Birther Attorney Mario Apuzzo continues to rack up the losses

New Jersey attorney Mario Apuzzo who seems to have made a legal career out of losing Birther cases has continued his perfect record into the 2016 election cycle. I first chronicled Apuzzo’s record back in 2012 with an article I wrote titled “Mario Apuzzo’s Mazing  Birther Legal Adventures”.  After losing 11 12 actions against first President Elect then President Barack Obama from 2009 – 2013 covering two presidential cycles he filed challenges against candidate Ted Cruz in 2016. He teamed up with a familiar name in Vermont, Brooke Paige, and new plaintiffs in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. [I updated the case list and added it at the end of this post.]

In Vermont as was the case in 2012 Mr. Paige filed pro se because Mario was not admitted to practice there but Mr. Apuzzo provided assistance in writing the complaint. Paige actually challenged four candidates. In addition to Canadian born Senator Ted Cruz he challenged Florida Senator Marco Rubio and two minor party candidates as being ineligible.  The case was filed against the Vermont Secretary of State to force him to remove the names from the primary ballot. Mr. Paige (and Mario) failed again.

In New Jersey on his home turf Mario teamed up with new plaintiffs to file a ballot challenge. Once again the challenge went before Administrative Law Judge Jeff Masin. Unlike the challenge in 2012 I have not been able to locate video of the hearing before Judge Masin. The 2012 hearing was memorable because we got to see Mario schooled by a quite young but capable attorney Ms. Alexandra Hill. Apuzzo’s case, Powers v Cruz was combined with a case brought by a write in candidate and attorney Victor Williams. Judge Masin dismissed the challenges and ruled that Ted Cruz was eligible.

Finally Mr. Apuzzo has signed on to write a appeal to the Supreme Court for a ballot challenge case from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. That case was filed by Pittsburgh resident Carmen Elliott. He lost in both district court and the state supreme court in Pennsylvania. The petition to the Supreme Court of the Untied States is pending. Most followers of these types of cases give it little chance of being heard.

For a full listing of the Birther cases see the prior article I linked above. Details of these cases are available on this blog, at the Fogbow forum, and at Obama Conspiracy Theories. Mario Apuzzo’s and Charles Kerchner’s blogs also have articles and case document. I believe the list is complete but I might have missed an appeal in Vermont or New Jersey. Cruz appeared on the ballot in both state primaries however.

The net effect of the 2016 election cycle is that the Birthers have managed to create a fairly sizable collection of decisions that anyone who is a citizen from birth regardless of birth location is a natural born citizen. It’s not what the Birthers intended but as is often the case with them the outcomes are not in line with their views and desires.

April 4, 2016: Based on a comment by H. Brooke Paige below I added the appeal in his case to Vermont Supreme Court. I also updated the table to reflect the SCOTUS denial of the Petition in Elliott v. Cruz. It was on the denied list from a conference in early October.

June 19, 2017 update: On June 16 the Vermont Supreme Court denied the appeal by a 5-0 decision in Paige v Condos. This brings Apuzzo’s record in court actions to a perfect 0 for 16.

This is the updated list of Mario Apuzzo’s Birther cases and the outcomes:

Date Case Outcome
2009 Kerchner et al v. Obama et al Charles F. KerchnerD.N.J. (Federal) Dismissed
2010 Kerchner et al v. Obama et al Charles F. Kerchner 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals DISMISSAL AFFIRMED Published Opinion – Appeal ruled frivolous under FRAP 38. Show Cause (Sanctions) Order Issued
2010 Kerchner et al v. Obama et al Charles F. Kerchner Supreme Court of the US Writ for Certiorari Denied
2012 Kerchner et al v. Obama et al Charles F. Kerchner Dale A. Laudenslager – Pennsylvania State Commonwealth Court Apuzzo application for admission pro vice denied. Amended application for admission denied. Apuzzo filed a 199 page amicus brief. Case dismissed.
2012 Tisdale v Obama4th Circuit Court of Appeals (District court in VA dismissed sua sponte) Apuzzo unable to find sponsor for pro hac vice application. Filed 52 page amicus brief. Dismissal affirmed.
2012 Strunk v NY State Board of Elections et al
NY State Supreme Court Kings County, NY
Apuzzo filed Amicus brief. (It was actually a blog post by Appuzo that Strunk sent to the court and Judge Schack chose to treat is an amicus brief). Case dismissed. Sanctions and fees imposed on plaintiff Strunk
2012 Purpura et al v. Obama Nicholas E. Purpura Theodore T.Moran – New Jersey Ballot Challenge Apuzzo argued before ALJ Jeff Masin Challenge dismissed – “case without merit.”SoS Affirmed dismissal
2012 Purpura et al v. Obama Nicholas E. Purpura Theodore T.Moran – New Jersey Ballot Challenge – Appeal to New Jersey Superior Court Apuzzo argued before three judge panel. Appeal dismissed “case without merit”
2012 Purpura et al v. Obama Nicholas E. Purpura Theodore T.Moran – New Jersey Ballot Challenge – Appeal to New Jersey Supreme Court “Petition for certification denied with costs.”
2012 Paige v State of Vermont, SoS Condos, and Barack Obama – Vermont Ballot Challenge – Vermont Superior Court “Petition Denied”
2013 Paige v State of Vermont, SoS Condos, and Barack Obama – Vermont Ballot Challenge – Appeal to Vermont Supreme Court “Appeal dismissed as moot”
2014 Paige v State of Vermont, SoS Condos, and Barack Obama – Vermont Ballot Challenge -Petition to the Supreme Court of the United States “Petition DENIED”
2016 Paige v Condos, et. al. – Vermont Superior Court, Ballot Challenge against Cruz, Rubio and two other candidates. (Paige pro se but with assistance from Apuzzo) “Challenge DENIED”
2016 Powers v Cruz (Combined with Williams v Cruz) – New Jersey Ballot Challenge “Challenge DENIED. Ted Cruz is eligible and meets the requirements of Article II”
2016 Elliott v Cruz – Petition to the Supreme Court of the United States (appeal of denial of Pennsylvania ballot challenge, Apuzzo wrote petition) Petition for Writ for Certiorari pending. Update: October 3, 2016 “Petition DENIED”
2016 Paige v Condos et. al. – Vermont Supreme Court. Appeal of lower court loss. Oral argument held on November 30, 2016. Awaiting a ruling. June 16, 2017. Appeal denied as moot by a 5-0 decision.
Advertisements
This entry was posted in Ballot Challenge, Birther Cases, Birthers, Mario Apuzzo and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

285 Responses to Birther Attorney Mario Apuzzo continues to rack up the losses

  1. Dave B. says:

    Speaking for myself– and I’m sure it’s true for many of us– I owe birthers some debt of gratitude for bringing me to a point where I’ve learned more about certain aspects of the law than I ever even imagined existed. It was never good enough to just say they were wrong, and morons, however wrong and moronic they have been– I had to go see exactly what they were wrong about, and how. And in so doing I have come far from where I started.
    But can you imagine how much more we could’ve learned from interacting with them if they hadn’t been such a pack of idiots?

  2. stevor says:

    Just because the CORRUPT courts won’t let a legitimate case doesn’t mean the matter is wrong. Take shillary and her emails, that Comey said were irresponsible for and how shillary PERJURED herself about the matter but Lynch won’t do anything because o’bama is likely to have directed her to do that (because he’s complicit in the emails AND Benghazi)
    PS: some while back you guys posted how you were going to do whatever to make me look stupid because I think o’bama is a FRAUD. Well, I’m still waiting!)

  3. Hey, Stevor… Does it hurt to be that stupid? Because plainly, you are. Seriously, do you ever wonder how it must feel to live in the world of facts, instead of blindly swallowing whatever bullshit Fox Noise, Glenn Beck, etc. spew from their hind ends? Just checking.

    Oh, and if you want to blame somebody for the deaths at Benghazi— and bear in mind, every President since Kennedy has had more overseas diplomatic and embassy personnel killed than Obama has— blame the Republican Congress that cut $300M from the embassy security budget.

    Exactly zero Americans were harmed by Sec. Clinton’s email sloppiness, which was absolutely legal anyway. Arguably, her server was MORE secure than the outdated State Dept. system. Colin Powell and Donald Rumsfeld let 4000 Americans get killed on 9/11 in the Bush disaster because they ignored plain, repeated warnings. And then they got 3000 more killed and 10x that maimed in a trumped-up unnecessary war in Iraq, one that created the power vacuum that led to ISIS and cost $1 Trillion.

    Checkmate. Clinton and Obama did a great National Security job by all objective measures.

    And what kind of a name is Stevor anyway? Your mom wanted Steve and your dad wanted Trevor? Heh. Dumb shit loser.

    • stevor says:

      more delusions!
      shillary server was HACKED by several people. Huma Abedeeen (shillary’s lesbian lover) even wrote an email to shillary warning her of that. Geez, are ALL the regular readers to this site as delusional as you?
      You’re so ignorant that you think there’s any real difference between the GOP and dumbocraps at the top layers. They’re just two cheeks on the same BUTT (and you love to take in their crap)

  4. Thanks to a comment by bob at Obama Conspiracy Theories I updated the table to include the loss by H. Brooke Paige in 2012 in Vermont Superior Court. I believe it is safe to assume that Mr. Paige was assisted by Mario Apuzzo in the initial filings as well as the appeals.

    That makes Mario’s record a 0 for 14. 0 for 15 is pending.

  5. The sad thing is that had he been a better advocate he could have won the Cruz eligibility cases since Cruz is ineligible. But Apuzzo has another 4 years to practice his craft to get ready for Cruz’s big run in 2020.

  6. There is an update on Supreme Court case #16-13 Carmon Elliott v Ted Cruz:

    ~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Jun 28 2016 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 1, 2016)
    Jul 14 2016 Waiver of right of respondent Ted Cruz to respond filed.

    As you know if you follow a few Supreme Court cases this waiver usually is the kiss of death for a petition. It means the case didn’t make the first cut and it will be denied at the first regular conference in the Fall term, which this year happens on October 7th. .

  7. Elliott v Cruz went to conference at SCOTUS today along with probably a hundred or so other petitions that have accumulated over the summer recess. It will certainly be denied since no response was requested from the attorneys representing Ted Cruz.

    Meanwhile Ted Cruz grovelled and endorsed the guy who accused his father of being part of a conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy and said his wife was ugly. Some people have no principles even though they might be natural born citizens.

  8. Jim Buzzell says:

    Is Obama our first illegal alien president?
    Who is Obama, does anyone other than his dead mother and grandmother really know for certain?
    Why did his handlers need to photo shop his BC?
    Was Obama registered Occidental, Columbia and Harvard as a foreign student?
    Whose passport did Obama use to return to the US for Indonesia, and where is that passport?
    Where is the passport Obama used to travel to Pakistan, India and Indonesia when he was in college, what was its country of origin?
    When was his name officially changed from Indonesian “Barry Soetoro” to “Barrack Obama”?
    Why does Obama use a SSN issued to another?
    Why are Obama’s Federal and State tax returns filed with a SSN (042-68-4425) that belongs to someone else?
    Did Bill Ayers teach Obama how to hide his past by using false IDs?
    Why does Obama continues to keep all his vital and not so vital records sealed?
    How did Obama get a fraudulently back dated Selective Service Card and Selective Service Registration form?
    Can anyone forensically prove Obama’s nationality, country of origin, paternal parentage?

    Where are Obama’s documents, period?

    Is Obama truly a man without a country?

    https://www.scribd.com/collections/3166684/Birth-Certificate-Other-Obama-ID-Docs-Forged-Expert-Reports

    • stevor says:

      wow, Jim. Somebody else at this site actually asks pertinent questions. Of course, “Reality check” can’t answer with anything other than “Complete bullshit”.

      • No, complete bullshit is the appropriate reply. Every one of the claims made by Jim Buzzell has been debunked many times over. See http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/ and here of course. Every single one of Jim’s claims is addressed at the OCT site.

        Wake me up when one of the certifying authorities (In this case the Hawaii Department of Health, Selective Service, and Social Security Administration) involved issues a statement saying that his birth certificate, selective service records, or social security number are bogus. In fact the opposite is true.

        • stevor says:

          I glanced at that web site. I saw no concise list of “proof” of claims (and it wasn’t worth my time to search).
          It reminded me of how Snopes claims to have proven that the o’bamas loss of their law licenses is nothing to remark on because they “voluntarily” gave them up. But, of course being leftist Snopes, they neglected the other half of the FACTS that the court demanded that they “voluntarily” give up their licenses.
          Yeah, it’s amazing at how half truths can “prove” all kinds of stuff (as is “proved” on DailyKos daily)

          • Dave B. says:

            So where does one find evidence of this “other half of the FACTS” in the form of a record of any court making such a demand?

          • No court “demanded” that the Obama’s give up their law licenses. That is also nonsense.

            • Jim Buzzell says:

              Then why do neither Obama’s have a law license to practice law, anywhere?

              • Northland10 says:

                To continue a law license, you have to regular pay various amounts to funds and such and take continuing education courses on a regular basis. Since it is highly unlikely that either Obama will practice law again (i.e. represent clients and do work for clients) since the President’s position would make it extremely difficult for either to continue to practice, there is no reason to go through the fees and education requirements when you are not going to use the license again. Therefore, they made a choice to voluntarily gave up their license.

                I should note that after Apuzzo’s cases for the 2008 election were complete, he stopped paying into a fund and was placed on the administratively ineligible list. That made sense if he was not intending to practice. When the next election neared, he paid into the fund and was released. Apuzzo being ineligible was not a big deal or any deal.

                You all are making much ado about a simple, logical choice the Obama’s made given their current and future situations. Your desperate search to find every wrong with the Obamas makes you quite the fool. Obama owns you now. Without lifting a finger, he has been given free room in board in your head.

            • stevor says:

              and we’re supposed to believe something published by the “obamaconspiracy” site? Geez, that seems to prove how gullible you are.

              • Stevor

                If you want to see what the report for a disbarred attorney looks like go to the Illinois Attorney Registration and Discipline web site and type in last name “Radmer” and choose “Phillip” from the results.

                https://www.iardc.org/lawyersearch.asp

                You can check the Obamas and see what going voluntarily inactive looks like. Also the ARDC put out a statement on Michelle Obama in an email in response to a public inquiry:

                Michelle Obama holds a valid license to practice law in Illinois, has never been disciplined or the subject of a disciplinary proceeding in Illinois and is on voluntary inactive status as an Illinois lawyer. Voluntary inactive status is simply a lawyer registration category for lawyers who are not currently practicing law. Attorneys on voluntary inactive status may resume active status at any time as a matter of course.

                So I will now expect a public apology from you for libeling both the President and First Lady if you expect to continue to comment here. You have 24 hours to issue that apology.

                • Jim Buzzell says:

                  Prove that she hold al license to practice law in IL; it was revoked to unethical conduct as an attorney. Obama’s was revoke because he lied on is application for his license. Both are criminals…

                  RC: Please provide the details of the unethical conduct or issue an apology to the First Lady. You cannot get away with unfounded allegations here.

                  Unless you can provide substantive links to back up your claims within 24 hours you are banned.

              • Northland10 says:

                RC, I’m looking forward to Jim’s evidence that Michele Obama’s license was revoked due to unethical conduct. He could not possibly just have made it up or repeated some fact free claim he read elsewhere. All I got is her motion to the court to on inactive status, pursuant to Rule 770 (the rule 770 at that time).

                http://cdn.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/2012/06/Michelle-Obama-Inactive-Status-Request.pdf

                Since the link of the documents is Fact Check, Jim and Stevor won’t bother to look despite it being copies of the request, provided by Illinois.

              • I think people who make baseless claims of wrongdoing without a shred of evidence are the scum of the earth. That describes most Birthers to a tee. It certainly describes Stevie and Buzzkill. I note they are both silent when challenged to provide proof.

    • Jeff Schwager says:

      You hit the nail on the head. When the useful idiots read your post, their heads will start exploding. The other thing I want to say to these hyena’s that mock birthers and call Atty Mario Apuzzo a loser, is that he isn’t losing cases. They’re being dismissed and thrown out. Why? Because the courts are stacked with corrupt judges that set bad precedent and then rule using it as their guide. @@

      • Appuzo didn’t lose because of corrupt judges. He lost because his arguments are wrong on both standing and the definition of natural born citizen.

