Vermont Obama eligibility challenge update, May 19, 2013, H. Brooke Paige appeal in VT Supreme Court, Awaiting decisions on multiple issues, Obama not natural born citizen
“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense, to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells
“Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the
constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no
rule for his government? if it is closed upon him, and cannot be
inspected by him?”… Marbury versus Madison
“Vattel was quoted by US Supreme Court Justice Livingston in THE VENUS, 12 U.S. 8 CRANCH 253 253 (1814)”…Citizen Wells
On May 5, 2013 Citizen Wells reported on the Obama eligibility challenge appealed in the Vermont Supreme Court by H. Brooke Paige.
From the Burlington Free Press April 23, 2013.
“President Barack Obama may be the “de facto” president of the United States, but that doesn’t mean he was elected legally, a former Republican U.S. Senate hopeful told the Vermont Supreme Court on Tuesday.
H. Brooke Paige, appearing without a lawyer before the state’s highest court, said Obama does not meet what the framers of the U.S. Constitution meant when they decreed that a person holding the presidency must be a “natural born citizen.””
On May 7, 2013 Citizen Wells provided analysis of and audio from the VT Supreme Court hearing.
“Standing is a non issue in this case and they damn well know it!
In fact, at least one justice questioned this.
There are at least 3 reasons why H. Brooke Paige has standing.
1. Vermont election statutes clearly give him standing as a voter. Mr. Paige complied with the protocol.
2. Ruling from a lower court, the Superior Court.
3. The Tenth Amendment. If their argument is that the state does not have the power to challenge, then any citizen does.”
On May 7, 2013 Mr. Paige placed the following comment at Citizen Wells.
Dear “Citizen WEIIs”
Thank You for your interest and support! I am well aware of the apparent shortcomings of my “oral argument”. Trust me it is difficult to be on- your “game” with the clock ticking. Oral Argument is really a misnomer as this is actually a “Q and A” affording the Justices the opportunity to seek further information after their through review of the briefs, appendixes( of documents and legal authorities) and the docket of the lower court “the printed case”. It is/was impossible to summarize the 225 years of history and source documents that support my litigation in the 15 minutes afforded each party.
I believe, based upon the Justices’ enquiry, that they had a solid grasp of the six underlying issues that arose as this case proceeded. In addition to the original issue of the candidate(s) constitutional qualification (natural born Citizen[ship]), the following procedural issues arose as the case evolved: 1 – Standing (of the plaintiff), 2 – Jurisdiction (of the Superior Court), 3 – Venue (of the Washington County Court), 4- Political Question, 5 – Mootness. All six issues were thoroughly explored and answered in the Appellants’ Principle and Reply Briefs (over 30,000 words in length – combined) prepared with the expert assistance of Mario Apuzzo, Esq..
As I expressed in my opening statement before the Court, I have proceeded “pro se” out of necessity after an exhaustive search for a qualified Vermont attorney – it was only after every competent member of the Vermont Bar had declined to accept my “engagement” because they did not believe they had the “expertise or resources” to properly prosecute
the case. Regardless of what is ( or has been) said elsewhere, Mario is the patron saint of this “pro se” litigant. Since I first contacted him last June, he has selflessly done everything I required to assist me in properly constructing and presenting my case and I truly believe we have presented evidence, history and law sufficient to allow the Vermont Justices to find favorably as to all six issues.
The Justices treated me and my action with both respect and the attention this important issue deserved . I salute them for having the insight and wisdom to accept the appeal from the lower Court and for allowing it to be presented before the full Court (as opposed to declining to hear the appeal or relegating it to the “rocket docket” !)
H. Brooke Paige
Appellant/Plaintiff, pro se.”
I am in no way criticizing you.
In fact I admire you for your attempts.
It is my job to ask questions and seek the truth.
If I can be of help, let me know.
On May 16 2013, after several email exchanges, I had a lengthy phone conversation with Mr. Paige. It was clear from the onset that he has a solid command of facts regarding the history and laws defining Natural Born Citizen.
Mr. Paige, for example was aware of the Venus Cranch case of 1814 in which Justice Livingstone quoted the entire 212nd paragraph of Vattel and stated:
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
“The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it…”
This contradicts the Vermont state attorney who attempted to marginalize Vattel’s description of natural born citizen and portray it as antiquated.
From the emails and the phone conversation, Mr Paige stated that he was awaiting decisions from the VT Supreme Court.
“The Vermont Supreme Court is still contemplating their decision on the
issues = there are six: 1. Standing (of the Plaintiff/Appellant) 2.
Jurisdiction (of the VT Superior Court) 3. Venue (of the Washington County
Superior Court in Statewide and national elections) 4. Political Question,
5. Mootness AND 6. the definition of the Constitutional Presidential
Qualification idiom “natural born Citizen”.”
“If I am successful, in all probability the results (especially “nbC” will
be appealed by the Vermont Attorney General or, more probably, another
state seeking to have the issues resolved by SCOTUS = as the incongruity
of the qualification among the states would be considered untenable.
Right Now – “its wait and see” here in the Green Mountains. I have great
confidence (for reasons I cannot reveal) that this question will be
adjudicated to a favorable finality.
If the Court finds against me on the “nbC” issue alone I will appeal to
SCOTUS. If I fail in the other issues, it will be necessity to proceed to
Federal Court first to resolve “due process” violation issues. (I am sure
that you are aware that the “nbC” issue can only be advanced from the
Vermont Court directly to SCOTUS – as Federal Courts are prohibited from
hearing the qualification issue as their involvement would violate the
Constitutional precept of separation of powers).”
“it is important to understand that issues 1-5 have never been
litigated since they were inserted in Vermont Title 17 (the Election Code)
as to a statewide or national election, therefore aside from the “nbC”
issue that is your primary concern – all elements are important to those
following my action within the political, legislative and judicial spheres
here in Vermont.”
Here is link to an excellent article from George Miller presented at Obama Ballot Challenge on May 15, 2013. It contains much of the same dialogue that I had with Mr.Paige as well as many legal documents.