Vermont Ballot Challenge

User avatar
bob
Posts: 21134
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Vermont Ballot Challenge

Post #326 by bob » Wed Apr 12, 2017 2:53 pm

For "more completeness": Paige arguing his case before SCoVT (in December 2016).

Not horrible; better than Orly Taitz has ever done.


Imagex4 Imagex2 Imagex2 Imagex2

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 7554
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Vermont Ballot Challenge

Post #327 by Notorial Dissent » Wed Apr 12, 2017 5:37 pm

Still fractally wrong and intellectually dishonest.


The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 21134
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Vermont Ballot Challenge

Post #328 by bob » Fri Jun 16, 2017 11:49 am

Paige (on RC's blog, in April):
One thing I am sure of is that this time they will not find the issue moot . . . .

Sit down: SCoVT dismissed Paige's challenge to Cruz and Rubio appearing on the 2016 ballot: Mute.


Imagex4 Imagex2 Imagex2 Imagex2

User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 5208
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: Vermont Ballot Challenge

Post #329 by Northland10 » Fri Jun 16, 2017 12:23 pm

bob wrote:Paige (on RC's blog, in April):
One thing I am sure of is that this time they will not find the issue moot . . . .

Sit down: SCoVT dismissed Paige's challenge to Cruz and Rubio appearing on the 2016 ballot: Mute.

Justice Robinson disagrees with the court's application of the capable-of-repetition test which might make Paige happy, assuming he does not pay attention to how Robinson agrees that it is still moot due to Paige's own actions.
26. That this case became moot before this Court could decide it was as much a function of appellant’s approach to the litigation as the limitations of the judicial process. Appellant’s complaint reflects that as early as the spring of 2015, he had concerns that Presidential candidates he believed to be constitutionally unqualified were circulating petitions to be included in the 2016 Vermont Presidential primary. By September 2015, he had committed his concerns to writing in a letter to the Vermont Secretary of State and had received a response. Nevertheless, he did not file his complaint in this case until December 9, 2015, and did not actually file a motion for temporary injunctive relief until January 4, 2016—leaving less than two months’ time before the primary election. The trial court held a hearing and issued its order resolving this motion by January 15, 2016—a turnaround of less than two weeks’ time. Appellant did not seek interlocutory review of this determination. He sought to amend his complaint several times, including to add Senators Rubio and Cruz as defendants; stipulated to enlargements of time for the parties to complete their briefing on the dismissal motions; and sought permission to file a sur-reply in connection with that briefing. On May 12, the trial court finally resolved the case in response to defendants’ motions to dismiss. Had appellant sued Senators Rubio and Cruz from the outset, and had he filed a request for temporary injunctive relief contemporaneous with his complaint, the trial court would likely have resolved this case much more quickly


North-land: of the family 10
UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 21134
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Vermont Ballot Challenge

Post #330 by bob » Fri Jun 16, 2017 12:33 pm

Northland10 wrote:Justice Robinson disagrees with the court's application of the capable-of-repetition test which might make Paige happy, assuming he does not pay attention to how Robinson agrees that it is still moot due to Paige's own actions.

Eaton concurred with Robinson, meaning it was a 3-2 split on mootness in theory, but 5-0 in result due to the fine litigation practices employed by Apuzzo Paige.


Imagex4 Imagex2 Imagex2 Imagex2

User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 5208
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: Vermont Ballot Challenge

Post #331 by Northland10 » Fri Jun 16, 2017 12:44 pm

bob wrote:
Northland10 wrote:Justice Robinson disagrees with the court's application of the capable-of-repetition test which might make Paige happy, assuming he does not pay attention to how Robinson agrees that it is still moot due to Paige's own actions.

Eaton concurred with Robinson, meaning it was a 3-2 split on mootness in theory, but 5-0 in result due to the fine litigation practices employed by Apuzzo Paige.

Does somebody need to tie down Slarti? Apuzzo's proclamation of winning may be too much for him to take. <Apuzzo>If justices disagree on how it's moot, it's not moot. </Apuzzo>

:towel:


North-land: of the family 10
UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 39808
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Trump International - Malibu

Re: Vermont Ballot Challenge

Post #332 by Sterngard Friegen » Fri Jun 16, 2017 1:16 pm

So Blovario won another one? By proxy?



User avatar
bob
Posts: 21134
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Vermont Ballot Challenge

Post #333 by bob » Fri Jun 16, 2017 1:27 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote:So Blovario won another one? By proxy?

Yup:
This verified complaint and petition has been prepared with the assistance and consultation of Mario Apuzzo, Esq. at the request of pro se plaintiff, H. Brooke Paige. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. is an attorney at law of the State of New Jersey . . . .


