Laity: Last Birther (with no) Standing [was 2016 N.Y. challenges]

User avatar
bob
Posts: 21990
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Korman v. N.Y. State Board of Elections (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) (& 2016 N.Y. ballot challenges)

Post by bob » Sat Apr 02, 2016 6:38 pm

Times Union: Court of Appeals won’t hear challenge to Cruz’s ‘natural born’ status:
Without comment, the state Court of Appeals on Friday refused to hear an appeal in a legal challenge to Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz’s status as a “natural born” American citizen.
The no-discussion denial ("Motion for leave to appeal denied.").
Imagex4 Imagex2 Imagex2 Imagex2

User avatar
bob
Posts: 21990
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Korman v. N.Y. State Board of Elections (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) (& 2016 N.Y. ballot challenges)

Post by bob » Sun Apr 10, 2016 2:12 pm

P&E comment:
Robert C. Laity wrote:I was one of three Ballot Access Challengers in the State of New York against Cruz,Rubio and Jindal. My particular Challenge was filed on a timely basis and is now making it’s way through the Court Process in the Albany County branch of the New York State Supreme Court.I applied for an Index # on April 4, 2016. I am seeking injunctions against the Certification of Cruz and Rubio and Jindal’s delegates and injunction against them appearing on the ballot. More to come. I will keep you apprised as my case progresses.
:yankyank:
Imagex4 Imagex2 Imagex2 Imagex2

User avatar
Piffle
Posts: 6985
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 12:39 pm

Re: Korman v. N.Y. State Board of Elections (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) (& 2016 N.Y. ballot challenges)

Post by Piffle » Sun Apr 10, 2016 2:39 pm

bob wrote:P&E comment:
Robert C. Laity wrote:I was one of three Ballot Access Challengers in the State of New York against Cruz,Rubio and Jindal. My particular Challenge was filed on a timely basis and is now making it’s way through the Court Process in the Albany County branch of the New York State Supreme Court.I applied for an Index # on April 4, 2016. I am seeking injunctions against the Certification of Cruz and Rubio and Jindal’s delegates and injunction against them appearing on the ballot. More to come. I will keep you apprised as my case progresses.
Bobby's comment is just as darling as it could be. He's still pretending he has a real court case "progressing" through the courts. ;)

There's hardly anything cuter than a boy playing doctor, lawyer or similar grownup role.


User avatar
bob
Posts: 21990
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Korman v. N.Y. State Board of Elections (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Ct. App.) (& 2016 N.Y. ballot challenges)

Post by bob » Fri May 06, 2016 1:49 pm

P&E: comment:
Robert C. Laity wrote:Cruz,Rubio,Jindal and the State of New York have been ORDERED to show cause on May 13, 2016 in the NY State Supreme Court for Albany County (Laity v NY,Cruz,Rubio and Jindal, #1561-16).

Injunctions against the respondents to keep them off the ballot and to invalidate any votes for them and an injunction against the Governor from certifying any votes for the three are being sought.
:yankyank:
Imagex4 Imagex2 Imagex2 Imagex2

User avatar
realist
Posts: 33986
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Re: Korman v. N.Y. State Board of Elections (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Ct. App.) (& 2016 N.Y. ballot challenges)

Post by realist » Fri May 06, 2016 1:55 pm

bob wrote:P&E: comment:
Robert C. Laity wrote:Cruz,Rubio,Jindal and the State of New York have been ORDERED to show cause on May 13, 2016 in the NY State Supreme Court for Albany County (Laity v NY,Cruz,Rubio and Jindal, #1561-16).

Injunctions against the respondents to keep them off the ballot and to invalidate any votes for them and an injunction against the Governor from certifying any votes for the three are being sought.
:yankyank:
It's a speshul proceeding...

US Politics

Laity v NY;Cruz;Rubio;Jindal, #1561-16, filed in NY State...

