New York Election Challenge

User avatar
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater
Posts: 4786
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 4:28 pm
Location: East Coast
Contact:

New York Election Challenge

#226

Post by Dr. Kenneth Noisewater » Thu Mar 27, 2014 7:37 pm

Just a gentle reminder... -->





Laity's dead-listed case was distributed for conference tomorrow. \ :D /





No. 13-875


Title:


Robert C. Laity, Petitioner


v.


New York


Docketed: January 23, 2014


Lower Ct: Appellate Division, Supreme Court of New York, Third Judicial Department


Case Nos.: (516176)


Decision Date: April 11, 2013


Discretionary Court


Decision Date: November 19, 2013





~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Jan 20 2014 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due February 24, 2014)


Mar 12 2014 [highlight]DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 28, 2014[/highlight].lol it's cute to get a tweet from him every few days talking about how he's never failed at anything and how he's winning and freedom and shit.



User avatar
Rickey
Posts: 192
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2010 2:29 pm

New York Election Challenge

#227

Post by Rickey » Sun Mar 30, 2014 2:12 pm

Strunk's case, Strunk v. Paterson, et al., was on the court calendar for a conference on Friday. The birthers were convinced that it was a hearing which would lead to a momentous decision being issued, but of course nothing of the sort happened. It was adjourned to June 13. That case, of course, has not been consolidated with Strunk v. Board of Elections, et al., nor will it be. The only thing pending in Strunk v. Board of Elections is Strunk's Motion for Reargument/Reconsideration.



User avatar
realist
Posts: 34495
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

New York Election Challenge

#228

Post by realist » Mon Mar 31, 2014 10:59 am

Gee, huge SHOCKER!!





CERTIORARI DENIED


12-1349


U. S., EX REL. NATHAN V. TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS, ET AL.


13-436


ARIZONA V. OKUN, VALERIE A.


13-607


NORTHOVER, DEVON H. V. ARCHULETA, DIR., OPM


13-689


CARRION, JOSE E. V. AGFA CONSTRUCTION, INC.


13-700


BANK OF AMERICA V. SINKFIELD, DAVID L.


13-857


CASTRO, WILLIAM V. FL BD. OF BAR EXAMINERS


13-861


TRUITT, TERRI V. UNUM LIFE INSURANCE CO.


13-867


DASH, ANTHONY L. V. MAYWEATHER, FLOYD, ET AL.


[highlight]13-875


LAITY, ROBERT C. V. NEW YORK[/highlight]


13-876


KIRK, SEAN M. V. OHIO[/break1]supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/033114zor_dc8f.pdf]http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/cour ... r_dc8f.pdf


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
Piffle
Posts: 6987
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 12:39 pm

New York Election Challenge

#229

Post by Piffle » Mon Mar 31, 2014 11:19 am

Gee, huge SHOCKER!!I'll say. There must be some mistake.



User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 14814
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

New York Election Challenge

#230

Post by Reality Check » Mon Mar 31, 2014 11:28 am

So this means that President Obama is not going to be hauled in before a court martial under the UCMJ? :lol:


"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

Adrianinflorida
Posts: 2971
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2011 1:07 pm
Location: South Detroit

New York Election Challenge

#231

Post by Adrianinflorida » Mon Mar 31, 2014 3:30 pm

Maybe this was the universe shattering news we were supposed to be given by the end of March.



User avatar
mimi
Posts: 31119
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:01 am

New York Election Challenge

#232

Post by mimi » Tue Apr 01, 2014 8:28 am

I don't think he's taking it well.








Robert C. Laity @RobertCLaity · 23s ago





@the_magic_m Whose crying. I am not deterred.




Robert C. Laity @RobertCLaity · 1m ago





@PogueMoran I cannot be silenced that easily. My quest to bring Obama to Justice continues.,@SCOTUS just showed their true colors.,NOT RW&B.




Robert C. Laity @RobertCLaity · 3m ago





@LittleSmokeys @stevenlaststraw @bluware_ron Obama is that Cult's Caliph.







Robert C. Laity @RobertCLaity · 4m ago





@gshevlin Writ denial @SCOTUS is but a small setback. Obama is still a traitor,usurper and spy. There is more than one way to skin a Cat.




Robert C. Laity @RobertCLaity · 9m ago





April 1 is Atheist Day. ANY one that does not believe in God is a FOOL.




Robert C. Laity @RobertCLaity · 10m ago





LAITY v NY @SCOTUS #13-875 ruling issued March 31,2014, denying Writ of Certiorari. More to come. Obama has NOT won.




