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

User avatar
bob
Posts: 22008
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

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

#101

Post by bob » Wed Oct 04, 2017 11:18 am

P&E comment:
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 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.

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.


Imagex4 Imagex2 Imagex2 Imagex2

User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 5704
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

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

#102

Post by Northland10 » Wed Oct 04, 2017 12:53 pm

I'm so excited. He is inching ever closer to that eventual denial. Then he can take it to the Supremes where they will create more precedence supporting the two-parent NBC by denying Laity's petition for cert.

That will be the second SCOTUS rulings supporting Laity. He wins the NBC wars.


North-land: of the family 10
UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.

User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 24522
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Fogbow HQ (Rawly NC)
Occupation: Dick Tater

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

#103

Post by Foggy » Wed Oct 04, 2017 1:25 pm

Next thing you know, he'll have Obama out of office!


If dogs run free, why not we?

User avatar
bob
Posts: 22008
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

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

#104

Post by bob » Wed Oct 04, 2017 1:32 pm

Foggy wrote:
Wed Oct 04, 2017 1:25 pm
Next thing you know, he'll have Obama out of office!
The commentary at the P&E further shows that the 2016 ballot challenges (from the usual suspects, at least) were stalking horses for Obama.


Imagex4 Imagex2 Imagex2 Imagex2

User avatar
bob
Posts: 22008
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

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

#105

Post by bob » Thu Oct 05, 2017 10:43 am

Northland10 wrote:
Wed Oct 04, 2017 12:53 pm
I'm so excited. He is inching ever closer to that eventual denial. Then he can take it to the Supremes where they will create more precedence supporting the two-parent NBC by denying Laity's petition for cert.

That will be the second SCOTUS rulings supporting Laity. He wins the NBC wars.
Are you sure you aren't Laity?: P&E comment:
Laity wrote:The COA does not lack jurisdiction. The issue of misapplying federal standards is a federal question that must be addressed. I challenged the candidates right to be on both the primary and general ballots. They have no right. They are not eligible for the office for which they ran. NYS Election Law Sec. 6-122. My case concerns the “Reading of” Federal Law, the US Constitution, which NYS has no legal authority to abrogate. NYS has been abrogating the Constitution since at least 2008. The matter has “evaded review”. In any event, if the NYS Court of Appeals so decides not to address the matter, I will, as I have in the past, file a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court for the SECOND time on the same issue of constitutional import. That the NYS Court of Appeals would AGAIN “kick the can down the road” demonstrates their lack of interest in upholding their Judicial oaths of office to defend the Constitution.
VICTORY!

Bonus:
Laity wrote:A person not born IN the United States, such as McCain, is NOT a “Natural Born Citizen” even IF both Parents were US Citizens themselves.


Imagex4 Imagex2 Imagex2 Imagex2

User avatar
bob
Posts: 22008
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

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

#106

Post by bob » Fri Oct 06, 2017 11:02 am

P&E comment:
Laity wrote:No Judge is proscribed from enjoining a person from continuing to break the law by issuing a cease and desist order. NY State continues now to misstate the law. Part of my case involves mandamus to the NY State Board of Elections ordering it to change the wording on it’s website. That issue is ripe for review since it includes all (6) elements of a continuously ongoing fraudulent misrepresentation by a State entity.
Nine years and one online "degree" later, and Laity still has no clue about standing.

Sekrit Stuffs!
bob wrote:Laity still has no clue about standing.
FIFmyself. ;)


Imagex4 Imagex2 Imagex2 Imagex2

User avatar
bob
Posts: 22008
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

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

#107

Post by bob » Sun Oct 08, 2017 5:38 pm

P&E: Cruz Attorney Calls Eligibility Appeal “Birther” Challenge:
TERM HAS BECOME “MAINSTREAM”

An attorney’s letter responsive to an appeal filed by New York State citizen and petitioner Robert C. Laity referred to the objection to his client’s placement on the New York presidential primary ballot as a “‘birther’ challenge.”

* * *

In May of last year, The Post & Email was told by a highly credible source that information had come to light that Eleanor Cruz adopted Canadian citizenship at some point while living in Alberta but that the time frame in which she allegedly did so was not known.