A Special proceeding (Article 78 proceeding)was filed on April 8th, 2016, in the New York State Supreme Court for Albany County, NY, against The NY State Board of Elections, Ted Cruz,Marco Rubio and Piyash Jindal seeking injunctions against the respondents to preclude the inclusion of Cruz,Rubio and Jindal from the 2016 Presidential Ballot.,to enjoin the Governor from certifying electors for the three and to enjoin the State of NY from further misrepresenting the mandatory requirements, under Article 2, Sec. 1,Clause 5 and the 12th Amendment, respectively, that a President and Vice-President must be a "Natural Born Citizen". Presently, NY State uses the term "Born a Citizen" in derogation of the actual requirement that a President and VP be a "Natural Born Citizen". The terms "Born a Citizen" and "Natural Born Citizen" are not tantamount. They are not interchangeable. A "Natural Born Citizen" is one born IN a country of parents who are both citizens of that country. This has been defined in the Law of Nations, affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v Happersett (1875) :brickwallsmall: and reaffirmed at least three other times by SCOTUS. :roll: Obama usurped the Presidency in 2008 and in 2012. John McCain, born in Panama, and also ineligible, attempted to usurp the Presidency in 2008. Now comes Marco Rubio, born in the U.S. to two Cuban citizens, Ted Cruz, born in Canada to a Cuban Father and Piyash "Bobby" Jindal born to two Citizens of India. None of the five persons above are constitutionally eligible to be President of the United States. ALL "Natural Born Citizens" are "Citizens ". However, all "Citizens " are NOT "Natural Born Citizens". (Thursday Apr 21 | post #1)
http://www.topix.com/member/profile/robertlaity
ImageX 4 (have met 36 Obots at meetups) Image X 4
Image

User avatar
bob
Posts: 21990
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Korman v. N.Y. State Board of Elections (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Ct. App.) (& 2016 N.Y. ballot challenges)

Post by bob » Sun Jan 15, 2017 1:27 pm

Over in the comments section of a six-year-old(!) P&E article:
Laity wrote:Cruz is ineligible to be POTUS or VP as is Jindal and Rubio. Cruz may be appointed to the Supreme Court but he certainly best brush up on it. He either knew about Art. II and flouted it or was sorely incorrect about his understanding of it. I have a pending lawsuit in New York State Supreme Court, 3rd Department, Appellate Division suing NY State, Cruz, Rubio and Jindal for violating Art. II, Sec. 1, Clause 5. DJT has been apprised of this fact. See: Laity v NY, Cruz, Rubio and Jindal, #001561-2016, NYSSCt. App.D 3D
And Berg makes an appearance:
Berg wrote:Obama must be tried for Treason! Since 2008, I have stated Obama is a Fraud, Phony, Liar and an Imposter! Obama is “Constitutionally INeligible” to be President. Obama was born in Kenya; his parents divorced; his mother remarried; and Obama was adopted in Indonesia.

Read ObamaScare, my book available on Amazon, that has Documents & Facts to prove Obama is a Fraud.

Obama should be tried for Treason!
It is 2017, and they show no signs of quitting.
Imagex4 Imagex2 Imagex2 Imagex2

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 40879
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Trump International - Malibu

Re: Korman v. N.Y. State Board of Elections (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Ct. App.) (& 2016 N.Y. ballot challenges)

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Sun Jan 15, 2017 2:22 pm

They're Birfing for Dollars. I predict they will be unsuccessful.

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 8555
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Korman v. N.Y. State Board of Elections (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Ct. App.) (& 2016 N.Y. ballot challenges)

Post by Notorial Dissent » Mon Jan 16, 2017 1:03 am

I thought this was already dead and buried. Isn't it past its sell by date on mootness alone?
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 21990
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Korman v. N.Y. State Board of Elections (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Ct. App.) (& 2016 N.Y. ballot challenges)

Post by bob » Mon Jan 16, 2017 1:48 am

Notorial Dissent wrote:I thought this was already dead and buried. Isn't it past its sell by date on mootness alone?
The trial court disposed of the case in August. It is on appeal now.

Yes, it should be affirmed as moot, but I'm guessing the court has more pressing matters needing its attention first.
Imagex4 Imagex2 Imagex2 Imagex2

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 8555
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Korman v. N.Y. State Board of Elections (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Ct. App.) (& 2016 N.Y. ballot challenges)

Post by Notorial Dissent » Mon Jan 16, 2017 5:10 am

For some reason I thought it had already gone to the Appeals Court and been bounced, must be thinking of one of the other myriad fails. I should certainly expect them to drop kick it as moot, but NY!!!!!
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 5689
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: Korman v. N.Y. State Board of Elections (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Ct. App.) (& 2016 N.Y. ballot challenges)

Post by Northland10 » Sat Jan 28, 2017 4:17 pm

bob wrote:
Notorial Dissent wrote:I thought this was already dead and buried. Isn't it past its sell by date on mootness alone?
The trial court disposed of the case in August. It is on appeal now.

