Paige denied injunction

H. Brooke Paige filed a lawsuit to keep Barack Obama off the November ballot in Vermont. Judge Robert Bent of the Vermont Superior Court was having none of it, reports the Burlington Free Press, refusing a request for a preliminary injunction barring Obama from the ballot, saying:

The court has been presented with a radically insufficient basis on which to issue a temporary or even a preliminary injunction

The judge cited, among other reasons, that the Plaintiff hadn’t even served President Obama with the complaint. While not ruling on the substantive argument of Paige’s complaint (the twofer theory that Obama’s non-citizen father makes him ineligible), the judge didn’t seem very sympathetic to the idea, saying:

The myriad versions of the claim that President Obama is ineligible for office because he is not a ‘natural born citizen’ have been litigated throughout the country exhaustively. They have never succeeded, usually on standing or jurisdictional bases.

About Dr. Conspiracy

I'm not a real doctor, but I have a master's degree.
This entry was posted in Ballot Challenges and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Paige denied injunction

  1. Thomas Brown says:

    I can’t get over the judge’s phrase “radically insufficient.” Hilarious.

    Kinda sums up Birferism in two words, eh what?

  2. Dave B. says:

    Paige says it’s all a misunderstanding. He comments at length about his case here:
    He seems to think it’s still ongoing.

  3. G says:

    Wow, he’s an extra level of tin-foil delusional… even for a Birther!

    Then again, he reached out to Mario the Mangler to help him with his crazy case… so that shows he’s got a proclivity towards really bad judgment in the first place.

    Dave B.:
    Paige says it’s all a misunderstanding.He comments at length about his case here:
    He seems to think it’s still ongoing.

  4. Andrew Vrba, PmG says:

    Getting a serious “Wimp Lo” from “Kung Pow” vibe from that guy.
    “I am bleeding, and therefore the victor!”

  5. Dave B. says:

    Yeah, he’s “winning” just like Sam.

  6. gorefan says:

    Order in Paige v. Obama

    “Even if the court is to reach the substance of his claim, Mr. Paige has no reasonable probability of succeeding. The Indiana Court of Appeals has addressed and conclusively rejected the same argument that Mr. Paige raises here in a through and well reasoned decision. Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana, 916 N.E. 2d 678 (Ind. Ct. App 2010). In short, relevant U.S. Supreme Court cases demonstrate that the question of who is a “natural born citizen” under the U. S. Constitution is answered in the common law. The common law of England, the American colonies, and later the United States, all support one interpretation only: “that persons born within the borders of the United States are ‘natural born citizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.” Id. At 688″ Paige v. Obama, Condos. Vermont Superior Court

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.