[/break1]com/RobertCLaity/with_replies]https://twitter.com/RobertCLaity/with_replies



User avatar
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater
Posts: 4786
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 4:28 pm
Location: East Coast
Contact:

New York Election Challenge

#233

Post by Dr. Kenneth Noisewater » Tue Apr 01, 2014 8:49 am

Yeah I've been poking him all morning. He thinks he can get a rehearing at Scotus on this same case they just denied.



User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 6886
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

New York Election Challenge

#234

Post by Northland10 » Tue Apr 01, 2014 8:53 am

Yeah I've been poking him all morning. He thinks he can get a rehearing at Scotus on this same case they just denied.He tried that on his VA case. Didn't work.


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

User avatar
everalm
Posts: 1885
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 9:45 am

New York Election Challenge

#235

Post by everalm » Tue Apr 01, 2014 5:44 pm

Robert C. Laity @RobertCLaity · 1m ago@PogueMoran I cannot be silenced that easily. My quest to bring Obama to Justice continues.,@SCOTUS just showed their true colors.,NOT RW&B.RW&B....Right WIng and Bigotted..?RW&B....Really Whiny and Bladdered



User avatar
SueDB
Posts: 27756
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:02 pm
Location: FEMA Camp PI Okanogan, WA 98840

New York Election Challenge

#236

Post by SueDB » Tue Apr 01, 2014 5:55 pm

Well, isn't he just all full of piss and vinegar. :-({|= :-({|= :-({|=


“If You're Not In The Obit, Eat Breakfast”

Remember, Orly NEVAH disappoints!

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 10408
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

New York Election Challenge

#237

Post by Notorial Dissent » Tue Apr 01, 2014 6:24 pm

Well, he's certainly full of something....... :crazy:


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
mimi
Posts: 31119
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:01 am

New York Election Challenge

#238

Post by mimi » Wed Apr 09, 2014 10:34 am

TweetsRobert C. Laity ‏@RobertCLaity 6m@Judgenap @Scotus @megynkelly SCOTUS just denied Laity v NY, an Obama eligibility case. "Did they just Tacitly endorse" usurpation by fraud?View conversationRobert C. Laity ‏@RobertCLaity 11m@PogueMoran @Scotus Rule 44 (2) of the SCOTUS Court Rules.Robert C. Laity ‏@RobertCLaity 12m@PogueMoran @jkryn If one quits every time one fails one becomes a failure. I, on the other hand DO NOT QUIT something that I start.Robert C. Laity ‏@RobertCLaity 14m@PogueMoran @Scotus [highlight]See: Rule 44 (2) of the SCOTUS Rules[/highlight].View conversationRobert C. Laity ‏@RobertCLaity 18m@PogueMoran I just won a case against SEARS yesterday.View conversationRobert C. Laity ‏@RobertCLaity 22m@PogueMoran @Scotus [highlight]My case goes back to @SCOTUS on April 25th.They may decline again but there is "more than one way to skin a cat"[/highlight][/break1]com/RobertCLaity]https://twitter.com/RobertCLaity



User avatar
mimi
Posts: 31119
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:01 am

New York Election Challenge

#239

Post by mimi » Wed Apr 09, 2014 1:10 pm

Robert C. Laity ‏@RobertCLaity 2h@Scotus I'm coming back April 25,2014 with a Petition for Rehearing. Second chances are good. For the Court and myself. Obama is a usurper[/break1]com/RobertCLaity]https://twitter.com/RobertCLaityhttp:// ... .00.47.png



User avatar
Whatever4
Posts: 11449
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 6:36 am
Location: Mainely in the plain
Occupation: Visiting doctors.

New York Election Challenge

#240

Post by Whatever4 » Wed Apr 09, 2014 5:20 pm

Tweets Twits.








FIFY


"[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
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 10408
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

New York Election Challenge

#241

Post by Notorial Dissent » Wed Apr 09, 2014 7:34 pm

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result...unless you're a birther and then it is just business as usual.