      • stevor says:

        nice to see some real thinking shown on this site

      • Jim Buzzell says:

        Prove the cases have no merit, none to date have been heard on merit, all dismissed on standing to sue, which is a copout for judges to stick their collective heads in the sand

        • stevor says:

          You’re wasting your time here if you’re trying to get the truth. Still, it’s good to reply and let others know that not everybody believes the o’bama propaganda (being other than a globalist puppet like shillary and chosen because with his illegalities it’s easy for the puppeteers to pull his strings)

          • Jim Buzzell says:

            Chew on this for awhile>>>
            Because the people protesting, and their ilk, want a Democracy; and know that as long as our Republic stands that will not happen.

            They follow this ideology and pray at the altar of those who also champion Socialism, Marxism and Communism.

            It’s time for the Conservatives in the United States of America to wake up and understand that this movement has moved the United States of America closer to this change be damned our Constitution. Be vocal about these people and their movement. They are the Progressives (Republican and Democrat), Socialists, Marxists, and Communists who inhabit our nation.

            I firmly believe the conservative media needs to be discussing this with all their readers, it is and has been the primary reason our colleges, universities and now our public schools have been taken over by the ideologists who have been indoctrinated in this ideology and preaching it to our young and old across our nation for over 50 years.

            My military leadership instructor once said “to defeat your enemy you first have to know who they and how they think are”.

            According to Saul David Alinsky in his “Rules for Radicals”, “How to Create a Socialist State,” There are eight levels of control that must be obtained before you can create a socialist state.

            The first of these are the most important:

            1) Healthcare – Control healthcare and you control the people.

            2) Poverty – Increase the poverty level as high as possible. Poor people are easier to control and will not fight back if you are providing everything for them to live.

            3) Debt – Increase debt to an unsustainable level. That way you will be able to increase taxes – and this will produce more poverty.

            4) Gun Control – Remove the ability for citizens to defend themselves from the government. That way you will be able to create a police state.

            5) Welfare – Take control of every aspect of their lives (food, housing, and income).

            6) Education – Take control of what people read and listen to – take control of what children learn in school.

            7) Religion – Remove belief in the God from the government and schools.

            8) Class Warfare – Divide the people into the wealthy and the poor. This will cause more discontent and it will be easier to take (tax) the wealthy with the support of the poor.

            Does any of this sound like what has happed in the United States of America?

            They follow this ideology and pray at the altar of those who also champion Socialism, Marxism and Communism.

            It’s time for the Conservatives in the United States of America to wake up and understand that this movement has moved the United States of America closer to this change be damned our Constitution. Be vocal about these people and their movement. They are the Progressives (Republican and Democrat), Socialists, Marxists, and Communists who inhabit our nation.

            I firmly believe the conservative media needs to be discussing this with all their readers, it is and has been the primary reason our colleges, universities and now our public schools have been taken over by the ideologists who have been indoctrinated in this ideology and preaching it to our young and old across our nation for over 50 years.

            My military leadership instructor once said “to defeat your enemy you first have to know who they and how they think are”.

            According to Saul David Alinsky in his “Rules for Radicals”, “How to Create a Socialist State,” There are eight levels of control that must be obtained before you can create a socialist state.

            The first of these are the most important:

            1) Healthcare – Control healthcare and you control the people.

            2) Poverty – Increase the poverty level as high as possible. Poor people are easier to control and will not fight back if you are providing everything for them to live.

            3) Debt – Increase debt to an unsustainable level. That way you will be able to increase taxes – and this will produce more poverty.

            4) Gun Control – Remove the ability for citizens to defend themselves from the government. That way you will be able to create a police state.

            5) Welfare – Take control of every aspect of their lives (food, housing, and income).

            6) Education – Take control of what people read and listen to – take control of what children learn in school.

            7) Religion – Remove belief in the God from the government and schools.

            8) Class Warfare – Divide the people into the wealthy and the poor. This will cause more discontent and it will be easier to take (tax) the wealthy with the support of the poor.

            Does any of this sound like what has happed in the United States of America?

  9. Not surprising that you failed to mention that Supreme Court Docket #2016 – 202, Paige v. State of Vermont, et al. (Sorrell, Condos, Cruz and Rubio) was argued before the Vermont Supreme Court on November 30, 2016 and as of this date (April 3rd) is still awaiting a decision ! This is the one Presidential Qualification Challenge from the 2016 election that remains active in the courts. I believe that if the court was going to rule against me – the decision would have been issued promptly. The court clerk informs that the law clerks are working diligently on the case on behalf of the justices ! In Vermont we pride ourselves in being “first in the nation” on many important issues – time will tell if this is one of those issues !

    H. Brooke Paige
    Washington, VT

    • Thank you for the comment Mr. Paige. I was a little late checking my email today and apologize for therefore being a little slow to approve it. Any further comments you wish to leave should not be moderated. I will be glad to add the appeal to the Vermont Supreme court to the list of cases in this article. After the end of the 2016 election cycle I quit following the eligibility cases very closely.

      I was always a little uncertain whether to give Mr. Apuzzo “credit” for your cases in Vermont since he was not attorney of record but was involved in assisting with the cases. I believe he was attorney of record on the appeal to the United States Supreme Court since he is admitted to practice there. In the end I decided to add your cases and the actions in Vermont to the list.

      In my opinion I think you might be reading a little too much into the apparent length of time the Vermont Supreme Court is taking to hand down a decision. Courts decide at the time of their choosing for their own reasons.

      • You are correct that Mr. Apuzzo has been involved in every aspect of both the 2016 case and in my earlier (2012) effort to have the courts confirm the definition of the Constitutional Presidential Qualifying phrase “natural-born Citizen.” He has been an essential part of both cases and has tirelessly worked to see this issue resolved.

        While I am quite certain that the founders and framers understanding that an “nb-C” meant “an individual born in country to citizen parents (plural)” the phrase which they included as one of the three requirements to qualify to serve as President*.

        Many believe that this qualification should no longer be operative, my effort to have the Courts confirm the meaning of the qualifying “nb-C” phrase would permit a discussion to begin on the subject of whether this is the qualification we wish to have in our “modern” era. Until the phrase’s precise meaning is confirmed, no discussion on amending the Constitution to change the Presidential qualifications can begin.

        Despite what many have said here and elsewhere, this is an important and current issue that should be resolved to a ultimate finality – otherwise it will return again and again, until some future court finds the fortitude to do so!

        Thank You for this opportunity to speak on the issue,

        H. Brooke Paige
        Washington, Vermont

        (*after the founding era which was covered by the grandfathering clause “or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution” which is obviously operative)

        • The footnote was intended to read:

          (*after the founding era which was covered by the grandfathering clause “or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution” which is obviously no longer operative)

        • Northland10 says:

          Even if your argument about who is eligible were correct (it is not), you case would still fail. May I remind of what the Vermont Supreme Court said on your earlier case.

          Plaintiff fails, however, to identify any negative result specific to him. His claim is a generalized grievance, in common with anyone sharing his interpretation of Article II. The injury asserted is not analogous to the social stigma or legal disability capable of invoking the exception because plaintiff cannot demonstrate how the injury is personal or debilitating. Furthermore, a declaration by this Court with regards to plaintiff’s “natural born Citizen” argument would have no impact on the qualification-related laws and orders to which plaintiff refers, since a ruling by this Court would bind no other state or federal presidential election authority. Whatever the merit of his argument, plaintiff’s cure in the form of declaratory relief is futile and so beyond this Court’s constitutional jurisdiction. Absent a direct link between the challenged laws and orders and the purportedly negative collateral consequences suffered by plaintiff, the collateral consequence exception to mootness is inapplicable. Accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed as moot.

          In their January 2016 decision on your request for injuctive relief, they said:

          Lastly, Plaintiff has little chance of success on the merits of his claims. The
          Court notes that this Court has rejected similar causes of action brought by this
          same party in 2012. See Paige v. Condos, Docket No. 611-8-12 Wncv [the First
          Action]. There, the Court concluded, inter alia, that Plaintiff lacked standing to
          pursue his claims and that the political question doctrine made the case nonjusticiable.
          (A copy of the Court’s ruling dismissing the First Action is appended to
          this Order.) The Court adopts that same reasoning in this case with the following
          additional points.

          https://www.vermontjudiciary.org/sites/default/files/documents/2016-3-16-5.pdf

          I doubt the same court would suddenly do a complete 180 on their previous decisions.

          • Northland10 says:

            Point of correction, the January 2016 decision was the Superior court. However, as the judge referred to the Supreme Court’s earlier opinion, I still doubt they would suddenly change that opinion.

      • I noted you addition above, however oral argument was November 30, 2016, not December 30 as you noted in the addition ! Best Wishes, Brooke.

  10. You said

    While I am quite certain that the founders and framers understanding that an “nb-C” meant “an individual born in country to citizen parents (plural)” the phrase which they included as one of the three requirements to qualify to serve as President*.

    .

    That isn’t correct and 99.99% or more of the legal community and all of the courts who have opined disagree with your conclusion.

    • Dave B. says:

      Just as nutty as ever.

      • I know what you mean Dave B and I didn’t mean to pick on you. It’s frustrating that people still buy into this two citizen parent to be an NBC nonsense. It’s frustrating that people can’t read decisions like Minor v Happersett, Wong Kim Ark, and all the 2008, 2012, and 2016 ballot challenge decisions and understand that at least for the class of native born citizens the question of eligibility was settled.

        Paige should have left Rubio out of his case and concentrated on Ted Cruz. I read nothing into the Vermont Supreme Court taking its time to write a decision and would be shocked if they didn’t eventually rule as they had before for similar reasons.

  11. Anyone is welcome to comment here as long as they abide by the comment policy and remain civil. I am certain Mr. Paige is sincere in his beliefs about what the definition of NBC is. Let’s try to keep the discussion there.

  12. Northland10 says:

    The Vermont Superior Court ruling I quoted above [^1] did have a paragraph that included a wander through memory lane citations.

    First, Plaintiff’s contention that he is, not just a citizen, but also a candidate for the presidency of the United States is not likely to alter the conclusion that he lacks standing to pursue his claims. In the election context, some courts have recognized the doctrine of “competitive standing,” which grants standing to a competitor or her party to challenge the inclusion of candidates on an election ballot. **Drake v. Obama**, 664 F.3d 774, 782 (9th Cir. 2011). Even assuming this Court would adopt that standard, to establish standing, the competitor must have a “chance of prevailing in the election.” Id. In this instance, Plaintiff appears to have asserted his status as a candidate primarily as a means to pursue this lawsuit. Plaintiff has not set forth facts from which the Court could conclude that he is a true “competitor” in the presidential primary. The fact that he has declared himself a write-in candidate is simply not enough to confer standing. As a number of courts have held, if such a declaration “’were sufficient, any citizen could obtain standing (in violation of Article III of the U.S. Constitution) by merely self-declaring.’” **Grinols v. Electoral College**, No. 2:12-cv-2997, 2013 WL 2294885, at *8 (E.D. Cal. May 23, 2013) (quoting **Sibley v. Obama**, No. 12–5198, 2012 WL 6603088 at *1 (D.C. Cir. Dec.6, 2012)).

    [^1] https://www.vermontjudiciary.org/sites/default/files/documents/2016-3-16-5.pdf

  13. Time will tell how the Vermont Supreme Court will rule on the case.

    You may feel that nothing productive will result from my effort while I believe otherwise – if I believed I was on a fool’s errand, I would not have spent the time, energy and money on the case ! I truly believe that; if this, most probably my last effort, fails – the original intent of the founders and framers to protect the country from individuals who had divided loyalties and allegiance – will be lost forever ! The worst part of that is that until the nation has a clear and concise definition of the presidential qualification, there can be no discussion as to whether we want that qualification to remain in our modern era. Certainly allowing the qualification to disintegrate through ignorance (being ignored) and obfuscation is not the best way to expand the pool of qualified candidates. Speculating for just a moment, if the Vermont Supreme Court were to rule that a “natural-born Citizen” was an “individual born in country to two citizen parents” – the decision would immediately be appealed to SCOTUS by Rubio, Cruz or possibly the State of Vermont. If SCOTUS were to accept the case and rule, the nation would finally have a clear and indisputable definition of the qualification and if a majority of the citizens felt that it was too restrictive (or not restrictive enough) an effort would surely follow to amend the Constitution to create a more acceptable set of qualifications. None of this will happen until we have a precise definition of the current qualification !

    H. Brooke Paige
    Washington, Vermont

    • I don’t see where anyone was harmed by the fact that Cruz and Rubio were on the ballot. If you didn’t think they were eligible you didn’t have to vote for them. Had Cruz won the nomination there is a chance that Clinton or a third party candidate might have challenged his eligibility and had standing to file a solid case. I think the courts would have ultimately ruled that any citizen at birth is eligible.

      A better use of your efforts and money would have been to fight this asshole Trump who has worked with the Russians to subvert this country’s election process and is a lying piece of filth.

    • Northland10 says:

      Two citizen parents has never been the definition, ever. You are not asking for a precise definition but for your definition. Just because the accepted definition is different then what you want does not mean their is not one.

      Cruz could legitimately raise doubts, but the other you challenge do not.

      As it is, you have not heeded the earlier statemental of the court. You still have no standing and the issue is long moot

      • Actually I am asking for “A” definition – any definition that is precise and doesn’t allow for a whole lot of interpretation ! “Born in Country to Two Citizen Parents”, “Born in Country with at least One Citizen Parent”. “Born in Country”, “Born to Two Citizen Parents”. “Born to a least One Citizen Parent” – something specific PLEASE ! Then we could discuss whether the definition they provide should continue to stand OR if we wish something even less (or more) restrictive – “naturalized citizen for 35 years’ ,”legal resident alien”, “illegal alien” or no requirement at all ! It all begins by SCOTUS providing some specific definition !

        • Northland10 says:

          Courts do not work that way. They only rule on actual controversies where somebody received particular and specific injuries. If Cruz were denied access to the ballot by a state, that might get picked up by SCOTUS.

          No court has ruled differently on the Birther cases so there Supremes do not have a disagreement to rule upon.

          • Well the Supreme Court of Vermont (SCoVT) has indicated, during oral argument, that they see an ongoing “actual controversy” as there is a significant likelihood that: Cruz, Rubio, Jindal and/or Haley will run in a future Presidential election. Further that the case at hand has demonstrated that if that happens, there is no likelihood that a ballot challenge could be adjudicated to a finality in the Vermont Courts. This exception to mootness will allow the case to proceed to the merits of the case. (In 2012, the SCoVT found that case moot because there was no possibility of defendant Obama running for President again – thus, unlike in this case, there was no ongoing actual controversy that the court was capable of addressing.) Should the SCoVT decision unfavorable to Cruz and/or Rubio on the “nb-C” issue they would have the right to appeal the issue to SCOTUS – “that is how it works!”

        • Well aren’t you special. You want the courts to give you your very own ruling on the definition of natural born citizen. I think I will ask them to define “traitor”. I think Trump will fit it. How about you?

        • Jim Buzzell says:

          The Law of Nations spell it out clearly, read it an reflect.

          • The Law of Nations by de Vattel discusses citizenship laws in Europe in the 18th century Even de Vattel said it doesn’t apply in England (or by extension the American colonies).

            • However the founders and famers found it to be the most complete and contemporary expression of Natural Law and considered it one of their most important reference materials as they composed their “Declaration”, the “Articles” and, later, the Constitution. It was extensively referenced in court proceedings in the 17th and most of the 19th century. Benjamin Franklin, Henry Laurens and other founders and framers made reference to the importance of the Law of Nations as they crafter our founding documents. De Vattel’s Law of Nations was his expression of Natural Law philosophy and was not intended to be considered as a discussion limited to the conduct of any particular venue. In the citizenship discussion, de Vattel mentions both English and French citizenship (subjecthood) as two differant examples – he does not judge their practices. Clearly, “natural-born subjecthood” was intended to cast a wide net allowing the crown to claim dominion over a many individuals as possible, whereas the founders and framers sought to confine the “pool” of perspective candidates for President to be restricted to those with undivided allegiance and loyalty to their new nation and believed that restricting the service in that office to only “natural-born Citizens” was the simplest and best qualification to achieve that goal ! In they founding era de Vattel’s Law of Nation was well-known and read not only by the diplomatic and political class, but by the citizenry at large. In the founding era alone there were over eight different editions (in both English and French) distributed and circulating in the American colonies. As obscure as de Vattel is considered today, he was considered one of the most celebrated Natural Law philosophers in the second half of the 18th century.

