Newsboy Challenges Illegal White House Usurper “Obama” via Vermont Supreme Court
Above: Plaintiff H. Brooke Paige, who ran in the Vermont U.S. Senate primary last year
EXCLUSIVE story on Obama Ballot Challenge (Copyright 2013- republishing OK, if unaltered, with full attribution and OBC URL link).
By George Miller
“I was a newsboy, for over 30 years.” That’s how Mr. Paige described himself, with boyish glee, when asked about his occupation. Actually, he owned several large terminal newsstands and coffee shops on the Philadlephia subway system with sales of over a million dollars annually. I’m definitely no lawyer, he insisted, although admitting to taking courses on law (business, labor, common/civil and constitutional) as part of his Business Administration studies at the University of Delaware and having (until recently) an unblemished record of pro se case wins.
Running for a U.S. Senate seat against the deeply entrenched Socialist Bernie Sanders in the general election would have been a formidable task. An unknown, Paige set himself a budget of only $5000 in the primary, for various reasons. He lost to John MacGovern. But, he claims he captured about 30% of the Republican primary vote statewide and 50% in his target area, which must be one of the most-cost-effective Senate campaigns in recent history, based on cost per vote.
If that wasn’t a large enough task, Mr. Paige has taken on the tremendous challenge of the eligibility of putative “President” Obama. So far, all of the many challenges and appeals completed by numerous other pro se (self-represented) plaintiffs, and only a handful of very brave attorneys, have been unsuccessful. The entire establishment has rejected the notion that Obama is Constitutionally ineligible, Republicans just as vehemently as those rascally Democrats. All of the “lamestream” media is opposed—and we do mean ALL. Only some of the smaller opposition “new” electronic (i.e.internet blogs, liberty sites, etc.) offer any other opinion and/or organized opposition to Obama’s allegedly unconstitutional election.
“When I was running for the Senate, I noticed that there were several ineligible candidates running for president and vice president on the Vermont Ballot,” he informed us. So, he began investigating how a citizen voter could do something to correct the error. He focused on the most serious case, that of “Barack Hussein Obama,” who he believed failed to meet the Constitutional Presidential Qualification of being a “natural born Citizen.” Based upon his research and published opinions of many others, Paige concluded that the Constitutional Framers had intended that future Presidents would be required to be “natural born Citizens” which they understood to mean “a Citizen born in country to two Citizen parents.” Paige is quite certain that the Framers based this qualification on the model of citizenship presented by Emer de Vattel in his Law of Nations, Or Principles of the Law of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs o Nations and Sovereigns – 1758. This epic Politicial Dissertation was celebrated and most highly respected in our nation’s Revolutionary period and was the one resource that the Founders and Framers resorted to most often as they worked to create our democratic republic. Mr. Paige enthusiastically expressed his opinion that if one were to review Swiss author de Vattel’s Law of Nations, unaware that it was written nearly 20 years before our founding documents, that the reader could easily conclude that our Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation and Pepetual Union and Constitution had all been plagiarized by de Vattel.
In fact, if any “borrowing” exists, it was the Founders and Framers that found their “revolutionary voice” in the pages of de Vattel. (Of course, de Vattel would have viewed their reliance on his writings with the greatest pride, for he had intended his work to act as a blueprint for the restive peoples throughout both the “new” and “old” world yearning to free themselves from the restraints of monarchy and tyranny).
After talking to Mr. Paige for quite a while, one doesn’t get the impression that he is especially partisan and we detected no traces of racism. In fact, he realizes that his case could act to disqualify several future Republican aspirants to the Presidency as well as the current de facto officeholder. What does come through, though, is a bedrock Conservatism, love of country, love for his state of Vermont and its history (he is quite a student of that) and the ideals of our institutions. He displays a deep understanding of all topics relevant to these. He believes that “Obama” is ineligible, that there are very good reasons for the rules that make him so and that his behavior in office, albeit illegally, is proving their validity.
