H. Brooke Paige v. State of Vermont, Secretary of State, James Condos, Attorney General William Sorrell, Rafael Edward Cruz and Marco Antonio Rubio oral argument November 30, 2016, Audio and transcript

H. Brooke Paige v. State of Vermont, Secretary of State, James Condos, Attorney General William Sorrell, Rafael Edward Cruz and Marco Antonio Rubio oral argument November 30, 2016, Audio and transcript

“To his kind of judge, Cruz ironically wouldn’t be eligible, because the legal principles that prevailed in the 1780s and ’90s required that someone actually be born on US soil to be a “natural born” citizen. Even having two US parents wouldn’t suffice. And having just an American mother, as Cruz did, would have been insufficient at a time that made patrilineal descent decisive.”…Laurence H. Tribe, Harvard Law Professor

“Ted Cruz wrote the forward for U.S. Constitution for Dummies which clearly reveals that he is not a natural born citizen.”…IL ballot challenger Bill Graham

“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

From H. Brooke Paige.

H. Brooke Paige v. State of Vermont, Secretary of State, James Condos, Attorney General William Sorrell, Rafael Edward Cruz and Marco Antonio Rubio  November 30, 2016

Transcript:

https://www.scribd.com/document/332952543/H-Brooke-Paige-v-State-of-Vermont-Secretary-of-State-James-Condos-Attorney-General-William-Sorrell-Rafael-Edward-Cruz-and-Marco-Antonio-Rubio-Tr

From Mr. Paige today:

“With a Little Divine Intervention !

I know that many do not believe that “the big guy” keeps an eye out for us – even when we ask him to do so, today was one of those days that again confirmed, at least for me, that He most certainly does – truly the “invisible hand” rested firmly on my shoulder as I discussed the A/G’s procedural objections and the underlying merits of the case with the Vermont Supreme Court Justices

The justices were well read on the case and asked pointed question. primarily on the procedural issues of standing, venue, jurisdiction and timeliness (mootness/ripeness), One justice stated to AA/G Daloz that “I believe that we will get past the procedural questions” to the issues of the case and then asked several probing question that Daloz seemed ill-prepared to address. Rubio’s “K Street” attorney, Brady Toesing was in attendance but had informed the court that he would not participate in Oral Argument – a decision he may now regret (I suspect that Rubio cut the cash flow to Brady?).

Daloz suggested that if the court found in my favor, that the case should be returned to the lower court for further briefing – however the justices did not seem amused, enquiring how additional briefing could help to clarify the issues. Between the lower court and the Supreme Court docket, the combined parties, State Defendants, Cruz and Rubio and I have submitted over a three thousand pages of material (taking up two file drawers in the clerk’s office!) I believe that the Attorney General’s office fears that if the court proceeds to the merits the issue of the Sec. of State’s responsibility to prohibit unqualified candidates from ballot access, the court’s jurisdiction to decide and the underlying question of confirming the SCOTUS definition of the birth circumstances* will not go well for the opposition !

It was a Good Day for Justice in the Green Mountains !”

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/