          • Northland10 says:

            Vattel’s treatise is not US law nor is it the US Constitution. And BTW, read the whole thing and reflect. It does not say what you think it says.

            So, if only one parent is with the children, are they barred from the pool where the rule is the children must be accompanied by their parents? Can a single child not go because he is not children but a single child?

            By your definition, Vattel’s boss was not a citizen of the country he ruled. His mother was from Bavaria.

          • Mr. Paige and Mr. Buzzell,

            During the congressional debates over the 1795 naturalization act, Congressman Giles proposed an amendment that any alien with a title of nobility had to renounce the title before he could be admitted to US citizenship. The idea was to prevent a nobility class from forming in the US. His amendment eventually became part of the new immigration law.

            During the debates over the Giles amendment, Congressman Hillhouse of Connecticut gave an example of a nobleman who came to the US but refused to renounce his title and therefore could not become a citizen. His children would be “natural born citizens” and could inherit titles from their father and thus defeat the purpose of the amendment.

            “But what will be the consequences of his not renouncing? Most clearly that he retains and possesses them [his titles]. A nobleman, then, may come to the United States, marry, purchase lands, and enjoy every other right of a citizen, except that of electing and being elected to office. His children, being natural born citizens, will enjoy, by inheritance, his title, and all the rights of nobility and a privileged order which he possessed, an idea which ought not, either explicitly or impliedly, to be admitted.”

            Congressman Hillhouse gave us a clear example for the case of an alien parent’s children being natural born citizens.

    • bob says:

      Since Paige seems to know so much Apuzzo, perhaps Paige can fill us in on what’s going on in Apuzzo’s sister birther case against Cruz in New Jersey.

      • “Since Paige seems to know so much Apuzzo . . .” I have no idea what this means, however it comes off as condescending or snarky. Yes I have become friends with Mario Apuzzo through our common interest in the “natural-born Citizen” issue. I have not followed his other efforts except the one in Pennsylvania the moved beyond standing, venue and political question. Mario follows most of these blogs, so I suspect he will speak for himself, if he chooses to do so.

        • tbfreeman says:

          A long-winded way for Paige to say he knows nothing about Apuzzo’s sister case in New Jersey. Since Apuzzo never speaks of it, I infer that he quietly abandoned it. And lacks the courage to publicly say so.

          But good to know that Paige is aware of the Pennsylvanian efforts: a trial court — on the merits — ruled Cruz was a natural-born citizen because he was a citizen at birth. And the Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed that on-the-merits ruling. Since the was the definition was hoping for, Paige ignores it.

  14. I am not a “birther” as I have never claimed that Barack Hussein Obama, II was born “across the seas.” I am unaware of conclusive evidence that Mr. Obama was born anywhere other than in Hawaii. In fact in my 2012 case, the White House version was the only exhibit of documentation presented. That birth certificate clearly states that Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. was a citizen of Kenya at the time of his son’s birth (and remind so until his death in 1982).

    How can I be considered a “birther” when I have never contested Obama, II claim to have been born in Hawaii ?

    • Dave B. says:

      You think the circumstances of Obama’s birth made him ineligible for the office he legitimately held. That’s what birthers do. You’re a birther. You own that. You are that.

      • I believe that anyone who is not “born in country to two citizens parents” is ineligible to serve as President or Vice President of the United States. This is not just about Mr..Obama – it is about every person who seeks the office who does not possess the necessary birth circumstances ! More importantly, my effort is about having SCOTUs confirm the definition of an “natural-born Citizen” and whatever they decide will be THE Presidential Qualification (along with the “14 tears residency” and “35 years of age” qualifications).

        • . . . what I think is irrelevant !

        • Dave B. says:

          You believe in birther law, made up in 2008 to challenge Obama’s eligibility. If you’re not a a birther, I’m Grace Kelly, Princess of Monaco.

        • Northland10 says:

          I believe that anyone who is not “born in country to two citizens parents” is ineligible to serve as President or Vice President of the United States.

          You may believe that but it has never been the law or sole definition of “natural-born citizen.” That has been explained in multiple cases over the last 8 years and is even mentioned as dicta in Minor v Happersett. Despite the attempt to use that case as proof, you must have 2 parents, it does not prove it. In fact, it even admits there are other ways beyond 2 citizen parents, but the case about voting rights did not require any further discussion on the issue because it was irrelevant to the case at hand. To use minor as authority for 2 citizen parents is intentionally misrepresenting what the opinion actually says.

        • “That birth certificate clearly states that Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. was a citizen of Kenya at the time of his son’s birth (and remind so until his death in 1982).”

          Sorry sir, but you are wrong about that. Nowhere on the Hawaiian birth certificate nor on any birth certificate in the US, is the citizenship status of the parents listed.

          As you are aware, the Supreme Court has decided the definition of the term natural born citizen. It was in the 1898 Wong Kim Ark case. I realize that you don’t accept the Court’s decision in that case or you interpreted the results different from most people. But the fact remains that in 1898 and the early part of the 20th century Wong Kim Ark was cited by the legal community as granting presidential elegibility to children of aliens.

          I know you are aware that in almost a dozen recent court cases including your own 2012 case, lower courts have relied on Wong Kim Ark to declare President Obama to be a natural born citizen.

          The Court’s 1898 definition is the same one used by Congressman Hillhouse in the 1795 debates in Congress.

          • Mr. Hughes,

            To my knowledge, no one has ever contested the fact that Obama, Sr. was born, raised, lived and died as a Kenyan citizen (born and raised a British subject in that country) -if you have evidence, please inform us. The Hawaiian birth certificate of Obama, II indicates his father’s birthplace as Kenya, East Africa.

            U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark mentioned “natural-born citizen(ship)” as part of its decision as to the question of the citizenship of the plaintiff, Wong Kim Ark. The question that Minor did not answer was answered by U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 708 (1898), in which the United States argued that a child born in the U.S. to alien parents was not a “citizen of the United States” under the 14th Amendment. Ruling against the government, Wong Kim Ark declared a child born in the country to alien parents to be a “citizen of the United States” under the 14th Amendment. Wong Kim Ark, citing and quoting Minor and acknowledging its definition that a “natural-born citizen” was an individual born in the country to citizen parents, in no way disturbed Minor’s definition of a “natural-born citizen,” for it was asked to decide only if Wong was a “citizen of the United States” under the 14th Amendment. Wong Kim Ark also found Wong to be a 14th Amendment “citizen of the United States” because it found that his parents, while not U.S. citizens, were, among other things, domiciliaries, residents of the United States, and not working in some foreign diplomatic capacity and therefore “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. So Wong Kim Ark only ruled that he was a “citizen” It never ruled that he was also “natural born.” The Court cautioned in its opinion, both in the beginning and at its end, that it was only deciding whether Wong was a “citizen of the United States” under the 14th Amendment and also informed us under what limited conditions (born in the U.S. to alien parents who were domiciled and residing in the U.S. and not employed in some foreign diplomatic capacity) it ruled that he so was. It told us that concerning “natural born” status, Wong, being born in the United States to domiciled and resident alien parents which made him born “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” was as much a “citizen” as a “natural born” child born in the United States to “citizen” parents. Hence, Wong Kim Ark told us that while Wong could be a “citizen” at birth, he could not be considered a “natural born Citizen” also.

            In the Obama Ballot Access cases you mention, the defendants carefully “misquoted” or misread Wong in their arguments In my 2012 Ballot access case, AAG Daloz relied primarily on the ruling of Indiana Appellant Court Judge Elaine Brown, at that time a judge recently elevated from Family Court, for its definition of a “natural-born Citizen” in Ankeny v. Governor of State of Indiana. No. 916 N.E.2d 678.

            The Vermont Supreme Court Justices indicated that they believed that this issue should be resolved, since if it were to dismiss the current case, it would only continue to reoccur until it is resolved. In this case I have only asked the Court to do what is within their reach – that is to rule on the Presidential qualification in order to be granted access to be placed on the ballot in Vermont’s Presidential Primary and General Election,

            • Dave B. says:

              There is no such “definition” of natural born citizen in Minor v. Happersett. I see no irony in birthers taking an oblique reference to a case denying citizenship to persons of African nativity and descent in a case denying women the right to vote and trying to use it to deny Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president.

              • Dave B. says:

                I do, however, see the irony in Paige talking about how others “carefully “misquoted” or misread Wong.” His whole argument is based on carefully misquoting and misreading Minor.

              • You are on point Dave B. Minor was a suffrage case and not a citizenship case. The main finding in the case was that voting was not a right of citizenship was made moot by the Nineteenth Amendment. In obiter dicta the court delineated that none of the paths to citizenship excluded women so that the case had to be decided on the basis that women were citizens but citizenship didn’t bring an absolute right of suffrage. To claim that the case actually defined who were natural born citizens is absurd. Even if you agree that it did that finding was overturned by Wong Kim Ark.

                • You would be even more accurate to say that SCOTUS has never addressed the issue of the definition of the phrase “natural-born Citizen” in the context of the Constitutional Presidential qualification. To claim that any of the SCOTUS citizenship cases that make reference to a “natural-born Citizen,” tangentially, sought to define the Presidential Qualifying phrase is most certainly absurd.

              • Dave B. says:

                We there yet?

            • “The Hawaiian birth certificate of Obama, II indicates his father’s birthplace as Kenya, East Africa.”

              A birth certificate is meaningless in determining the citizenship status of the parents. How do you know Obama Sr. wasn’t born to a American citizen parent?

              “Wong Kim Ark, citing and quoting Minor and acknowledging its definition that a “natural-born citizen” was an individual born in the country to citizen parents”

              No, sir, Justice Gray cited the Minor decision only to show that Justice Miller did not hold to the his dicta from the Slaughterhouse Cases.

              Wong’s parents were not permanently domicile in the US, in fact they had returned to China years before he was denied entry into the US.

              “Hence, Wong Kim Ark told us that while Wong could be a “citizen” at birth, he could not be considered a “natural born Citizen” also.”

              This is your interpretation which is not held by either legal experts contemporaneous to the decision or current to today.

              “Indiana Appellant Court Judge Elaine Brown, at that time a judge recently elevated from Family Court, for its definition of a “natural-born Citizen” in Ankeny v. Governor of State of Indiana. No. 916 N.E.2d 678.”

              With the concurrence of Judge May and Judge Crone of the Indiana Appellate Court. Also concurring were Judge Bent of Vermont, Judge Stansfield of Maryland, Judge Gordon of Arizona, Judge Masin of New Jersey, Judge Malihi of Georgia to name a few.

              “The Vermont Supreme Court Justices indicated that they believed that this issue should be resolved, since if it were to dismiss the current case, it would only continue to reoccur until it is resolved. ”

              Nowhere in their 2013 decision do they even hint that this is an issue that needs resolving. Perhaps in your 2016 case they might have suggested some debate over someone like Cruz but never over someone like Rubio.

    • I believe as a matter of convenience the meaning of the term “Birther” evolved over time to include all of the fringe who believed that Barack Obama was not eligible to be President because of his circumstances of birth. The two citizen parent theory was invented by Leo Donofrio about the time of the general election in late 2008. I believe he claims the idea came to him in a dream. Before his lawsuit no Birther had ever mentioned it.

      Most Birthers began to accept the theory including your friend Mr. Apuzzo. However, it barely got a mention in his early court filings. I think it became popular as the idea that Obama was born in Kenya was so demonstrably wrong as the evidence of Obama’s Hawaiian birth was just overwhelming.

      Some delusional Birthers even made the claim that they learned in school that to be a natural born citizen you had to be born on US soil to two citizen parents. Even years later not one of them has produced a single Civics textbook that said that.

      So whether you want to be called a conspiracy theorist, Birther, fringe thinker doesn’t really matter to me.

      • I’m good with being identified as a Constitutional Originalist or a Constitutional Conservative.

        • Northland10 says:

          The people in writing the Constitution disagree with your definition, so no, you are not a Constitutionalist Originalist. You are reading into the the Constiution something that is not there.

          Hence, Wong Kim Ark told us that while Wong could be a “citizen” at birth, he could not be considered a “natural born Citizen” also.

          Seriously? Not saying something does not mean they said something.

        • tbfreeman says:

          Paige’s comments here amply show that he simply not looking for “a” definition; he’s looking for a court to agree with him on his preferred definition. Paige continues to ignore the courts, scholars, and other experts who have rejected his overly narrow definition, including the trial court that heard his 201l2 challenge.

        • Except you are neither at least as far as interpreting it.

        • A better descriptor of you would be a constitutional fantasist.

      • To make de Vattel’s Law of Nations out to be an obscure, forgotten work is absurd. Since its first edition appeared in 1758, over 100 editions have been published in over 20 countries beyond France, England and the US. It has been translated into over a dozen languages. The copy I give to the lawyers, judges and justices considering my case is the edition published by the Liberty Fund, Inc. in the spring of 2008 – before, then candidate, Hillary Clinton speculated that Mr. Obama might be unqualified to seek the office.

        • Dave B. says:

          What’s absurd is to make “The Law of Nations” out to be the source of a term everybody knew came from the common law of England. So tell us more about that Clinton “speculation.”

        • Northland10 says:

          How about some proof to back up your claim regarding Hillary Clinton.

          • Dave B. says:

            I’d like to see him make a clear, unequivocal claim in the first place, instead of some vague half-assertion he can retreat from when the heat comes on.

          • Doubters – Here You Go !

            While the 2008 Clinton campaign DID NOT begin the “birther movement” they were certainly willing to advance the narrative to support Ms. Clinton’s efforts to best Mr. Obama in the primary season. MSNBC discussed the involvement of the Clinton Campaign in the discussion of Obama’s qualification to serve as president on the “Morning Show” is 2015.

            This Snopes posting – answering the question did Ms. Clinton begin the “birther movement” – finds that she did not, but goes on to discuss her campaigns efforts to advance the claim that Obama was born elsewhere.

            http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-started-birther-movement/

            In mentioning Ms. Clinton’s campaign’s efforts to prove Mr. Obama was unqualified, I had not intended to say that she or her campaign were “birthers” in the real sense – only that they made vague claims that he was “unqualified” in some way. It now appears that they were “birthers” – though not the originators of the theory !

            In any case, my statement that the Liberty Funds publication of de Vattel’s Law of Nations, which includes several other of his writings and extensive biography was published before or contemporaneous with the onset of the controversy and was not published as support for the discussion on the subject of “natural-born Citizen(ship).” Further, I feel compelled to mention that the citizenship discussion in the Liberty Fund’s Law of Nations occupies a mere four pages of the book that examines the application of Natural Law to government and international affairs.

            postscript – It may be instructive to view the two candidates’ coverage on CNN in 2008 as CNN’s Candy Crowly – Examines Hillary Clinton vs Barack Obama in 2008 – “Obama’s Birther Issue” available on YouTube at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psd0RGGVVNI

          • “It’s One Person’s Word Against Another on the Birther Rumor !”

            WASHINGTON – September 19, 2016 – David Goldstein

            It’s still one person’s word against another. While emails show that Hillary Clinton confidant Sid Blumenthal did share story tips about Barack Obama with McClatchy’s former bureau chief James Asher, the emails aren’t conclusive that Blumenthal was the source of the “birther” tip.

            Asher says he recalls the conversation clearly, and a former McClatchy reporter recalls being asked to check out the birther rumors. Blumenthal denies it all.

            Asher said Friday and repeated on Monday that Blumenthal did spread the story to him, and that he assigned a reporter to check it out. Blumenthal, who did not have a formal role in the campaign in 2008, denies Asher’s account.

            Shashank Bengali, who was the McClatchy bureau chief in Nairobi in 2008, confirmed Monday that Asher asked him to look into Obama’s background.

            He said he did report on several tips as well as the false rumor that Obama was born there, and not in Hawaii. Candidates for president must be native born.

            “Jim asked me to look into Obama’s ties to Kenya and sent a number of tips to check out and one of the things I looked into was the unfounded rumor that Obama was born in Kenya,” Bengali said, speaking from Afghanistan where he was on assignment for the Los Angeles Times, where he now works. “I don’t have any specific knowledge where that tip would have come from. Jim’s instructions were just to look at everything.”

