It’s a twofer at the Supreme Court

supreme_court_buildingJust as we predicted the latest two Birther cases to make it to the Supreme Court have been denied. This morning the court published the list of cases considered at the conference held last Thursday and both Paige v Vermont and Vogt v The US Court Western District of Washington were on the denied list. Neither denial was at all surprising. All you had to do is look at the previous record established by Birthers (now 0 for over 225) and the cases themselves to figure out they were without merit.

The Paige v Vermont case was only notable because Brooke Paige was represented by none other than Birther Attorney Mario Apuzzo whom we have written about before. Apuzzo now adds to his perfect record of futility, which I previously documented in an article titled “Mario Apuzzo’s Amazing Birther Legal Adventures”.   Apuzzo’s record now stands at 0 for 11. If Mario stays true to form he will of course deny that this was a defeat because the court “didn’t hear the case on the merits”. However, the courts that have looked at Apuzzo’s flawed definition of natural born citizen have all said it was wrong. There is no evidence that any court including SCOTUS nor any serious constitutional scholar agrees with Apuzzo.

This case may have been Apuzzo’s last foray into the courts. While a few ballot challenge case appeals from 2012 challenges against Barack Obama are still percolating in the court system none look like ones Apuzzo would latch on like he did the Paige case in Vermont. Even though Apuzzo was not officially on the case at the lower court level Paige has written that he had assistance from Apuzzo with his unsuccessful challenge in state court.  Apuzzo seems to be running out of steam. He hasn’t written a new post in his blog in over 10 months and is only active in engaging the handful of commenters there. Of course Mr. Paige could always have Mario file the typical and pointless Birther Motion for Reconsideration that we have seen before.

I don’t need to write much about Vogt’s case since I wrote an extensive article on the case recently. See “The Strange Case of In re: Douglas Vogt” The only notable happening in the Supreme Court filing of this doomed case was that the court clerks would not allow Mr. Sibley to file Doug Vogt’s heretofore secret affidavit under seal so we got to see what innocent folks Doug Vogt accused of being complicit in forgery. Most of the names had already been guessed based on previous interviews and writings from Vogt. Miki Booth, the late Loretta Fuddy, Alvin Onaka, Kevin Davidson, and Johanna Ah’Nee Randolph were named by Vogt based on his delusional speculations that the Obama LFBC was a forgery.

What Vogt and his new found attorney Montgomery Blair Sibley will do is unknown but whatever it is we know it will be entertaining.

For completeness here are the updated SCOTUS Docket listings for both cases:

No. 13-1076
Title:
H. Brooke Paige, Petitioner
v.
Vermont, et al.
Docketed: March 10, 2014
Lower Ct: Supreme Court of Vermont
Case Nos.: (2012-439)
Decision Date: October 18, 2013
Rehearing Denied: December 6, 2013

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mar 6 2014 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due April 9, 2014)
Mar 26 2014 Waiver of right of respondents Vermont, et al. to respond filed.
Apr 29 2014 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 15, 2014.
May 19 2014 Petition DENIED.

No. 13-1158
Title:
Douglas Vogt, Petitioner
v.
United States District Court for the Western District of Washington
Docketed: March 24, 2014
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Case Nos.: (13-74137)
Decision Date: January 14, 2014

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mar 24 2014 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due April 23, 2014)
Mar 24 2014 Motion to expedite consideration of the petition for a writ of certiorari and for leave to file an affidavit under seal filed by petitioner.
Mar 26 2014 Motion DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 18, 2014.
Apr 7 2014 Request for recusal received from petitioner.
Apr 21 2014 Motion to expedite consideration of the petition for a writ of certiorari and for leave to file an affidavit under seal DENIED.
Apr 23 2014 Waiver of right of respondent United States District Court for the Western District of Washington to respond filed.
Apr 29 2014 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 15, 2014.
May 19 2014 Petition DENIED.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Ballot Challenge, Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Birther Cases, Birthers, Mario Apuzzo, Natural Born Citizenship and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to It’s a twofer at the Supreme Court

  1. Andrew Vrba, PmG says:

    I believe this is appropriate. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFX8-ctkQqY

  2. Ran Talbott says:

    Or this: http://dailypicksandflicks.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Blue-Screen-of-Death-on-Fast-And-The-Furious-Arcade-Driving-Game-Simulator.jpg

    I think it’d be fun for someone with decent graphics skills to whip up a fake BSOD with some pseudo-legalese and fake advice in it, like “Your lawsuit crashed because it attempted to access a legal principle or precedent that does not exist.” and “If this problem persists after restarting, GIVE THE &$%# UP”.

  3. I see Mario is claiming victory at his blog in a comment.

  4. Lupin says:

    “…nor any serious constitutional scholar agrees with Apuzzo.”

    You might add “in three countries.”

    I have asked Mr Apuzzo, repeatedly, to provide a quote from any French or Swiss legal scholar who, in 200+ years of Vattel scholarship, would agree with his obviously wrong interpretation, and he could never find any — because, of course, there are none. In effect on this topic, there are two points of view: Apuzzo’s and the Rest of the World. Sort of like discussing Global Warming, it is not a “he said, she said”.

  5. Welcome Lupin. You should be able to comment without it going into moderation now.

    That is so typical Apuzzo. He obviously thinks he knows more about reading French and European history than any 10 French attorneys. Just ask him. :lol:

  6. SUSANM says:

    WHEN & IF THIS ALL COMES TO A HEAD, (ILLEGAL PRESIDENT) CAN THE SUPREME COURT BE CHARGED FOR NOT DOING THE JOB OF INVESTAGATING INFO. ON OBAMA NOT BEING HEARD.

  7. There IS no ‘information’ that has not been heard, Susan. There are only lies, and you’re just mad that you can’t get the sane world to buy them.

    If you lived to 800 years old, you would never find BHO being considered an “illegal president,” because he isn’t. So there’s nothing to come to a head, unless you count the suppurating pustule of Birferism that needs to be periodically lanced so it doesn’t spread its infection.

  8. Northland10 says:

    If you lived to 800 years old, you would never find…

    …the caps lock key.

Leave a Reply (Please see the RC Radio Blog comment policy). Your first comment will be moderated

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s