Additionally, though Vogt has not sought to sueanyone, the Clerk listed on the Docket asdefendants those individuals referenced in theNotice of Commission. The matter was thenassigned to United States District Court JudgeJames L. Robart.

On November 12, 2013, Vogt filed a pleadingwith Judge Robart in which Vogt explicitly stated:

- 5 -

Vogt sought not to: (i) file a complaint,(ii) invoke the jurisdiction of the Courtunder Article III to resolve a “case” or“controversy”, nor (iii) seek any reliefagainst Barack Hussein Obama, II. . . .Moreover, while Vogt did not caption hisNotice of Commission Vogt v. Obama,the Clerk – and now this Court – hasdone so. This misrepresentation of therecord calls into question whether therehas been a violation of 18 U.S.C.§2071(b) – Concealment, removal, ormutilation generally.

Finally, in the same filing, Vogt again prayedthat Judge Robart: “formally recognize that Vogthas discharged his duty under the Misprisionstatutes” and “due to the ‘public interest’ in theallegations contained in Vogt’s public affidavit andpresently-sealed affidavit, superintend thoseaffidavits to the Grand Jury for theirconsideration.”

Two days later, on November 14, 2013, JudgeRobart entered his “Order Dismissing Complaint forLack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction”. Appendix-2. Judge Robart commenced his order bydisingenuously claiming: “Before the court isPlaintiff Douglas Vogt’s complaint in which healleges that the certificates of live birth from theState of Hawaii that President Barack Obama haspublicly released are forgeries.”

- 6 -

On November 27, 2013, Vogt filed a Petitionfor Mandamus with the Ninth Circuit Court ofAppeal seeking three writs of mandamus directed toJudge Robart to: (i) correct the docket in theDistrict Court to accurately reflect the proceedingsbelow, (ii) acknowledge Vogt’s discharge of hisobligations under the Misprision statutes, and (iii)summon a Grand Jury to hear Vogt’s forensicevidence regarding Obama’s Certificate of LiveBirth.

On January 14, 2014, the Ninth Circuitentered its order denying Vogt’s Petition. Ignoringits duty to state its ratio decidendi, the NinthCircuit simply concluded Vogt: “has notdemonstrated that this case warrants theintervention of this court by means of theextraordinary remedy of mandamus.” Appendix-5.

Reasons for Granting the Writ

I. Judge Robart Has Polluted The“Waters of Justice”

The granting of this Writ is first compelled bythis Court’s supervisory jurisdiction recognized inMesarosh v. United States, 352 U.S. 1 (1956) whichrecognized the duty of this Court: “to see that thewaters of justice are not polluted.” Judge Robart’smischaracterization of Vogt’s Notice of Filing as anArticle III “complaint” is surely such a pollution ofthe “waters of justice” compelling this Court tointervene and correct.

- 7 -

The reason this “pollution” arose wasbecause Judge Robart sought to avoid theCongressionally-imposed duty impressed uponinferior Article III judges by the Misprision statutes. That duty is to receive notice of the: “actualcommission of a felony cognizable by a court of theUnited States . . .” By mischaracterizing Vogt’sNotice of Commission as a “complaint”, JudgeRobart abdicated that duty thereby allowing him toavoid his directly related Congressionally-imposedRule 6(a) duty to summon a Grand Jury

In an analogous context, Congress – outsidethe scope of any Article III responsibility – hasobligated district court judges at 8 U.S.C. §1448(a)to administer the “Oath of renunciation andallegiance” during naturalization proceedings. Indeed, upon administering such an Oath, a districtcourt is obligated to provide the oath-taker with acertificate attesting that the Oath was taken. See:Title 22 C.F.R. §50.10 “Certificate of nationality.” Congress has similarly obligated district courtjudges to receive notice of the commission of afelony pursuant to the Misprision statutes. As with§1448, there is a concomitant duty to acknowledgereceipt of such notice.

Thus, for this Court to allow Judge Robart tomischaracterize Vogt’s Notice of Commission toavoid discharging that Congressionally-imposedduty to receive and acknowledge such Misprisionnotice is an abdication of the implicit design of theMisprision statutes. Accordingly, this Court must

- 8 -

intervene in its supervisory capacity to insure thatcriminally falsifying the court record does notbecome acceptable judicial practice through lack ofsanction by this Court.

As in Mesarosh, “Pollution having takenplace here, the condition should be remedied at theearliest opportunity.”

