Vermont Ballot Challenge

User avatar
bob
Posts: 27062
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Vermont Ballot Challenge

#301

Post by bob » Wed Jan 06, 2016 5:40 pm

WaPo: Trump says Cruz’s Canadian birth could be ‘very precarious’ for GOP:
In the interview, Trump alluded to an ongoing lawsuit in Vermont, where a man is trying to keep three Republican presidential candidates, including Cruz, off the ballot.
I haven't seen the interview, but I would surprised if Trump knew about Paige's lawsuit.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
realist
Posts: 34885
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Re: Vermont Ballot Challenge

#302

Post by realist » Wed Jan 06, 2016 5:55 pm

bob wrote:WaPo: Trump says Cruz’s Canadian birth could be ‘very precarious’ for GOP:
In the interview, Trump alluded to an ongoing lawsuit in Vermont, where a man is trying to keep three Republican presidential candidates, including Cruz, off the ballot.
I haven't seen the interview, but I would surprised if Trump knew about Paige's lawsuit.
Not sure I'd be surprised. Birthers still propose everyone contact Trump re Cruz, et al. Cuz, yanno, he's a hero and will be able to get Obama thrown out too. Also. Or at the very least rule in his king capacity that everything Obama accomplished is null and void. All he has to do is say so.

I would note FWIW that he pulled the birther card as Cruz is either close or has overtaken him in Iowa.
ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 28737
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater

Re: Vermont Ballot Challenge

#303

Post by Foggy » Wed Jan 06, 2016 7:27 pm

I think Trump knows about Paige's case. I still think Joey Pornstache briefs him. Back in 2011 Trump knew an amazing amount of birther trivia.
They say that on his deathbed, Voltaire, asked to renounce the devil, said, "This is no time to be making new enemies."

User avatar
magdalen77
Posts: 5394
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2013 1:43 pm
Location: Down in the cellar

Re: Vermont Ballot Challenge

#304

Post by magdalen77 » Thu Jan 07, 2016 10:32 am

bob wrote:Citizen Wells: Vermont eligibility challenge update January 5, 2016, H. Brooke Paige v State of Vermont, Attorney General’s office failed to inform Secretary of State’s Election Office of their failure to respond in Superior Court:
Paige wrote:Mr. Paige visited the Secretary of State’s Office today to hand deliver a copy of the latest filings that requested a Temporary Restraining Order to prevent the “publication and distribution” of the Presidential Primary Ballots until the “troubles” complained in the Plaintiff’s pleadings are resolved or an accommodation can be found that would avoid injuring or disenfranchising the various candidates.

Sadly, the Attorney General’s office has failed to inform the Secretary of State’s Election Office of their failure to respond in Superior Court. The Director of Elections appeared “shell shocked” as Mr. Paige filled him in on the case, the default and the resolution he intends to propose to the Court relating to the Primary. The General Election and the “natural-born Citizen” question will require additional consideration in order to find an equable resolution which hopefully will include defining “nbC” precisely as part of the ruling (rather than mere dicta unrelated to the resolution).

Mr. Paige informs that the gross negligence of the Defendants exhibited by their failure to respond reduces the A/G opportunities to stall and “sidetrack” the case. The expedited resolution of the questions relating to the Primary could produce an interesting civics lesson for Vermont voters.
I sense Paige pulled a Taitz and failed to properly serve the defendants.
He probably served (improperly) the SOS and AG of New Hampshire. New Hampshire, Vermont, they're both in New England so same difference.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 27062
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Vermont Ballot Challenge

#305

Post by bob » Tue Jan 19, 2016 2:51 pm

ORYR/BR: Attorney And GOP Candidate Files Official Objection:
With NH Over Canadian-Born Cruz Article II Ineligibility

CRUZ, Ted - Objection to Mr. Cruz appearing on the ballot for President of the USA.

Fellow Republican Candidate files official objection with New Hampshire Secretary of State and New Hampshire Attorney General over Canadian born Cruz.

Published at Attorney Chomi Prag's Law Office Facebook page[*]:
The Republican Party invites Mr. Ted Cruz to major media/ debates to give him HELP with his campaign for Presidency when he doesn't qualify to be President of the USA under the US Constitution.

1. He was BORN in Canada, a natural born citizen of CANADA.

2. He may still have CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP.

3. His FATHER was NOT a US Citizen at the time of his birth.

4. There are reports that his MOTHER RENOUNCED her American Citizenship BEFORE he was born in CANADA. Even if his mother didn't, that doesn't make CRUZ ELIGIBLE to be President of the USA according to the CONSTITUTION that he is going to "preserve, protect and defend". A hardy har har.