            McClatchy has not been able to reach Blumenthal for comment. He worked for both President Bill Clinton and more recently for the Clintons’ charitable foundation.

            Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article102828747.html#storylink=cpy

            • tbfreeman says:

              In other words, Asher makes an unsubstantiated claim, and Paige, unsurprisingly, is willing to entertain it because it supports his agenda to undermine President Obama’s legitimacy.

              • This is one of three sources including Snopes and CNN that I cited ONLY to point out that the Liberty Fund printing of de Vattel’s of Nations was published before the Obama / nb-C controversy arose and nothing more. Some of you folks are like people who pick at scabs just to watch them bleed ! Give it a rest.

                • tbfreeman says:

                  Oh, the irony: “Give it a rest,” says the person still obsessed with Obama’s presidency. An obsession based on an intentional misreading that has been repeatedly rejected by the courts.

            • tbfreeman says:

              It is amusing that Paige imagines that Clinton was even aware of Liberty Fund and whatever it was publishing. And there is no indication that Clinton or anyone even remotely near her believed (or was even aware of) the two-citizen-parent fantasy that was not articulated until it came to Donofrio in a dream.

  15. I am willing to await the decision of the Vermont Supreme Court, I understood that engaging with your followers would not be productive and I knew no one would find a revelation on anything I might post. I have stated my position and will return when the court renders its decision.

    H, Brooke Paige
    Washington, Vermont

    • bob says:

      I have stated my position and will return when the court renders its decision.

      When the Vermont Supreme Court doesn’t tell Paige what he wants to hear, perhaps he’ll come back and announce that he’ll going to the U.S. Supreme Court. And when the U.S. Supreme Court denies without comment Paige’s request, Paige will continue to claim that he’s just looking for “a” definition. A claim that only Paige believes.

      • As this case relates to the Election Laws in the State of Vermont only, I consider the Vermont Supreme Court as the highest authority in this matter. Therefore, I obviously would not consider appealing the decision of the SCoVT to SCOTUS, however I suspect that a ruling in my favor would not be satisfactory to the defendants Cruz or Rubio and I am unsure of the position the Attorney General’s office would take as to appeal. While you folks couldn’t “give a rat’s ass” about the actual case, there are four election questions in addition to the “national-born Citizen” issue that are under consideration – they are: 1) does the plaintiff have standing to bring the case; 2) is the Washington Co. Superior Court the proper venue to file the case: 3) does the Secretary of State, defendant Condos, have the authority to the authority to prevent unqualified candidates from being placed on the ballot 4) is the case unripe prior to the closing date for the submission of petitions from candidates: 5) is the case moot once the election has been conducted or 6) does this case meet the conditions necessary to be considered as qualifying election controversy exception to mootness (probability of reputation and the inability to be adjudicated because of the brevity of the event) ? I believe I have a fair chance of prevailing on each of these questions – I am hopeful the court will proceed to confirm the definition of “natural-born Citizen” expressed by SCOTUS in the “citizenship” cases cited.

        I will be satisfied with (I must be satisfied) with the decision of the SCoVT – the only decision that would demand further action my me would be their finding the case moot because of the passage of time and deferring from finding on the question advanced (1-4) and the candidacy of an unqualified candidate in the 2020 Presidential Election cycle.

        H. Brooke Paige
        Washington, Vermont.

        • The Vermont Supreme Court answered at several of those questions in your 2012/3 case.

          http://law.justia.com/cases/vermont/supreme-court/2013/2012-439.html

          Why would you expect their answer to be different this time?

          • tbfreeman says:

            Exactly. Paige was not “satisfied” with how the Vermont Superior Court, the Vermont Supreme Court, and the U.S. Supreme Court handled his 2012 challenge.

            Paige’s 2016 challenge will fare no better, and Paige will still continue to not be satisfied.

            • Nothing like having a Mind Reader in the crowd !

              • tbfreeman says:

                No mind reading involved: Paige’s past and present behaviors are entirely consistent with his continued refusing to accept reality. There is no is no indication he will change.

                As for predictive abilities: I predicted every single birther case would fail. What’s Paige’s record?

              • The Vermont Supreme Court in 2013 told you, “The issuance of an advisory opinion assessing the merits of plaintiff’s argument about the meaning of “natural born Citizen” is beyond this Court’s constitutional prerogative.”

                So what did you do? You asked the Court to issue an advisory opinion.

                The Court also told you that the “candidacies [Cruz, Rubio and Jundal] complained of are entirely speculative and are not for this Court’s consideration. If one of the above-mentioned politicians should run for President, that situation would be a new and different event.”

                Your speculation on who might run for President in the future is just that speculative.

                Don’t you know what the definition of insanity is?

              • But this is the killer for you.

                “[A] declaration by this Court with regards to plaintiff’s “natural born Citizen” argument would have no impact on the qualification-related laws and orders to which plaintiff refers, since a ruling by this Court would bind no other state or federal presidential election authority. Whatever the merit of his argument, plaintiff’s cure in the form of declaratory relief is futile and so beyond this Court’s constitutional jurisdiction. Absent a direct link between the challenged laws and orders and the purportedly negative collateral consequences suffered by plaintiff, the collateral consequence exception to mootness is inapplicable. Accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed as moot.”

                That has not changed.

                • CH

                  I can’t figure out why all of your comments are going into moderation. That isn’t supposed to happen after the first comment is approved.

    • Northland10 says:

      I am willing to await the decision of the Vermont Supreme Court, I understood that engaging with your followers would not be productive and I knew no one would find a revelation on anything I might post.

      You wandered into a group of people who have spent the last 8 years debunking, with actual facts, the various arguments of Birthers and those who believe in the 2 citizen parents stuff, and you did not expect that we might debate your claims? Though you may be willing to accept a “revelation” for a claim that lacks any historical evidence but we do not. We have read all of it before. We know what the sources you claim actually stated and they do not support your position. We also know that Vattel was cited and quoted early in this country on issues dealing with state sovereignty and international law, but he was one of many.

      If you want to actually get us to really notice the rightness of your belief, try producing a school textbook that actually states that you must have 2 citizen parents and be born in the country to be a Natural Born Citizen. We have been promised this for years, but alas, we have been given nothing.

      • So your little group know everything about the two citizen parent “stuff” – why would I bother to challenge the experts ? So I will merely propose three questions for your esteemed panel.

        FIRST

        The first relates to the Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1795 – if there was no important difference between the phrases “citizen of the United States” and “natural-born citizen” why did the subsequent Congress change the wording relating to the citizenship of children born to citizen parents

        Not much information exists on why the Third Congress deleted “natural born” from the Naturalization Act of 1790 when it passed the Naturalization Act of 1795. There is virtually no information on the subject because they probably realized that the First Congress committed errors when it passed the Naturalization Act of 1790 and did not want to create a record of the errors.

        It can be reasonably argued that Congress realized that under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, Congress is given the power to make uniform laws on naturalization and that this power did not include the power to decide who is included or excluded from being a presidential Article II “natural born Citizen.” While Congress has passed throughout United States history many statutes declaring who shall be considered nationals and citizens of the United States at birth and thereby exempting such persons from having to be naturalized under naturalization laws, at no time except by way of the short-lived “natural born” phrase in Naturalization Act of 1790 did it ever declare these persons to be “natural born Citizens.” The uniform definition of “natural born Citizen” was already provided by the law of nations and was already settled. The Framers therefore saw no need nor did they give Congress the power to tinker with that definition. Believing that Congress was highly vulnerable to foreign influence and intrigue, the Framers, who wanted to keep such influence out of the presidency, did not trust Congress when it came to who would be President, and would not have given Congress the power to decide who shall be President by allowing it to define what an Article II “natural born Citizen” is.

        Additionally, the 1790 act was a naturalization act. How could a naturalization act make anyone an Article II “natural born Citizen?” After all, a “natural born Citizen” was made by nature (the birth circumstances –birthplace and citizenship of the parents) at the time of birth and could not be so made by any law of man.

        Finally, allowing a child born on foreign soil to be President would have invited conflict with the foreign nation on whose soil the child was born. For example, Great Britain adhered to the concept of perpetual natural allegiance. Just imagine the Framers allowing a child born in Great Britain to two U.S. citizen parents (a perpetual natural born subject under English common law) after the adoption of the Constitution (post Article II grandfather time period) to be President and Commander in Chief of the United States. Also, “natural born Citizen” status, having a uniform definition under the laws of nations, could not be made to depend on the laws of the foreign country in which the child would be born to U.S. citizen parents. Congress realized their errors in passing the 1790 Act and corrected it in 1795.

        Could Congress change the meaning of the Presidential Qualifying phrase by passage of a legislative act subverting the Amendment process required by the Constitution ?

        SECOND

        How can “native birth” alone is considered sufficient to qualify an individual to be considered a “natural-born Citizen” today; when individuals born in the country to aliens in the founding era were not even recognized as “citizens” prior to the passage of the 14th Amendment in 1868 ?

        A “natural-born Citizen” become so by virtue of their birth circumstances alone and needs no law, statute, amendment or regulation to make them so. Therefore, reliance on the 14th Amendment to make an individual is counterintuitive to the reasoning of the natural law reasoning of de Vattel’s “nb-C.”

        THIRD

        In the founding era and continuing until the Cable Act of 1922, the father’s citizenship was the chief consideration in determining the child’s citizenship.

        The Cable Act of 1922 (ch. 411, 42 Stat. 1021, “Married Women’s Independent Nationality Act”) was a United States federal law that reversed former immigration laws regarding marriage. Previously, a woman lost her US citizenship if she married a foreign man, since she assumed the citizenship of her husband, a law that did not apply to US citizen men who married foreign women as, under international law, a wife assumed the citizenship of her husband.

        The Cable Act was far from perfect as former immigration laws prior to 1922 did not make reference to the alien husband’s race -[] the Cable Act of 1922 guaranteed independent female citizenship only to women who were married to an “alien eligible to naturalization” and at the time of the law’s passage, Asian aliens were not considered to be racially eligible for US citizenship. As such, the Cable Act only partially reversed previous policies and allowed women to retain their US citizenship after marrying a foreigner who was not Asian. Thus, even after the Cable Act become effective, any woman who married an Asian alien lost her US citizenship, just as under the previous law.

        Further, Cable Act had other limitations: a woman could keep her US citizenship after marrying a non-Asian alien if she stayed within the United States. However, if she married a foreigner and lived on foreign soil for two years, she could still lose her right to US nationality.The Naturalization Act of 1931 allowed females to retain their citizenship even if they married an Asian. In 1936, the Cable Act was rescinded by the 74th U.S. Congressional session passage of the Citizenship Repatriation Act of 1936 which reversed any remaining negative consequences of a woman’s marriage to an alien or foreign national.

        All this being said, given that in the founding era that a wife acquired her husband’s citizenship upon marriage under international law and confirmed by U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Laws – the father’s citizenship was the primary consideration in determining the citizenship of the offspring. (An exception to this “rule” was that individuals born to a citizen mother who father was unknown was considered a “citizen” as if the father had been a citizen as well.)

        After the Cable Act and it successors, the citizenship of each parent became of equal importance in the determination of the citizenship of the offspring. Sufficient to say that over time the citizenship of each parent created questions as to the conditions and requirements for the offspring to be considered “naturalized at birth” or whether additional “steps” were needed to secure the child’s citizenship.

        Clearly, those who rely on these immigration regulations and Acts of Congress to make them citizens are not and cannot be considered “natural-born Citizens.” Further, if the father’s citizenship was the primary consideration in determining the child’s citizenship – how can a child born to an alien father, who in the founding era was not even considered a “citizen,” today be considered a “natural-born Citizen” ?

        SUMMARY

        While it is “far above my pay grade” to speak with authority – in my humble opinion, if an individual in the founding era was not even considered a “citizen” under the conditions: “born in country to aliens” – “born to alien fathers” – “born to citizen parents “beyond the seas” (excepting those born to parents in the service of the country, i.e. diplomats or military), how can individuals born under those circumstances today be considered “natural-born citizens” qualified to serve as President when the Constitution has not been amended to allow the inclusion of those previously unqualified ?

        These issues have been raised in the plaintiff’s pleadings relating to the Presidential Qualifying phrase along with the Election Law issues mentioned elsewhere in my comments.

        • First:

          You start out saying, “Not much information exists on why the Third Congress deleted “natural born” from the Naturalization Act of 1790 when it passed the Naturalization Act of 1795. There is virtually no information on the subject” and then proceed to speculate “they probably realized that the First Congress committed errors when it passed the Naturalization Act of 1790 and did not want to create a record of the errors.”

          Well, I can speculate too. Maybe the members were concerned about what was going in Europe, especially in France. And maybe they were worried that a child born in France to American citizen parents and raised in that radical environment could return to the US and become President.

          I notice you fail to explain Congressman Hillhouse’s clear example of an alien parent’s American born children being “natural born citizens”. This was during the debate in Congress over the 1795 act. Here is his example again,

          “But what will be the consequences of his not renouncing? Most clearly that he retains and possesses them [his titles]. A nobleman, then, may come to the United States, marry, purchase lands, and enjoy every other right of a citizen, except that of electing and being elected to office. His children, being natural born citizens, will enjoy, by inheritance, his title, and all the rights of nobility and a privileged order which he possessed, an idea which ought not, either explicitly or impliedly, to be admitted.”

          The titled nobleman could not become a US citizen under Hillhouse’s example but his children would be “natural born citizens”

          Second:
          ??????
          William Rawle 1826 – “Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, …Under our Constitution the question is settled by its express language, and when we are informed that, excepting those who were citizens, (however the capacity was acquired,) at the time the Constitution was adopted, no person is eligible to the office of president unless he is a natural born citizen, the principle that the place of birth creates the relative quality is established as to us.”

          Place of birth creates the “relative quality” of being natural born.

          Third;

          Yes, a woman who married an alien may acquired the citizenship of the husband but did not lose her US citizenship.

          Read Shanks v Dupont (1830)

          “Neither did the marriage with Shanks produce that effect, because marriage with an alien, whether a friend or an enemy, produces no dissolution of the native allegiance of the wife. It may change her civil rights, but it does not effect her political rights or privileges. The general doctrine is that no persons can by any act of their own, without the consent of the government, put off their allegiance and become aliens. If it were otherwise, then a femme alien would by her marriage become, ipso facto, a citizen, and would be dowable of the estate of her husband, which are clearly contrary to law.”

          The Cable Act was enacted to specifically over turn Section 3 of the 1907 Expatriation Act.

          “SEC. 3. That any American woman who marries a foreigner shall take the nationality of her husband. At the termination of the marital relation she may resume her American citizenship, if abroad, by registering as an American citizen within one year with a consul of the United States, or by returning to reside in the United States, or, if residing in the United States at the termination of the marital relation, by continuing to reside therein.”

          Summary

          Your opinions are not based on facts.

        • Addendum
          Before you go off on the Founders did not recognize dual citizenship, this from Chief Justice Rutledge in Talbot v Janson (1795),

          “The doctrine of expatriation is certainly of great magnitude, but it is not necessary to give an opinion upon it in the present cause, there being no proof that Captain Talbot’s admission as a citizen of the French Republic was with a view to relinquish his native country, and a man may at the same time enjoy the rights of citizenship under two governments.”

          BTW, Chief Justice Rutledge was also a Framer of the Constitution.

        • Dave B. says:

          Oh for crying out loud.
          “There is virtually no information on the subject because they probably realized that the First Congress committed errors when it passed the Naturalization Act of 1790 and did not want to create a record of the errors.”
          There’s virtually no information on the subject because it was the most insignificant change of the new act– a mere restyling of the provision for transmission of citizenship to a child born abroad to a US citizen parent. How could they have foreseen Leo Donofrio dreaming up his birther law hundreds of years later? The debate on the significant changes was long and acrimonious.

          “The uniform definition of “natural born Citizen” was already provided by the law of nations and was already settled.”
          That’s birther fiction.
          “Also, “natural born Citizen” status, having a uniform definition under the laws of nations, could not be made to depend on the laws of the foreign country in which the child would be born to U.S. citizen parents.”
          That’s just silly. The “laws of nations” don’t make people citizens of their respective countries. The laws of those individual, respective countries do.