II. Judge Robart Was Obligated toSummon a Grand Jury

Second, this Petition should be grantedbecause the significant issue of the Congressionally-imposed duty imposed upon district court judgesfound at Rule 6(a) to summon a Grand Jury has notheretofore been addressed by this Court. Accordingly, this Court must address the issue ofwhether Judge Robart breached his Rule 6(a) dutywhen he refused to summon a Grand Jury afterreceiving Vogt’s sworn evidence of the forgery ofObama’s COLB.

As clearly stated in Cohens v. Virginia, 19U.S. 264 (1821) it is the duty of an Article III court“to perform that task which the American peoplehave assigned to the judicial department.”(Emphasis added). Here, that “task” is found atRule 6(a) to summon a Grand Jury when the “publicinterest” so requires – something Judge Robart andthe Ninth Circuit have refused to do by begging thequestion of whether Vogt’s Notice of Commissionsatisfied the standard of “public interest” thereby

- 9 -

triggering the obligation to summon a Grand Jury. Accordingly, this Court must now intervene and“say” what the law is regarding what exactlyconstitutes Rule 6(a)’s “public interest” whichobligates a district court judge to summon a GrandJury. Significantly, this is an issue of firstimpression as Rule 6(a)’s “public interest” phrasehas not been heretofore judicially-defined.

For this Court to refuse to intervene and “saywhat the law is” mimics the behavior of theNationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei bypermitting ambiguous legal terms-of-art to acheivethe goals that all tyrants crave: Different rules oflaw for different people – a fundamental breach ofthe legal compact upon which this federal republicwas formed. Accord: James B. Beam Distilling Co.v. Georgia, 501 U.S. 529, 544 (1991)(“But selectiveprospectivity also breaches the principle thatlitigants in similar situations should be treated thesame, a fundamental component of stare decisis andthe rule of law generally.”)

For this Court to deny definition to the term“public interest” sanctions the use of legalindeterminacy in legal-terms-of-art and thuspermits the unregulated and unreviewable exerciseof brute federal judicial and executive poweremployed to assault the fundamentals of the rule oflaw to the end of creating a 21st Century federalVolksgebundenheit and Artgleichheit.

Further, what this Court would permit to

- 10 -

evolve if it refused to define “public interest” bydenying this Petition is the death knell of the GrandJury system as originally memorialized in theConstitution. That system guaranteed the Peopleaccess to the Grand Jury for investigation oflegitimate question even if those questionschallenged the status quo. This system – created bythe Congressional linking of the Misprision statutesand the Rule 6(a) obligation – envisions thatlegitimate matters of “public interest” will besuperintended to the Grand Jury by a federaldistrict court judge.

The scope of that “public interest” obtainsdefinition when the role of the Grand Jury is put inhistorical context. In 1895, Justice Brewer in Frisbiev. United States, 157 U.S. 160, 163 (1895) describeda system relying on an energetic Grand Jury: “[I]nthis country the common practice is for the GrandJury to investigate any alleged crime, no matterhow or by whom suggested to them, and afterdetermining that the evidence is sufficient to justifyputting the party suspected on trial, to direct thepreparation of the formal charge or indictment.”(Emphasis added).

Similarly, as detailed in U.S. v. Williams, 504U.S. 36, 47 (1992), by Justice Scalia:

Rooted in long centuries ofAnglo-American history, the Grand Juryis mentioned in the Bill of Rights, butnot in the body of the Constitution. It

- 11 -

1 This Court must recognize how perverse itwould be to allow Obama’s Department of Justice todetermine whether to present evidence of Obama’scriminal behavior to a Grand Jury.

has not been textually assigned,therefore, to any of the branchesdescribed in the first three Articles. It“is a constitutional fixture in its ownright.” In fact the whole theory of itsfunction is that it belongs to no branchof the institutional Government, servingas a kind of buffer or referee betweenthe Government and the people.(Citations omitted).