Imagex4 Imagex2 Imagex2 Imagex2

User avatar
realist
Posts: 33837
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Re: Vermont Ballot Challenge

Post #334 by realist » Fri Jun 16, 2017 1:35 pm

bob wrote:Paige (on RC's blog, in April):
One thing I am sure of is that this time they will not find the issue moot . . . .

Sit down: SCoVT dismissed Paige's challenge to Cruz and Rubio appearing on the 2016 ballot: Mute.


I'm SHOCKED!! :lol:


ImageX 4 (have met 36 Obots at meetups) Image X 4
Image

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 7554
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Vermont Ballot Challenge

Post #335 by Notorial Dissent » Fri Jun 16, 2017 2:51 pm

I'm sure Paige and the Putz will manage to misconstrue the ruling in their favor. I do think the court went a little out of its way in throwing some pretend hope at Paige, they never said he had a chance of succeeding, only that he hadn't filed the motions timely and correctly. I think they should have stuck with the reasons why THEY rejected it and been done with it instead of editorializing and critiquing and giving Paige and Blovario a flash of false hope.


The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 5208
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: Vermont Ballot Challenge

Post #336 by Northland10 » Sat Jun 17, 2017 1:48 pm

Notorial Dissent wrote:I'm sure Paige and the Putz will manage to misconstrue the ruling in their favor. I do think the court went a little out of its way in throwing some pretend hope at Paige, they never said he had a chance of succeeding, only that he hadn't filed the motions timely and correctly. I think they should have stuck with the reasons why THEY rejected it and been done with it instead of editorializing and critiquing and giving Paige and Blovario a flash of false hope.

Once he figured out that case was indeed dismissed (he did not believe us until he followed Kevin Vicklund's link), he did admit it was dismissed due to mootness. However, he misunderstood the ruling and especially that the concurrent opinion still agreed the case was moot. He is not very good with the fine points of legal arguments.


North-land: of the family 10
UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.

User avatar
Slartibartfast
Posts: 6485
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

Re: Vermont Ballot Challenge

Post #337 by Slartibartfast » Sat Jun 17, 2017 1:55 pm

Northland10 wrote:
bob wrote:
Northland10 wrote:Justice Robinson disagrees with the court's application of the capable-of-repetition test which might make Paige happy, assuming he does not pay attention to how Robinson agrees that it is still moot due to Paige's own actions.

Eaton concurred with Robinson, meaning it was a 3-2 split on mootness in theory, but 5-0 in result due to the fine litigation practices employed by Apuzzo Paige.

Does somebody need to tie down Slarti? Apuzzo's proclamation of winning may be too much for him to take. <Apuzzo>If justices disagree on how it's moot, it's not moot. </Apuzzo>

:towel:


Hey! I haven't trolled Mario in years!


"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
---Sun Tzu (quoting Thomas Jefferson)
nam-myoho-renge-kyo---Thomas Jefferson (quoting Slartibartfast)

User avatar
bob
Posts: 21134
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Vermont Ballot Challenge

Post #338 by bob » Sat Jun 17, 2017 2:02 pm

Slartibartfast wrote:Hey! I haven't trolled Mario in years!

I would poke Apuzzo,* but I refuse to let his site sniff at my accounts.** (Apuzzo requires commenters to log into his site. And then he moderates the comments.) :nope:


* Can stop any time, etc.

** To his credit, Apuzzo no longer appears to be haunting other sites' comment sections.


Imagex4 Imagex2 Imagex2 Imagex2

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 7554
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Vermont Ballot Challenge

Post #339 by Notorial Dissent » Sat Jun 17, 2017 2:03 pm

Paige has always demonstrated an amazing lack of ability to read and comprehend. I really don't think it is going to change. Blovario's problem is that he doesn't like people disagreeing with his revealed word.


The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 5208
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: Vermont Ballot Challenge

Post #340 by Northland10 » Sat Jun 17, 2017 2:11 pm

Notorial Dissent wrote:Paige has always demonstrated an amazing lack of ability to read and comprehend. I really don't think it is going to change. Blovario's problem is that he doesn't like people disagreeing with his revealed word.

Episcopalians have the three-legged stool of scripture, tradition, and reason. Apuzzoism has the three-legged stool of Vattel and Apuzzo.


North-land: of the family 10
UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 21134
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Vermont Ballot Challenge

Post #341 by bob » Sat Jun 17, 2017 2:12 pm

Northland10 wrote:Apuzzoism has the three-legged stool of Vattel and Apuzzo.

:coffeescreen:

AND VICTORY!!!!


Imagex4 Imagex2 Imagex2 Imagex2

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 7554
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Vermont Ballot Challenge

Post #342 by Notorial Dissent » Sat Jun 17, 2017 2:19 pm

bob wrote:
Northland10 wrote:Apuzzoism has the three-legged stool of Vattel and Apuzzo.

:coffeescreen:

AND VICTORY!!!!

ALWAYS VICTORY!!!!!


The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.


Return to “State Ballot Challenges”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest