Tag Archives: Ted Cruz Rubio and Jindal eligibility challenged in Vermont

Ted Cruz Rubio and Jindal eligibility challenged in Vermont, H. Brooke Paige complaint filed December 9, 2015, Natural born citizen status requires US birth and 2 citizen parents, Attorney Mario Apuzzo explains founding fathers intent

Ted Cruz Rubio and Jindal eligibility challenged in Vermont, H. Brooke Paige complaint filed December 9, 2015, Natural born citizen status requires US birth and 2 citizen parents, Attorney Mario Apuzzo explains founding fathers intent

“According to the  US Citizenship and Immigration Services Ted Cruz was not a US citizen at birth and consequently not a natural born citizen.”…Citizen Wells

“no Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President . . . .”…US Constitution

“We are being lied to on a scale unimaginable by George Orwell.”…Citizen Wells



I agree with H. Brooke Paige, CDR Charles Kerchner, Attorney Mario Apuzzo and many others that the the founding fathers understood the definition of natural born citizen meant birth on US soil to 2 US citizen parents.

Yesterday Mr. Paige presented Citizen Wells with a complaint filed against the State of Vermont, Secretary of State James Condos and Attorney General William Sorrell.

Here are some exerpts:

“10. While it may seem counterintuitive that such a weighty question as
that of the definition of the constitutional meaning of a presidential
qualification and the other questions raised in this action, should
originate in a state superior court – it is not only entirely
appropriate, it is an absolute necessity as no other authority or
jurisdiction is available to the Plaintiff and is the most logical,
constitutionally permissible jurisdiction in light of the federal
Constitution’s protections of the coequal branches of the federal
government and the principle of Separation of Powers embodied in said
Constitution of the United States (1790).

11. In 2008, Dr. Daniel Tokaji, Professor of Law at Ohio State
University, explained this essential legal pathway in his “The
Justiciability of Eligibility: May Courts Decide Who Can Be President?”
(Exhibit D) which, after extensive analysis of question relating to the
constitutional qualification cases relating to Senator John McCain of
Arizona and then Senator Barack Hussein Obama of Illinois, concluded:

“(F)ederal lawsuits challenging the presidential candidates’ eligibility
to serve as president are not justiciable, and it is questionable whether
any justiciable case could be brought in federal court as an initial
matter. Fortunately, there are alternative means to adjudicate this matter
that are consistent with the U.S. Constitution. The most promising is a
pre-election state-court lawsuit seeking to keep an allegedly unqualified
candidate off the ballot. In the event that a renegade state court rejects
a candidate who is, in fact, eligible or that two or more state courts
reach conflicting conclusions on a candidate’s eligibility, U.S. Supreme
Court review should be available as a backstop. This avenue seems less
fraught with peril than congressional resolution of the matter, given
Congress’ dubious legal authority to not count electoral votes of a
candidate it believes ineligible. Those who seek to challenge a
presidential candidate’s eligibility would thus be well-advised to dust
off their state election codes and head to state court.”

“14. In the prior action the Defendants’ council, Attorney General Sorrell
through his assistant Todd Daloz,  attempted to obfuscate and confound
both the Plaintiff and the Court  with the issues of “ripeness” and
“mootness” of the issues raised. First arguing that the answers sought
could not be raised until AFTER the election had been conducted – a
tortured interpretation of 17 V.S.A. § 2732 and shortly thereafter, with
equal absurdity, arguing that the issues had become moot with the passage
of time.”

“22. In the 2016 Presidential Election, in addition to Socialist Party
candidates Lindsay and Osorio, who have vowed to run in every election
regardless of their constitutional qualification debility; three of the
Republican Party candidates are known to have birth circumstances that
preclude their qualifying for the office they are seeking.
(a) – Texas U.S. Senator, Rafael Edward (Ted) Cruz, was born in Calgary,
Alberta, Canada, to a Cuban citizen father, Rafael, who became a
naturalized U.S. citizen in 2005, long after his son’s birth.
(b) – Louisiana Governor, Piyush (Bobby) Jindal, was born in Baton Rouge,
LA to Indian nationals who had recently arrived in the U.S. on visas at
the time of their son’s birth. His father, Amar, was in the U.S. on a P3-1
professional work visa while his mother, Raj, was in the U.S. on a student
visa: neither was a U.S. citizen at the time of their son’s birth. (c) –
Florida U.S. Senator, Marco Antonio Rubio, was born in Miami, FL to two
Cuban nationals who came to the U.S. before Castro came to power. Mario
Rubio Reina and Oriales (Garcia) Rubio left Cuba in 1956 and continuously
resided in Miami, however they did not become naturalized citizens until
1975, when Marco was already four years old.

None of the above mentioned candidates meet the “natural born Citizen”
qualification set forth in the U. S. Constitution for serving as President
of the United States and Commander in Chief of the Military. Mario Apuzzo,
Esq. has written a dissertation delineating the debilities of each of
these candidates which bars their serving:  “Senator Cruz, Senator Rubio,
and Governor Jindal Should Not Be Allowed to Participate…(2015)”  (Exhibit


Some legal scholars maintain that being a citizen at birth qualifies as being a natural born citizen.

Even by that standard, according to the US Citizenship and Immigration Services, Cruz is not a natural born citizen.


Obviously, the US Supreme Court needs to do their duty and settle this matter once and for all, irrespective of the impact on Barack Obama.