H. Brook Paige (pictured right) is back with another eligibility challenge in Vermont, this time against Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz. Readers may recall that Paige’s suit against Obama went all the way to the US Supreme Court. The lower court in that lawsuit made it clear that Emerich de Vattel is not where US citizenship gets its definition, concluding:
…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. The distinction is eminently logical.
The new challenge filed in Vermont Superior Court states that in 2012 no fewer than 4 ineligible candidates appeared on the ballot in Vermont (and in fact, 2 of them were unarguably ineligible due to their age). Today he is challenging Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio.
Despite the rebuff shown above, Paige once again claims that the definition of “natural born citizen” comes from a work of a Swiss jurist, Emerich de Vattel, and despite numerous Supreme Court precedents that the terms in the US Constitution are understood in the context of the English Common Law (Smith v. Alabama, Ex parte Grossman), he says that citizenship terms come from writers of “natural law.” Paige says that the Vattelian definition was imported into the American Common Law, again despite Supreme Court precedent that says there is no American Common Law.
Interested readers can read the whole complaint, but it’s pretty familiar ground. This action is:
Read more:
It was “prepared” (read: ghostwritten) by Apuzzo.
Does he have to look so much like a bad caricature of a caricature of Fyvush Finkel?
It struck me that they were just phoning it in. Almost no real arguments beyond grand proclamations that the Founders used Vattel. What a sad state the Birthers have become.
What little argument they did make was diluted by including Rubio in the complaint. His case is settled law.
What’s with the headgear? And the bowtie….Does he want to be mocked????
Every time I see him, I think of someone playing the kazoo and banjo. I have no idea why.
It’s a small quibble, Doc, but the way the article read, one might infer that *IF ONLY* Vattel’s conditions were followed, the Birthers would then be proved correct.
You, of all people, know that this is not the case.
Vattel did acknowledge that jus soli was the system the English followed and had no objection to it; Vattel’s jus sanguinis (one parent only) would make Obama an NBC as long as one didn’t discriminate between sexes; or, arguably, through his own maternal grandfather or male uncle, if his dad had skipped town.
In short, Vattel is not the “magic bullet” the Birthers believe (as indeed your Congressional Research Service demonstrated).
The birthers are not only wrong to use Vattel, they are also wrong in their interpretation of Vattel.
I think your sentence: “Paige once again claims that the definition of “natural born citizen” comes from a work of a Swiss jurist, Emerich de Vattel, ” could be modified to read:
“Paige once again claims that the definition of “natural born citizen” comes from his misunderstanding of a work of a Swiss jurist, Emerich de Vattel,”
If Only. That seems to be the anthem of birferdumb. If only they’d use the wrong section of Vattel, if only they used our version of court cases, if only…….. Alas, life is unkind….to birfers.
I think Paige’s latest effort is pretty half hearted, since he already knows the ultimate outcome of his latest exercise, I’m not really sure his heart is in it anymore.
His brain certainly isn’t.
Actually you are a real pain in the ass with your convoluted reasoning of various subjects.
It appears to me that you are a person SUFFERING FROM VERBAL HEROIN..AN ADDICTION THAT YOU CAN’T SHAKE FROM YOUR EVIL MIND.
You well know that the Supremes HAVE NOT RULED on the NBC issue, so why are you being a FUCKING JERK and making noise about the issue, noise that has no bearing on how the SUPREMES would rule.
FUCK YOU AND YOUR PIG DUNG BRAIN THAT CAN’T DEVELOP A PROPER MIND THAT WOULD ALLOW YOU TO PUSH FOR AN NBC RULING FROM THE SUPREMES RATHER THAN YOU PUSHING TO FALSELY INTERPRET LAW.. YOU FUCKING DING BAT , SCREW BALL.
Your religious credentials prove who you really are as a claimed christian.. You are no better than Al Shit-ton, Jesse jism, or Rev WRONG…of g-d damn america, and louie Freak-akan.
Now then there are more exactly like you who claim religious conviction and they are; Jim jones , David Karesh, Bob Parker,
SO FUCKYOU all in on term
I am glad Blovario signed his name to this schlock. Now I can add it to his scorecard on my blog when it is dismissed.
Yesterday I listened to the oral arguments in Paige’s case from 2013 in the Vermont Supreme Court. For a pro se Paige did fairly well with a losing argument although there were some Norm Crosby moments like when he claimed that the attorney for the SoS had argued “voraciously” for Obama when he meant to say “vociferously”. The justices were not buying Paige’s claim that he had standing as a voter to force the SoS to remove the “ineligible” candidates from the ballot.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2LIhqH_nIY
Hi. Thanks for your enthusiastic comment. I’ll reply with more detail when I get home from the Habitat build.
Dear INCONTINENT
I must say, your liberal use of capitalization and random swearing is terribly compelling, so much so I am almost tempted to throw all my beliefs aside, don a Donald Trump red baseball cap and start screaming incoherently about LIEBERALS, MOOSLEMS and RAPIST MEXIKANS.
Alas, I need a little extra from you just as to confirm this radical change in my Weltanschauung if you would be so kind..?
“VERBAL HEROIN”, a most interesting phrase, could you point me in the direction of whoever can train me in this truly amazing technique as it will increase pleasure at effectively no cost, assist in pain management and all at zero cost to the taxpayer.
Could you also explain why, when cases involving Obama and his NBC status have been appealed all the way to the SCOTUS and they have then been rejected by the court as having no validity (that’s what being ignored, denied or referred back to the lower court means) you still persist in the belief that the SCOTUS hasn’t taken action on the case..?
Could you be so kind as to point to an actual, current, on point ruling from SCOTUS that actually states that birth on the soil does not confer NBC status..? For example, Wong Kim Ark really does basically state that, enough that the dissent really whines about it A LOT.
As for ‘religious credentials’, I wasn’t aware that one has to register ones religious belief and be issued ‘papers’ or shall we say ‘Ihre Papiere bitte’? Could you please refer us to the relevant piece of the USC or Constitution that demonstrates this..?
Thank you in advance for your undoubtedly timely and polite response.
Mario “The Loser” Apuzzo signed his name to this mudslide of nonsense. Could the court haul his ass into the dock, point out that (a) he is clearly acting as an attorney despite not being licensed or admitted to practice in that court, and (b) he knows that this case is entirely frivolous based on the previous failure of all such cases, and (c) he is lying in the paper because competent lawyers have repeatedly explained actual citizenship law to him, and (d) he has not (I assume) mentioned that he narrowly slimed his way out of sanctions for the same nonsense.
Any one of these seems to me to be good cause for a severe reprimand and heavy sanctions for his abuse of the court.
I doubt that it will happen… but could it?
First let me apologize if the articles on this blog are too complicated for you. My intent is that the blog be accessible to high school students and above (the current article has a reading level of grade 12). I see your writing level is 8th grade.
The Supreme Court has ruled on the natural born citizen question insofar as it applies to persons born in the United States. Numerous courts have cited US v. Wong as precedent. They have not ruled on whether a foreign-born person who was a citizen at birth is eligible.
At least one current Supreme Court Justice (Thomas) has stated in an opinion that a natural born citizen is one who is a citizen at birth. Of course, that is just one justice. Still, I don’t know anyone of note who has come out against Cruz’ eligibility.
I find your negative generalizations against Christians to be offensive. While you can point the finger at some charlatans, there are far more decent self-sacrificing individuals who bear that label. While you were cursing the darkness on my blog, I was helping to build affordable housing.
Dear Pissed,
You might want to think about getting in to see your doctor about adjusting you meds.
Your pal,
Carl
I don’t think that will help with the grammar, spelling, and syntax issues, or the basic ignorance and stupidity.
A fresh program of ECT might help though. I understand its coming back into vogue.
True. But if it helps him calm down then he may be able to focus on those things. I’m an optimist.
That is one bad complaint. Mostly it’s about how mad they are at everyone over losing their case and their appeal last time.
Do they think the insults help their case? What do they think happens if the Court considers the whopper: “It should be noted that neither the Superior Court nor the Supreme Court considered or ruled on the underlying issues raised in the Complaint”?
I see Messrs. Farrar and Apuzzo are back at it at the Great Falls, Montana, Tribune in comments.
http://www.greatfallstribune.com/story/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/2015/12/31/eat-plants-birther-issue-cruz/78056570/
One would expect that Farrar and Apuzzo had already had enough great falls to last them several lifetimes.
Not exactly accurate. The USSC has on 35 occasions chosen to let stand lower and appellate court decisions that affirm Obama’s eligibility to serve as President. The body of case law affirming Obama’s eligibility is now probably the largest assemblage of associated court decisions in the history of the United States. In all there is a total of some 226 court challenges to Obama’s eligibility. Every one has ruled in Mr. Obama’s favor.
Over at the Examiner.com they are reporting (through the CitizenWells website) that the SoS and the AG of Vermont did not respond by the time limit (according to Paige). He is going to file for a default.
http://www.examiner.com/article/breaking-vt-judge-may-have-to-toss-cruz-rubio-jindal-off-of-state-s-ballot?cid=db_articles
Us isle comments with a lot of ignorance.
I’ve come to find that weekend birthers can be especially wacky.
It seems to me that Cruz, Rubio and Jindal are indispensable parties to any lawsuit trying to keep them off the ballot, yet Paige and Apuzzo failed to name them as defendants so the court likely has no jurisdiction, default or no default.
Why would the SOS and AG have to reply, since it is obvious on its face that the challenge is so much bilge? The hearing officer should be able to toss the application based on it not being credible on its face.
The Rutland Herald reported that it was the three candidates that didn’t respond.
http://www.rutlandherald.com/article/20160101/NEWS03/160109989
“Paige, who maintains he is running for president as a Republican and for Vermont governor and attorney general as a Democrat, said he’s forcing this issue because he feels the U.S. Constitution isn’t being respected.”
The reporter is confused. It’s clear from the link which you posted that none of the candidates are parties to Paige’s lawsuit.
I think the Citizen Wells website has it right.
http://citizenwells.com
“Just in from Mr. H. Brooke Paige, plaintiff in complaint against the State of Vermont, Secretary of State James Condos and Attorney General William Sorrell.”
“Vermont’s Attorney General Neglects to File Timely Answer in Paige v.
State of Vermont, et al (2015) – An Unexpected and Encouraging Event that
Could Expedite the Case !”
In his complaint he only names SoS Condos and AG Sorrell as defendants.
The other thing is that they are being sued in both their official as well as personal capacities. I’m betting somewhere they screwed up service, and I am not even sure they can do that
Another CitizenWells update from January 5th.
http://citizenwells.com/2016/01/05/vermont-eligibility-challenge-update-january-5-2016-h-brooke-paige-v-state-of-vermont-attorney-generals-office-failed-to-inform-secretary-of-states-election-office-of-their-fail/#comments
“the Attorney General’s office has failed to inform the Secretary of State’s Election Office of their failure to respond in Superior Court.”