Impeach/nullify/force resignation- whatever Obama 

ConstitutionalReset.com

Helping to restore our Constitutional Republic

Paige v Vermont Case Moving to U.S. Supreme Court

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)

 

"[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."

 

also cites:

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)

 

[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

behind us.

 

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

following order:

 

"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

the merits.

 

Fifth, Rosario v. Rockefeller 410 US 752 (footnote #5)

 

[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)

 

[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

 

Best Wishes,

Brooke Paige

e-mail at: donnap@sover.net HELP IS ON THE WAY!

Views: 196

Comment

You need to be a member of ConstitutionalReset.com to add comments!

Join ConstitutionalReset.com

Comment by Robert Christopher Laity on March 7, 2014 at 4:33pm

My Petition is on SCRIBD.

Comment by Robert Christopher Laity on March 7, 2014 at 4:28pm

Laity v Obama now known as Laity v NY is now at SCOTUS also. See: docket #13-875. This case seeks the invalidation of the NY State Presidential ballots of 2008 and 2012 on the grounds that Obama is a Constitutionally disqualified individual who has usurped the Office of the Presidency of the United States, by fraud, during a time of war.. This makes Obama a spy and a traitor.

Comment by Steven Lee Craig on March 7, 2014 at 11:29am

Mr. Paige.

Thank you for the response, and please take no intent of disparagement of the very WELL PREPARED Petition by by Mr. Apuzzo.

Would that I had him on my behalf in the few attempts I have made to get the "question" before the Courts.

My last attempt which was rebuffed immediately for failure to cite a Federal Rule that was boiler plate on the filing Cover Sheet attempted to assert a "Civil Right" to be acknowledged owing to any Citizen so situated.

Mr. Apuzzo's similar attachment of the "Civil Right" aspect of "birth right Citizenship doctrine" serves to vindicate my faith in my own understanding of the issue and circumstances WE all find ourselves in.

I only comment to praise the effort and offer all the encouragement I can muster for the two of you to remain steadfast in the knowledge the work you do is to repair the works done in obfuscations of the true nature of a U.S. natural born Citizen, a wholly American creature created by the Constitution, which is in full conformity to the natural law concept expressed by Aristotle in 350 BC and embraced by those great thinkers that have stood on his works on Ethics and Politics since.

Comment by H. Brooke Paige on March 7, 2014 at 10:32am

Steve,

Mario's rough draft was nearly 20,000 words, with the court allowing only 9,000 = a lot of material; was lost to the required brevity, Remember that this is only the opening salvo - if accepted (under the rule of four) we will have ample opportunity to more fully develop our argument. We must first get our foot in the door.

Appreciate your input!

Sincerely, Brooke

 

H. Brooke Paige

P.O. Box #41

Washington, Vermont 05675

donnap@sover.net

Comment by Steven Lee Craig on March 7, 2014 at 9:15am

And then to firmly establish the 'two Citizen parents requirement" as a proposition resting of U.S. Law the combination of the 19th Amendment Suffrage Amendment and the 1922 Cable Act, aka, the "Women s Independent Citizenship Act" clearly establishes that prior to their passage marriage of  women to a U.S. Citizen man tied &  bound them to that husbands Citizenship, ergo, two Citizen parents always produced a U.S. natural born Citizen and between March of 1790 and January 1795 that included births anywhere in the world..

Comment by Steven Lee Craig on March 7, 2014 at 9:07am

Noting that I failed to single out the effect of the REPEAL of the 1790 "foreign born natural born Citizen provision" by the 1795 Act, it MUST follow that the A2S1C5 requirement of there being U.S. natural born Citizens in order to populate the Office of POTUS that  the "repeal" did not annul the births of any U.S. natural born Citizens  but rather ONLY limited WHERE U.S. natural born Citizens may be born thereafter, i.e., within the limits of the several States.

Comment by Steven Lee Craig on March 7, 2014 at 8:51am

I am, for one, very excited by the composition of the Petition and the propositions of Law advanced in support of the conclusion.

The repudiation of the English Common Law and the interpretations of the British Nationality Statutes used by U.S. Jurist and Statesmen in relation U.S. Citizenship was skillfully assigned to wrongheaded judgement in light of the Sovereignty of the U.S. to say who and how Citizens are MADE under the Constitution and ITS Laws.

I would like to have seen a more expansive analysis of the 1790 / '95 Acts and the identification of the "uniform Rule" that was established and reiterated by them.

They clearly express the sovereignty of the Congress to express who may and may not be a Citizen in the 1st instant and then establishes that once a person IS a Citizen then that person BEGETS a born Citizen as a civil right, and between March 1790 and January 1795 that persons child was born a U.S. natural born Citizen no matter where in the world in may have been born.

The "established uniform Rule", however described or by whatever term of words are used to describe it clearly produces the legal effect of "Once a person is a Citizen, then so too are their children, no matter where in the world that child may be born, (subject to conditions the Congress may find appropriate from time to time)

But all in all I am VERY pleased to see that the game is still afoot and advanced with a well reasoned pleading.

© 2014   Created by George.

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service