Page 14 of 14

Re: Vermont Ballot Challenge

Posted: Wed Apr 12, 2017 2:53 pm
by bob
For "more completeness": Paige arguing his case before SCoVT (in December 2016).

Not horrible; better than Orly Taitz has ever done.

Re: Vermont Ballot Challenge

Posted: Wed Apr 12, 2017 5:37 pm
by Notorial Dissent
Still fractally wrong and intellectually dishonest.

Re: Vermont Ballot Challenge

Posted: Fri Jun 16, 2017 11:49 am
by bob
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.

Re: Vermont Ballot Challenge

Posted: Fri Jun 16, 2017 12:23 pm
by Northland10
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

Re: Vermont Ballot Challenge

Posted: Fri Jun 16, 2017 12:33 pm
by bob
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.

Re: Vermont Ballot Challenge

Posted: Fri Jun 16, 2017 12:44 pm
by Northland10
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:

Re: Vermont Ballot Challenge

Posted: Fri Jun 16, 2017 1:16 pm
by Sterngard Friegen
So Blovario won another one? By proxy?

Re: Vermont Ballot Challenge

Posted: Fri Jun 16, 2017 1:27 pm
by bob
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 . . . .

Re: Vermont Ballot Challenge

Posted: Fri Jun 16, 2017 1:35 pm
by realist
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:

Re: Vermont Ballot Challenge

Posted: Fri Jun 16, 2017 2:51 pm
by Notorial Dissent
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.

Re: Vermont Ballot Challenge

Posted: Sat Jun 17, 2017 1:48 pm
by Northland10
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.

Re: Vermont Ballot Challenge

Posted: Sat Jun 17, 2017 1:55 pm
by Slartibartfast
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!

Re: Vermont Ballot Challenge

Posted: Sat Jun 17, 2017 2:02 pm
by bob
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.

Re: Vermont Ballot Challenge

Posted: Sat Jun 17, 2017 2:03 pm
by Notorial Dissent
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.

Re: Vermont Ballot Challenge

Posted: Sat Jun 17, 2017 2:11 pm
by Northland10
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.

Re: Vermont Ballot Challenge

Posted: Sat Jun 17, 2017 2:12 pm
by bob
Northland10 wrote:Apuzzoism has the three-legged stool of Vattel and Apuzzo.
:coffeescreen:

AND VICTORY!!!!

Re: Vermont Ballot Challenge

Posted: Sat Jun 17, 2017 2:19 pm
by Notorial Dissent
bob wrote:
Northland10 wrote:Apuzzoism has the three-legged stool of Vattel and Apuzzo.
:coffeescreen:

AND VICTORY!!!!
ALWAYS VICTORY!!!!!

Re: Vermont Ballot Challenge

Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2018 1:54 pm
by Reality Check
Our boy H. Brooke Paige is running for Bernie Sanders seat in Vermont.

https://www.sevendaysvt.com/OffMessage/ ... candidates
Republicans did get a late challenger to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.): Manchester real estate agent Lawrence Zupan, who's virtually unknown in Vermont political circles. Zupan joins Burlington attorney Jasdeep Pannu and perpetual candidate H. Brooke Paige of Washington on the Republican primary ballot, contending for the chance to challenge Sanders, the most popular politician in the state. He happens to have more than $6 million in his reelection war chest. (A necessary caveat: Petitions must be checked by the Secretary of State's office, so the candidates listed in this column are not yet official.)

In the August primary, Sanders will face long-odds Democratic challengers Rocky de la Fuente, a Californian best known as a fringe candidate for president; and Folasade Adeluola, a resident of Indiana whose petitions list a Shelburne motel as her official residence.