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

User avatar
bob
Posts: 22723
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)

#76

Post by bob » Fri Sep 15, 2017 1:35 pm

P&E comments from Laity, Last Birther with no Standing:
Laity wrote:Mr. Trump “perpetrated” nothing. The “Birther” issue “has legs”. It is incontrovertible fact that Obama is not a “Natural Born Citizen” as defined by the Law of Nations.,”one born in a country of parents who are both citizens”.

This definition was affirmed unanimously by the US Supreme Court in Minor v Happersett as “one born in the United States to Parents who are both US Citizens themselves”.

SCOTUS subsequently reaffirmed the definition of what an NBC is, as “one born in the United States to Parents who are both US Citizens themselves” in (4) other cases. ,The Venus, Shanks v Dupont[*] and Wong Kim Ark and in Laity v NY.

In Laity v NY the USSCt. let the previously affirmed definition lay undisturbed.

* * *

The matter is NOT “settled”. Obama broke the laws of this nation as did Chester Arthur. Arthur is dead. He is a known usurper. History has recorded that. Obama is alive. Hee still walks free. He is a fraud, usurper, traitor and spy under 18USC and 10USC. Obama must be arrested and tried. It is not over. Congress does not have the authority to “confirm” a counterfeit President. Article II can ONLY be changed by a constitutional amendment pursuant to Art. V.
* The Venus and Shanks were decided well before Minor; de minimis.


Imagex5
Imagex2 Imagex3 Imagex2

User avatar
Whatever4
Posts: 11070
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 6:36 am
Location: Here
Occupation: Visiting doctors.

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

#77

Post by Whatever4 » Fri Sep 15, 2017 5:29 pm

Wrong, wrong, wrongity wrong with gumdrops on top.

Ah, those were the days.


"[Moderate] doesn't mean you don't have views. It just means your views aren't predictable ideologically one way or the other, and you're trying to follow the facts where they lead and reach your own conclusions."
-- Sen. King (R-ME)

User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 6048
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)

#78

Post by Northland10 » Fri Sep 15, 2017 6:15 pm

[quote="bob"
Laity wrote:SCOTUS subsequently reaffirmed the definition of what an NBC is, as “one born in the United States to Parents who are both US Citizens themselves” in (4) other cases. ,The Venus, Shanks v Dupont[*] and Wong Kim Ark and in Laity v NY.
* The Venus and Shanks were decided well before Minor; de minimis.[/quote]
He claims SCOTUS affirmed the definition in his case? There is just no bottom to his stupidity.


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

User avatar
Fortinbras
Posts: 2265
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2015 10:08 am

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

#79

Post by Fortinbras » Fri Sep 15, 2017 7:01 pm

The requirement that a natural born citizen be the child of two US citizens was rejected by the courts a long time ago. It is sufficient that the child was born inside the United States, without regard to the citizenship status of either or both parents.

That having been said, and conceding (at least for the sake of argument) that Ted Cruz can qualify as a natural born citizen, I am convinced that the likelihood that Ted Cruz could be elected President is about zero.



User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 8917
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

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

#80

Post by Notorial Dissent » Fri Sep 15, 2017 7:07 pm

Fortinbras wrote:The requirement that a natural born citizen be the child of two US citizens was rejected by the courts a long time ago. It is sufficient that the child was born inside the United States, without regard to the citizenship status of either or both parents.

That having been said, and conceding (at least for the sake of argument) that Ted Cruz can qualify as a natural born citizen, I am convinced that the likelihood that Ted Cruz could be elected President is about zero.
I said the same thing about LaRump, and look where we are. never underestimate the stupidity and gullibility of the electorate.


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
Foggy
Posts: 25010
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater

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

#81

Post by Foggy » Sat Sep 16, 2017 2:54 pm

Northland10 wrote:He claims SCOTUS affirmed the definition in his case?
Sure because he made an argument and they didn't grant cert, leaving his argument unrefuted.

