Main Menu

Vermont judge tosses crank “natural born citizen” suit

Superior Court judge Robert Bent found the suit Paige v. State of Vermont “interesting” but fatally flawed for lack of standing and jurisdiction. In addition, the central thesis of the complaint was that US Presidents must have US citizen parents is just wrong, the judge writing:

The expression “natural born citizen” is not dependent on the nationality of the parents but reflects the status of a person born into citizenship instead of having citizenship subsequently bestowed.

Read the article at the Burlington Free Press.

Read the decision here:

VT – Paige v Obama Et Al – DeCISION – (Vt Super. Ct Nov 2012)

Print Friendly

, ,

17 Responses to Vermont judge tosses crank “natural born citizen” suit

  1. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG November 16, 2012 at 3:50 pm #

    Looks like H. Brooke Paige is gonna be feeling a little…
    …bent out of shape!
    http://yeahbutton.com/

  2. avatar
    Reality Check November 16, 2012 at 4:52 pm #

    The judge took time to rule on the merits of Apuzzo’s claims on eligibility. The short of it is Judge Bent said Apuzzo was full of crap.

  3. avatar
    labman57 November 16, 2012 at 9:06 pm #

    Orly “Ahab” Taitz is obsessed with the white whale of birtherism.

    The nature of the irrational, hate-driven, delusional mind of the birthers is that they will continue to insist that ANY document proving Obama was born in the U.S. must be, by definition, a forgery.
    Because they know what they know, and that’s all that they want to know. Absolute state of denial.

    I would not be surprised to learn that the medical community has defined birtherism as yet another form of OCD.

  4. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG November 16, 2012 at 10:58 pm #

    labman57:
    Orly “Ahab” Taitz is obsessed with the white whale of birtherism.

    I can hear her now…
    “He tasks me! He tasks me, and I shall have him! I’ll chase him round the Moons of Nibia, and round the Antares Maelstrom, and round Perdition’s flames before I give him up!”

  5. avatar
    Lupin November 17, 2012 at 3:46 am #

    I note that the judge pointed out that the obvious use of the group plural “parents” in Vattel’s paragraph did NOT mean “two parents”. Common sense, of course, but one more nail in this nail-studded coffin.

  6. avatar
    Paper November 17, 2012 at 6:47 am #

    Yes, indeed.

    Lupin:
    I note that the judge pointed out that the obvious use of the group plural “parents” in Vattel’s paragraph did NOT mean “two parents”. Common sense, of course, but one more nail in this nail-studded coffin.

  7. avatar
    donna November 17, 2012 at 11:05 am #

    Lupin: I note that the judge pointed out that the obvious use of the group plural “parents” in Vattel’s paragraph did NOT mean “two parents”. Common sense, of course, but one more nail in this nail-studded coffin.

    i WISH that at least one judge would point out that the french translation of “parents” could also mean family members or relatives

    j’ai des parents en italie mais mes parents sont ici en amerique

    les parents: n.m parents, mother and father; relatives; kin, folks; ancestors, forebears

  8. avatar
    gorefan November 18, 2012 at 2:09 am #

    Paige says he is going to file an appeal with the Vermont Supreme Court on Tuesday.

    http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/comments/article/20121115/NEWS03/311150036/Vermont-judge-tosses-natural-born-citizen-anti-Obama-lawsuit

    “…Plaintiff will file his appeal with the Supreme Court next Tuesday requesting an expedited hearing before a three Justice Panel. Please take the time to read Judge Bent’s Decision which can be downloaded at the link provided by the Free Press. H. Brooke Paige, Plaintiff, pro se.”

  9. avatar
    Lupin November 18, 2012 at 4:01 am #

    donna: i WISH that at least one judge would point out that the french translation of “parents” could also mean family members or relatives

    j’ai des parents en italie mais mes parents sont ici en amerique

    les parents: n.m parents, mother and father; relatives; kin, folks; ancestors, forebears

    I have often brought that up as well. “Parents” in French means both father/mother but also blood relatives.

  10. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 18, 2012 at 9:06 am #

    Great. Apuzzo says the judge was wrong.

    gorefan: Paige says he is going to file an appeal with the Vermont Supreme Court on Tuesday.

