Vermont Ballot Challenge

User avatar
Sam the Centipede
Posts: 6975
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:25 pm

Vermont Ballot Challenge

#226

Post by Sam the Centipede » Tue Mar 11, 2014 4:19 am

Since there's no chance in hell this will receive anything but a rejection I guess he's safe from any kind of sanction.Mimi, it's a win-win situation for Teh Bloviator, with its three possible outcomes:


(1) SCOTUS clerk round-files the petition, so SCOTUS has not disagreed with Mario's arguments, MARIO WINZ!!


(2) SCOTUS accepts the case, has a hearing, but denies the petition, Mario has demonstrated that even SCOTUS justices don't understand his argument, or, in the alternative, the justices understood the arguments but were too skeered of the consequences so found a route to avoid ruling in Mario's favor, MARIO WINZ!!


(3) SCOTUS accepts the case, has a hearing, and grants the petition, MARIO WINZ!!





Of course, (1) is one hundred per cent probable on the SaneWorld scale; (2) and (3) areone billion per cent probable on the GallupsWorld scale, i.e. as likely as Lyin' Carl saying "Well, Lord Satan, I did not expect to arrive in Hades so soon! How did that flock of flying pigs crash into a money tree and knock it onto my soup kitchen where I was feeding the poor and homeless? But I like what you have done here after recent birther developments, the skating rink is gorgeous, the ski slopes are terrific and terrifying and all the electric power delivered on super-conducting cables!".

User avatar
realist
Posts: 34769
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Vermont Ballot Challenge

#227

Post by realist » Tue Apr 15, 2014 3:30 pm

And so it begins...





No. 13-1076


Title:


H. Brooke Paige, Petitioner


v.


Vermont, et al.


Docketed: March 10, 2014


Lower Ct: Supreme Court of Vermont


Case Nos.: (2012-439)


Decision Date: October 18, 2013


Rehearing Denied: December 6, 2013





~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Mar 6 2014 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response [highlight]due April 9, 2014[/highlight])


[highlight]Mar 26 2014 Waiver of right of respondents Vermont, et al. to respond filed.[/highlight][/break1]supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/13-1076.htm]http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx ... 3-1076.htm
ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 44265
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Vermont Ballot Challenge

#228

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Tue Apr 15, 2014 3:34 pm

:wave:

User avatar
Paul Lentz
Posts: 3666
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 7:56 pm
Location: Downtown O-town

Vermont Ballot Challenge

#229

Post by Paul Lentz » Tue Apr 15, 2014 4:21 pm

And so it begins...





No. 13-1076


Title:


H. Brooke Paige, Petitioner


v.


Vermont, et al.


Docketed: March 10, 2014


Lower Ct: Supreme Court of Vermont


Case Nos.: (2012-439)


Decision Date: October 18, 2013


Rehearing Denied: December 6, 2013





~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Mar 6 2014 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response [highlight]due April 9, 2014[/highlight])


[highlight]Mar 26 2014 Waiver of right of respondents Vermont, et al. to respond filed.[/highlight][/break1]supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/13-1076.htm]http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx ... 3-1076.htmIt should be distributed tomorrow (4/16/2014) for the 5/2/2014 conference.
The love of power will not win over the power of love.
Orlando, Florida 6/12/16

User avatar
mimi
Posts: 31128
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:01 am

Vermont Ballot Challenge

#230

Post by mimi » Thu Apr 24, 2014 10:24 pm

H. Brooke Paige V Vermont et al US Supreme Court case update, April 24, 2014, Obama eligibility, Natural born citizen status challege, Marbury V Madison revisitedPosted on April 24, 2014 | 9 Comments [/break1]wordpress.com/2014/04/24/h-brooke-paige-v-vermont-et-al-us-supreme-court-case-update-april-24-2014-obama-eligibility-natural-born-citizen-status-challege-marbury-v-madison-revisited/]http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2014/ ... revisited/:yawn:

User avatar
realist
Posts: 34769
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Vermont Ballot Challenge