          “How can “native birth” alone is considered sufficient to qualify an individual to be considered a “natural-born Citizen” today; when individuals born in the country to aliens in the founding era were not even recognized as “citizens” prior to the passage of the 14th Amendment in 1868 ?”
          Where’d you get that idea? As Justice Gray pointed out in US v. Wong Kim Ark,
          “Passing by questions once earnestly controverted, but finally put at rest by the fourteenth amendment of the constitution, it is beyond doubt that, before the enactment of the civil rights act of 1866 or the adoption of the constitutional amendment, all white persons, at least, born within the sovereignty of the United States, whether children of citizens or of foreigners, excepting only children of ambassadors or public ministers of a foreign government, were native-born citizens of the United States.”
          Those “questions once earnestly controverted” were in regard to persons not considered to be white.

          “In the founding era and continuing until the Cable Act of 1922, the father’s citizenship was the chief consideration in determining the child’s citizenship.”
          Not for persons born in the United States, for which place of birth was the chief consideration. And the Cable Act didn’t have anything to do with transmission of citizenship.
          “After the Cable Act and it successors, the citizenship of each parent became of equal importance in the determination of the citizenship of the offspring.”
          The Cable Act had no such effect.
          “Further, if the father’s citizenship was the primary consideration in determining the child’s citizenship – how can a child born to an alien father, who in the founding era was not even considered a “citizen,” today be considered a “natural-born Citizen” ?”
          Maybe because as a society we’re at least trying to move forward from a misogynist, racist past. You might as well be arguing along with Justice Daniel that a child born to an African father couldn’t be a natural-born citizen. You know who he turned to to support his argument? Vattel. Geez, you remind me of Gordon Epperly.

          “…if an individual in the founding era was not even considered a “citizen” under the conditions: “born in country to aliens” – “born to alien fathers” – “born to citizen parents “beyond the seas” (excepting those born to parents in the service of the country, i.e. diplomats or military), how can individuals born under those circumstances today be considered “natural-born citizens” qualified to serve as President when the Constitution has not been amended to allow the inclusion of those previously unqualified ?”
          Persons “born in country to aliens” were citizens, as long as they weren’t in a class considered not to be “part of the people” of the United States– a distinction based on race or servitude. Persons “born to citizen parents “beyond the seas” (excepting those born to parents in the service of the country, i.e. diplomats or military)”? Provided the father had resided in the United States prior to the birth, then those persons were citizens, by the plain language of the law.

        • Northland10 says:

          The uniform definition of “natural born Citizen” was already provided by the law of nations and was already settled.

          Oh please. One writer’s opinion is not the law of nations. Jus gentium, the law of nations, is not a single book but a concept to which many writers of political philosophy have added their ideas. As defined in Blacks’:

          That law which natural reason has established among all men is equally observed among all nations, and is called the “law of nations,” as being the law which all nations use. it must not be understood as equivalent to what we now call “international law,” its scope being much wider. It was originally a system of law, or more properly equity, gathered by the early Roman lawyers and magistrates from the common ingredients in the customs of the old Italian tribes,-those being the nations, gentes, whom they had opportunities of observing,-to be used in cases where the jus civile did not apply; that is, in cases between foreigners or between a Roman citizen and a foreigner.

          Le droit des gens was a book by a single political philosopher, and some of that book actually covers jus civile, civil law, and not just the law of nations.
          Attempting to claim that a single paragraph, in a single philosopher’s book, is settled law for all nations is just plain foolish, especially since the same philosopher said that not all nations follow that system.

          And that is ignoring the fact that using plural does not necessarily mean both parents must be citizens.

        • I was postulating questions for the esteemed experts of this blog; not speculating as to the answers.

          I merely providing statements from others about the various questions I posted – you folks have falsely assumed that I was providing answers when I was not !

          • tbfreeman says:

            I was postulating questions for the esteemed experts of this blog; not speculating as to the answers.

            Paige may believe what he’s selling, but no else is buying: “just asking questions” is a form of rhetorical trolling that is especially popular on the internet.

            No one else believes Paige when he says he is “just asking questions”; no one else believes Paige when he says he “just” looking for “a” definition; no one else believes Paige is motivated by anything other than his obsession with Obama’s presidency.

            • Pretentious Mind-Readers and Telepaths !

              Arrogance frequently is accompanied by ignorance ! You folks want this to be all about Obama, because that is the only motive you can conceive of ! Interestingly, my 2016 effort had nothing to do with Obama, the case involved defendants: Bill Sorrell, James Condos, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio ! Sadly, the importance of confirming the definition of the Constitutional Presidential qualifying phrase is lost on this august body of myopic sycophants !

              • “Sadly, the importance of confirming the definition of the Constitutional Presidential qualifying phrase is lost on this august body of myopic sycophants !”

                Not at all. We just believe in the Constitution and the legal system that it created.

                • This applies to Senator Rubio just as it applied to President Obama.

                  “The issue of the definition of “natural born citizen” is firmly resolved by the United States Supreme Court in a prior opinion [Wong Kim Ark], and as this Court sees it, that holding is binding on the ultimate issue in this case. While Ms Fair and Ms. Miltenberger may disagree with the holding of the Supreme Court, from a perspective of stare decises, the only means by which an opinion of the Supreme Court concerning substantive law can be overturned is either by a subsequent holding of the Supreme Court or an Amendment to the U. S. Constitution. Both have occurred in the past on very rare occasions, but this Court does not believe that it has the discretion to simply disregard a holding which clearly applies to the definition of “natural born citizen” as it applies to President Obama.” Judge Stansfield, Maryland

              • Dave B. says:

                “Arrogance frequently is accompanied by ignorance !”
                Preaching to the choir there. Anybody who deals with birthers knows that.

              • tbfreeman says:

                Oh, the irony: “You folks want this to be all about Obama,” says the person who sought to remove Obama from the ballot, and then filed a proxy lawsuit aimed at delegitimizing Obama (his weak contrary protests notwithstanding).

                Paige is free to spew his lies, but only he believes that the birthers’ efforts in 2016 weren’t related to Obama.

        • tbfreeman says:

          Since we’re asking questions, I have but one for Paige: Why have disparate courts in disparate jurisdictions ruled that being born in the United States is sufficient to confer natural-born citizenship, and no court has agreed with the notion that natural-born citizenship requires birth in United States to parents who were both U.S. citizens at the time of birth?

          • I thought you folks said that no court had reached the merits dismissing the cases for a lack of standing on the part of the plaintiffs ? If this is correct then they have not, in fact, ruled on the underlying issue of the definition of the constitutional qualifying phrase.

            Certainly, the Vermont Supreme Court has yet to rule and since their decision is the only one of interest to me as part of my ballot access case – I await their determination, not the speculation of this august group of “experts !”

            • “I thought you folks said that no court had reached the merits dismissing the cases for a lack of standing on the part of the plaintiffs”

              You are more confused then usual.

              This is what Birthers claim. In fact, about a dozen courts have reached agreements based on the merits. Judge Masin in New Jersey ruled in 2012 that President Obama was a natural born citizen and in 2016 ruled that Senator Cruz was a natural born citizen.

              Judge Bent in Vermont ruled in 2012 that President Obama was a natural born citizen. But you knew that.

            • tbfreeman says:

              I don’t know why Paige thinks someone told him no court has ruled on the meaning of natural-born citizenship because around a dozen different courts have ruled that birth in the United States is sufficient for natural-born citizenship. Including the Vermont Superior Court that ruled against Paige in 2012.

              The Vermont Supreme Court is going to affirm the dismissal of his suit, but it won’t give him “a” definition, and certainly won’t give him the definition that he desires.

              • No court of competent jurisdiction has ruled on the definition of the qualifying phrase. Courts have found various plaintiffs lacked standing or incorrectly ruled that a case presented a non-judiciable political question or found that they believed that a particular candidate was a “natural-born Citizen” without sufficiently explaining how they reached their conclusion. Many of these cases were not appealed because the plaintiffs lacked the necessary financial resources to proceed on appeal, The Vermont Supreme Court DID NOT rule on the definition of the qualifying phrase, although I believe that will in their decision on the case currently before them !

                We should know with certainty in the next several weeks,

                • tbfreeman says:

                  “No court of competent jurisdiction has ruled on the definition of the qualifying phrase” is one of Paige’s bald-faced lies, as the Vermont Superior Court is a court of competent jurisdiction, and it ruled — in Paige’s case — that President Obama’s Hawaiian birth was sufficient to confer natural-born citizenship.

                  This ruling was repeated in around a dozen other courts — all of competent jurisdiction — including, notably, the Indiana Court of Appeals. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court similarly affirmed that citizenship at birth also confers natural-born citizenship.

                  That Paige may not consider the jurisdiction of those courts to be competent, but the reality-based world does.

                • Indeed tbfreeman.

                • Mr. Paige

                  You are using the well known Birther tactic of moving the goal posts over and over. Are you sure you are not a Birther?

                • tbfreeman says:

                  Worse: Paige acts like a graduate of Mario Apuzzo School of Law, wherein Paige believes he alone can determine a court’s jurisdiction, correctness, and sufficiency. Paige’s mere disagreement with the courts’ rulings is not same as whether the courts exist, have the authority to rule, and have ruled.

                • tbf:

                  He also determined that courts didn’t think through the question thoroughly enough. Try telling the judge(s) that one.

  16. tbfreeman*,

    States that I act like I’m a graduate of “Mario Apuzzo School of Law” as if that were some sort of insult. I take it as a extraordinary compliment to be associated with Mr. Apuzzo and if there were such an institution, I would be proud to have graduated for the facility – hopefully to have achieved the distinction of magna cum laude.

    You folks hide behind your screen names and pontificate about you creative theories – yet, to my knowledge, none of you have made an effort to publically support you position. In an effort at full disclosure; as I’m sure you all are well aware, I am not a lawyer (and have never even played one on TV) – however I am a historian and while you folks see nuances in the legal arguments of the “natural-born Citizen” issue – I see a very different story in the historical application of the issue that clearly supports my position, not only as to the Presidential Qualification question, but in the history of the one other historic application of the “nbC” in this nation where it was used to assure undivided allegiance of the command and crew as applied in the U.S. Naval regulations in the early 1800’s and how that application and the issue discussed here support the “born in country to citizen parents” definition as assurance of allegiance and loyalty to the nation.

    H. Brooke Paige
    Proud Honorary Graduate of the Mario Apuzzo University
    School of Constitutional Law

    (I always find it “interesting” how folks on these sites hide behind pseudomonas)

    • Northland10 says:

      You folks hide behind your screen names and pontificate about you creative theories – yet, to my knowledge, none of you have made an effort to publically support you position.

      When a vast majority of the United States agrees with your position, including the various state governments, Congress, and the courts, there is little need to publicly push that position. If the Birthers and Two-citizen parents supporters actually had support and competence to complete their task, it might have been different. If I were to be more public in my arguments, the only response I would get would be, “well, duh.”

      I need not expend extra effort in defeating you and Mario, for both of you have that task well in hand. The birthers have aways been self-defeating.

    • Mr. Paige

      You say you are a historian? Do you have a degree in history? Are you employed in that field?

      As for hiding behind “pseudomonas”. (I think you meant pseudonyms unless that was a lame attempt a joke.)…
      First, not everyone here uses a pseudonym but it is common practice not only here but on almost every blog I know. I have my reasons for not giving out my identity. I have received threats and the vilest comments you can imagine. I have been accused of being a paid troll for Obama and a communist. If I actually worked in the Federal government, for the Obama administration, or were an attorney in the field I would have made that fact known. My occupation has nothing to do with politics or law. I retired as a senior engineer from a large company and still consult with them and some other companies. I was considered the corporate expert in my particular field when I retired.

      Other folks who oppose your view either use their own name or are known. Kevin Davidson has written a lot on the subject. John Woodman has written a series of wonderfully researched articles on his blog and could have written a second book on the subject of the meaning of natural born citizen based on those articles. Frank Arduini has written many comments on the subject, he has articles here, and has offered to debate the subject on my radio show. Birther Scott Erlandson took up the challenge but didn’t show up on the night of the debate.

      Some Obama supporters who have opposed Birthers have been harassed in their workplace and in the media. Jerome Corsi tried to get Frank Arduini fired. I know of another instance but I will keep that in confidence. Bill Bryan (Foggy) was defamed by WND and by Carl Gallups. WND even published photos of his young sons.

      Since we don’t file frivolous lawsuits we don’t have to put our names on them. I think dealing in facts is what is important whether your name is Brooke Paige, Mario Apuzzo, Rick Skalsky, Dr. Conspiracy, or anything else.

      • I have a Business Degree from the University of Delaware, in my retirement I have written and published a dozen histories on Vermont in the Republic Era, Agricultural and Industrial Enterprises in Vermont as well as several biographies.

        • tbfreeman says:

          A long-winded way of saying, “no, I have no training or employment in that field.”

          • Of course all of the esteemed folks at RC Radio Blog have so much to be proud of as they troll the internet as guardians of the mythical “born citizens” they believe can be elevated by their sheer will and transformed into “natural-born Citizens” – an accomplishment only possible in your own minds.

            So nice to see you “basement bloggers” belittle the accomplishments of someone you don’t even know – in order to build your fragile egos – you opinions are valueless as they born out of ignorance and loathing.

            I have been recognized for my efforts in preserving Vermont History by the Vermont Historical Society, The Friends of the State House, the International Society of Antique Scale Collectors, the Bellows Falls Historical Society, the St. Johnsbury Historical Society, the Fairbank Museum, the Cabot Creamery, the Vermont Agricultural Hall of Fame, the Enosburg Falls Historical Society, Fairbanks Scales and the Cabot Co-operative Creamery. I am pleased that my efforts are appreciated by those who actually count.

            I guess this is my long-winded way of saying, “Grow-up and get a life, I couldn’t give a rat’s rear-end what you think of me !”

            • tbfreeman says:

              as they troll the internet

              Oh, the irony: Paige comes to RC’s blog and calls RC a troll.

              as guardians

              No one cares what people write in comment sections; people (except birthers like Paige) care very much what the courts (the actual guardians of the law) say, and the courts have repeatedly rejected Paige’s nonsense.

              mythical “born citizens” they believe can be elevated by their sheer will and transformed into “natural-born Citizens” – an accomplishment only possible in your own minds.

              Paige again denies reality because various courts have already ruled that a “citizen at birth” is a “natural-born citizen.” That Paige refuses to accept these rulings do not make them mythical; Paige’s refusal makes him delusional.

              So nice to see you “basement bloggers” belittle the accomplishments of someone you don’t even know – in order to build your fragile egos – you opinions are valueless as they born out of ignorance and loathing.

              Oh the irony: Paige’s puffs up his own experiences — an obvious fragile-ego-building ploy — to elevate his beliefs that are based on a combination of ignorance of and loathing for the courts’ rulings that have directly shown the worthlessness of Paige’s beliefs.

              I have been recognized for my efforts in preserving Vermont History . . .

              If true, that’s totally awesome. And also totally irrelevant to the meaning of natural-born citizen. Which is why RC called Paige on his appeal-to-authority lie that he is a “historian” that has some sort of superior knowledge on the topic. Because Paige doesn’t. Paige actually continues to deliberately misread historical texts and context — something an actual historian would never do — to justify his obsession with President Obama.

              I guess this is my long-winded way of saying, “Grow-up and get a life, I couldn’t give a rat’s rear-end what you think of me !”

              Says the person wasting his life trying very hard to convince strangers to care about they think about him.

            • Mr. Paige

              That kind of blanket denunciation of folks here will not be tolerated. Since disagreements can cause tension I will overlook it this time. No one here is a troll including you. I have weeded out the trolls.

              We could have a serious discussion about the eligibility of Ted Cruz. Even some of the best attorneys at the Fogbow did not think Cruz was eligible. There was much good debate in the legal forums and journals on the subject too. The courts that chose to weigh in seemed to be leaning towards Cruz being eligible. I am on that side of the fence too.

              There is no such serious debate about Barack Obama. He was ruled to be natural born in at least a dozen venues. No serious legal scholar disagrees.