The Case
Unlike most states, in Vermont, the electoral challenge route does not go through the Secretary of State’s office, as that office has only a ministerial relationship to the operation of the election. All questions as to the operation of the election and the qualification of Statewide and National candidates are, by statute, the responsibllity of the Washington County Superior Court, as the state capital of Montpelier “resides” within that county. Paige had first approached the Secretary of State’s Election Division, where he had been informed of that office’s inability to resolve the ballot issue and been directed to the legal process necessary to resolve his concerns. He soon became intimately aware of the intricacies of Vermont’s Title 17, Vermont’s Election Law. He learned that the Court’s jurisdiction applied to all elections except state Assembly and Senate, since these bodies reserved final decisions to themselves. The soon to be Plaintiff (Paige) could find no relevant VT case law to address the issue, so he would be plowing new ground. He filed the case right before the primary, fearing that if he should succeed in his U.S. Senate primary bid – he might be less inclined to pursue the ballot challenge. By filing the day before the primary election, he committed himself to challenge Obama’s qualifications, regardless of the outcome of his primary election effort.
He approached virtually every Conservative Vermont attorney and his engagement was declined by all (no names mentioned, at his request). Mr. Paige was told by one of the largest firms in the state that “the effort is meritorious, but we lack the expertise and resources.” (a direct quote) They allegedly told him that they knew of no attorney practicing in Vermont who possessed the required expertise in this area of the law. Having made a similar attempt ourselves in California and coming up only with Orly Taitz and Gary Kreep, that does not seem surprising. He was fairly philosophical about all the refusals, reflecting on the statement by one attorney that accepting the engagement could result in the destruction of their practice, quoting his personal attorney who said “this is my livelihood, when this is over I still need to have clients!” They might find hard to find should he assist Paige in his effort.
In the end, Paige resigned himself to the fact that he would have to bring the challenge himself. However, “divine intervention” led him to the renowned New Jersey attorney Mario Apuzzo, Esq., noted for the Kerchner case and his erudite blogs on Presidential eligibility issues. While Mr. Apuzzo did not specialize in constitutional law, his background and interests helped him ease into it. That case went all the way to the door of SCOTUS, but that body declined to hear it. Apuzzo has been advising Paige, pro bono (but NOT as Counsel of Record), with the permission of the court, for you doubting “obot” readers. Mario is licensed to practice in several mid-Atlantic states as well as in the Federal Courts. Mr. Apuzzo has studied international law in Europe and has a special interest in Constitutional Law and its history. Mr. Apuzzo is not licensed to practice in Vermont, much to the dismay of Mr. Paige!
Case Strategy
Not surprisingly, their approach had similarities to Kerchner in legal direction, although it had to be tailored to VT law. Paige was dismissive of most other plaintiffs, who he labeled “birthers,” as if his case had nothing to do with birth circumstances of the current “pResident” in the White House. What he meant is that his case cites no foreign birth, no purloined Social Security numbers, no Vatican/Opus Dei plots, seeks no obscure college records, cites no fraudulent Selective Service application. In fact, it contains only ONE piece of evidence (in addition to many statute and case law citations), which he concedes is valid and true—the 4-27-11 whitehouse.gov “birth certificate” (Allegedly a long-form Certificate of Live Birth). In fact, its professed validity is central to his case, since its claim that Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. is the father and was an alien, is his basis that Obama is ineligible, because he is not a natural born Citizen, per the two Citizen parent requirement, per Minor v Happersett (SCOTUS, 1875) and other reasons.
The case relies upon the U.S. Constitution’s presidential eligibility language, in Article II Section 1 Clause 5; and Vermont Election Law, Title 17, sections 2603, 2617 and 2702. Basically, applicable portions of the latter say that elections may be contested in Washington County Superior Court before 15 days after an election (case was filed on August 27, 2012). It also relies upon multitudinous citations of case law, statutes and historical papers. The plaintiff and his counsel conclude that these collectively and conclusively prove his case that a natural born citizen is born in the U.S. of two citizen parents and that the man calling himself “Barack Hussein Obama,” currently occupying the White House, does not meet those qualifications. The VT statutes have never really been tested in such circumstances.