#231

Post by realist » Fri Apr 25, 2014 7:21 am

H. Brooke Paige V Vermont et al US Supreme Court case update, April 24, 2014, Obama eligibility, Natural born citizen status challege, Marbury V Madison revisitedPosted on April 24, 2014 | 9 Comments [/break1]wordpress.com/2014/04/24/h-brooke-paige-v-vermont-et-al-us-supreme-court-case-update-april-24-2014-obama-eligibility-natural-born-citizen-status-challege-marbury-v-madison-revisited/]http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2014/ ... revisited/:yawn:From mimi's link...The State filed a response [highlight]waver[/highlight] :wave: March 26th, if the case passes muster inthe conference, SCOTUS would request that the State file a response – [highlight]inthe absence of which the case would proceed on the merits outlined in mywrit.[/highlight] =)) [highlight]Another Vermont SCOTUS case just after mine – Daniel Brown v Vermont,[/highlight] :-k State filed response waver on was received on April 4th with the case“distributed” on April 16th for the [highlight]conference on May 2nd.[/highlight][/break1]com/dockets/13-1113]https://certpool.com/dockets/13-1113, the conference schedule is found at:[/break1]com/conferences/2014-05-02]https://certpool.com/conferences/2014-05-02I suspect that SCOTUS is awaiting “candidate Obama’s” response([highlight]required[/highlight] [-( by April 9th) before scheduling the case for conference. Allcases are considered in conference.For now patience seems in order – the conference review is the“gatekeeper” for SCOTUS cases – the “rule of four” decides which caseswill proceed – possibly on the May 22 or 29[/break1]supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/2013termcourtcalendar.pdf]http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_argume ... lendar.pdf :roll:
ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 12244
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Vermont Ballot Challenge

#232

Post by Notorial Dissent » Fri Apr 25, 2014 10:31 pm

Isn't Paige being a bit more hallucinatory than usual here? He's appealing the VT SCT dismissal, not the actual case and I would think their reasoning would pretty well stand by itself.Why would/should Obama have to file anything in this matter? I don't remember that there was anything filed in the initial matter since he was challenging a state law. :confuzzled:These things have drug on so long, it is hard to keep track of what actually happened as opposed to what was claimed to be going on.
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: 26667
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Vermont Ballot Challenge

#233

Post by bob » Fri Apr 25, 2014 10:36 pm

Why would/should Obama have to file anything in this matter?Obama [/break1]birtherreport.com/2012/09/vt-obama-ballot-challenge-filed-process.html]was never properly served. No please-allow-service-by-Twitter (a la Lamb), but Obama was never a party, so no one is waiting for him to not reply to the cert. petition.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 12244
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Vermont Ballot Challenge

#234

Post by Notorial Dissent » Sat Apr 26, 2014 4:07 am

I thought that was what I remembered, so in other words, just more of Paige's opium pipe dreams.I really don't see that anyone really needs to respond to his filing, I think the VT SCT action pretty well stands on its own, and I can't imagine why the court would/should have to take its time to review something that correctly decided to begin with, Paige's ego and stupidity do not constitute a cause of action or appeal, and wouldn't it just be humiliation, not like he's any stranger to it now, if his great appeal is blown off without anyone having responded to it. The state has already filed a waiver, Obama isn't a party, so at this point, it is all pretty much over and done with except for the round filing. I can't imagine that the court will do anything once it goes to conference other than decline to hear it.
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: 8071
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Vermont Ballot Challenge

#235

Post by Northland10 » Wed Apr 30, 2014 7:25 am

Now joining Vogt on the dead list for May 15:No. 13-1076 Title: H. Brooke Paige, Petitionerv.Vermont, et al.Docketed: March 10, 2014Lower Ct: Supreme Court of Vermont Case Nos.: (2012-439) Decision Date: October 18, 2013 Rehearing Denied: December 6, 2013~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Mar 6 2014 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due April 9, 2014)Mar 26 2014 Waiver of right of respondents Vermont, et al. to respond filed.[highlight]Apr 29 2014 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 15, 2014.[/highlight]Another Mario win.
North-land: of the family 10

UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.