              You seem to think that if the term NBC isn’t defined as you would like the we might was well get rid of the requirement. That’s just plain nonsense. In every case were are talking about someone who has been a citizen all their lives and for at least 35 years. Even a magic two citizen parent NBC could spend their entire childhood after birth and into adulthood abroad and still be eligible as long as they move back to the US and meet the residency requirement.

              When people start becoming obsessed with blood purity to such a ridiculous extent it makes me start questioning their motivations.

              • It amazes me that the folks here have had no compunction about attacking me personally and yet become distressed when their actions generate a little pushback !

                I first came here to correct your record that showed the my lower court case had ended with the “challenge denied” which was not true. I guess I stayed around to see if there was anything worth learning and I have found some of the information helpful, however I have had to endure a phalanx attack by this group questioning my motivations, mental competency, my education and so forth – including imaginary divination of my thoughts and deeds. I did get sucked into what best can be branded as a barroom brawl where facts and opinion became secondary to snarky criticism – something I generally do not engage in, I guess I identified disengagement as admitting defeat ! No complaint, I guess it is the nature of the beast?

                My motivations at the outset of this effort, in 2012, were to have the Constitutional Presidential Qualifying Phrase defined to finality in a court of competent jurisdiction – which, in the end, is the U.S. Supreme Court.

                Since the Federal Courts are barred from taking up the question directly, I knew that the case would necessarily need to be fully adjudicated in the State Court. In Vermont this is somewhat easier than in many others as Vermont has no appellant court and cases, first decided in the Superior Court are appealed directly to the State Supreme Court.

                In 2012, the Superior Court found against me relying solely on the decision of Judge Brown in Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana, et al. No. 49A02-0904-CV-353 – Indiana Court of Appeals which I believed was woefully insufficient. (Noted that Steve Ankeny and Bill Kruse were pro se litigants in their case and had sued, in addition to the Governor of Indiana, a host of other defendants including; Barack Obama, John McCain, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. Further they lacked the resources to file an appeal to the State Supreme of Indiana and possibly also had the common sense to realize their case had sufficient defects to make further effort fruitless). The Vermont Supreme Court found that because of the passage of time and the fact that defendant Obama was barred from again running that my appeal had become moot. They were unpersuaded by my arguments that the issues involved presented one of the permissible exceptions to mootness – elections. They did, however, rule that should the other potential candidates I mentioned in briefing, Cruz, Haley, Jindal and/or Rubio, become candidates that that would represent a “new case” capable of being litigated. Mootness was the issue appealed to SCOTUS on a Writ of Centauri which was denied.

                Someone mentioned that my efforts represented nothing more than a frivolous law suit a charge brought against me before the Supreme Courts Professional Responsibility Board by Finbar McGarry a Democratic political operative – the Board found that the case was not frivolous and in fact represented a case with significant merit – a great relief to me as it removed the possibility that the state and Defendant Obama seeking damages for their legal expenses relating to this case.

                The 2016 case began as an Administrative Complaint filed with the Secretary of State in 2015 complaining about a number of potential defects in the Presidential Primary process, some of those defects were resolved by that office, however the Secretary and his Director of Elections believed that they have only an ministerial relation to the election and that barring unqualified candidates (including: Cruz, Rubio Jindal for whom Petitions were being circulated in Vermont, at that time) from appearing on the ballot was an issue under the purview of the Washington Co. Superior Court. I will assume that you are aware of the remaining history that leads to my awaiting the decision of the Supreme Court. As this case and the relief I seek is limited to the election process in Vermont, I view it as inappropriate to consider an adverse ruling on the merits to SCOTUS, as ScoVT is (and should be considered) the “law of the land” here in Vermont and I await their decisions.

                H. Brooke Paige.

                • tbfreeman says:

                  I have had to endure a phalanx attack by this group questioning my motivations, mental competency, my education and so forth – including imaginary divination of my thoughts and deeds.

                  Paige acts surprised that his motivations, competency, and education are challenged when he relies on them as his authority. If Paige doesn’t want people to note that he acts and speaks like a delusional, obsessed partisan, then he shouldn’t act and speak like one. And Paige should educate himself on the very common human condition of judging people by their acts, and not their word, especially when they’ve shown no compulsion against lying.

                  My motivations at the outset of this effort, in 2012, were to have the Constitutional Presidential Qualifying Phrase defined to finality in a court of competent jurisdiction – which, in the end, is the U.S. Supreme Court.

                  The U.S. Supreme Court has the final say, but not the only say. It is easy to ascertain that birth in the United States is sufficient for natural-born citizenship because around a dozen courts have already said so, and no judge, scholar, or other expert has said otherwise.

                  Since the Federal Courts are barred from taking up the question directly

                  Incorrect: The federal courts are not barred; it is simply more difficult receive a judgment on the merits there due to the stricter standing requirements. Paige confuses his inability to be considered a real candidate with the federal courts’ inability to hear the case.

                  In 2012, the Superior Court found against me relying solely on the decision of Judge Brown in Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana, et al. No. 49A02-0904-CV-353 – Indiana Court of Appeals which I believed was woefully insufficient.

                  Paige continues to not understand that no one cares what he believes about the law, as he has no training and experience in the subject. But people care very much how judges have ruled. The only people dissatisfied with Ankeney are the birthers, because they refuse to accept that they are simply wrong.

    • tbfreeman says:

      I lost a comment to the ether, but others made similar points.

      Only Paige considers himself a historian; no one else does. Any self-respecting person would be ashamed to be associated with Apuzzo, but Paige gladly gloms onto an attorney who, as our host has chronicled, has lost every single birther case that he filed (including the one found to be frivolous).
      There’s no need to publicly advocate for the meaning of natural-born citizen as the courts have already done so amply. Besides, Obama’s presidency is complete; it is birthers who obsessively and pointlessly continue with their campaign to delegitimize it.
      In addition to birthers’ fondness for doxxing those who oppose them, birthers such as Walter Fitzpatrick and Darren Huff were so consumed by their obsession that they put themselves in prison. Other birthers, like Apuzzo, threaten lawsuits against those who disagree with them. A modicum of protection against these types is a reasonable precaution.

  17. Northland10 says:

    I believe that if the court was going to rule against me – the decision would have been issued promptly.

    The last time, the Vermont Supreme Court took about six months before ruling against you. Your claim is in opposition to your own history.

  18. Oral arguments were held on May 19th 2013 and the decision was issued on October 18th 2013 – not 6 months but whatever. I remembered the court issuing their decision rather promptly. Given that the court is not in session during several weeks in the summer, I guess is seemed faster than it was ? Whatever the time frame, I look forward to their decision. One thing I am sure of is that this time they will not find the issue moot and I believe will move beyond the issues of standing and jurisdiction. The Attorney General argued that if they found in my favor on Standing and jurisdiction, that the case should returned to the Superior Court for further litigation which I do not think they will do as all sides have had ample opportunity to present every imaginable legal argument and there were no fact in dispute at the conclusion of briefing, when Washington Co. Superior Court Judge Tomasi ruled. in the lower court. I still find solace in the fact that their did not rush to issue a decision – we will just have to wait and see !

    • Northland10 says:

      I was going off of a Citizen Wells article which quoted the Burlington Free Press stating the hearing was around April 23rd (and the blog post was on May 5th). If I misunderstood the date, then apologize, though it is only one month different.

      As it happens, even if they avoided mootness, you would still not have standing nor corrected any defects from 2013, which the court listed in their conclusion.

      https://citizenwells.com/2013/05/05/vermont-supreme-court-obama-eligibility-case-obama-not-natural-born-citizen-due-to-foreign-father-h-brooke-paige-vattel-law-of-nations-cited/

    • (Updated) Thanks for clearing up the dates. I would have read the Citizen Wells article exactly the way Northland10 did. This video (audio actually) shows the date of the oral argument as April 23, 2013.

      Mr. Page:
      I had asked before if there was a link to the transcript or audio of the hearing last November. Did you see my question?

    • Northland10 says:

      Have you considered that your two-parent citizen definition would mean that the President’s oldest children are not natural born citizens and would not be eligible to be president? Eric is currently ineligible due to age but I’m generally positive he grow out of that.

    • tbfreeman says:

      One thing I am sure of is that this time they will not find the issue moot and I believe will move beyond the issues of standing and jurisdiction.

      Paige is “sure” of many things that aren’t true. Paige has not learned that his certainty is actually reliably inaccurate, and I’m sure Paige will continue to not learn that lesson.

      When the Vermont Supreme Court inevitably denies Paige, Paige will continue have learned nothing from the experience, and yet will continue to tout the superiority of his sureness in his disproven beliefs.

      • Northland10 says:

        That he thinks the courts can move beyond standing and jurisdiction demonstrates a complete obliviousness to how the court works. Without standing and jurisdiction, there is no case. A court can only provide relief but when the requested relief is not under their jurisidiction and the plaintiff does not have standing for the relief, the court can do nothing. Though states may have a looser requirements for standing then Federal courts, the Vermont court has already stated Paige does not have standing and they do not have jurisidiction.

        Claiming the court thinks the issue is important does not mean the court can toss the initial requirements for their to be a case. The case over the line item veto was an important case in the 1990’s, but SCOTUS denied the first case from Representatives because they lacked standing. It took actual and particular injury from the use of the line item veto to have a plaintiff with standing.

        • The Vermont Supreme Court DID NOT rule on the standing issue in 2014 and obviously will have to find that they have jurisdiction and that I have standing to reach the other issues raised – there is no magic here, just process.

          • bob says:

            The Vermont Supreme Court to Paige, in 2013: “Plaintiff also asserts that other politicians such as Senator Marco Rubio, Senator Ted Cruz, and Governor Bobby Jindal may run for President in 2016 and, like Barack Obama, were not the issue of two citizens. Assuming those claims as to parentage are correct, the candidacies complained of are entirely speculative and are not for this Court’s consideration. If one of the above-mentioned politicians should run for President, that situation would be a new and different event.”

            In response to Paige’s laughable argument about the harm that he’ll “suffer” under President Obama: “Plaintiff fails, however, to identify any negative result specific to him. His claim is a generalized grievance, in common with anyone sharing his interpretation of Article II. The injury asserted is not analogous to the social stigma or legal disability capable of invoking the exception because plaintiff cannot demonstrate how the injury is personal or debilitating.”

          • Northland10 says:

            You are correct, they did not rule on the standing issue in 2014. They ruled on it in 2013.

            • bob says:

              To be fair to Paige, the Vermont Supreme Court dismissed his appeal because it was moot. When Paige tried to argue an exception to the mootness doctrine, however, he could only articulate a generalized grievance.

              • Northland10 says:

                True. I do suspect he may not be aware that the statement about a generalized grievance is a statement about standing, allbeit in the limited scope in that case. Unfortunately, the same generalized grievance issue remains in his current case and he does not appear to done anything to rememdy that issue.

          • schwagerjt says:

            Mario Apuzzo makes sense and he is on to something you are unwilling to admit because it busts your paradigms and exposes your lies. A person would have to be braindead to fall for the lies that the Establishment has been spewing. Those carrying water for the Progressive Establishment are in denial and too afraid to admit it. If you’re scared, just say so!

    • “I still find solace in the fact that their did not rush to issue a decision – we will just have to wait and see !”

      So far the Court has issued opinions in cases 1 through 136. They have a ways to go before they get to you.

      http://law.justia.com/cases/vermont/supreme-court/2016/

    • tbfreeman says:

      Paige wrote “One thing I am sure of is that this time they will not find the issue moot.”

      How’s that surety working for Paige now?

      • tbfreeman – You do understand that I contact the court docket clerk every other week and am informed they are working diligently on the decision ? If they were going to dismiss the case with a snarky retort – It certainly wouldn’t take them over 6 months to do so !

        • tbfreeman says:

          Paige proves me correct once again: Paige lacks the character to admit that he was wrong.

          I never said the court was going to dismiss Paige’s “with a snarky retort.” Rather, I (and others) correctly predicted that the court would dismiss as moot.

          Moreover, RC correctly predicted a June dismissal. Because RC correctly gauged the court’s workflow. And did not engage in wishful thinking like Paige.

          • tbfreeman – “Your own facts ?” I never quoted you ! I have nothing to admit being wrong about as the Court has yet to rule ! “0” for two ! Just the Facts, Jack !

            • William Rawle says:

              So do you waste moneu on an appeal to the SCOTUS or wait until 2024 for another opportunity?

            • W. Kevin Vicklund says:

              Um, they just ruled your case moot, Paige-boy.

            • tbfreeman says:

              “I have nothing to admit being wrong about as the Court has yet to rule,” yet Paige is still in denial that the court dismissed his appeal as moot. As many here predicted it would do. And contrary to Paige being “sure” that it would not.

              • The SCoVT ruled the 2012-2013 case moot since Obama had been elected and could not run again! During oral arguments in the 2015-2016 case, Justice Robinson pointed out that this was not the case this time out as both Cruz and/or Rubio were likely to run again in 2020 or beyond – making the issues raised likely to occur again and if that happened, likely to again evade litigation to a finality in the time available.

                I have been baited into returning before the court issued its decision.

                I suggest we wait for the decision from the only forum that matters.

                Brooke.

                • W. Kevin Vicklund says:

                  The court did issue its decision, Paige-boy. No bait involved, just the simple fact that Robinson, who wrote the decision, decided that your case was moot, despite the hypotheticals she discussed in oral arguments. Here’s the link again, since you missed it the first time I posted it:

                  https://www.vermontjudiciary.org/sites/default/files/documents/op16-202.pdf

                • tbfreeman says:

                  The Vermont
                  Supreme Court has already dismissed as moot Paige’s 2015/2016; Jusitice Robinson’s comments notwithstanding.

                  The Vermont courts have ruled, but Paige lacks the character to abide by or even acknowledge that he lost today.

        • Northland10 says:

          Mr. Paige, I have one suggestion that may be helpful. Stop expecting courts and organizations to work like you think they should work. Courts are involved in many cases and have a developed a process to be able to handle the opinions for the cases in accordance with the law and court rules. Why would you expect to know how they do things without sufficient experience?

          Many of us have been following over 300 cases for 8-9 years. While we may have started without experience, we have learned a great deal about how the courts work, just by observing what actually happens, not what we assumed should happen. Even then, we have learned to occasionally expect the unexpected. You appear to view everything only through your own lens and are confused or disappointed when the world works differently.

          On a related note, the same assumption you use on the court may be why your cases are doomed to fail. You assume you are right because it makes sense to you, not because it is the law. Somedays, our only way is to success is put our own thought and feelings in the backseat.

  19. All of Your Questions, Comments and Snarky Remarks About My Case Relating to Vermont Election Laws are Answered by Reading One Particularly “On Point” Case – Enjoy !

    The case of Noble v. Sec’y of State, No. 48-9-10 Excv cited in my pleadings will surprise (and probably alarm) you folks. If you are patient and read through the well-reasoned 15 page decision of Judge Manley; it will be clear that, at least in Vermont, any voter that who can vote in an election has the standing to challenge a candidate’s placement on the ballot in that election. The issues of: Timeliness, Standing, Justiciability, Jurisdiction, Political Question and Constitutional Construction questions are all covered and found in the plaintiff’s favor. No reasonable person can read this case and believe that the court will not find in my favor on each of these issues and proceed to the actual controversy of the Secretary of State’s authority to keep unqualified candidates off the ballot and the question of confirming the definition of the Constitutional Presidential Qualifying phrase “natural-born Citizen” as it related to permitting candidates to be placed on the ballot in Vermont in the Presidential Primary and General Election ballots in the State of Vermont.

    Since this case never advanced to the Vermont Supreme Court, I believe the Justices will use the opportunity of my case to elevate and confirm the of Judge Manley – allowing future Election Challenge cases to navigate the Vermont Judicial Process allowing for swift resolution of issues raised in a more timely fashion (a laudable outcome, even if I fail to prevail on the “nb-C” question).

    Noble v. Sec’y of State, No. 48-9-10 Excv, Judge Manley, (Oct. 21, 2010) can be found on Justia at: http://law.justia.com/cases/vermont/superior-court/2010/2010-11-9-1.html

    • W. Kevin Vicklund says:

      Well, one thing that immediately jumps out is the first factor: Timeliness. The opinion you cite examines this factor in detail, and it is very clear that there is a very specific window in which a lawsuit under Title 17 can be filed. Too early, and the case is unripe and must be dismissed. Too late, and it must be dismissed. The window to file to contest the results (emphasis on ‘results’) of an election must be filed within 15 days after the election. The primary was held March 1, 2016. A suit filed before March 1, 2016 is unripe and must be dismissed; a suit filed after March 16, 2016 is untimely and must be dismissed. You filed your case on December 9, 2015, three months early. Your case was therefor unripe and required dismissal. There are other details in that cited case that would lead a legal scholar to doubt that a court would allow the suit to proceed to the merits, but timeliness is absolutely fatal to your case.