The loss of the Grand Jury in its traditional,authentic, or runaway form, leaves the modernfederal government with few natural enemiescapable of delivering any sort of damaging blowsagainst it. Indeed, Supreme Court Justice WilliamDouglas wrote in 1973 that it was: “commonknowledge that the Grand Jury, having beenconceived as a bulwark between the citizen and theGovernment, is now a tool of the Executive.” UnitedStates v. Dioniso, 410 U.S. 19, 23 (1973)(Douglas, J.,dissenting). Simply stated, by statute, rule and caselaw, the Grand Jury has been steadily emasculatedin what can only be viewed as an absolute coupd’etat upon the Grand Jury by the federalgovernment.1

- 12 -

In sum, can there be a higher “publicinterest” than the issue of whether Barack HusseinObama, II, has foisted a forged Certificate of LiveBirth upon the Citizens of the United States asindisputably detailed in Vogt’s public affidavit?Obviously, that determination can only be had byreading Vogt’s allegations. Accordingly, Vogt haslodged his public and sealed affidavits with theClerk for this Court’s obligatory review.

To allow Judge Robart to avoid the obligationto “summon a Grand Jury” by refusing toacknowledge Vogt’s Notice of Commission would bethe final nail in the coffin of the Grand Jury asenvisioned by the Fifth Amendment and historicalprecedent. Accordingly, this Court must grant thisPetition to review the important question of thedefinition of “public interest” which triggers theRule 6(a) mandatory-duty to “summon” a GrandJury.

III. The Refusal of Judge Robart toSummon a Grand Jury is Reviewable

Finally, review is compelled to determine thefirst-impression question of whether the refusal of adistrict court judge to summon a Grand Jurypursuant to Rule 6(a)’s mandate is reviewable.

Under Rule 6(a), a district court judge is notperforming a traditional Article III adjudicatoryfunction but instead is discharging a clerical duty tosummon and pass information on to the Grand

- 13 -

Jury. As such, judicial review of that clericaldecision is a well-established principal of law asthere is a “strong presumption that Congressintends judicial review.” Bowen v. MichiganAcademy of Family Physicians, 476 U.S. 667, 670(1986).

Moreover, there is a conflict between CircuitCourts on this particular point: See: In re Texas Co.,201 F.2d 177 (D.C. Cir. 1952) and Morris v. UnitedStates, 128 F.2d 912 (5th Cir. 1942)(Mandamus wasnot available to compel a district court to summon aGrand Jury) and District Court for the SouthernDistrict of West Virginia, 238 F.2d 713 (4th Cir.1956)(Holding that it had such mandamus authorityto compel a district court to summon a Grand Jury.)

As such, this Court is obligated to reviewwhether review of Judge Robart’s failure to“summon” a Grand Jury is permissible.

Conclusion

This Petition at its core is about who canpetition for invocation of the Grand Jury’s uniqueinvestigative power. As well documented by JusticeScalia and others of this Court, originally that rightto petition could be invoked by any one so that theGrand Jury could investigate any matter: “nomatter how or by whom suggested to them.”

Yet, as recognized by Justice Douglas inDioniso, that access to the Grand Jury’s power has

- 14 -

increasing been usurped from the People by theExecutive with the complicit acquiescence of theJudiciary through “silent approaches and slightdeviations from legal modes of procedure.” Reid v.Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957).

Indeed, most recently, this Court tacitlyapproved the disemboweling of the Congressionally-created absolute right of a Citizen to presentevidence to the Grand Jury codified at 18 U.S.C.§3332. In Sibley v. Obama et al, Case No:12-cv-001(D.C. Dist. Ct. 2012); summarily affirmed, Case No.: 12-5198 (D.C. Cir. 2012); cert. den. CaseNo.: 12-736 (2013) the district court held: “TheCourt will deny the mandamus request, in keepingwith prior decisions that 18 U.S.C. §3332 cannot beenforced by private individuals.” Thus, whileCongress under §3332(a), obligated the U.S.Attorney to “inform the Grand Jury of such allegedoffense”, the U.S. Attorney can ignore thatmandatory obligation to “inform” with impunity asthis Court has confirmed that there is no right toenforce §3332(a) by the one who seeks to invokes it.

Thus, before this Court is the question ofwhether a similar mandatory obligation imposed byCongress on district court judges can be avoided byallowing the Rule 6(a) “public interest” phrase to goundefined and thus imbue it with no meaning. Alegal-term-of-art without precise meaning is nothingmore than a tool of tyrants.

Accordingly, this Petition presents to the

- 15 -

Court the same question Justice Taney faced in Exparte Merryman, 17 F. Cas. 144 (C.C.D. Md. 1861)(No. 9487) paraphrased as follows: “I can only saythat if the authority which the constitution hasconfided to the [Grand Jury], may thus, upon anypretext or under any circumstances, be usurped bythe [the Executive], the people of the United Statesare no longer living under a government of laws . . .” Query: Will this Court demonstrate the samecommitment to the Rule of Law that Justice Taneydid in Merryman though it apparently put him infear of arrest?