5. Mr. Cruz was not a citizen of the US in 1787, the time of the ADOPTION of the US CONSTITUTION. Although there are some photos where he DOES look 229 years old we highly doubt he was a US Citizen at the time the Constitution was ADOPTED.
:roll:


* She is literally "Attorney Chomi Prag" on Facebook. :roll: Lots of Taitz vibes with this one.
Edit: Her challenge was in New Hampshire, not Vermont. :oops:
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
bob
Posts: 27062
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Vermont Ballot Challenge

#306

Post by bob » Tue Jan 19, 2016 3:52 pm

Citizen Wells: Vermont Cruz Rubio eligibility lawsuit update January 18, 2016, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio served summons and amended complaint, H. Brooke Paige hired process servers Baker Investigations:
Paige wrote:Superior Court Judge Timothy Tomasi granted Plaintiff’s motion to file an amended complaint. The State filed an opposition brief limited to the issue of the Motion for a TRO, they have yet to Answer the Verified Complaint and have been given until January 26 to answer or be found in default. Plaintiff filed his amended brief naming Cruz and Rubio as indispensable parties since their Petitions and Consent Forms were confirmed by the Secretary of State.

“Wednesday the Judge scheduled a hearing on the TRO for Friday the 15th. On Friday the Plaintiff filed his Response to Defendant’s Opposition Brief and the Hearing was attended by Plaintiff and State Defendants who had summoned the Director of Elections to testify. Substantive evidence was provided by the Plaintiff and confirmed under oath by the Director of Elections under cross-examination revealing numerous defects and errors in the process and procedures including counting signatures of many individuals who were not registered. In dozens of instances were not even residents (or inhabitants) of Vermont including the citizens of CT, NY, NJ, MA and even FL who because the Petitions were not labeled as for the Vermont Primary did not required the signatories to certify that they were in fact registered Vermont voters. Incredibly the Director of Elections testified that his office did not believe they were required to confirm that the petition signatories were on the voters rolls in Vermont, rather that they were only required to determine that the signatures were legible and nothing more. Welcome to Vermont’s Wild West of Elections where few care about the integrity of the election process, in fact most probably do not even understand the concept. In the end the Judge did not grant the TRO citing that the public interest and concerns over voter disenfranchisement outweighed the injury to the Plaintiff. Plaintiff will receive the Return of Service and the executed Summonses on Tuesday for the new Defendants and will file them with the Court that day, starting the 20 day clock for the new Defendants to answer or otherwise file a response with the Court.”

Mr. Paige hired Baker Investigations and Process Servers to serve the Summons and Amended Complaint on the out-of-state Defendants Cruz and Rubio during their visit to Charleston SC in advance of their appearances on the Fox Business News Republican Debate. Owner Elizabeth Baker personally served both Cruz and Rubio on Wednesday January 13, as they arrived in Charleston.
Executive summary: Paige figured out that Cruz and Rubio needed to be named defendants, so he amended the complaint to add them, and served them. Court denied Paige's request for a TRO to stop the primary election.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
esseff44
Posts: 12507
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 12:40 am

Re: Vermont Ballot Challenge

#307

Post by esseff44 » Tue Jan 19, 2016 4:14 pm

link to the case that Chomi Prag based her book on:

http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20FCO ... %20SOKOLIK

Shades of O'rly, true.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 27062
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Vermont Ballot Challenge

#308

Post by bob » Tue Jan 19, 2016 4:30 pm

esseff44 wrote:link to the case that Chomi Prag based her book on:

http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20FCO ... %20SOKOLIK

Shades of O'rly, true.
Of course: The courts are biased against her because she's a woman (and, ob. "whistleblower"). And not because she got sanctioned for filing a frivolous appeal. :roll:
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 44908
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: Vermont Ballot Challenge

#309

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Tue Jan 19, 2016 4:59 pm

Prag has her own Wikipedia page, which it appears she wrote. Looks like an advertisement. Maybe someone can suggest it be removed since Prag isn't notable. Oh, and Prag should know, it's not "candidate-ship" but "candidacy."

Another clown lawyer.