Yes, it should be affirmed as moot, but I'm guessing the court has more pressing matters needing its attention first.
I have not been able to find it on the NY Court of Appeals docket. Did Laity forget to file it?
Edit: ETA: I am not sure how to search the docket of the 3rd Appellate so it could potentially be sitting there waiting to die.
North-land: of the family 10
UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 21990
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Korman v. N.Y. State Board of Elections (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Ct. App.) (& 2016 N.Y. ballot challenges)

Post by bob » Wed Apr 19, 2017 4:40 pm

Northland10 wrote:I have not been able to find it on the NY Court of Appeals docket. Did Laity forget to file it?
Edit: ETA: I am not sure how to search the docket of the 3rd Appellate so it could potentially be sitting there waiting to die.
P&E comment:
Laity wrote:My case comes up for Argument in May,2017. See: Robert C. Laity v. State of New York., Rafael “Ted” Cruz., Marco Rubio and Piyash “Bobby” Jindal, Docket # 524197, NY State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 3rd. Department.
Imagex4 Imagex2 Imagex2 Imagex2

User avatar
realist
Posts: 33986
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Re: Korman v. N.Y. State Board of Elections (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Ct. App.) (& 2016 N.Y. ballot challenges)

Post by realist » Wed Apr 19, 2017 4:52 pm

Off Topic
Hard to believe these morons are still droning on about Obama's eligibility. I suppose it gives them all something to do.

Also in a comment from the link at P&E which bob provided above: http://www.thepostemail.com/2017/04/17/ ... stigation/
Robert Laity Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 6:07 AM

Elmo, Obama may not be in the WH anymore but he is still guilty and must be penalized. The charges against him were filed early in 2008. Obama cannot escape culpability. ANY Statute of Limitations will not apply since charges against Obama were formally filed within said period.
Philo, Letters to the President may be read by the Correspondence section but that doesn’t mean much when Trump is involved. I sent a copy of the letter to Trump’s personal lawyer Michael Cohen. He will see that Mr. Trump actually reads it. The Court of Public Opinion will also bring this matter to a boil.
It's been a long time since 2008 so I can't remember who filed charges or when and where (except for Fitzpatrick's nastygram. Perhaps there were others similar. Likely were/are. But charges? :confused:
ImageX 4 (have met 36 Obots at meetups) Image X 4
Image

User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 5689
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: Korman v. N.Y. State Board of Elections (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Ct. App.) (& 2016 N.Y. ballot challenges)

Post by Northland10 » Wed Apr 19, 2017 6:16 pm

Off Topic
He probably means Walter and he also hit the wrong year. According to his comments on the following blog post, he tried to file federal charges but was denied. These people cannot tell the difference between filing a complaint, which they can do, and filing charges, which is the government's role.

They also seem to think they are judge and jury.

http://logisticsmonster.com/2009/03/25/ ... ack-obama/
North-land: of the family 10
UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 21990
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Korman v. N.Y. State Board of Elections (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Ct. App.) (& 2016 N.Y. ballot challenges)

Post by bob » Thu May 11, 2017 12:40 am

P&E comment:
Laity wrote:For those interested, the matter of Robert C. Laity v The State of New York, Rafael “Ted” Cruz, Marco Rubio and Piyash “Bobby” Jindal is scheduled for June 1, 2017 at 1 pm in the NY State Supreme Court Appellate Division, Third Department in Albany, NY.
Imagex4 Imagex2 Imagex2 Imagex2

User avatar
bob
Posts: 21990
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Korman v. N.Y. State Board of Elections (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Ct. App.) (& 2016 N.Y. ballot challenges)