* * *

The two-page letter submitted by Daniel M. Sullivan, who represents Cruz, states in response to Laity’s appeal that “the case is moot, and obviously so” as a result of New York’s primary election having taken place on April 19, 2016.

Sullivan’s third paragraph contends that “there is no substantial constitutional question here. Even if the ‘birther’ challenge Petitioner seeks to mount were a serious one (and it is not), this appeal does not present it. The Third Department merely affirmed the trial court’s decision refusing to address the merits of the petition…”

* * *

As attorney for the Respondent, Assistant Solicitor General Jeffrey Lang filed the following three-page response to Laity’s most recent appeal with the New York State Court of Appeals.

* * *

Outside of specific candidates, in his lawsuit Laity petitioned the New York State Board of Elections to change its presidential citizenship requirement from “Born a citizen” to the actual language which appears in Article II of the Constitution, “natural born Citizen.”

On page 2, Lang addressed that point by stating, “This claim is not justiciable because it amounts to a challenge to future presidential elections, and thus is not ripe. The claim is premature because any harm ‘is contingent upon events which may not come to pass…'”

On October 3, The Post & Email contacted the NYSBOE through its website to ask why its wording differs from that of Article II of the Constitution but received no response.
The letter briefs: Sekrit Stuffs!
Cruz's letter:


New York's
letter.


Imagex4 Imagex2 Imagex2 Imagex2

User avatar
Orlylicious
Posts: 6424
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 4:02 pm

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

#108

Post by Orlylicious » Thu Oct 12, 2017 11:07 pm

:rotflmao: There's been no America since 2008 and only Laity knows it.
Both Obama and McCain are ineligible. The 2008 election was between two frauds.
http://www.thepostemail.com/2017/10/08/ ... ent-224097

Laity.JPG
Willmot.JPG
Poorly.png
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.


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

User avatar
bob
Posts: 22008
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

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

#109

Post by bob » Fri Oct 13, 2017 11:59 pm

P&E: comment:
Laity wrote: I am a subject matter expert on this issue. You are simply, wrong. Persons not born in the United States to two US Citizen Parents cannot be President. The persons you speak of are “Citizens” by virtue of naturalization statutes. Courts that recognize those people as NBCs are simply, wrong.


Imagex4 Imagex2 Imagex2 Imagex2

User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 5704
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

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

#110

Post by Northland10 » Sat Oct 14, 2017 2:24 pm

bob wrote:
Fri Oct 13, 2017 11:59 pm
P&E: comment:
Laity wrote: I am a subject matter expert on this issue. You are simply, wrong. Persons not born in the United States to two US Citizen Parents cannot be President. The persons you speak of are “Citizens” by virtue of naturalization statutes. Courts that recognize those people as NBCs are simply, wrong.
One of the earlier comments just destroyed a whole cache of irony meters.
Gary Wilmott wrote:…you are making stuff up. The FACTS do not support your wishful thinking.


North-land: of the family 10
UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 22008
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

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

#111

Post by bob » Fri Nov 03, 2017 8:00 pm

P&E comment:
Laity wrote:The fact still remains that Obama was NEVER eligible under our laws to be POTUS. See my book on the subject in bookstores near you. Soon.
:yankyank:


Imagex4 Imagex2 Imagex2 Imagex2

User avatar
bob
Posts: 22008
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

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

#112

Post by bob » Mon Nov 20, 2017 2:44 pm

Laity wrote:The fact still remains that Obama was NEVER eligible under our laws to be POTUS. See my book on the subject in bookstores near you. Soon.
P&E:
Imposters in the Oval Office
:
Laity wrote:“ONE HUNDRED PERCENT AMERICAN”

[Editor’s Note: The following is the first five pages, plus a small portion of page 6, of a book[*] registered with the U.S. Copyright Office by citizen researcher and disabled U.S. Navy veteran Robert C. Laity. He has been kind enough to share the book with The Post & Email prior to publication.

The book is 41 pages and produced in easy-to-read large print[**]. For those wishing to purchase the book at this time, please send an email to robertlaity@roadrunner.com.]

