Friday 7th March, 2014 The Vermont Supreme Court (VCS) having found that my Rule 40 Request for Reargument failed to present misinterpretation of material facts or law sufficient to compel them to reconsider their judgment - Mario Apuzzo, Esq. of Jamesburg, New Jersey and Counsel Press, LLC. of NYC and Washington filed my Writ of Certiorari with the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS )today (March 6th, 2014). The principal issues for review are: 1- mootness, the VSC having ruled that the case at hand had become moot with the passage of time despite numerous rulings by SCOTUS that issues relating to elections have been consistently found to represent an exception to mootness. First, Storer v. Brown 415 US 724 (footnote #8) [8] The 1972 election is long over, and no effective relief can be provided to the candidates or voters, but this case is not moot, since the issues properly presented, and their effects on independent candidacies, will persist as the California statutes are applied in future elections. This is, therefore, a case where the controversy is capable of repetition, yet evading review. Rosario v. Rockefeller, 410 U. S. 752, 756 n. 5 (1973); Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U. S. 330, 333 n. 2 (1972); Moore v. Ogilivie, 394 U. S. 814, 816 (1969); Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. ICC, 219 U. S. 498, 515 (1911). The capable of repetition, yet evading review doctrine, in the context of election cases, is appropriate when there are as applied challenges as well as in the more typical case involving only facial attacks. The construction of the statute, an understanding of its operation, and possible constitutional limits on its application, will have the effect of simplifying future challenges, thus increasing the likelihood that timely filed cases can be adjudicated before an election is held. birtherreport/2014/03/evasion-another-obama-eligibility-case.html
Posted on: Sat, 08 Mar 2014 00:21:19 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015