Everyone who files a petition for cert is a winner if the court denies it. :P :doh:


... and how does that make you feel?
What is it you're trying to say?
:think:

User avatar
bob
Posts: 22723
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)

#82

Post by bob » Sat Sep 16, 2017 3:27 pm

Foggy wrote:Everyone who files a petition for cert is a winner if the court denies it.
P&E comment:
David L wrote:They also let the Obama Presidency lay undisturbed so they must have determined he was a natural born citizen.
:pickle:


Imagex5
Imagex2 Imagex3 Imagex2

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 8917
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

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

#83

Post by Notorial Dissent » Sat Sep 16, 2017 3:37 pm

Laity, like Putzie, doesn't seem to grasp that when the USSC tells you to FOAD when they decline cert, it means the lower court decision stands and that they don't have any further interest in your claims, so NO they didn't refute your claim they agreed with the lower court you didn't have one.


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: 22723
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

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

#84

Post by bob » Sat Sep 16, 2017 3:45 pm

Notorial Dissent wrote:Laity, like Putzie, doesn't seem to grasp that when the USSC tells you to FOAD when they decline cert, it means the lower court decision stands and that they don't have any further interest in your claims, so NO they didn't refute your claim they agreed with the lower court you didn't have one.
I didn't dig very far, but, IIRC, Laity's 2012 challenge was dismissed/denied without the court addressing the merits. So Laity futed the meaning of natural-born citizen, and no court refuted him. Winnah!


Imagex5
Imagex2 Imagex3 Imagex2

User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 25010
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater

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

#85

Post by Foggy » Sat Sep 16, 2017 4:20 pm

I just wish the birthers had been right about Obama canceling the 2016 election and declaring himself president for life. He shoulda done that. ;)


... and how does that make you feel?
What is it you're trying to say?
:think:

User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 6048
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]

#86

Post by Northland10 » Sat Sep 16, 2017 4:38 pm

bob wrote:
Notorial Dissent wrote:Laity, like Putzie, doesn't seem to grasp that when the USSC tells you to FOAD when they decline cert, it means the lower court decision stands and that they don't have any further interest in your claims, so NO they didn't refute your claim they agreed with the lower court you didn't have one.
I didn't dig very far, but, IIRC, Laity's 2012 challenge was dismissed/denied without the court addressing the merits. So Laity futed the meaning of natural-born citizen, and no court refuted him. Winnah!
Doing some checking, he filed his first part as a "motion and injunction" on 24 October 2012. The court denied it because it was "legally deficient, unsworn, and without requisite pleadings and proof, among other things."

The order can be found at the link, on page 2. Sorry for being sideways, it is from Laity's Scribd postings of his SCOTUS filing (for some reason he posted separate files for each 2 pages, and sideways).

https://www.scribd.com/doc/201865586/La ... Y-SCOTUS22

There is nothing about the second attempt at an injunction filed soon after and denied.

It would appear that the entire case was lost (including the earlier attempt to go through the Court of Claims) because he is unable to follow any rules or procedures.


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

User avatar
Orlylicious
Posts: 6877
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 4:02 pm

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

#87

Post by Orlylicious » Sun Sep 17, 2017 11:47 pm

Laity is a birfin' at the Post and Email... he certainly seems to be interested in President Obama :P

Was this for Slarti? :lol: "Formulas must be precise or the end product is deficient."

Laity.JPG
http://www.thepostemail.com/2017/09/16/ ... -not-true/
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.



User avatar
Slartibartfast
Posts: 6973
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

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

#88

Post by Slartibartfast » Sun Sep 17, 2017 11:53 pm

Laity's understanding of science and math is obviously no better than his understanding of the law.


"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
---Sun Tzu (quoting Thomas Jefferson)
nam-myoho-renge-kyo---Thomas Jefferson (quoting Slartibartfast)

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 8917
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

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

#89

Post by Notorial Dissent » Mon Sep 18, 2017 12:03 am

Slartibartfast wrote:
Sun Sep 17, 2017 11:53 pm
Laity's understanding of science and math is obviously no better than his understanding of the law.
Which is pretty much nil.


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
Fortinbras
Posts: 2265
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2015 10:08 am

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

#90

Post by Fortinbras » Mon Sep 18, 2017 2:37 am

Chester A. Arthur, the 21st President (and a Republican), was born (in Vermont) to a non-citizen father.

Charles Evans Hughes was the 1916 Republican nominee for President (lost to Woodrow WIlson) similarly was born to a non-citizen father, but he had the assurance that the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court considered him a natural born citizen because he was born in NY (by a remarkable coincidence the Chief Justice was Charles Evans Hughes).

Back then the Republicans had no problems about the citizenship of Chester A. Arthur or Charles Evans Hughes.