Initial Response and Disposition
In September, 2012, the VT Attorney-General quickly moved to dismiss the case on standing and jurisdiction grounds, even though the law seemingly permitted the case. AG Will Sorrel and Asst AG Todd Daloz were on the case. It was also leaked to the press prematurely (and traced to AG office) before service was made – allegedly against Superior Court rules. The Defense also incorrectly cited flawed dicta from of an out of jurisdiction case, (Ankeny, in Indiana, a standard, hackneyed and invalid ploy by the eligibility defendants).
Speaking of “service,” “Obama” has subpoena ducking down to a science. Judge Bent claimed that Mr. Paige had made insufficient efforts (due diligence) to serve “Obama.” But Paige says he tried every possible method, multiple times, including a process server who went to the White House West Gate and was refused by the Secret Service, then threatened with arrest when he persisted. He also successfully delivered service to Obama using First Class mail, priority mail, certified mail and Fedex Overnight Service. He also delivered the Summons and Verified Complaint to Attorney-General Eric Holder’s Office in Washington, Obama’s Chicago residence, the Chicago PO box for Obama for President, the DNC in VT (Mr. Jacobsen sent Paige a letter informing him that he had placed it in the recycling bin for disposal). So it is quite likely that someone with access to “Obama” knew that there was a case, papers, deadlines, etc. In spite of these near-Herculean efforts, Judge Bent was unsatisfied that Mr. Paige had made adequate attempts to serve. Mr. Paige even twice proposed service by publication. He says that the Washington Post requires a court order to do so, but his requests were turned down by Judge Bent.
Michael Kennedy, BAR Counsel, claimed Apuzzo was “ghosting” for Paige- practicing law without a license in VT. This was a frivolous charge, since Apuzzo was not the Counsel of record, did not have offices in VT, did not appear in court and restricted his efforts to advising Mr. Paige, with the written permission of the court. The Office of Professional Responsibility ruled that there was no offense.
Defendants threw up every legal and some illegal obstacles that they could. By defendants, we mean The State of Vermont and the Vermont Secretary of State, Jim Condos, since Obama put up no defense and all other defendants and the court claim, rightly or wrongly, that service to Obama was never properly executed.
Plaintiff, advisor and allies all observed that the court and media have treated Mr. Paige very shabbily – exhibiting a unique combination of contempt, derision and arrogance. Of course, the political climate in Vermont was conducive to do so. Propagandists had put out false words “debunking” assertions that “Obama” isn’t a natural born citizen. They even disputed the two parent requirement. In 2008, “Mainstream Media” and politicians of both big parties immediately attempted to shut down all opposition to the line that “Obama” was ineligible. They also repeatedly pulled the “race card.” Anyone who questioned Obama MUST be a racist, stupid, insane, or all of those. So, this certainly applied in spades to a case in this ultra-Liberal New England state right before the Presidential election. It was actually much harder to attack Paige’s case, as he made none of the lurid claims of false birth certificates, Kenyan origins, or controversial theories that many other cases had. It was all about the citizenship of two parents.
Eventually, Judge Bent ruled against Mr. Paige, citing no standing, no jurisdiction, no venue, improper service. He also said that Paige had provided insufficient evidence that Obama was ineligible. He even cited the infamous Ankeny ruling, which is not even applicable to this case and uses as its principal citation a ruling which does not even apply to NATURAL born Citizenship. Bent said the case could be appealed to the VT Supreme Court, an option that Mr. Paige pursued with alacrity.
The Appeal, to Date
Mr. Paige filed an appeal within 5 days of Judge Bent’s decision and his Principal Brief within 10 days after the Supreme Court accepted his Petition of Appeal. Defendant’s Counsel asked for 20 days additional time (beyond the 20 days allowed under the rules) and their request was granted. Time was of the essence, since a renegade “pResident” was running wild and the threat of “mootness” was improperly raised in this document, along with other new issues which have no business in an appeal, which must legally confine itself to original case issues and evidence. It’s a very strong case. Rather than describe it here in detail, we were able to secure and publish all of Paige/Apuzzo case papers, linked below. Enjoy! If you are reading this in hard copy, go to the Vermont page on our obamballotchallenge.com web site and find case links.