User avatar
Epectitus
Posts: 3669
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 2:55 pm

Vermont Ballot Challenge

#236

Post by Epectitus » Wed Apr 30, 2014 8:58 am

Now joining Vogt on the dead list for May 15:Cool!!! That day will be a twofer! \ :D /
"Hell, I would wear a dress and ruby red slippers all year if we can prove this" - Mike Zullo

User avatar
Sam the Centipede
Posts: 6975
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:25 pm

Vermont Ballot Challenge

#237

Post by Sam the Centipede » Wed Apr 30, 2014 9:46 am

Now joining Vogt on the dead list for May 15:Cool!!! That day will be a twofer! \ :D / :P A twofer for the Fogbow ...... but a nonefer for the birthers!! :(

User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 15556
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Vermont Ballot Challenge

#238

Post by Reality Check » Wed Apr 30, 2014 9:52 am

Apuzzo and Vogt losing on the same day? :point: Priceless. \ :D / :cheer:
"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26667
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Vermont Ballot Challenge

#239

Post by bob » Wed Apr 30, 2014 2:03 pm

Apuzzo and Vogt losing the same day? :point: Priceless. \ :D / :cheer:May 19 looks to be [/break1]thefogbow.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=88&t=7146&p=600814#p598852]a real banner day for birferstan.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26667
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Vermont Ballot Challenge

#240

Post by bob » Tue May 06, 2014 7:16 pm

[/break1]blogger.com/comment.g?postID=3651895997482884113&blogID=7466841558189356289&isPopup=false&page=10]Apuzzo:


Let us first examine the nature of the questions raised by us in the Paige v. Obama Vermont state ballot litigation now pending in the U.S. Supreme Court on a petitioner for a writ of certiorari. We do raise in our petition a significant federal constitutional question under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 which is whether de facto President Barack Obama is a natural born citizen, and under the Fourteenth Amendment which is whether the State of Vermont, by placing Barack Obama on the primary and general election ballot when he does not meet the definition of a natural born citizen as confirmed by Minor v. Happersett (1875) and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) (hence we need not look for penumbras or emanations or to invent some new substantive due process right), violated its own laws and the Fourteenth Amendment [highlight]by abridging Brooke Paige’s privileges and immunities as a citizen of the United States, and depriving him of life, liberty, and property without substantive due process of law, and denying him the equal protection of the laws[/highlight], by allowing and contributing to a constitutionally ineligible person to be elected as President and Commander in Chief of the Military in Vermont and in the United States, and thereby depriving [highlight]Mr. Paige of his fundamental constitutional right to be represented in the political process only by a constitutionally eligible President and Commander[/highlight], and [highlight]further violated the Fourteenth Amendment by denying him procedural and substantive due process by declaring his presidential ballot challenge filed against Obama and the State of Vermont moot[/highlight] and by so doing denying him a state judicial forum in which he can in a real sense protect his privileges and immunities enjoyed by him as a citizen of the United States, his right to life, liberty, and property, and his constitutionally based fundamental political right to be represented only by a constitutionally valid President, by pursuing a state legal action against Obama and Vermont under both state and federal law which is intended for those purposes.





[These questions [highlight]are not political questions[/highlight] and do not disrupt the delicate balance of power between a state and the federal government.] The questions also do not work to undermine our notion of the people’s republican and democratic government. Under our Constitution, a state acts as an agent of the federal government when conducting state elections for national constitutional offices. The election of Barack Obama as President and Commander has personally affected Brooke Paige and at least under the First Amendment, Vermont had a constitutional duty to him to have run that election in a fair and proper manner so as to assure the integrity of that election in all material matters which includes constitutional eligibility for those offices. Hence, these questions involve a straightforward interpretation and application of the natural born citizen clause and a state’s duty to enforce that clause in federal elections for the Office of President and Commander.





Now, let me address the question of whether the U.S. Supreme Court will answer the constitutional questions I have identified above. Because of its unknown political attitude and other reasons known only to it, whether the Court will or will not answer these questions is not known. In any event, we know that the high Court accepts only a very small percentage of cases for review. [highlight]So you trying to imply that my position lacks merit or acting like you are some genius because you can predict the outcome of what the high Court will do (not grant the petition) is ridiculous[/highlight].





Additionally, I do not know why you and the Obot world want the Court not to grant the petition for review. I would think that, given how sure you are of the correctness of your position which should lead you not to fear a decision by the Court, you would not want Barack Obama to go down in history for a large portion of Americans (only to grow in the future as more and more people become educated on the meaning of a natural born citizen) as Chester Arthur has as a constitutionally illegitimate President of the United States due to the Court not definitively answering the question of whether he is a natural born citizen.Bonus:


f the Obots, like Dr. Conspiracy, are still running at the mouth, they are doing so only where they believe they can convince their audience. They simply ignore what they cannot beat.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 44265
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Vermont Ballot Challenge

#241

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Tue May 06, 2014 7:23 pm

Bloviating buffoon never heard of the Slaughter-House Cases which neutered the Privileges and Immunities Clause.