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 12718
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Vermont Ballot Challenge

#310

Post by Notorial Dissent » Tue Jan 19, 2016 7:53 pm

I'm shocked, impressed, and amazed, well not really but it sounds better, Paige actually served someone who was involved in one of his silly suits, for all the good it will do him. Unless something has happened that I've missed I see this as being a repeat of his last appearance in VT.
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: 27062
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Vermont Ballot Challenge

#311

Post by bob » Tue Jan 19, 2016 8:00 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote:Another clown lawyer.
:fingerwag:

Her gofundme campaign has so far raised $10, of the requested $7 million.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 44908
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: Vermont Ballot Challenge

#312

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Tue Jan 19, 2016 8:16 pm

Image

User avatar
bob
Posts: 27062
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Vermont Ballot Challenge

#313

Post by bob » Thu Feb 18, 2016 5:44 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote:Another clown lawyer.
:fingerwag:

Prag received 14 votes in the New Hampshire republican primary!
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
bob
Posts: 27062
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Vermont Ballot Challenge

#314

Post by bob » Sat Feb 20, 2016 1:35 pm

CW: Ted Cruz Vermont eligibility lawsuit update, February 19, 2016, Plaintiff H. Brooke Paige, Cruz not natural born citizen, Cruz born in Canada in 1970, Canadian Citizenship Act of 1976 Cruz born a Canadian Citizen AND a British Subject:
Paige wrote:All parties, the Vermont State Defendants, Cruz and Rubio, have responded each with their own Motions to Dismiss, the first effort of a disingenuous and desperate lawyer who wants to shield his client from having to face the music.

It is exciting to have defendants who, because of their divergent political leanings refuse to cooperate in developing a unified strategy to
extinguish the humble, tenacious plaintiff. Unfortunately, the attorneys for Rubio and Cruz seem amazingly unfamiliar with the “natural born citizen(ship)” subject matter – regurgitating the tripe and drivel regularly posted on “obot” websites; while Daloz, the state’s Asst. A/G, appears to be doing a “cut and paste” job from his 2012 effort. Truly sad to see such vacuous “work product” for these high priced “Blackstone Lawyers.” (Thomas Jefferson complained that “many a law student finds Blackstone’s writings – a smattering of everything, and his indolence easily persuades him that if he understands Blackstone , he is a master of the whole body of law.”)

I have filed separate Opposition Briefs for each of the defendants’ Motions to Dismiss as each develops a differing approach to defend their favorites particular “flavor” of natural born citizenship.

• Vermont Assistant Attorney General Todd Daloz offering “born in country with at least one citizen parent” to defend the democratic darling, Mr. Obama.

• “K’ Street Mouthpiece (D.C.) Brady Toensing, representing Rubio, arguing that “native birth” (14th Amendment citizenship) alone is sufficient to qualify his “son of Cuban parents” to serve as President.

• Lastly, Gregory D. Cote, Esq., the Beantown Lawyer (“Redacted”) makes a valiant attempt to convince anyone who will give him “the time of day” that his Canadian Citizen client, Cruz, is somehow more than merely a “citizen of the United States” a condition granted to him by Congress, not by his birth circumstances alone the condition necessary to be a Natural born citizen (i.e. born in country to two citizen parents – Vattel, 1758).

Further it has come to light that since Cruz was born in Canada in 1970, prior to the Canadian “Citizenship Act of 1976,” he was born a “Canadian Citizen AND a “British Subject” having “the right of abode” whereby he could moved to the “British Isles” and gotten a job and taken up permanent residence without needing to take any further action . http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/ ... w/hist.asp

The Vermont Primary Election is held on Town Meeting Day, March 1st, and, since the defendants have argued that the issues are not “ripe” until the passing of the election, our next move will be to ask the court to prevent the Secretary of State from releasing the results of that election until the court determines the qualification of candidates Cruz and Rubio AND whether their names appearing on the ballot has cause damage to the other candidates, sufficient to alter the results of the election.”
:yankyank:
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 12718
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Vermont Ballot Challenge

#315

Post by Notorial Dissent » Sat Feb 20, 2016 2:19 pm

I see Paige is still as verbose and clueless as ever. Doesn't seem to have figured out that the "vacuous work product" of the 2012 effort that handed Paige his ass is still more than sufficient and adequate to do a repeat performance in 2016. He obviously never read it or at least hasn't assimilated the pertinent parts of it that apply to the instant case, too simple and straight forward I guess.
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: 27062
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Vermont Ballot Challenge

#316

Post by bob » Tue Mar 01, 2016 5:01 pm

So Vermont is voting today. And Paige (and Citizen Wells) have been oddly silent about Paige's lawsuit.

