Helping to restore our Constitutional Republic
The Vermont Supreme Court (VCS) having found that my Rule 40 Request for
Reargument failed to present misinterpretation of material facts or law
sufficient to compel them to reconsider their judgment - Mario Apuzzo,
Esq. of Jamesburg, New Jersey and Counsel Press, LLC. of NYC and
Washington filed my Writ of Certiorari with the Supreme Court of the
United States (SCOTUS )today (March 6th, 2014).
The principal issues for review are: 1- mootness, the VSC having ruled
that the case at hand had become moot with the passage of time despite
numerous rulings by SCOTUS that issues relating to elections have been
consistently found to represent an exception to mootness.
First, Storer v. Brown 415 US 724 (footnote #8)
" The 1972 election is long over, and no effective relief can be
provided to the candidates or voters, but this case is not moot, since the
issues properly presented, and their effects on independent candidacies,
will persist as the California statutes are applied in future elections.
This is, therefore, a case where the controversy is "capable of
repetition, yet evading review." Rosario v. Rockefeller, 410 U. S. 752,
756 n. 5 (1973); Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U. S. 330, 333 n. 2 (1972); Moore
v. Ogilivie, 394 U. S. 814, 816 (1969); Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v.
ICC, 219 U. S. 498, 515 (1911). The "capable of repetition, yet evading
review" doctrine, in the context of election cases, is appropriate when
there are "as applied" challenges as well as in the more typical case
involving only facial attacks. The construction of the statute, an
understanding of its operation, and possible constitutional limits on its
application, will have the effect of simplifying future challenges, thus
increasing the likelihood that timely filed cases can be adjudicated
before an election is held."
Rosario v. Rockefeller 410 US 752
Dunn v. Blumstein 405 US 330
Moore v. Ogilivie 394 US 814
Second, Anderson v. Celebrezze 460 US 780 (footnote #3)
 After the Court of Appeals denied a motion for expedited appeal,
respondent filed a petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment in
this Court, together with a motion to expedite consideration of the
petition. The motion and the petition were both denied before the election
in November 1980. 448 U. S. 914 and 918 (1980). Even though the 1980
election is over, the case is not moot. See Storer v. Brown, 415 U. S.
724, 737, n. 8 (1974).
Third, Norman v. Reed 02 US 279 (syllabus - #1 )
I - We start with Reed's contention that we should treat the controversy
as moot because the election is over. We should 288*288 not. Even if the
issue before us were limited to petitioners' eligibility to use the Party
name on the 1990 ballot, that issue would be worthy of resolution as
"`capable of repetition, yet evading review.' " Moore v. Ogilivie, 394 U.
S. 814, 816 (1969). There would be every reason to expect the same parties
to generate a similar, future controversy subject to identical time
constraints if we should fail to resolve the constitutional issues that
arose in 1990.
The matter before us carries a potential of even greater significance,
however. As we have noted, the 1990 electoral results would entitle the
HWP to enter the next election as an established party in all or part of
Cook County, freed from the petition requirements of § 10-2, so long as
its candidates were entitled to the places on the ballot that our stay
order effectively gave them. This underscores the vitality of the
questions posed, even though the election that gave them life is now
Fourth, Moore v. Ogilivie 394 US 814 (syllabus #1)
I - On October 8, 1968, the same day the case was docketed, appellants
filed a motion to advance and expedite the hearing and disposition of this
cause. Appellees opposed the motion. On October 14, 1968, we entered the
"Because of the representation of the State of Illinois that `it would be
a physical impossibility' for the State `to effectuate the relief which
the appellants seek,' the `Motion to Advance and Expedite the 816*816
Hearing and Disposition of this Cause' is denied. MR. JUSTICE FORTAS would
grant the motion."
Appellees urged in a motion to dismiss that since the November 5, 1968,
election has been held, there is no possibility of granting any relief to
appellants and that the appeal should be dismissed. But while the 1968
election is over, the burden which MacDougall v. Green, supra, allowed to
be placed on the nomination of candidates for statewide offices remains
and controls future elections, as long as Illinois maintains her present
system as she has done since 1935. The problem is therefore "capable of
repetition, yet evading review," Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v.
Interstate Commerce Commission, 219 U. S. 498, 515. The need for its
resolution thus reflects a continuing controversy in the federal-state
area where our "one man, one vote" decisions have thrust. We turn then to
Fifth, Rosario v. Rockefeller 410 US 752 (footnote #5)
 Although the June primary election has been completed and the
petitioners will be eligible to vote in the next scheduled New York
primary, this case is not moot, since the question the petitioners raise
is " `capable of repetition, yet evading review.' " Dunn v. Blumstein, 405
U. S. 330, 333 n. 2 (1972); Moore v. Ogilivie, 394 U. S. 814, 816 (1969);
Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. ICC, 219 U. S. 498, 515 (1911).
Sixth, Dunn v. Blumstein 405 US 330 (footnote #2)
On July 30, the District Court refused to grant a preliminary
injunction permitting Blumstein and members of the class he represented to
vote in the August 6 election; the court noted that to do so would be "so
obviously disruptive as to constitute an example of judicial
improvidence." The District Court also denied a motion that Blumstein be
allowed to cast a sealed provisional ballot for the election.
At the time the opinion below was filed, the next election was to be held
in November 1970, at which time Blumstein would have met the three-month
part of Tennessee's durational residency requirements. The District Court
properly rejected the State's position that the alleged invalidity of the
three-month requirement had been rendered moot, and the State does not
pursue any mootness argument here. Although appellee now can vote, the
problem to voters posed by the Tennessee residence requirements is "
`capable of repetition, yet evading review.'" Moore v. Ogilivie, 394 U. S.
814, 816 (1969); Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. ICC, 219 U. S. 498, 515
(1911). In this case, unlike Hall v. Beals, 396 U. S. 45 (1969), the laws
in question remain on the books and Blumstein has standing to challenge
them as a member of the class of people affected by the
presently written statute.
The VSC further ruled that even if they were overturned on the issue
mootness, they believed that the determination of the definition of the
presidential qualifiying phrase natural born Citizen should be found
elsewhere (despite the rulings in Bush v. Gore and numerous other cases
dating back at least as far as the Tilten election) thereby informing
that VSC would not attempt to find the historic and legal meaning. This
expression informs that VSC looks to SCOTUS to resolve this issue. I am
told that a decision whether SCOTUS will accept the case should settled by
spring (under the rule of four) and it may well be 2015 before I should
expect a final ruling if it is accepted. There may be an opportunity to
request that the case be considered on an emergency basis given that a
favorable ruling would inform that an unqualified individual was serving
as President of the United States.
I regularly question why this has fallen on me and my faithful friend,
Mario Apuzzo, - in the end I guess the answer is that all of those who
should have raised the question feared taking action OR could not conceive
that it was possible for an individual to slip through the selection
(election) process without being effectively challenged.
I appreciate your continued interest in this case I am unsure of the
outcome or its ramifications - one thing I am sure of is that we must get
the de facto usurper out of the White House, ASAP!
Read the Petition: Petition_to_SCOTUS
e-mail at: email@example.com HELP IS ON THE WAY!