But he'll win again. Because that's what he does.

User avatar
realist
Posts: 34769
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Vermont Ballot Challenge

#242

Post by realist » Wed May 07, 2014 10:52 am

Additionally, I do not know why you and the Obot world want the Court not to grant the petition for review. I would think that, given how sure you are of the correctness of your position which should lead you not to fear a decision by the Court, you would not want Barack Obama to go down in history for a large portion of Americans (only to grow in the future as more and more people become educated on the meaning of a natural born citizen) as Chester Arthur has as a constitutionally illegitimate President of the United States due to the Court not definitively answering the question of whether he is a natural born citizen.Mario: No "Obot" is now nor have ever been afraid of any court decision as it relates to Obama's eligibility to be president. What you seem to ignore is the fact that one is neither needed nor necessary. He's eligible according to the Constitution and law. Chester Arthur was also eligible. Beyond that, if there was a necessity for a court decision, not one "birther" attorney, including you, is competent to bring one. That's been proven over 200 times.
ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 44265
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Vermont Ballot Challenge

#243

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Wed May 07, 2014 11:12 am

President Obama has been POTUS for 5+ years. Why would anyone "welcome" a court decision on a non-issue? To prove Mario Apuzzo wrong? Impossible!

User avatar
Hektor
Posts: 2951
Joined: Fri May 22, 2009 6:04 pm
Location: Soviet Canukistan
Contact:

Vermont Ballot Challenge

#244

Post by Hektor » Wed May 07, 2014 11:58 am

Why do I suspect that even were SCOTUS to entertain Mario's lunacy and said Wong Kim Ark means that President Obama is a NBC, Vattel doesn't define Article 2, Section 1 and that Minor did not say what Mario claims it does, that we would just find out that all 9 Justices of the Supreme Court were wrong and they didn't really refute him anyways so he won and is still winning?

User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 28214
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater

Vermont Ballot Challenge

#245

Post by Foggy » Wed May 07, 2014 12:12 pm

Why do I suspect ...Because that's exackly what would happen, no doubt.

User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 15556
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Vermont Ballot Challenge

#246

Post by Reality Check » Wed May 07, 2014 12:24 pm

If the damn Birthers Ankeny and Kruse would have just appealed to SCOTUS like we wished they had. They were the ones who were scared. (Or didn't want to waste the filing fee). I prefer to think the former is true.
"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 12244
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Vermont Ballot Challenge

#247

Post by Notorial Dissent » Wed May 07, 2014 1:59 pm

Why do I suspect ...Because that's exackly what would happen, no doubt. :yeah: When has he ever done anything else?
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.

Joseph Robidoux III
Posts: 5619
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 6:02 am

Vermont Ballot Challenge

#248

Post by Joseph Robidoux III » Wed May 07, 2014 2:16 pm

Why do I suspect that even were SCOTUS to entertain Mario's lunacy and said Wong Kim Ark means that President Obama is a NBC, Vattel doesn't define Article 2, Section 1 and that Minor did not say what Mario claims it does, that we would just find out that all 9 Justices of the Supreme Court were wrong and they didn't really refute him anyways so he won and is still winning?This also describes most of the few remaining birthers left. There is no way in hell any of them would admit to wasting 5+ years of their life on their birther lunacy even if the USSC rejected it in words a 3rd grader could understand. Birthers are left with claiming "I'm right, you're wrong" to try to save their self esteem. It's damage control time; actually it's been damage control time for a while now.

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 12244
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Vermont Ballot Challenge

#249

Post by Notorial Dissent » Thu May 08, 2014 1:21 am

Puzzi has lost every case he has filed, and yet according to him they all prove he was right, even in the face of the verdicts to the contrary. So why should he change his tune now, he will still be right when the SCt round files his latest effort as well. Puzzi is no longer in denial he is in flat out delusion.
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.

gshevlin
Posts: 179
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 2:05 pm
Location: Dallas TX
Contact:

Vermont Ballot Challenge

#250

Post by gshevlin » Fri May 09, 2014 1:20 pm

This may have been posted before...but when I read Apuzzo's delusional self-obsessed ramblings [link]I am always reminded of this: [/break1]youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4][/link]

Post Reply

Return to “State Ballot Challenges”