* * *

Several United States Supreme Court opinions have affirmed and reaffirmed this definition of what a “Natural Born Citizen” is. In one case, Minor v Happersett, 88US, 162 ,(1875) the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously opined that a “Natural Born Citizen” is “One born in the United States to Parents who are [both] U.S. Citizens themselves”. This opinion was reaffirmed in subsequent U.S. Supreme Court decisions in the Venus, Shanks v Dupont and Wong Kim Ark. The prior cases were left undisturbed in Laity v NY, 13-875, USSCt.,cert.denied (2014).

* * *

The usurpation of our highest office did not happen just once in our history, with Chester A. Arthur in 1881. It was allowed by nonfeasant powers that be to happen again with Barack H. Obama, one hundred and twenty seven years later in 2008 and once again in 2012. [ . . . ] Chester Arthur destroyed the proof that would warrant his vacating of the Office of the Presidency.
Who lent Laity the TARDIS, as The Venus was decided in 1814, and Shanks in 1830?



* Laity claims the ISBN number is 978-0-692-98843-5, but I'm not seeing anything yet.

** 41 pages, with large print? "Book" is generous; Apuzzo's grocery list is longer.


Imagex4 Imagex2 Imagex2 Imagex2

User avatar
Estiveo
Posts: 6537
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 7:31 pm
Location: Trouble's Howse

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

#113

Post by Estiveo » Mon Nov 20, 2017 3:25 pm

bob wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 2:44 pm
Laity wrote:The fact still remains that Obama was NEVER eligible under our laws to be POTUS. See my book on the subject in bookstores near you. Soon.
Laity wrote:The book is 41 pages and produced in easy-to-read large print.
FunWithBarack.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.


"Cosmic apotheosis wears off faster than salvia." --Rick Sanchez

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 8577
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

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

#114

Post by Notorial Dissent » Mon Nov 20, 2017 8:31 pm

Large print, that's how he stretched nothing to 41 pages.


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: 22008
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

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

#115

Post by bob » Tue Nov 21, 2017 2:38 pm

P&E comments:
Laity wrote:I went to a school taught by French Canadians. I read the original French version [of Vattel's Le droit des gens]. . . .

A “Naturelle” is a Natural and an “Indigene” is an indiginous person. The phrase in question, refers to both Naturals and Indigenous people as those born in a country of parents who are citizens, as OPPOSED TO naturalized people who are only citizens because of a statutory bestowing of citizenship by Congress.
Such a polyglot scholar, that Laity.

And:
I have two current U.S. District Court Magistrate Judges who have collaborated with me in having directed me on how to proceed in DC with my Charges after having appeared before them to swear out my Complaint against Obama. It can be logically assumed that they are in agreement with me otherwise they would have not gone as far as pointing me in the proper direction to pursue my charges against Obama.
Even after receiving them for all these years, birthers still have not recognized the fine art of the polite FOAD.
:brickwallsmall:

Too also:
If a higher court declines to review a case as SCOTUS did in my case, the end result is that the previous cases were undisturbed. They could have, the opportunity was before them. Their declension acted to leave the previous (4) precedents lntact.
Who knew that SCOTUS silently denying his cert. petition meant that it agreed with him? Indirect confirmation!

Oh:
As for my case at the NY State Court of Appeals against Cruz, Rubio, Jindal and the State of NY, NO. The Court has not dismissed the case. In fact they denied motion by the State to do so. The case is still pending.
And good luck with that. :roll:


Imagex4 Imagex2 Imagex2 Imagex2

User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 5704
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

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

#116

Post by Northland10 » Tue Nov 21, 2017 3:25 pm

bob wrote:
Tue Nov 21, 2017 2:38 pm
P&E comments:
Too also:
If a higher court declines to review a case as SCOTUS did in my case, the end result is that the previous cases were undisturbed. They could have, the opportunity was before them. Their declension acted to leave the previous (4) precedents lntact.
Who knew that SCOTUS silently denying his cert. petition meant that it agreed with him? Indirect confirmation!
In a way, he is correct. Since cert was denied, the previous SCOTUS opinions stand. Unfortunately for Laity, those cases do not say what he claims they say.


North-land: of the family 10
UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.

Post Reply

Return to “Eligibility Lawsuits”