You are on page 1of 11

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Court

The passing of time has, for many, dimmed their understanding
of our republican form of government and fostered disrespect
for the genius of the founders and framers as expressed in the
Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. In the weeks
since the national election we have seen a classic example of
this in the uninformed criticism of the Electoral College from
those who fail to comprehend the process or its importance.
Likewise in the case at hand, the Appellees seek to diminish the
importance of the Constitution by their attempt to confuse,
confound and conflate one of the Constitution’s three
Presidential qualifications to a degree that would render it all but
meaningless, potentially endangering the nation by allowing the
election of an individual with divided loyalties and improper
The noble concepts of individual freedom and independence
voiced in Our Declaration of Independence, the Articles of
Confederation and our national Constitution by the founders and
framers found support and validation for their efforts to free
themselves and their countrymen from the tyranny of the King
in the Natural Law as expressed by its contemporary
philosophers: Emmer de Vattel, Samuel von Pufendorf and JeanJacques Burlamaqui. They embraced de Vattel’s Law of Nations
in which he had sought to consolidate the expressions of the
earlier Natural Law philosophers and expand the context of
Natural Law to include relationships between sovereigns and
their citizens as well as Natural Law’s influence on a nation’s
legal and political system. The Law of Nations is widely
recognized as a principle influence, unrivaled among natural law

treatises, in its influence on the American founders.[1} The
words of our Constitution’s preamble confirm its genesis in the
”Law of Nature and Nature’s God” [2],[3]
In this action, the Appellees have argued various legal
circumstances that could bar the Appellant from reaching the
merits of his case. The thorough defense presented in the
Appellant’s briefs confirm that the law provides:
1) the Appellant with standing to bring the questions, as 17
V.S.A. § 2603 grants any “legal voter” standing [4] while 17
V.S.A. § 2458 authorizes “any individual” to initially bring a
complaint before the Secretary of State with an accompanying
notarized statement by “a voter” to confirm the facts [5] ;
2) the Vermont Courts have jurisdiction to review and decide the
questions presented under 17 V.S.A. § 2617 - thus, Vermont
Courts have the authority and responsibility to fashion a
3) that the questions presented to the Vermont Courts and the
remedy sought do not represent a prohibited political question as
the issues do not contain any of the necessary defects[7] and
4) that neither the principles of ripeness nor mootness prohibit
the case at hand to proceed, as 17 V.S.A. § 2603 requires that an
action must be initiated “within 15 days after the election in
question” and the more expansive language of 17 V.S.A. § 2458
allows complaints to be initiated when the complained activity
“has occurred, is occurring, or is about to occur” , further the
Appellant’s claims fall within two of the four exceptions to the
mootness doctrine: voluntary cessation of unlawful conduct and
the issue at hand is capable of repetition yet evading review.[8]

Particularly on point to a majority of the issues raised by the
Appellees in their effort to prohibit the case to proceed to the
merits is the election challenge of Noble v. Sec. of State, et al
48-9-10 Excv in which Essex Co. Superior Court Judge M.
Kathleen Manley found in favor of the plaintiff as to timeliness,
standing, jurisdiction and political question. Interestingly, Judge
Manley found plaintiff Noble had standing despite his admission
that he had not participate in the election which his candidate
qualification questions focused.[9]
Having satisfied each of the requirements for standing,
jurisdiction, political question and timeliness
(ripeness/mootness) – this Court may proceed to the underlying
questions posed by the Appellant:
a) does the Secretary of State’s have the authority and
responsibility to prevent unqualified candidates from being
placed on the Vermont Primary and General Election ballots ?
b) Do the Vermont Courts have the authority and responsibility
to ascertain the definition of the meaning of the Presidential
qualifying phrase “natural-born Citizen” as expressed in the
Constitution of the United States in so far as the Vermont
Presidential Primary and General Election contests are
concerned ?
c) What are the birth circumstances that define a “natural-born
Citizen” within the context of Article II of the U.S. Constitution
– Presidential Qualifications, as they should be applied to the
Presidential Elections in Vermont ?
Under Title 17, the Secretary of State, has specific and
overarching duties in every aspect of the election including:

collecting and verifying the information of candidates to be
placed on election ballots, creating and designing the ballots
consistent with the statutes and overseeing the production and
distribution of the ballots and subsequently conducting the
election and tabulating and communicating the results .[10] An
integral part of the Secretary of State’s responsibilities is to
confirm that the information contained on the ballots is
consistent with the form and substance of the law. Given that the
Secretary is responsible for everything detail from the order of
placement of the offices on the ballot, collecting candidates’
names and their towns of residence, the format of the ballot, the
number of ballots to be printed, the weight and color of the
paper to be used[11] – it is absurd to propose that while the
Secretary of State is responsible for the minutia of producing the
ballot and conducting the election, that he does not also have the
authority or responsibility to confirm such important
information as whether the candidates satisfying the
constitutional qualifications for the office they seek before
including their names on the ballot.[12] The fundamental
obligation of the Secretary of State is to preserve the integrity of
the election, the ultimate goal from which all of the offices
ministerial duties devolve. The appellees argue that the
qualification of Presidential candidates is to adjudged by some
other organization and while not specifying or citing any
authorities, they speculate that possibly the Electoral College [13]
or the U.S. Congress[14] or the voters themselves are somehow
responsible.[15] Such ill-defined guessing as to responsibility for
deciding the “natural-born Citizen” question, especially
suggesting that the voters themselves should in some way be
the interpreters of the Constitution, is patently absurd – as

nothing is clearer than that the founders and framers abhorred
raw democracy.[16]
The Vermont Courts have the duty and responsibility to
ascertain the Constitutional meaning of the “natural-born
Citizen” Presidential Qualification in order to provide the
Vermont Secretary of State with a standard by which to
determine if petitioned presidential candidates for the primary
election are qualified for the office the seek and to likewise
determine whether the candidates for president and vicepresident submitted by the major parties are likewise qualified to
be included in the General Election. The Appellees have
suggested in their brief that the State of Vermont has no role in
deciding whether someone running for President is
constitutionally eligible for that office.[17] This is simply not true
as the state’s interest in protecting its elections has been
confirmed by our U.S. Supreme Court which has held that a
state’s legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and
functioning of the political process allows it to exclude from the
ballot of its elections candidate who are not constitutionally
eligible to assume the office they seek.[18]
The Vermont Supreme Court is well-appointed and certainly
well-qualified to determine the birth circumstances that are
sufficient to make a candidate a “natural-born Citizen.” As
examined in the Appellant’s briefs, the definition of the
Constitutional Presidential qualification phrase is well-settled in
historic documents of the founding era, rulings of the Supreme
Court of the United States examining conditions of citizenship
and precedent of 225+ years of officeholders who met the
Vattelian “natural-born Citizen” standard of “born in country to
two citizen parents”[19] with two exceptions only. [20] This

standard assures the nation of a President and Commander in
Chief uncompromised by divided allegiance and loyalties.
Unfortunately, in our current political climate, it has become
convenient to turn a blind eye to the wealth of history, law and
precedent that support that standard. The Appellees here, as well
as other supporters of an unfixed definition of “natural-born
Citizen(ship),” conjecture that the Presidential qualifying phrase
“natural-born Citizen” never had a precise meaning and support
an ever expanding spectrum of possible birth circumstances
which allow a candidate to qualify. To that end, the Appellees
attempt to confound, confuse and conflate the two types of
citizenship delineated in the Constitution: “citizen of the United
States” and “natural-born Citizen,” the only class of citizen
qualified to serve as President (and Vice President) of the United
The Appellees seem content to allow the confusion and
ambiguity of their groundless position of supporting a vague and
changing definition to continue to confuse the electorate and
disrupt the Presidential Election process - rather than joining
with the Appellant in his effort to have the Court recognize and
confirm a precise meaning for the Presidential qualifying phrase
“natural-born Citizen,” at least for those candidates seeking
ballot access in Vermont Presidential Elections.