    • So under which of the three reasons for filing a complaint did you use?

      Title 17 2603 (b) A contest is initiated by filing a complaint with a superior court alleging:
      (1) that errors were committed in the conduct of the election or in count or return of votes, sufficient to change the ultimate result;
      (2) that there was fraud in the electoral process, sufficient to change the ultimate result; or
      (3) that for any other reason, the result of the election is not valid.

    • tbfreeman says:

      No reasonable person can read this case and believe that the court will not find in my favor

      A reasonable person (which, by definition, excludes Paige) will read Paige’s 2013 dismissal based on mootness, and conclude 2017 contains the same for Paige. A concept not discussed in this magical superior-court case (that was not appealed by the challengers).

      It is funny how no one — not Paige, not Apuzzo, not any other birther — will actually discuss why the Vermont Superior Court dismissed Paige’s challenge against Cruz.

    • Northland10 says:

      The case of Noble v. Sec’y of State, No. 48-9-10 Excv cited in my pleadings will surprise (and probably alarm) you folks. If you are patient and read through the well-reasoned 15 page decision of Judge Manley; it will be clear that, at least in Vermont, any voter that who can vote in an election has the standing to challenge a candidate’s placement on the ballot in that election.

      You’re problem using Title 17, as Mr. Vicklund pointed out, is timeliness. The decision had dealt with contesting an election. Though Judge Manley felt that declaratory relief was appropriate for the general election, this was done in the context of the actual case having been a timely filed contest of the primary election.

      You are asking for injunctive relief prior to an election, which is now long past and neither of your challenged candidates won. Title 17 only provides standing for contesting an election that was already held.

  20. Timeliness

    When the courts are incapable of fully adjudicating the issue within a year of the filing of the case, it is almost humorous to see you folks arguing that I was premature in filing. Certainly you realize that if there is a defect (i.e. unqualified candidates requesting ballot access) prior to the election. A fair reading of 17 VSA § 2603 should permit an interpretation of the phrase “within 15 days after of the election” to include “prior to 15 days after the election.”

    Interestingly, you fail to discuss the actual process that brought the case before the Superior Court in December of 2015 was an Administrative Complaint filed with the Vermont Secretary of State under 17 VSA § 2458 which states that:

    17 VSA § 2458. Complaint Procedure – “The secretary of state shall adopt rules to establish a uniform and nondiscriminatory complaint procedure to be used by any person who believes that a violation of this title (Title 17) or any other provision of Title III of United States Public Law 107-252 has occurred, is occurring, or is about to occur. For purposes of this section, “complaint” shall mean a statement in writing made by a voter stating, with particularity, the violation, notarized, and sworn or affirmed under penalty of perjury. The secretary’s rules shall provide for an informal proceeding to hear complaints for all complainants unless a formal hearing is requested. Formal complaints held pursuant to this section shall be in conformance with the rules adopted by the secretary. Any decision of the secretary may be appealed to the superior court in the county where the individual resides. (Added 2003, No. 59, § 18.)”

    If my reading of 17 VSA § 2603 Contest of Elections – is too expansive – certainly § 2458 resolves any lingering question as it allows “any person” who believes a violation of Title 17 has occurred, is occurring, or is about to occur to file a complaint with the Secretary, my Complaint was filed in September of 2016 with defendant SOS James Condos. It appears that this law covers the issue of ripeness and/or mootness indicating the importance of resolving Election questions, if not for the instant case – at least to resolve future questions

    Standing, Justiciability, Jurisdiction, Political Question and Constitutional Construction issues have disappeared and you are left sounding as foolish as AAG Daloz arguing the case was unripe until it became moot ? The Justices actually chuckled as Daloz made that exact statement !

    The “backbenchers” appear to have exhausted their attempts at dismissing the case, I think it’s time to see what the real experts (who sit on the Vermont Supreme Court bench) have to say !

    • As I see it your case would not have been moot if Rubio or Cruz had won the primary election. In that case under 2603 you could have filed a timely complaint within the 15 days.

      As to the real experts, one of them, Justice Skoglund, said that merely phrasing the questions as “If he [Rubio] runs, here is what we think” would inherently be an advisory opinion.

      Justice Burgess wrote in 2013 that advisory opinions are “beyond this Court’s constitutional prerogative.”

    • tbfreeman says:

      Standing, Justiciability, Jurisdiction, Political Question and Constitutional Construction issues have disappeared

      Yet the Vermont Superior Court wrote in 2016: “Lastly, Plaintiff has little chance of success on the merits of his claims. The Court notes that this Court has rejected similar causes of action brought by this same party in 2012. . . . There, the Court concluded . . . that Plaintiff lacked standing to pursue his claims and that the political question doctrine made the case nonjusticiable. . . . The Court adopts that same reasoning in this case . . . .”

      Paige runs away from the rulings by the judges who actually heard his cases. And of course Paige can’t even acknowledge that his 2013 appeal was dismissed as moot, nor can Paige explain why 2017 should hold anything different for him.

      • . . . and yet the Vermont Supreme Court granted me Oral Argument before the whole court rather than being relegated to the “Rocket Docket” where three Justice panels disposes of a substantial portion of the lesser appeals with five minute arguments.

        You folks act as this is a “dead letter” – I believe that at least some of the issues raised will be addressed and resolved.

        • tbfreeman says:

          I believe that at least some of the issues raised will be addressed and resolved.

          Paige continues to not understand that reality and what he believes are two very different things. With his proven track record of being wrong, one would think Paige would reassess his reliance on his own beliefs.

  21. The 2015 case has been appealed to the Supreme Court of Vermont and the dismissal on grounds of mootness in 2013 was incorrect, IMHO ! Odd, that you don’t even acknowledge that I might have overcome these issues in the current case. As pointed out in the above posts !

    • tbfreeman says:

      the dismissal on grounds of mootness in 2013 was incorrect, IMHO

      There’s nothing humble about Paige’s opinion. And, of course, in the reality-based world, the opinion of the losing litigant has no force of law. (“I’m Right Because I’m Think I’m Right” is an advanced seminar at the Mario Apuzzo School of Law.)

      It is painfully obvious that, when the Vermont Supreme Court again dismisses on mootness grounds, Paige will not accept that decision. It is also painfully obvious that Paige has learned nothing from his follies.

    • You have not overcome the advisory opinion aspect of your case. The Court can not and will not give an advisory opinion.

      It is speculation on your part that Cruz or Rubio will run in 2020. In fact it is unlikely that either will run before 2024. And even then it could be doubtful.

  22. Scott J. Tepper says:

    All Brooke Paige has to do to understand the Wong case is to read the dissent of Chief Justice Melville Fuller. The Chief Justice understood that the opinion meant that Wong was a natural born citizen who was eligible to run for President. Something which disturbed the Chief Justice greatly – because he was a racist and a xenophobe.

    So Brooke, you’re in good company. All you have to do is read what Fuller wrote. And you too can join the racists and xenophobes in trying to change the law. But right now, that’s the law. Go away, crybaby.

    • Scott J. Tepper says:

      Ugh. I can’t find the edit function. Last line should read: “Go away crybaby.”

    • What a Load !

      I happen to agree with Justice Gray and the majority of the Court who ruled that by virtue of his birth on U.S. soil Wong Kim Ark was naturalized by the Fourteenth Amendment and made a “citizen of the United States” as distinguished from a “natural-born Citizen.”

      I disagree with Justice Fuller when he says that Wong’s birth on U.S. soil is insufficient to make him a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States.”

      Neither Gray nor Fuller found Wong to be a “natural-born Citizen !”

      GRAY, J., Opinion of the Court
      MR. JUSTICE GRAY, after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.

      The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.

      FULLER, C.J., Dissenting Opinion

      It is not to be admitted that the children of persons so situated become citizens by the accident of birth. On the contrary, [p732] I am of opinion that the President and Senate by treaty, and the Congress by naturalization, have the power, notwithstanding the Fourteenth Amendment, to prescribe that all persons of a particular race, or their children, cannot become citizens, and that it results that the consent to allow such persons to come into and reside within our geographical limits does not carry with it the imposition of citizenship upon children born to them while in this country under such consent, in spite of treaty and statute.

      In other words, the Fourteenth Amendment does not exclude from citizenship by birth children born in the United States of parents permanently located therein, and who might themselves become citizens; nor, on the other hand, does it arbitrarily make citizens of children born in the United States of parents who, according to the will of their native government and of this Government, are and must remain aliens.

      Tested by this rule, Wong in Ark never became and is not a citizen of the United States, and the order of the District Court should be reversed.

      https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649

      • Then you also disagree with the US Government in its appellant brief.

        “For the most persuasive reasons we have refused citizenship to Chinese
        subjects; and yet, as to their offspring, who are just as obnoxious, and to whom the same reasons for exclusion apply with equal force, we are told that we must accept them as fellow-citizens, and that, too, because of the mere accident of birth. There certainly should be some honor and dignity in American citizenship that would be sacred from the foul and corrupting taint of a debasing alienage. Are Chinese children born in this country to share with the descendants of the patriots of the American Revolution the exalted qualification of being eligible to the Presidency in recognition of the importance and dignity of citizenship by birth?”

      • The opening statement by the US Government in its appellant brief is also telling:

        “The question presented by this appeal may be thus stated: Is a person born within the United States of alien parents domiciled therein a citizen thereof by the fact of his birth? The appellant maintains the negative, and in that behalf assigns as error the ruling of the district court that the respondent is a natural-born citizen.”

        Here is the problem like Justice Gray, Judge Morrow of the District Court ruled that Wong was a citizen of the United States. He never ruled him to be a natural born citizen.

        “From the law as announced and the facts as stipulated, I am of opinion that Wong Kim Ark is a citizen of the United States within the meaning of the citizenship clause of the fourteen amendment” Judge Morrow, District Court, Northern District of California

      • tbfreeman says:

        Paige as usual overreaches, as the majority opinion in Wong Kim Ark never ruled that Wong was not a natural-born citizen. The majority’s conclusion that Wong was a citizen was based on reasoning that necessarily included that he was also a natural-born citizen.

        It is a relatively simple application of logic, as explained by the dissent, the Indiana Court of Appeals, and around a dozen other courts that had no problem when applying Wong Kim Ark to reject the birthers’ two-citizen-parent fantasy.

      • Northland10 says:

        I happen to agree with Justice Gray and the majority of the Court who ruled that by virtue of his birth on U.S. soil Wong Kim Ark was naturalized by the Fourteenth Amendment and made a “citizen of the United States” as distinguished from a “natural-born Citizen.”

        No, the court did not rule he was naturalized by the 14th Amendment. Show where they ruled that way. They did say the Amendment assumes 2 ways to acquire citizenship, birth and naturalization. WKA acquired it by birth.

        • That is Apuzzo-speak nonsense. The Chinese Exclusion Acts prevented anyone of Chinese ancestry to be naturalized. The court would have had to have overturned those laws to naturalize WKA. They did not. The entire opinion was about making the case that WKA was a natural born citizen. By happenstance Gray concentrated on the question before the court in the final part of the order. Was WKA a citizen? No one had any doubt what the ruling was all about though.

          • “No one had any doubt what the ruling was all about though.”

            I’m sorry, I wasn’t given the secret decoder ring and the tin-foil hat so I must rely on the actual words in the decision. The court ruled that Wong was a “citizen of the United States” – they did not say that he was a “natural-born Citizen.”

            • That’s not how it was understood by attorney’s in 1898.

              “The common law rule has been finally affirmed by the Supreme Court in the recent case of the United States v Wong Kim Ark. The Supreme Court held that a child born in this country of Chinese parents domiciled here is a citizen of the United States by virtue of the locality of his birth. The whole subject is discussed at length in the opinions of this case. The effect of this decision is to make citizens of the United States by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment all persons born in United States of alien parents permanently domiciled and residing here, except the children of the diplomatic representatives of foreign powers; and, therefore, a male child born here of alien Chinese subjects is now eligible to the office of President, although his parents could not be naturalized under our laws.” William Dameron Guthrie, 1898 in Lectures on the Fourteenth Article of Amendment to the Constitution of the United States

      • dunstvangeet says:

        If you think that the Founders actually ruled that by virtue of the 14th Amendment, Mr. Wong was Naturalized means that you haven’t ever actually read the majority opinion, which you claim to agree with.

        The Majority Opinion of the Court actually had nothing to do with the 14th Amendment, other than to say that the 14th Amendment was mearly declaratory of the common law rule already in place at the time. The first 4 sections of the Majority Opinion (probably around 2/3rds of the opinion at it’s core) was talking about the law completely before the 14th Amendment was ever passed. The central argument in the opinion (using the same sections as the Majority Opinion) is as follows:

        I. “The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words [mentioning citizenship], either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution.

        II. “The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called “ligealty,” “obedience,” “faith,” or “power” of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King’s allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual — as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem — and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King’s dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King.”

        III. “The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United State afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”

        IV. “It was contended by one of the learned counsel for the United States that the rule of the Roman law, by which the citizenship of the child followed that of the parent, was the true rule of international law, as now recognized in most civilized countries, and had superseded the rule of the common law, depending on birth within the realm, originally founded on feudal considerations. But at the time of the adoption of the Constitution of the United States in 1789, and long before, it would seem to have been the rule in Europe generally, as it certainly was in France, that, as said by Pothier, “citizens, true and native-born citizens, are those who are born within the extent of the dominion of France,” and mere birth within the realm gives the rights of a native-born citizen, independently of the origin of the father or mother, and of their domicil”

        V. “In the forefront both of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution and of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the fundamental principle of citizenship by birth within the dominion was reaffirmed in the most explicit and comprehensive terms.”

        VI. “Whatever considerations, in the absence of a controlling provision of the Constitution, might influence the legislative or the executive branch of the Government to decline to admit persons of the Chinese race to the status of citizens of the United States, there are none that can constrain or permit the judiciary to refuse to give full effect to the peremptory and explicit language of the Fourteenth Amendment, which declares and ordains that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”

        VII. ” Upon the facts agreed in this case, the American citizenship which Wong Kim Ark acquired by birth within the United States has not been lost or taken away by anything happening since his birth.”

        Therefore, Mr. Wong is a citizen.

        Your argument that citizenship-by-soil was only appliciable after the 14th Amendment actually goes against the very ruling that you claim to agree with. The ratio decidendi of the decision. Sections I-IV of the opinion go directly against your argument that citizenship was really by descent, and not by soil.

        • Good summary of the WKA decision. Also the Chinese exclusion acts prevented anyone of Chinese lineage from becoming naturalized. Had WKA wanted to overturn those acts they would have said so explicitly but they did not.

  23. Responding generally to several of the expressions above:

    Supporters of Cruz, Haley, Jindal, Obama, Rubio and others with problematic birth circumstances by necessity confuse, confound and conflate the terms “natural-born Citizens” and “citizens of the United States’ as failing to do so immediately destroys their arguments.

    Should the “natural-born Citizen” qualification still stand in the 21st Century? It is not for me to say, however I do understand that until the nation has a clear and concise definition of the phrase, no discussion on changing the qualification and amending the Constitution can begin !

    • tbfreeman says:

      Paige raises a strawman arguement, as he can identify no one who actually conflates a citizen with a natural-born citizen.

      It generally understood (except by birthers, of course) that all natural-born citizens are necessarily citizens. But the converse is not true, i.e., some citizens are not natural-born citizens.

      • Of course ALL “natural-born citizens” are necessarily “citizens of the United States, – however there are many “citizens of the United States” who are not “natural-born Citizens” because they required various laws, regulations, statutes and/or amendments in order to make them “citizens” either at the time of their birth or after their birth. Only those who are citizens by virtue of their birth circumstances (born in country to citizen parents) alone are “natural-born Citizens” They can not otherwise be made or do anything to make themselves a “natural-Born Citizen.”

