Tag Archives: H. Brooke Paige

The Sap Rises Early In Vermont (Or, Turn The Paige)

Having A Very Thick Skull, The Birther Had No Problems Head-Butting The Tree To Make The Sap Drip Faster

Well, here are some interesting details about the Vermont Birther, H. Brooke Paige, and his attempt to find a lawyer for his eligibility challenge. This is from William Boardman, from OpEdNews.com and here are a few excerpts, with much more at the link below:

Early last summer, Paige was looking for a lawyer to represent him in the “natural born citizen” lawsuit now known as Paige v. Vermont. His personal attorney, Wendell Rose of Barre, whose specialty is real estate, warned him that most Vermont attorneys would probably turn down his case “because of the high profile and controversial nature of my action,” Paige wrote in his court motion to be allowed to represent himself.

After numerous rejections, Paige wrote a three-page, single-spaced letter dated July 4 to J. Paul Giuliani, a well-established Montpelier attorney. Paige wrote, in part, “While what I am hoping to achieve” is very modest, I am thoroughly aware of the profound ramifications my actions could have”. As you reminded me, our judiciary here in Vermont will probably look unfavorably upon my effort to encourage the State of Vermont to do the right thing”.”

Giuliani wrote, and recommended that Paige seek help from the legal clinic at the Vermont Law School.

Considering the Law School an unlikely prospect, Paige turned to retired Superior Court Judge Paul F. Hudson, “who said he found the issues I raised were “fascinating’ and completely consistent with Vermont law.” Hudson agreed with Giuliani that there was no practicing attorney in Vermont with sufficient expertise to handle the case, Paige wrote.

Paige then tried a different approach, seeking to have Mario Apuzzo, a New Jersey attorney who had handled a similar case there, sponsored by a Vermont attorney so that Apuzzo could practice in Vermont temporarily. When communications with Giuliani broke down, Paige turned to attorney Rose, who flatly refused, telling Paige: “when all of this is over, I still need to have clients — this is my livelihood and I just can’t put that at risk.”

There is more at this link:


In my opinion, there isn’t a lawyer in the Universe who has enough expertise to put the two-citizen parents nonsense over on court.   If you refer to the actual complain, you can see that Paige goes wrong at the same point where the first Birthers in Ankeny went wrong- – -assuming that there is some difference between a natural born citizen and someone citizenized by being born in the United States through the 14th Amendment. Paige also falls down the silly Birther Minor v. Happersett rabbit hole. Here are pages  5  and 6 of his complaint:

(Click on Image to enlarge.)

(Click on Image to enlarge.)

This ridiculous claim completely ignores the fact that the 14th Amendment was simply affirming the previous common law concept of natural born citizenship, as is clearly stated in Wong Kim Ark (1898) decision near the bottom of Section V:

The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory [wild Indian exception omitted.].

The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 6a, “strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;”

Far from being some mysterious law beamed in from the Planet Gliese 581g, the 14th Amendment simply affirms this statement, cited with approval in Wong Kim Ark:

In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said:

All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion [p663] that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.

1 Abbott (U.S.) 28, 40, 41.

Perhaps these simple statements are over the head of the esteemed H. Brooke Paige, so he proceeds to go hopping down the Minor v. Happersett (MvH) Birfer Bunny Trail with Mario “The Mangler” Apuzzo, Esq., as can been seen on page 9 of his Complaint:

(Click on Image to enlarge.)

Never mind the fact that the MvH Court clearly left open the issue of whether or not a child born here of non-citizen parents was a natural born citizen or not, it sure sounds good to pretend like MvH was precedent. Except to real judges, that is. They have a bad tendency to actually read the stuff, think for themselves, and then say things like the Ankeny Court did in 2009:

In Minor, written only six years after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, the Court observed that:

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.

Id. at 167-168. Thus, the Court left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen.12

Reading through the Complaint (see Note 1 below for the whole thing.), it is nothing but a rehash of previous idiotic Birther legal arguments, all of which have lost. This one will lose, too. My only question is whether Paige will blame the judge(s) or just admit that his legal case is a bunch of baloney. It won’t be long before we can turn the page on this one.

What a sap.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. Here is a pdf of Paige’s Complaint and attachments in case you want to read the whole thing:

Vermont Complaint

Vermont Attachments-to-Cplt

Note 2. Gliese 581g. An exo-planet about which Wiki says, in part:

Gliese 581 g ( /ˈɡliːzə/), also Gl 581 g or GJ 581 g, is an unconfirmed extrasolar planet of the red dwarf star Gliese 581,[2] 22 light-years[3] from Earth in the constellation of Libra.[4] It is the sixth planet discovered in the Gliese 581 planetary system and the fourth in order of increasing distance from the star. The discovery was announced by the Lick-Carnegie Exoplanet Survey in late September 2010, after a decade of observation. However, the ESO/HARPS survey team was not able to confirm that the planet exists.[5][6]

Gliese 581 g has attracted attention because it is near the middle of the habitable zone of its parent star. That means it could sustain liquid water on its surface and could potentially host life similar to that on Earth. (The planet is expected to have temperatures around -37 to -12°C, however). If it is a rocky planet, favorable atmospheric conditions could permit the presence of liquid water, a necessity for all known life, on its surface. With a mass 3.1 to 4.3 times Earth’s, Gliese 581 g is considered a super-Earth and is the planet closest in size to Earth known in a habitable zone. This makes it the most Earth-like Goldilocks planet found outside the Solar System and the exoplanet with the greatest recognized potential for harboring life.[7]

The detection of Gliese 581 g after such a short period of searching and at such close proximity has led some astronomers to hypothesize that the proportion of stars with habitable planets may be greater than ten percent.[1]