The Republican ballot lists Cruz and Rubio. Paige sought have them bumped off the ballot. :think: Paige also sought to bump Jindal (who had withdrawn before Paige filed his lawsuit), and Jindal's name is not on the ballot! :thumbs:

Also (too), Paige alleged that he was circulating a petition so that he would be a candidate as well (too) (also). Yet Paige's name is not the ballot. :think:
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

jamese777
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2011 12:22 pm

Re: Vermont Ballot Challenge

#317

Post by jamese777 » Tue Mar 01, 2016 5:14 pm

bob wrote:So Vermont is voting today. And Paige (and Citizen Wells) have been oddly silent about Paige's lawsuit.

The Republican ballot lists Cruz and Rubio. Paige sought have them bumped off the ballot. :think: Paige also sought to bump Jindal (who had withdrawn before Paige filed his lawsuit), and Jindal's name is not on the ballot! :thumbs:

Also (too), Paige alleged that he was circulating a petition so that he would be a candidate as well (too) (also). Yet Paige's name is not the ballot. :think:
I think its time to turn the Paige on eligibility challenges in Vermont.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 27062
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Vermont Ballot Challenge

#318

Post by bob » Wed Apr 05, 2017 3:55 pm

Paige dropped by RC's blog to cheerfully remind everyone that SCoVT heard arguments in November in his Cruz birther challenge. Paige is confident that SCoVT's silence means the court is going to rule in his favor. :roll:

Paige continues to ignore that SCoVT dismissed his 2012 challenge due to his lack of standing, and that he should expect the same result here.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 44908
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: Vermont Ballot Challenge

#319

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Wed Apr 05, 2017 4:31 pm

What part of mute do they not get?

Birfer speak.

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 12718
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Vermont Ballot Challenge

#320

Post by Notorial Dissent » Thu Apr 06, 2017 12:01 am

It must be real burning issue if they have waited this long to even look at it. It keeps coming back to the question is Paige really that stupid and the same answer keeps coming back up.
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: 8439
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: Vermont Ballot Challenge

#321

Post by Northland10 » Thu Apr 06, 2017 7:18 am

Sterngard Friegen wrote:What part of mute do they not get?

Birfer speak.
He claims that he just wants SCOTUS, eventually, to settle on a definition, even if it is not the one he wants. :roll:
North-land: of the family 10

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

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 12718
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Vermont Ballot Challenge

#322

Post by Notorial Dissent » Thu Apr 06, 2017 10:18 am

Yeah, Paige wants a definition that agrees with his fantasies. He has been slapped down countless times and there have been more than sufficient court cases that have definitely answered his question. He just doesn’t like the answer, so he keeps asking in the vane hopes that he’ll get a different response. He claims he’s not a birther, but his actions say otherwise. He is also generally and intellectually dishonest in the extreme. His case is such a burning issue that the VT Supreme Court hasn't even bothered to get around to drop kicking it yet. All they'll need to do is change the heading and reprint their denial from his last foray. He doesn't learn.
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: 8439
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: Vermont Ballot Challenge

#323

Post by Northland10 » Thu Apr 06, 2017 1:21 pm

From one of his recent comments on RC's blog:
Hence, Wong Kim Ark told us that while Wong could be a “citizen” at birth, he could not be considered a “natural born Citizen” also.
https://rcradioblog.wordpress.com/2016/ ... ment-30588
North-land: of the family 10

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

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 12718
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Vermont Ballot Challenge

#324

Post by Notorial Dissent » Fri Apr 07, 2017 3:07 am

Northland10 wrote:From one of his recent comments on RC's blog:
Hence, Wong Kim Ark told us that while Wong could be a “citizen” at birth, he could not be considered a “natural born Citizen” also.
https://rcradioblog.wordpress.com/2016/ ... ment-30588
Which isn't, of course, at all what the ruling says, but it doesn't agree with him, so it isn't definitive. As I said, intellectually as well as generally 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: 27062
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Vermont Ballot Challenge

#325

Post by bob » Wed Apr 12, 2017 11:54 am

Paige continues at RC's site to cheerfully explain how all the judges got it wrong.

"For completeness": A commenter helpfully provided the superior court's denying Paige's request for a preliminary injunction.

Yes, Paige is going on about a pending appeal concerning his attempt to enjoin the election -- the primary election -- from last year. :brickwallsmall:
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

Post Reply

Return to “State Ballot Challenges”