Both parties requested and received permission for overlong briefs (Paige’s was 20,000 words, defendant’s about half that), due to the importance, complexity and historical importance of the subject matter.
A Supreme Court hearing was held in April 23,2013.
Listen to hearing: http://www.vermontjudiciary.org/LC/audioarguments/2012-439.zip
Mr. Paige said he was very nervous at first, however the respect and attentiveness of the Justices put him at ease, as he respectfully attempted to answer the flurry of questions on various aspects of the case posed by the Justices. In the end he said he felt that he had delivered a competent presentation, given his pro se status. Listening to the audio, he felt it only went ‘OK.” It sounded pretty good to us, for a non-attorney, considering the historical significance and complexity of this case.
In our interview, Mr. Paige repeatedly stressed his “respect for the Vermont Judicary and the Vermont Election Process, believing that the ‘Rule of Law’ and adherence to both the Vermont and the U.S. Constitution will ultimately lead to a right and proper resolution.”
A Special Note: VT Assistant Attorney General Todd Daloz represented VT Secretary of State James Condos. We can’t resist noting that he was Captain of the “Flying Cows” Frisbee team at his alma mater UC Hastings, in 2009.
So, the world now awaits the VT Supreme Court ruling.
Notes
Vermont Supreme Court Justices:
Chief Justice Paul Reiber: 156-1
Justice John Dooley: 128-31
Justice Denise Johnson: 146-11 (Note: Justice Zovay of Superior Court sat instead of Robinson)
Justice Marilyn Skoglund: 149-7
Justice Brian Burgess: 155-1
Vermont Superior Court Judges (the initially dismissed case):
Judge Robert Bent: 149-6 * Case judge
Judge Cortland Corsones: 155-1
Judge Thomas Devine: 151-5
Judge Theresa DiMauro: 151-4
Judge Harold Eaton: 154-2
Judge Michael Kupersmith: 133-22
Judge Linda Levitt: 146-7
Judge Gregory Rainville: 151-2
Judge John Wesley: 147-8
Source: http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?S=14347190&clienttype=printable
Defendant’s Counsel
Todd Daloz, Plymouth, VT, US, Todd W. Daloz is a 2009 graduate of the University of California,Hastings College of the. Law
Todd J Daloz, 34 years old, Montpelier, VT, US, Saint Johnsbury, VT, …
Todd J Daloz, Clinton, WA, US, Kate Daloz (family), Laurent A Daloz …
http://vermont-elections.org/elections1/election_law.html#1841
§ 2458. Complaint procedure
The secretary of state shall adopt rules to establish a uniform and nondiscriminatory complaint procedure to be used by any person who believes that a violation of this title or any other provision of Title III of United States Public Law 107-252 has occurred, is occurring, or is about to occur. For purposes of this section, “complaint” shall mean a statement in writing made by a voter stating, with particularity, the violation, notarized, and sworn or affirmed under penalty of perjury. The secretary’s rules shall provide for an informal proceeding to hear complaints for all complainants unless a formal hearing is requested. Formal complaints held pursuant to this section shall be in conformance with the rules adopted by the secretary. Any decision of the secretary may be appealed to the superior court in the county where the individual resides. (Added 2003, No. 59, § 18.)
Local Vermont Newspaper Coverage http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20130423/NEWS03/304230018/
Previous Obamaballotchallenge.com Coverage on our Vermont News Page
Case Documents:
Statement of the Case
INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE PRINTED CASE- SUPREME COURT DOCKET #2012-439
Printed Case Part 1
Printed Case- Part 2
Printed Case- Part 3
Printed Case- Part 4
Instructions to Electronic File for the: APPENDIX OF LEGAL AND HISTORICAL REFERENCES
Appendix of Legal and Historical References
Brief of the Appellant -Part I
Brief of the Appellant -Part II
Appendix to Principal Brief- Supreme Court Document
Reply Brief of the Appellant
Appellant’s Supplementary Appendix Accompanying Reply Brief
Instructions for Appendix of Legal and Historical Data
No comments:
Post a Comment