  11. avatar
    bovril November 18, 2012 at 9:28 am #

    Called it……..8-)

    (Not like it takes more than 3 functioning neural cells to know The Toad is ALWAYS going to whine “how he wuz dun down” and everyone else in the world is wrong)

  12. avatar
    G November 18, 2012 at 11:15 am #

    No surprise here. That is what these delusional losers always attempt. The outcome of their failure is simply too predictable at this point. Just another waste of courts time and expense on an ego trip and a childish tantrum…

    gorefan:
    Paige says he is going to file an appeal with the Vermont Supreme Court on Tuesday.

    http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/comments/article/20121115/NEWS03/311150036/Vermont-judge-tosses-natural-born-citizen-anti-Obama-lawsuit

    “…Plaintiff will file his appeal with the Supreme Court next Tuesday requesting an expedited hearing before a three Justice Panel. Please take the time to read Judge Bent’s Decision which can be downloaded at the link provided by the Free Press. H. Brooke Paige, Plaintiff, pro se.”

  13. avatar
    donna November 18, 2012 at 11:38 am #

    Lupin: I have often brought that up as well. “Parents” in French means both father/mother but also blood relatives.

    merci cent fois, lupin

    from the beginning, that (erroneous) translation has bothered MOI

    why has no one raised that in pleadings?

    we have 3 “ineligible in birtherstan” republicans working their way towards a 2016 run: rubio, jindal, & ted cruz who was born in canada and sees no reason why he can’t be president

    the nativists in the gop are going to be apoplectic and doc conspiracy will have a long run

  14. avatar
    Paper November 18, 2012 at 12:19 pm #

    The biggest problem birthers have, including Apuzzo and Taitz:

    “You can’t depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus.” – Mark Twain.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Great. Apuzzo says the judge was wrong.

  15. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny November 18, 2012 at 3:55 pm #

    ” … or that his use of ‘parents’ in the plural has particular significance.”

    MON DIEU! Un juge Américain qui sait lire un texte en français. (OK, perhaps he got help)

    Looking at a map of the United States, I am starting to think Vermont may not have been the best state for the Putz to try and pull a fast one on a judge. Apart from the guy born in North Fairfield on October 5, 1829.

    Unfortunately for Mr Paige, the judge quotes Ankeny. If only he had not, the distinction of proving Obama was an NBC would have been shared between them both, and would have gone into history books as the Ankeny-Paige decision. Too bad, it is still Ankeny only.

  16. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny November 18, 2012 at 4:17 pm #

    donna: Lupin: I have often brought that up as well. “Parents” in French means both father/mother but also blood relatives.

    merci cent fois, lupin

    from the beginning, that (erroneous) translation has bothered MOI

    why has no one raised that in pleadings?

    Courts tend to deal with the issue at hand. Vattel is not relevant on citizenship. Even if it had some spiritual or virtual relevance as ONE interpretation of the law of nations (and Vattel even mentions the other interpretation), it predates the US constitution AND Wong Kim Ark.

    Suppose it was different, no Wong Kim Ark decision yet and the status of people like Obama was still part of a legal debate, the fact that the plural s does not necessarily mean both parents would be proposed as a legal argument.

    When discussing Rubio, the precise semantical meaning of “parents” might be in contention. Well, not much contention, as it is easily proven that Vattel meant all possible relatives in that sentence and I would not be surprised that when Rubio was born, he had distant relatives who were already citizens and sponsored his parents.

    Jindal, of course, cannot be vatellized in. Jindal running means the end of all Vatellist claims.

    Though the Putz will claim it is not about both parents or relatives, it is about the father and the father only. A purely academic idea, as the US has prohibited discrimination on the basis of gender for decades.

  17. avatar
    donna November 18, 2012 at 6:15 pm #

    Paul Pieniezny:

    we not-a-birthers know who is and who is not a “natural born citizen” – however, the birthers have moved the goalposts over and over: obama was not born here but even if he was both of his parents were not american but even if they were his mother traveled by herself for hours while 9 months pregnant to give birth with strangers when her loving parents were right there in hawaii …….. and on

    when i raise rubio, jindal, ted cruz, etc, i qualify it with “in birtherstan” where i DO NOT reside

    the other night, i had a “conversation” with ole mario on this blog and raised the rubio question –

    i asked ole mario:

    what is you opinion of marco rubio?

    according to kerchner, marco was born BEFORE his parents were naturalized

    and when i was not satisfied with his replies, i asked:

    so what would be the birther reaction to a rubio vp/pres candidate?

    in your opinion, would there be ballot challenges and lawsuits?

    he replied:

    Marco Rubio was born in Florida to two non-U.S. citizen parents who were domiciled and residents of Florida. He is therefore pursuant to U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) a “citizen of the United States” from the moment of birth under the Fourteenth Amendment, but he is not pursuant to Minor v. Happersett (1875) a “natural born Citizen” under Article II.

    AND

    I believe that there would be law suits against Rubio. There are some individuals who are not happy with the Republicans for their playing dumb and not standing up to defend the Constitution in the Obama eligibility question.