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
Paul Lentz
Posts: 3666
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 7:56 pm
Location: Downtown O-town

New York Election Challenge

#242

Post by Paul Lentz » Wed Apr 09, 2014 9:57 pm

Robert C. Laity ‏@RobertCLaity 2h@Scotus
Hidden Content
This board requires you to be registered and logged-in to view hidden content.
. Second chances are good. For the Court and myself. Obama is a usurper[/break1]com/RobertCLaity]https://twitter.com/RobertCLaityhttp:// ... 47.pngWell, that's just stoopid, but what can you expect from a birfin' fool?Laity is correct that the next course of action at SCOTUS is the filing of a Petition for Rehearing. Such petition must be filed within 25 days following the entry of the order denying the cert petition. Given that SCOTUS denied Laity's cert petition on 3/31/2014, the "April 25, 2014" date makes sense (although it's foolish to wait until the last day unless one is able to exert absolute control over the USPS and/or FedEx, plus the weather, which Laity is not). SCOTUS receives between 750 and 800 Petitions for Rehearing (PFR) each year...on average, 1 (yep, that's ONE of 750-800) is granted. The filing fee for a PFR is $200. A PFR requires submittal of 40 copies of a brief (succinctly stating the grounds and authorities upon which the original decision to deny cert is in error, no more than 3,000 words, and produced on the special size/weight of paper--plus cover, plus required binding--required by SCOTUS). In the case of the ONE PFR per year that is granted, the successful petitioner is typically able to cite a SCOTUS case (decided in the interim of time between the original filing of their cert petition and the submittal of the PFR) which sheds a different light on the instant case.In Laity's case, there is no intervening SCOTUS birfy case, nor will there be prior to 4/25/14 (although SCOTUS may reject another in conference prior to 4/25/14). His entire rehearing argument will be simply a rerun of his cert petition, plus WAH! WAH! NO FAIR MAN! It's a costly fool's errand (I'd estimate that, for a layman like Laity, in addition to the $200 PFR filing fee, professional legal production to required paper size, weight, cover stock, binding and shipping will run into (at the very least) several thousand $$). It's just stupid, but considering that it's a freakin' birfer, even saying that is redundant.And no, Laity, there is no other way to skin this cat, at least not through the legal system. You're done there (or you will be after you've wasted a few thousand bucks to file this useless Petition for Rehearing). Of course, you can always go camp out somewhere in Maryland and make farting noises during the Operation American Spring. That'll show 'em, dude.


The love of power will not win over the power of love.
Orlando, Florida 6/12/16

User avatar
Piffle
Posts: 6987
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 12:39 pm

New York Election Challenge

#243

Post by Piffle » Wed Apr 09, 2014 10:12 pm

In the case of the ONE PFR per year that is granted, the successful petitioner is typically able to cite a SCOTUS case (decided in the interim of time between the original filing of their cert petition and the submittal of the PFR) which sheds a different light on the instant case.'Zactly. Though I've never followed appellate practice nearly as closely as you do, Paul, the rare examples I've seen over the years in which rehearing was granted have been based on recent developments in the law. And even then, it seldom leads to SCOTUS directly reversing or deciding the case; more likely, the Court just remands to the applicable circuit court of appeals with instructions to reconsider in light of the holdings in Flatulent v. Beans (or whatever).



User avatar
Paul Lentz
Posts: 3666
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 7:56 pm
Location: Downtown O-town

New York Election Challenge

#244

Post by Paul Lentz » Wed Apr 09, 2014 10:57 pm

In the case of the ONE PFR per year that is granted, the successful petitioner is typically able to cite a SCOTUS case (decided in the interim of time between the original filing of their cert petition and the submittal of the PFR) which sheds a different light on the instant case.'Zactly. Though I've never followed appellate practice nearly as closely as you do, Paul, the rare examples I've seen over the years in which rehearing was granted have been based on recent developments in the law. And even then, it seldom leads to SCOTUS directly reversing or deciding the case; more likely, the Court just remands to the applicable circuit court of appeals with instructions to reconsider in light of the holdings in Flatulent v. Beans (or whatever).Precisely correct, Piffle. I honestly can't recall a PFR being granted which did not result in a remand to the circuit court. I cannot recall--not ever--a PFR which then led to argument before SCOTUS itself (and a resulting decision from the Supreme Court). And while there may well have been one along the way and I just missed it, I cannot remember--and cannot find with a quick hit on my research engines/databases--a single example of a successful PFR on a case originating through a state appellate path, as this one does.





If Laity had counsel (and I don't believe he does, or if he does it's some fool like Apuzzo who would be no help at all) and that counsel had the ethics of a toadstool, s/he would have already advised Laity that filing a PFR is a huge waste of time and money. In over 8 years of successful and focused appellate practice, including at SCOTUS, I've never once filed a PFR in a SCOTUS case. There is no way that I could ever justify the waste of time and resources (either mine or my clients') to do so.**





**Interestingly--I think--a buddy of mine did some research (actually, it was more like tedious case-tracking) a few years ago on SCOTUS PFRs, and found that something like 85% of them are filed by pro ses who apparently have money to burn (or IFP status) and just don't know any better. One of the other results of his research (and I've quoted it already, including the 750-800 PFRs per year figure) was the determination that, as least as far back as his research could reasonably take him, no PFR was ever granted to a pro se appellant.