Post by bob » Sat May 20, 2017 1:23 pm

P&E comment:
Laity wrote:For those interested, the matter of Robert C. Laity v The State of New York, Rafael “Ted” Cruz, Marco Rubio and Piyash “Bobby” Jindal is scheduled for June 1, 2017 at 1 pm in the NY State Supreme Court Appellate Division, Third Department in Albany, NY.
"For completeness," the May 2017 calendar does list Laity's case.
Imagex4 Imagex2 Imagex2 Imagex2

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 8555
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Korman v. N.Y. State Board of Elections (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Ct. App.) (& 2016 N.Y. ballot challenges)

Post by Notorial Dissent » Sat May 20, 2017 8:22 pm

So, are they FINALLY going to drive a stake through this farce's heart? It is well past time for them to have dispensed with that nonsense.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 21990
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Korman v. N.Y. State Board of Elections (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Ct. App.) (& 2016 N.Y. ballot challenges)

Post by bob » Sat May 20, 2017 8:39 pm

Notorial Dissent wrote:So, are they FINALLY going to drive a stake through this farce's heart? It is well past time for them to have dispensed with that nonsense.
Yes and no. The inevitable bad news can be appealed to New York's highest court, and then to SCOTUS.
Imagex4 Imagex2 Imagex2 Imagex2

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 8555
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Korman v. N.Y. State Board of Elections (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Ct. App.) (& 2016 N.Y. ballot challenges)

Post by Notorial Dissent » Sat May 20, 2017 8:54 pm

Like I said, has to be a really expensive hobby for him. Pity the taxpayers are having to pay too.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 5689
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: Korman v. N.Y. State Board of Elections (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Ct. App.) (& 2016 N.Y. ballot challenges)

Post by Northland10 » Thu Aug 10, 2017 8:16 pm

bob wrote:
P&E comment:
Laity wrote:For those interested, the matter of Robert C. Laity v The State of New York, Rafael “Ted” Cruz, Marco Rubio and Piyash “Bobby” Jindal is scheduled for June 1, 2017 at 1 pm in the NY State Supreme Court Appellate Division, Third Department in Albany, NY.
"For completeness," the May 2017 calendar does list Laity's case.
In news that will come as a shock to no one, probably not even Laity, Laity keeps his perfect record in court.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.
http://decisions.courts.state.ny.us/ad3 ... 524197.pdf

On to the next court.

For those who do not follow New York courts, the lower level courts are called Supreme Court.
North-land: of the family 10
UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 21990
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Korman v. N.Y. State Board of Elections (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Ct. App.) (& 2016 N.Y. ballot challenges)

Post by bob » Thu Aug 10, 2017 8:22 pm

Mute.

Like Paige, the court faults Laity for not being good at litigating and stuff. It turns out that birthers' incompetence is not an exception to the mootness doctrine.
Imagex4 Imagex2 Imagex2 Imagex2

User avatar
Orlylicious
Posts: 6404
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 4:02 pm

Re: Korman v. N.Y. State Board of Elections (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Ct. App.) (& 2016 N.Y. ballot challenges)

Post by Orlylicious » Thu Aug 31, 2017 11:49 pm

Does this go here? Sharon Rondeau is abuzz about Laity v. State of New York, The Appeal.
Appeal Filed in Presidential Eligibility Lawsuit
On Thursday, August 31, 2017No Comment
“A CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION OF LAW”
by Sharon Rondeau

(Aug. 31, 2017) — New York State citizen and registered voter Robert Laity has filed an appeal in the case of Laity v. State of New York regarding the constitutional eligibility of three 2016 presidential candidates.

A citizen student of the law, Laity is representing himself as he has in previous ballot challenges and legal actions in which he questioned Barack Hussein Obama’s constitutional eligibility to serve as President of the United States.

One of the issues Laity has raised in all of his legal actions outside of any specific candidates dating back to 2008 is that the NYSBOE misstates the “natural born Citizen” presidential requirement as “born a citizen.”
***
Laity is not the only party to have challenged Cruz’s eligibility. In 2016, write-in presidential candidate and law professor Victor Williams filed legal challenges to Cruz’s candidacy, first representing himself and later represented by Atty. Mario Apuzzo of New Jersey.