What is the difference between Charles Evans Hughes and Barack Obama?? Really!?



User avatar
Slartibartfast
Posts: 6973
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

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

#91

Post by Slartibartfast » Mon Sep 18, 2017 3:53 am

Fortinbras wrote:
Mon Sep 18, 2017 2:37 am
Chester A. Arthur, the 21st President (and a Republican), was born (in Vermont) to a non-citizen father.

Charles Evans Hughes was the 1916 Republican nominee for President (lost to Woodrow WIlson) similarly was born to a non-citizen father, but he had the assurance that the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court considered him a natural born citizen because he was born in NY (by a remarkable coincidence the Chief Justice was Charles Evans Hughes).

Back then the Republicans had no problems about the citizenship of Chester A. Arthur or Charles Evans Hughes.

What is the difference between Charles Evans Hughes and Barack Obama?? Really!?
Forti,

You should have seen the arguments Mario Appuzo made about Chester A. Arthur back in the day, based on his opponent's book claiming that Arthur wasn't NBC because he was born in Canada. Of course Appuzo refused to acknowledge that the argument being made implied that he was perfectly fine if he was born in the US to a non-citizen father. Oh, the logical fallacies! Oh, the bloviation!


"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
---Sun Tzu (quoting Thomas Jefferson)
nam-myoho-renge-kyo---Thomas Jefferson (quoting Slartibartfast)

User avatar
bob
Posts: 22723
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

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

#92

Post by bob » Wed Sep 20, 2017 11:45 am

P&E comments:
Laity wrote:What matters is not that certain people who happened to have been lawyers disagreed with what an NBC was. What matters is what the law says. Right now, under current. standing “Good Law”, the US Supreme Court Precedents in “the Venus”, “Wong Kim Ark”, “Shanks v Dupont”, “Minor v Happersett” and “Laity v NY” control. An NBC is “one born in the United States to parents who were both US Citizens themselves”. Every President we ever had, except for the first (7) who were grandfathered in, Chester Arthur and Barack Obama had parents who were both US Citizens and were born in the US. If anything, it is a past practice of long standing. It is also the law.

* * *

You can make such a claim but you can’t support it. I know of what I speak. The US Supreme Court precedents that I cited make it clear that you don’t know of what you speak.

It has been defined,affirmed ,reaffirmed and left undisturbed for the last 230 years. An NBC is one born in the United States IN ADDITION TO being born of parents who were BOTH US citizens themselves. Of this, I am a subject matter expert par excellence.


Imagex5
Imagex2 Imagex3 Imagex2

User avatar
bob
Posts: 22723
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

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

#93

Post by bob » Thu Sep 21, 2017 8:03 pm

P&E comment:
Laity wrote:You have lost this argument. Just because “Most Americans” believe or understand something does not make that something true or accurate. There was a time when the Sun was said to be rotating around the Earth. Each and every one of the Judges who ruled in favor of Obama are malfeasant. They ignored long time US Supreme Court Precedents defining an NBC as “one born in the US to parents who are both US citizens themselves”. The State of Hawaii has “some ‘plainin” to do. NOT one of the Hawaiian hospitals has claimed the dubious honor of being the place in which Obama was born. They all deny it. Fuddy of the Hawaiian Birth records office was a member of Subud along with Stanley Dunham. See: Mohammad Sumohadiwidjojo (BHO’s probable real father). BHO’s BC has been ruled a forgery. Judges in Georgia cannot supercede SCOTUS opinions. Whether or not Obama was “born in the US” does not help Obama. That would be only PART of the criteria. His Father was NOT a US Citizen, regardrless of WHERE BHO was born. He’s DQ’d.


Imagex5
Imagex2 Imagex3 Imagex2

User avatar
realist
Posts: 34170
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

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

#94

Post by realist » Fri Sep 22, 2017 10:00 am

:brickwallsmall: :brickwallsmall:


ImageX 4 (have met 36 Obots at meetups) Image X 4
Image

User avatar
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater
Posts: 4610
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 4:28 pm
Location: East Coast
Contact:

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

#95

Post by Dr. Kenneth Noisewater » Fri Sep 22, 2017 10:16 am

Oh laity has me blocked on twitter. I'll never forget the time that NBC nailed him on his reading of caselaw when he was claiming Obama was committing treason and he thought Obama fell under the UCMJ. The case he quoted talked about us having to actually be in a time of war. He scuttled off after.