The love of power will not win over the power of love.
Orlando, Florida 6/12/16

User avatar
bob
Posts: 24433
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

New York Election Challenge

#245

Post by bob » Wed Apr 09, 2014 11:06 pm

I'm assuming Laity is IFP, so he won't have to pay the filing fee.Perhaps our SCOTUS experts could tell us if the format rules (printing, paper stock, etc.) are waived/relaxed for pro se petitioners at SCOTUS. For example, shirley SCOTUS receives numerous filings from prisoners, who aren't complying with those rules.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Paul Lentz
Posts: 3666
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 7:56 pm
Location: Downtown O-town

New York Election Challenge

#246

Post by Paul Lentz » Wed Apr 09, 2014 11:21 pm

I'm assuming Laity is IFP, so he won't have to pay the filing fee.Perhaps our SCOTUS experts could tell us if the format rules (printing, paper stock, etc.) are waived/relaxed for pro se petitioners at SCOTUS. For example, shirley SCOTUS receives numerous filings from prisoners, who aren't complying with those rules.The format rules are different--and substantially waived--for petitioners granted IFP status. However, I've seen no indication at all that Laity filed a motion for IFP status (which was approved or denied). Such a motion (whether granted or denied) would appear on the SCOTUS docket for the case. In his only other case at SCOTUS (filed in 2008), Laity did apply for IFP status for that case, and it was granted (and is so noted on the docket for that case, which is 08-6401). I think, unless Laity found himself an anonymous sugardaddy, he's on the hook himself for this junket, and required to pay all the fees and file in accordance with all the rules and requirements.


The love of power will not win over the power of love.
Orlando, Florida 6/12/16

User avatar
realist
Posts: 34495
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

New York Election Challenge

#247

Post by realist » Tue Apr 15, 2014 3:37 pm

UPDATE...





No. 13-875


Title:


Robert C. Laity, Petitioner


v.


New York


Docketed: January 23, 2014


Lower Ct: Appellate Division, Supreme Court of New York, Third Judicial Department


Case Nos.: (516176)


Decision Date: April 11, 2013


Discretionary Court


Decision Date: November 19, 2013





~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Jan 20 2014 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due February 24, 2014)


Mar 12 2014 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 28, 2014.


Mar 31 2014 Petition DENIED.


[highlight]Apr 11 2014 Petition for Rehearing filed.[/highlight] :lol:





[/break1]supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/13-875.htm]http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx ... 13-875.htm


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
Paul Lentz
Posts: 3666
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 7:56 pm
Location: Downtown O-town

New York Election Challenge

#248

Post by Paul Lentz » Tue Apr 15, 2014 7:14 pm

UPDATE...





No. 13-875


Title:


Robert C. Laity, Petitioner


v.


New York


Docketed: January 23, 2014


Lower Ct: Appellate Division, Supreme Court of New York, Third Judicial Department


Case Nos.: (516176)


Decision Date: April 11, 2013


Discretionary Court


Decision Date: November 19, 2013





~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Jan 20 2014 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due February 24, 2014)


Mar 12 2014 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 28, 2014.


Mar 31 2014 Petition DENIED.


[highlight]Apr 11 2014 Petition for Rehearing filed.[/highlight] :lol:





[/break1]supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/13-875.htm]http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx ... 13-875.htmAhhh, how delightful. With any luck at all (and the usual efficiency of the Clerk's office), this PFR may well be distributed tomorrow (4/16/2014) for the May 2, 2014 conference, which would give us (along with the Paige case) a rare, but ever-treasured, "double dump Monday" in the SCOTUS orders of May 5, 2014. \ :D / {SMILIES_PATH}/pray.gif \ :D /


The love of power will not win over the power of love.
Orlando, Florida 6/12/16

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 10408
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

New York Election Challenge

#249

Post by Notorial Dissent » Tue Apr 15, 2014 8:54 pm

Some people are just so damn dumb, that you just can't keep from letting them continue running stark naked in to that door knob. The amusement value alone is worth something, and since they never learn, they'll never stop, so you might as well just sit back and enjoy the show.


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.

Post Reply

Return to “State Ballot Challenges”