        • tbfreeman says:

          there are many “citizens of the United States” who are not “natural-born Citizens”

          Yes; naturalized citizens. And? Paige pointedly failed to identify one person who has conflated “citizen” and “natural-born citizen.”

          there are many “citizens of the United States” who are not “natural-born Citizens” because they required various laws, regulations, statutes and/or amendments in order to make them “citizens” either at the time of their birth or after their birth.

          Various courts, including the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, have ruled that a “citizen at birth” is a natural-born citizen. Around a dozen courts expressly ruled that President Obama’s birth in the United States was sufficient to convey natural-born citizenship.

          In other words, Paige is yet again ignoring what the courts have actually ruled because they contradict his fantasy.

  24. Oral arguments from Vermont Supreme Court in Paige v Condos 2016-202

  25. tbfreeman says:

    Paige did better than Orly Taitz. Paige might have even done better than Mario Apuzzo, who once attempted to introduce as evidence of President Obama’s “foreign” birth … his high-school yearbook from Hawaii.

    But Paige wasted way too much of his precious time on his wrong beliefs about the meaning of natural-born citizenship — an issue not even before the court. And none of the justices were buying his mootness argument; Paige even repeated his same losing arguments about the mootness exceptions that failed to carry the day in 2013.

    • Dave B. says:

      Actually what Mario did was even sillier than that. He tried to prove that Barack Obama was really Barry Soetoro by showing a copy of his yearbook photo, captioned “Barry Obama.” Here’s how it went:
      Mario:
      Next is a P(3), and this is the yearbook of Mr. Obama when he was in high school. Again, it’s the same– it’s the same…
      Judge Masin:
      Which one is that– which one is that counsel? Oh, that’s the uh, the uh..
      Mario:
      Yes, it looks like this…
      Judge Masin:
      The Oahu one
      Mario:
      Yes.
      Judge Masin:
      In 1979?
      Mario:
      Yes. it’s just– again it’s just a (?) timeline. Basically this says Barry… Obama. BARRY Obama. In high school.
      Judge Masin:
      So in other words, if– in other words if he was called– if his– let’s assume– all right–and and we have a picture. We have a picture here and I can probably
      Ms. Hill:
      (Laughs)
      Judge Masin:
      reasonably assume this is the President of the United states in this picture, and it says Barry Obama. So in other words– in other words every person who has had a nickname used, ah, for them– by the way I note the last name here is Obama– every person who has had a nickname used for them in high school, there’s a question about their identity? Come on, counsel!
      Mario:
      Well that—no…
      Judge Masin:
      Let’s be, let’s be– i mean if this said Soetoro, I’d say yeah, maybe–it’s Barry Obama! It’s Barack Obama. You know, I mean how many people in this room, I don’t know, I– I don’t want to take a poll, running a poll– how many people in this room or in this building probably had a nickname used for them maybe when they were younger or even, even today and– and you’re going to suggest that that suggests there’s a question about their identity? Especially since we have a picture here that we probably all can pretty well recognize as being the uh… it looks pretty…pretty clear this is the President.
      Mario:
      Yeah your honor, a– you know in, in itself, okay– but we’re presenting a totality of circumstances here. So we can’t take things out of context and say, oh well it’s his nickname that’s ridiculous– yeah yeah, yeah, it’s ridiculous standing by itself…
      Judge Masin:
      With all due respect, and I’m not talking about these other documents that have the other names and so forth– this is a far stretch, counsel. This is a pretty far stretch.
      Mario:
      Well the only thing i’m offering, your honor, is that his name is Barry Soetoro. That’s all I’m saying.
      Judge Masin:
      No, it doesn’t say that. It says “Barry Obama.”
      Mario:
      I’m sorry. I’m sorry, your honor–I misspoke. I misspoke– Barry, Barry, uh, Obama.
      Judge Masin:
      I– I conceded to you that if it said Barry Soetoro, maybe, maybe there’s a little bit for you. It doesn’t say Barry Soetoro, it says Barry Obama.

      Mario:
      Yes– no, I misspoke, your honor. I, I– clearly, I said before it was Barry Obama.
      Judge Masin:
      This would be the same– this would essentially be the same, counsel– my legal name happens to be Jeff but everybody thinks it’s Jeffrey. And if everybody in high school called me Jeff with my last name, you’d be suggesting that with my picture that this is some question about my identity? Move on, counsel.
      Mario:
      No, your honor…
      Judge Masin:
      I’m giving you leeway…
      Mario:
      The totality…
      Judge Masin:
      There’s a limit to my leeway.

      It should be noted that Mario was representing Nicholas “Nick” Purpura and Theodore “Ted” Moran in that case. Anyway, that there is Paige’s legal lion for you.

  26. For those of you who view my case as “off the wall” I suggest a review of this case (or a reread for those of you who have previously had a look). This case is often cited as the “gold standard” in establishing the definition of and “natural-born Citizen” including AAG Daloz in the 2012 Paige v. State of VT and to this day it amazes me that both Daloz and Judge Bent relied on it exclusively in finding Mr. Obama to be a natural-born citizen.

    It gave me solace to reread it this morning it – it reminded me that at the very least I had provided cogent arguments and stuck to identifiable issues, even if they are viewed by many as incorrect !

    https://www.google.com/#q=ankeny+v.+daniels&spf=68

    • William Rawle says:

      In your preceding comment you wrote about Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana,

      “Further they [Steve Ankeny] lacked the resources to file an appeal to the State Supreme of Indiana and possibly also had the common sense to realize their case had sufficient defects to make further effort fruitless”

      They did file for a rehearing with the Court of Appeals which was denied (all panel judges concurring).

      They petitioned for a transfer to the Indiana Supreme Court which was denied.

      ” 4/01/10 —-THIS MATTER HAS COME BEFORE THE INDIANA SUPREME COURT ON A PETITION TO TRANSFER JURISDICTION FOLLOWING THE ISSUANCE OF A DECISION BY THE COURT OF APPEALS. THE PETITION WAS FILED PURSUANT TO APPELLATE RULE 57. THE COURT HAS REVIEWED THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS. ANY RECORD ON APPEAL THAT WAS SUBMITTED HAS BEEN MADE AVAILABLE TO THE COURT FOR REVIEW, ALONG WITH ANY AND ALL BRIEFS THAT MAY HAVE BEEN FILED IN THE COURT OF APPEALS AND ALL THE MATERIALS FILED IN CONNECTION WITH THE REQUEST TO TRANSFER JURISDICTION. EACH PARTICIPATING MEMBER OF THE COURT HAS VOTED ON THE PETITION. EACH PARTICIPATING MEMBER HAS HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO VOICE THAT JUSTICE’S VIEWS ON THE CASE IN CONFERENCE WITH THE OTHER JUSTICES. BEING DULY ADVISED, THE COURT NOW DENIES THE APPELLANT’S PETITION TO TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION. RANDALL T. SHEPARD, CHIEF JUSTICE ALL JUSTICES CONCUR. KJ 04/05/10 “

      • tbfreeman says:

        Which raises the question: If Ankeny was so wrongly decided, as birthers insist, why didn’t some white* knight (i.e., Mario Apuzzo, Phil Berg, Orly Taitz, Larry Klayman, etc.) come in and appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court?

        Punning commentary perhaps intended.

        • That is a good question that some of us have asked too. I think at least part of the answer is that not even all the Birthers bought into the two citizen parent nonsense theory. Remember Leo Donofrio invented it out of thin air and dug up the Minor v Happersett as a justification in October – November 2008.

          Phil Berg who was the original Birther litigator never accepted the theory. Most of the original Birther lawsuits were largely based on theories that Obama was born in Kenya or that there was something wrong with his Hawaii issued short form birth certificate. In Mario Apuzzo’s first lawsuit on behalf of Kerchner his original complaint doesn’t cite Minor and only mentions the two citizen parent theory in a footnote.

          As the evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii piled up over time with the discovery of the newspaper birth announcements, statements by the Hawaii Department of Health, and finally the release of the “long form” copy in April 2011 the Birthers were backed into a corner if they insisted Obama was not born in Hawaii.

          They had two ways to go. One was to take up the two citizen parent theory. Apuzzo took this route. Almost overnight Birthers were claiming they always knew they were taught in school that to run for president both your parents had to be citizens. The other way was to claim the LFBC was a forgery. Some of course went both ways.

          Both positions are laughable. However, Birthers like Zullo, Apuzzo, Taitz, and Sharon Rondeau have repeated the lies thousands of times and I am sure have convinced themselves.

          I don’t think appealing Ankeny to the SCOTUS would have ultimately made any difference. I don’t think they would have heard it. The Birthers would just claim it never had a chance to be heard. They would have continued with the same nonsense.

          • tbfreeman says:

            I don’t think appealing Ankeny to the SCOTUS would have ultimately made any difference. I don’t think they would have heard it.

            It would not have made any difference, and SCOTUS would not have heard it.

            But birthers like Paige whine that Ankeny was wrongly decided, and that SCOTUS has never had the opportunity to give them “an” answer (remember: birthers like Paige insist they are only looking for “an” answer, but it is clear enough even that isn’t true). Yet Ankeny never reaching SCOTUS is actually the fault of … the birthers.

            • I agree on all of that.

              Isn’t strange that not one of these strict Constitutional conservatives like Paige has brought up Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8 or the Logan Act. It seems they only care about parts of the Constitution and some laws. They don’t even understand those.

      • I stand corrected, I had understood that the did not proceed to the State Supreme Court because of financial consideration. I was unaware of their efforts to have the petition to transfer jurisdiction to the Indiana Supreme Court.

    • William Rawle says:

      Here is the Indiana Supreme Court Transfer Orders for the week of April 1st, 2010.
      Ankeny v Governor of Indiana is the sixth one from the top.

      http://www.in.gov/judiciary/cofc/files/0402.pdf

      The Court of Appeals relied on Wong Kim Ark to decide the case. Clearly they disagree with your interpretation of the decision.

      Birthers like to cite two attorneys to support their two citizen parent argument. One is Alexander Porter Morse and the other is Professor Herbert Titus.

      Here is what A.P. Morse wrote in 1903:

      “Under decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, a child of domiciled Chinese parents, if born in the United States, would seem to be eligible to the office of President and to all the privileges of the Constitution, while the child of American parents and grandparents, born on shipboard or in foreign territory in travel or transit, might be excluded from similar rights and privileges.”

      “A natural-born citizen has been defined as one whose citizenship is established by the jurisdiction which the United States already has over the parents of the child, not what is thereafter acquired by choice of residence in this country.”

      “The conclusion is, that the child of citizens of the United States, wherever born, is “a natural-born citizen of the United States,” and, as such, if possessed of the other qualifications, would be eligible for the office of President of the United States.” Alexander Porter Morse, 1903, The Washington Law Reporter Volume 31.

      Morse seems to think that Wong Kim Ark was ruled a natural born citizen

      And here is what Professor Titus wrote in a amicus brief to the SCOTUS case of Rudy v. Lee

      “It is not necessary at this point to decide whether President Obama is a natural born citizen. Nor is it necessary now to endorse Justice Gray’s views over those of dissenting Chief Justice Fuller, or vice versa.”

      Professor Titus understands that Wong Kim Ark is the precedent for defining the term natural born citizen.

      • I had forgotten about Rudy v Lee and Titus. I reread Titus’s amicus brief. Titus also admitted that WKA settled what was left open in Minor regarding NBC. I see the brief didn’t help. SCOTUS denied the writ.

  27. While I have not received the opinion by mail or electronically, Mr. Vicklund did send me a link to the opinion this evening at 10:20 pm. A quick read finds that the court chose not to reach the merits and rendered a split (3-2) decision on the issue of mootness. While not stated, it appears that they did not find that plaintiff/appellant lacked standing or that the court lacked jurisdiction. The court erred in assigning blame for procedural delays entirely on plaintiff as I did not make requests for elongation of time in filing while the defendants did so on five occasions. Robinson, with Eaton concurring, took exception with the court’s failure to find that case presented a permissible exception to mootness.

    As to what course I will take next – I have already stated that my only interest was in the opinion of the SCoVT, so I believe an appeal to SCOTUS is unlikely, however a motion for reconsideration is a probability.

    . . . and YES the majority did rule the case moot with the passage of time.

    Brooke.

    • William Rawle says:

      “A quick read finds that the court chose not to reach the merits and rendered a split (3-2) decision on the issue of mootness.”

      Not technically true.

      The ruling of mootness was 5-0. Justices Robinson and Eaton concurred that the case was moot. Their divergence from the majority appears to me to be more on the lines of a theoretical discussion of whether under the right set of circumstances a ballot challenge even after the election occurred, could be an exception to the mootness argument.

    • William Rawle says:

      Here is the key sentence in Justice Robinson’s opinion,

      “Because I conclude that this case fails the “evading review” prong of that same exception to the mootness doctrine, I concur in the outcome.”

    • tbfreeman says:

      Nothing “technical,” really.

      All justices agree the case is moot, and there’s no exception. All justices agree the issue isn’t evading review. Two justices do think the issue is capable of repetition.

      Seeking reconsideration would be wasteful folly. Just like everything else with this case.

    • Northland10 says:

      Mr. Paige: While not stated, it appears that they did not find that plaintiff/appellant lacked standing or that the court lacked jurisdiction.

      Did you not read the opinion. The court specifically said that they lost jurisdiction. Follow their statements (with citations excluded):

      For this Court to have jurisdiction over an appeal, the appeal must involve an actual controversy arising between adverse litigants who have a legally cognizable interest in the outcome of the case.

      Why is that?

      Otherwise, any opinion issued by this Court would merely be advisory, and would not be within our constitutional authority to render.

      So, if they do not have an actual controversy with parties (plaintiff and defendants) who have actual standing (legally cognizable interest in the outcome), their opinion would only be an advisory opinion and they cannot do that.

      So they continue (emphasis mine):

      A case becomes moot—and this Court loses jurisdiction—when there no longer is an actual controversy or the litigants no longer have a legally cognizable interest in the outcome of the case.
      (snipped legal citations)
      Stated another way, a case becomes moot when this Court “can no longer grant effective relief.”

      Stated another way, with the passage of the election, all parties lost their standing and the court lost its jurisdiction to provide relief for a specific injury since no peculiar injury now exists. Mootness robs the court of jurisdiction.

      I will agree that any standing and jurisdiction arguments you may have had from the original case were not ruled upon by this Supreme Court’s opinion, but only because their jurisdiction to make such a ruling has been lost due to mootness. When the case became moot, it was a full stop. The court could go no further. They lost the jurisdiction to rule on the court’s jurisdiction.

      • dunstvangeet says:

        “Did you not read the opinion. The court specifically said that they lost jurisdiction.”
        You expect him to actually read the opinions that he cites?

        He stated above: “I happen to agree with Justice Gray and the majority of the Court who ruled that by virtue of his birth on U.S. soil Wong Kim Ark was naturalized by the Fourteenth Amendment and made a “citizen of the United States” as distinguished from a “natural-born Citizen.”

        The only problem with that statement is that it the Supreme Court never actually ruled that, and the ratio decendi of the decision actually ruled the exact opposite (that Mr. Wong was a citizen under the original constitution, because of English Common Law. That the 14th Amendment was just declaratory of the rule that had already been in place ever since the beginnings of the colonies on this continent).

        Mr. Paige doesn’t have time to actually read the opinions and understand them. He wills them to conform to whatever opinion he holds previously, and then states that he agrees with them. He never actually reads the opinions.

    • tbfreeman says:

      I agree Paige has reading-comprehension problems. For example, this discussion resumed on Friday because the court had issued its opinion. The issuance was obvious from the context of the comments, but Paige nonetheless made accusations that we were prematurely discussing the result.

      • dunstvangeet says:

        I don’t believe he has a reading-comprehension problem. I believe he doesn’t actually read the opinion itself. There is no way that he actually read U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark and came away with the opinion of that Grey decided that he was an citizen only based upon the 14th Amendment, and therefore was not a natural born citizen. He takes what others on his side say about the opinion, and parrot it without actually reading the opinion itself.

        A reading comprehension problem presumes that he actually reads the opinion. He’s too busy lawyering to actually do silly things like read opinions of cases he cites.

  28. Pingback: Apuzzo loses again: Vermont Supreme Court rules unanimously against Brooke Paige | RC Radio Blog

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