User avatar
bob
Posts: 22723
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

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

#96

Post by bob » Tue Oct 03, 2017 9:32 pm

P&E: Presidential Eligibility Requirement Misstated by New York State Board of Elections:
REGARDLESS OF ITS MEANING

On August 31, The Post & Email reported that New York State resident Robert Laity filed an appeal to the dismissal of a presidential eligibility case he has pursued since early last year.

* * *

On Saturday, September 30, 2017, Laity wrote to the Clerk of the Court of the New York State Court of Appeals in Albany to address a specific point maintained throughout his ballot challenge and lawsuit: that the presidential citizenship requirement, as presented to voters on the New York State Board of Elections website, is incorrect.
Rondeau's writing is less than clear ( :shock: ), but it would appear New York moved to dismiss Laity's appeal, and the letter is Laity's opposition.
In his letter, Laity wrote, “There is a Constitutional issue in this case, namely misrepresentation of the US Constitution by the NY State Board of Elections. The criteria of requiring that a President and a vice President be a “Natural Born Citizen” in Art. II, Sec. 1, Clause 5 and the 12th Amendment is mandated by federal law and cannot be changed by anyone outside of the parameters set forth by Article V of the US Constitution for amending the US Constitution.”

“The issue is not moot,” he continued in the following paragraph.

On page 2, he wrote, “the US Constitution applies everywhere within the United States of America and is thus under federal control. No provision of the U.S. Constitution can be unilaterally changed or misrepresented by ANY State.”

* * *

“Not once have I seen any effort in NY’s Briefs to explain why it uses the wrong terminology,” Laity told The Post & Email on Tuesday in response to our question, “Has the Elections Board ever responded about why it uses the term “born a citizen” when it should be ‘natural born Citizen?'”

It is unclear if the BOE has always used “Born a citizen” instead of “natural born Citizen” on its website.

After receiving Laity’s response, The Post & Email contacted the New York State Board of Elections via email and asked:
Rondeau wrote:Hello, I note that in your listing of the requirements for running for president, your website states “Born a citizen” as one of them.

* * *

However, Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution states, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President…”

* * *

Why is your wording different from that of the Constitution in this regard?
No response was received by press time.
Ignoring Rondeau is still newsworthy!

Laity's letter: Sekrit Stuffs!






Imagex5
Imagex2 Imagex3 Imagex2

User avatar
ZekeB
Posts: 14044
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 10:07 pm
Location: Northwest part of Semi Blue State

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

#97

Post by ZekeB » Tue Oct 03, 2017 9:39 pm

bob wrote:
Tue Oct 03, 2017 9:32 pm
Laity's letter: Sekrit Stuffs!




Hoping the clerk will edjumacake the judge?


Mnoho lidí se za našeho prezidenta stydí.

Žluté vlasy se k oranžové tváři nehodí.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 22723
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

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

#98

Post by bob » Tue Oct 03, 2017 9:47 pm

ZekeB wrote:
Tue Oct 03, 2017 9:39 pm
Hoping the clerk will edjumacake the judge?
If only there was a birfobsessed blogger who knew to ask basic questions like, "Is a letter to the clerk an acceptable method to oppose a motion?" (The answer very well may be "yes" for pro pers, like Laity.)


Imagex5
Imagex2 Imagex3 Imagex2

User avatar
Orlylicious
Posts: 6877
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 4:02 pm

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

#99

Post by Orlylicious » Tue Oct 03, 2017 10:03 pm

Does Laity know he has the honor of "Last Birther (with no) Standing"? Should we chip in to buy him a Magnificent Birther Coin? $59.99 on eBay :P
Birther Coin.JPG
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.



User avatar
bob
Posts: 22723
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

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

#100

Post by bob » Tue Oct 03, 2017 10:18 pm

Orlylicious wrote:
Tue Oct 03, 2017 10:03 pm
Does Laity know he has the honor of "Last Birther (with no) Standing"? Should we chip in to buy him a Magnificent Birther Coin? $59.99 on eBay
"Retail" is $95.

And silver is around $17/ounce. :think:


Imagex5
Imagex2 Imagex3 Imagex2

Post Reply

Return to “Eligibility Lawsuits”