In 2009, Apuzzo filed a case against Obama, Congress and other defendants on behalf of CDR Charles F. Kerchner, Jr. (Ret) and three other plaintiffs stating, among other claims:

Image
***
After its hearing in February of last year, the New York State Board of Elections (NYSBOE) dismissed Laity’s eligibility challenges on the grounds that “the objection raises issues which are beyond the ministerial scope of the State Board to determine and such objection is made in the incorrect venue, as no direct election for President of the United States occurs via election day ballots.”

From there, Laity appealed through the courts, ultimately landing in the Appellate Division, Third Department, from which he received a notice of dismissal dated August 10, 2017. Part of the court’s reasoning reads:

To the extent that petitioner challenges the primary ballot and the general election ballot, the proceeding is moot because the 2016 presidential primary and general elections have already taken place and “the rights of the parties cannot be affected by the determination of this” appeal (Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714 [1980]; see Matter of Danielewicz v Aurigema, 58 NY2d 881, 881-882 [1983]; Matter of Reed v Walsh, 101 AD3d 1661, 1662 [2012]). The exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply inasmuch as this case does not present the type of issue that would typically evade review (see Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d at 714-715). The substantive issue presented would not have evaded judicial review had petitioner timely commenced this proceeding, which would have enabled Supreme Court to hear the case before the presidential primary election and petitioner to take an expedited appeal therefrom.

Laity bases his claim that the three former presidential candidates are ineligible on the premise, tangentially referred to in the U.S. Supreme Court case Minor v. Happersett, that a “natural born Citizen” is a person born in the U.S. to two U.S.-citizen parents.
http://www.thepostemail.com/2017/08/31/ ... y-lawsuit/

More self sanctions?
From Michael Moore: RESISTANCE CALENDAR! A one-stop site for all anti-Trump actions EVERY DAY nationwide: http://resistancecalendar.org

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 8555
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Korman v. N.Y. State Board of Elections (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Ct. App.) (& 2016 N.Y. ballot challenges)

Post by Notorial Dissent » Fri Sep 01, 2017 12:51 am

Orlylicious wrote:More self sanctions?
Yes. Definitely. Laity is every bit as dumb as I thought he was, and he just keeps proving it. He can't plead IFP, I don't think, and so he'll have to pay the whole freight at USSC, although I would expect his Cert to get the same treatment as his other efforts-moot-not interested.

Rharon being abuzz is kind of like a Boxer farting, inevitable and not noteworthy.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 21990
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Korman v. N.Y. State Board of Elections (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Ct. App.) (& 2016 N.Y. ballot challenges)

Post by bob » Wed Sep 06, 2017 2:12 pm

After some consideration, I've decided to award Laity the coveted Last Birther Standing crown.

Among the factors:
1. Online yammering doesn't count -- the field is limited to actual litigants (and their litigators).
2. Zullo's, Fitzpatrick's, etc., future (pretense of) efforts to "investigate" Obama (via a law-enforcement agency or Congress) will be as fruitful as they have always been, i.e., a waste, a joke, and a grift.
3. Taitz's belated attempt to birf in Texas v. United States was cut down by the states' dismissing the case.
4. Judy was the last birfer to actually Obama birf, and he could still file a cert. petition. But he lacks the resources, and it is slowly dawning on him that finding more secure housing needs to be his priority.
5. Laity's suit is technically not Obama birfering, but we all know the challenges to Cruz, Rubio, Jindal, etc., were mere stalking horses for Obama. So I think this is the last effort to even indirectly challenge Obama's eligibility in the courts.
6. Paige has abandoned his efforts in SCoVT (and SCOTUS).
7. Apuzzo has been so silent that it is easy to conclude that he has abandoned his 2016 efforts.
8. Strunk? A perennial that has been oddly silent lately.
Imagex4 Imagex2 Imagex2 Imagex2

User avatar
RoadScholar
Posts: 5854
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 10:25 am
Location: Baltimore
Occupation: Historic Restoration Woodworker
Contact:

Re: Korman v. N.Y. State Board of Elections (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Ct. App.) (& 2016 N.Y. ballot challenges)

Post by RoadScholar » Wed Sep 06, 2017 3:31 pm

I thought draining the swamp got rid of all the litigators.
The bitterest truth is healthier than the sweetest lie.

Post Reply

Return to “Eligibility Lawsuits”