For the reasons aforesaid, Vogt respectfullyprays that this Court grant his Petition forCertiorari.

Douglas VogtPetitioner12819 S.E. 38th StreetSuite 115Bellevue, WA 98006

Appendix-1

Contents of Appendix

Opinions Below

The November 14, 2013 order . . . . . Appendix-2

The January 14, 2014, order . . . . . . Appendix-5

Appendix-2

United States District CourtWestern District of Washington

At SeattleCase No. C13-1880JLR

Douglas Vogt,

Plaintiff,

vs.

Barack Obama, et al.,

Defendants._________________________/

Order Dismissing Complaint for Lack ofSubject Matter Jurisdiction

Before the court is Plaintiff Douglas Vogt’scomplaint in which he alleges that the certificates oflive birth from the State of Hawaii that PresidentBarack Obama has publicly released are forgeries.(See Compl. (Dkt. # 1) at 1-2.) He also alleges thatPresident Obama “was not born in Hawaii and [i]snot a US citizen,” and that a treasonous conspiracyexists among the various defendants “to take over apolitical party and install a Communist agent in[sic] as President of the United States so as todestroy the nation from within.” (Id. at 5.)Accordingly, he asks the court “to bring to theattention of the Grand Jury the evidence of criminal

Appendix-3

behavior sworn to herein.” (Id. at 9 (internalquotation marks omitted).)

On November 5, 2013, the court orderedPlaintiff Douglas Vogt to show cause why hiscomplaint should not be dismissed for lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction. (OSC 5 (Dkt. # 5).) OnNovember 12, 2013, Mr. Vogt filed his response tothe court’s order. (Resp. (Dkt. # 6).) The court nowconsiders Mr. Vogt’s response and whether thecourt has subject matter jurisdiction over thisaction.

In his response, Mr. Vogt fails to provide a validbasis for this court's exercise of subject matterjurisdiction over his action. He insists that the court“is asking the wrong question” (id. at 3), that thecourt “clearly” has subject matter jurisdiction (id.),and that he is simply seeking to “discharge his civicduty as required by 18 U.S.C. § 4 - Misprision ofFelony and/or 18 U.S.C. § 2382 -Misprision ofTreason” (id. at 2). He argues that 18 U.S.C. § 4 and18 U.S.C. § 2382 provide the necessary basis for thecourt’s exercise of jurisdiction (Resp. at 2-3), andthat the court is obligated to refer this matter to theGrand Jury (id. at 3-8).

Nevertheless, Mr. Vogt fails to address any ofthe case authority cited by the court in its order toshow cause indicating that (1) there is no privateright of action under 18 either 18 U.S.C. § 4 or 18U.S.C. § 2382, (2) private parties generally lackstanding to institute a federal criminal prosecution,

Appendix-4

and (3) private citizens or voters, such as Mr. Vogt,lack standing to challenge President Obama’squalifications to hold office through the use ofmisprision of felony or misprision of treasonstatutes, or otherwise, because they have sufferedno particularized injury. (See generally OSC.) Thecourt, therefore concludes, consistent with theauthorities cited in its prior order to show cause,that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Mr.Vogt's action and DISMISSES this action in itsentirety without prejudice.

The court further DIRECTS the clerk to strikeall pending motions from the calendar.

Dated this 14th day of November, 2013.

/s/ James L. RobartJAMES L. ROBARTUnited States District Judge

Appendix-5

United States Court of AppealsFor the Ninth Circuit

No. 13-74137D.C. No. 2:13-cv-01880-JLR

Western District of Washington, Seattle

In re: DOUGLAS VOGT.__________________________

DOUGLAS VOGT,

Petitioner,

v.

UNITED STATESDISTRICT COURTFOR THE WESTERNDISTRICT OFWASHINGTON, SEATTLE,

Respondent,

BARACK OBAMA; et al.,

Real Parties in Interest._________________________/

ORDERFiled: January 14, 2014

Before: TROTT, PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

Petitioner has not demonstrated that this casewarrants the intervention of this court by means ofthe extraordinary remedy of mandamus. See

Appendix-6

Bauman v. U.S. Dist. Court, 557 F.2d 650 (9th Cir.1977). Accordingly, the petition is denied.

No further filings will be entertained in this closedcase.

DENIED.