In other words, Laity moved for a discretionary appeal, but also asserted he is entitled to an appeal as a matter of right because he raised a constitutional question. The clerk then examined Laity's preliminary appeal statement, and then sent the parties a letter stating its jurisdictional concerns.Laity wrote:I filed both a Motion for permission to appeal to the NY State Court of Appeals AND a Notice of Appeal as a matter of right due to the Constitutional question. My “Letter” is not a Motion in Opposition to any Motion made by NY State to dismiss. NY State has already been informed by the Court that dismissal of the case or the processing of it will be determined pursuant to NYSCOA Rule 500.7.
All parties were solicited by the Court to proffer “Comments” on the Jurisdiction issue pursuant to NY Court of Appeals rule 500.10. If the court decides that my Constitutional question is not moot then the case must and will proceed as a matter of right under NY State Law.
In other other words, the court set an order to show cause why the appeal shouldn't be dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction. In this case, because the case is mute. And, to the extent Laity was challenging future elections (based on his birther beliefs), unripe.
That Laity thinks he gets two appeals is ... cute.