The Appellant hope that this Court will adopt the Vattelian
model defining the qualifying phrase for he believes that that
definition is the one that reflects the intent of the founders and
framers as one of the three qualifications for the Office of

President of the United States and Commander in Chief of the
Military. It is of paramount importance that this Court
recognizes and confirms the precise set of birth circumstances
that define the phrase “natural-born Citizen” from the spectrum
presented by the Appellant – those being: “born in country to
two citizen parents” [21][22] (or born abroad to two citizen parents
in the service of the nation – i.e. imputed native birth)[23] OR
“born in country to one citizen parent” [24] OR “born to two
citizen parents without regard to birthplace” [25] OR “born in
country without citizen parents” [26] OR “born to one citizen
parent regardless of birthplace”[27] OR “a naturalized citizen”[28]
OR “an inhabitant, legally present in the country”[29] OR “an
inhabitant, present in the country without legal status.”[30] It is
obvious that all of these varied birth circumstances cannot be the
definition of a “natural-born Citizen” and a review of the
evidence will lead to the inescapable conclusion that only those
individuals “born in country to two citizen parents” or “born
abroad to two citizen parents in the service of the nation” are the
“natural-born Citizens” of our country and therefore
Constitutionally qualified to serve as President and Commander
in Chief.

The phrase “natural-born citizen” must have a fixed definition in
regard to the birth circumstances of those seeing the office of
President, as Justice Marshall informs “It cannot be presumed
that any clause in the Constitution is intended to be without
effect, and therefore such construction is inadmissible unless the
words require it” [31]Nationally, until our Courts confirm that

there is one firm definition of the Presidential qualifying phrase
“natural born Citizen,” there can be no debate as to whether that
definition should be changed, by amendment, to include
additional birth circumstances reflecting the needs of our era. [32]
It is therefore necessary that this Court recognizes and confirms
the precise meaning of a “natural-born Citizen” which will apply
to Vermont Elections and should other states have concerns with
this state’s position on that definition – any controversy over an
incongruity between the states over the definition would
properly be decided by the United States Supreme Court.[33]
The Appellant has done all within his power to present his case
and hopes that his efforts have been sufficient to have convinced
the Court of his right to present his case and that the
righteousness of his arguments are sufficient to allow this Court
to rule favorably on the merits.


H. Brooke Paige
Plaintiff/Appellant, pro se.
[1] - “Emmer de Vattel was by far the most influential of the continental publicists. The
impact of his treatise in Europe and the United States was extraordinary -Vattel‘s treatise on
the law of nations was quoted by judicial tribunals, in speeches before legislative
assemblies, and in the decrees and correspondence of executive officials. It was the manual
of the student, the reference work of the statesman, and the text from which the political
philosopher drew inspiration” Charles G. Fenwick, The Authority of Vattel, 7 AM. POL. SCI.
REV. 395, 395 (1913), cited and quoted in EXECUTIVE POWER AND THE LAW OF NATIONS IN
LAW REVIEW, vol. 46:373 (2012)


[2] – Preamble of the U. S. Constitution,
[3] - Forgotten Influences of the Founders by Joe Wolverton, II, J.D.

