H. Brooke Paige V Vermont, May 15, 2014, Obama natural born citizen challenge, US Supreme Court, Courts and states abrogated duties, Judge Moore Circuit court should have granted the petition for a writ of mandamus
“Moore said he’s seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a “natural born citizen” and a lot of evidence that suggests he is not.”…Judge Roy Moore interview by WND
“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
“Regardless of how this plays out, we have ensconced in writing, on the internet and available for other legal reference and quotation, a document with well
researched dissenting opinions by the AL Chief Justice Moore and Justice Parker regarding the duties and responsibilities of state election officials.
Perhaps just as important is the mention of documentation provided by the Arpaio Zullo investigation raising serious questions about Obama birth
certificates.”…Citizen Wells, March 23 2014
Thursday, May 15, 2014, the US Supreme Court will decide whether or not they will take on the appeal from the Vermont courts of H. Brooke Paige in Paige V Vermont. A challenge of Barack Obama’s natural born citizen status.
The SCOTUS should have clarified what a natural born citizen is in 2008 when Obama was first challenged.
Sadly they did not and since thrn have continued to abrogate their responsibilities.
Sadly again I expect them to pass the buck.
From H. Brooke Paige April 24, 2014.
Current “scoop” at: http://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docket.aspx docket
13-1076 additional information appears at:
https://certpool.com/dockets/13-1076 where the case will be shown as
scheduled for conference when a date is set (no sooner than 14 days after
date set for response).
The State filed a response waver March 26th, if the case passes muster in
the conference, SCOTUS would request that the State file a response – in
the absence of which the case would proceed on the merits outlined in my
Another Vermont SCOTUS case just after mine – Daniel Brown v Vermont,
State filed response waver on was received on April 4th with the case
“distributed” on April 16th for the conference on May 2nd.
https://certpool.com/dockets/13-1113, the conference schedule is found at:
I suspect that SCOTUS is awaiting “candidate Obama’s” response
(required by April 9th) before scheduling the case for conference. All
cases 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 cases
will proceed – possibly on the May 22 or 29
Thank You for Your Continued Interest,
AL Chief Justice Roy Moore in the recent Alabama Supreme Court ruling stated:
“Although the plaintiffs’ request for relief is moot as to the legality, conduct, and results of the 2012 election, under the “capable of repetition, yet evading review” exception to mootness, the circuit court, in my view, should have granted the petition for a writ of mandamus to the extent of ordering
the Secretary of State to implement the natural-born-citizen requirement of the presidential-qualifications clause in future elections.
Furthermore, I believe the circuit court should have granted the petition for a writ of mandamus to order the Secretary of State to investigate the qualifications of those candidates who appeared on the 2012 general-election ballot for President of the United States, a duty that existed at the time this petition was filed and the object of the relief requested. Although the removal of a President-elect or a President who has taken the oath of office is within the breast of Congress, the determination of the eligibility of the 2012 presidential candidates before the casting of the electoral votes is a state function.
This matter is of great constitutional significance in regard to the highest office in our land. Should he who was elected to the presidency be determined to be ineligible, the remedy of impeachment is available through the United States Congress, and the plaintiffs in this case, McInnish and Goode, can pursue this remedy through their representatives in Congress.
For the above-stated reasons, I dissent from this Court’s decision to affirm the judgment of the circuit court dismissing this action on the motion of the Secretary of State.”