[4] – 17 VSA § 2603. Contest of elections - (a) The result of an election for any office, other
than for the general assembly, or public question may be contested by any legal voter
entitled to vote on the office or public question to be contested.”
[5] – 17 VSA § 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.)”
[6] – 17 VSA § 2617. Jurisdiction of Superior Courts –“ In all cases for which no other
provision has been made, the superior court shall have general jurisdiction to hear and
determine matters relating to elections and to fashion appropriate relief. (Added 1977, No.
269 (Adj. Sess.), § 1.)”
[7] – Appellants’ Brief at p.15, Appellant’s Reply Brief at p.10-11 citing: Baker v. Carr, 369
U.S. 186, 217 (1962) (quoted in Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 518-19 (1969).
[8] – Appellant’s Reply Brief at p.1 – 4, Brief of the State Defendants at p.6 , Brief of
Defendant Cruz at p.1
[9] – Appellant’s Reply Brief at p. 9, Noble v. Sec’y of State, No. 48-9-10 Excv, Judge
Manley, (Oct. 21, 2010) Decision and Order at p. 5 – 6.
[10]- 17 VSA § 2907 Administration - states “The Secretary of State shall administer this
chapter and shall perform all duties required under this chapter.”
[11]- 17 VSA § 2362 - Primary ballots, 17 VSA § 2478 - Number of Paper Ballot, 17 VSA §
2701 - Presidential Primary, 17 VSA § 2471 - General Election Ballot
[12] - Confirmation of the qualifications of candidates seeking office as a State
Representative or State Senator are the responsibility of the respective legislative bodies –
17 VSA § 2605 as to Qualification of Representatives and 17 VSA § 2605 as to the
Qualifications of Senators.
[13] – State Defendants Brief at p.11
[14] – State Defendants Brief at p.17
[15] - State Defendants Brief at p.18

[16] - “Our Founders very much feared creating a government that had too many
aspects of a pure democracy. They feared the destructiveness that a majority might

have in trying to make everyone equal, and in the process taking away property,
rights of property, and with it our basic freedoms which they considered ‘God given
Freedoms.’ "
[17] - State Defendants Brief at p.19
[18] – Appellant’s Reply Brief at p.19. Munro v. Socialist Workers Party, 479 U.S. 189, 193-95
(1986); Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 134, 145 (1972).

[19] – The Forgotten Presidents and the Evolution of the Office of President of the
United States (Supplemental Printed Case for Oral Argument)
[20] - Birth Circumstances of Chester A. Arthur and Barack Obama (Brief of the
Appellant p.18, footnote #5)
[21] - (1) - Emer de Vattel’s Law of Nations - B.1,C.19 § 212. Citizens and Natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by
certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its
advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the
country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and
perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children
naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its
own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on
entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members
of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these
become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether,
on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and
what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be
of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen;
for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and
not his country.
[22] - Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. 99 (1830), Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60
U.S. 393 (1857), Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167 (1875), U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark,
169 U.S. 649, 665 (1898)
[23] - Emer de Vattel’s Law of Nations - B.1,C.19 § 217. Children Born in the Armies
of the State. “For the same reasons also, children born out of the country, in the
armies of the state, or in the house of its minister at a foreign court, are reputed born
in the country; for a citizen who is absent with his family, on the service of the state,
but still dependent on it, and subject to its jurisdiction, cannot be considered as
having quitted its territory”
[24] - Citizen of the United States Only under Fourteenth Amendment to the
[25] - Naturalization Act of 1790 stated that: “children born out of the United States
to U.S. citizens shall be considered as natural born citizens.” Repealed by
Naturalization Act of 1795 which stated: “children born out of the United States to
U.S. shall be considered as citizens of the United States."

[26] - Citizen of the United States Only under Fourteenth Amendment to the
[27] - Citizen of The United States Only under the Immigration and Nationality Act of
1952 § 301,(a)7 & (b)
[28] - Article 1, Section 8 (1) The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes,
Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence
and general Welfare of the United States; . . . (4) To establish an uniform Rule of
Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United
[29] - 6 CFR 301.7701(b)-1 - Resident alien,
[30] - False Personation of a Citizen (18 U.S.C. § 911), Fraud and False Statements relating
to Citizenship (18 U.S.C. § 1001),
[31] - Marbury v. Madison 5 U.S. 137 [p175]
[32] -
[33] - Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution - The judicial Power shall extend to
all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United
States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all
Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of
admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States
shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State
and Citizens of another State;—between Citizens of different States;—between
Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and
between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.