Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris

[Reality Check]

Hidden Content

This board requires you to be registered and logged-in to view hidden content.

Hidden Content

This board requires you to be registered and logged-in to view hidden content.

[bob]

Hidden Content

This board requires you to be registered and logged-in to view hidden content.

[bob]

Technically, the United States was a defendant. I filed the matter as U.S., ex rel, Robert C. Laity v. Purported Vice-President Kamala Devi Harris. I was required to serve the US Attorney General, The US Attorney for DC and the US Solicitor General. For all intents and purposes, the US Government was the defendant.

P&E comment:

[In] Quo Warranto cases, the U.S. Attorney General, on the information of a “Relator” is the Plaintiff and the Relator (Me) is a quasi-plaintiff. The U.S. Attorney General declined my request for him to present the matter in the District Court. I proceeded as the Plaintiff, in behalf of the U.S. Government. Kamala Harris, a U.S. Senator at the time I filed and now the purported Vice-President is a U.S. government respondent. I hope that clarifies things for you.

Uhhhh, nope (and nope). So Laity believes he was the quasi-plaintiff who sued on behalf of a defendant. In a case where the actual defendant was ackshully a government respondent.

Laity needs to go back to fake law school.

[Luke]

Happened to catch Rev Dr Laity Esq in his home weeping and singing about Kamala Harris -- This Nearly Was Mine from South Pacific.

One dream in my heart,
One love to be livin' for,
One love to be livin' for
This nearly was mine.

One girl for my dream,
One partner in paradise,
This promise of paradise
This nearly was mine.

I'll keep rememberin' kisses
From lips I'll never own
And all that lovely adventures
That we have never known.

Now, now I'm alone,
Still a-dreamin' of paradise,
Still sayin' that paradise
Once nearly was mine!

While posting fresh new content on his Facebook page:

Laity 10.JPG (35.47 KiB) Viewed 3825 times

Laity 9.JPG (41.15 KiB) Viewed 3825 times

Laity 8.JPG (52.25 KiB) Viewed 3825 times

And looks like he's concerned about fungus taking over his body.

Laity 7.JPG (48.43 KiB) Viewed 3825 times

That 25 days is counting down. Don't get cold feet, Laity! We're counting on that next $200 self-sanction.

[northland10]

It looks as if Bobby may need to wait until this fall. The distribution date for the last June 24 conference was yesterday and not petition of rehearing is on the docket yet. At least he has all summer to whine about it.

[KickahaOta]

I don't see how that can stop him, as long as he uses the phrases "quo warranto" and "fraud vitiates everything" enough.

[gshevlin2]

If he throws in one or two of "ipso facto", and "prima facie", it should be a winner!

[bob]

P&E: comments:

My case Laity v. Harris was initiated in the U.S.D.C. in D.C. That court is expressly authorized to address the issue of Quo Warranto in regards to any public official who holds office in D.C. See D.C. Code (Regarded as a Federal Statute) Chapter 35, Subchapter 1, Secs. 16-3501., 16-3502 and 16-3503.

* * *

My case is still pending before the Court on a rehearing petition. Looks like they will have to take it up in October. I can wait.

* * *

My case is NOT over. My Petition for rehearing is being prepared to be served on the parties, as I write this. I was advised by a U.S. Federal Magistrate in the WDNY. The U.S.D.C. in D.C. is solely empowered to address “Information(s) in the form of Quo Warranto at common law” which apply to ALL PUBLIC OFFICIALS who hold office in D.C. under Chapter 35 of the D.C. Code. Since that is a fact, the U.S. Supreme Court HAS the authority to review and issue the Writ of Quo Warranto. My pending brief outlines the fact that Kamala Harris is in office ultra vires. This is NOT a “Political question” that only Congress can resolve, as recently claimed in another eligibility suit against Harris in federal court elsewhere. Kamala Harris is NOT a Natural Born Citizen of the United States.

Bonus: an addendum by DeMaio.

[realist]

[Luke]

From post #95, this was his story about "THE MAGISTRATE" (well his judicial assistant while he was in the other room and she went in and talked to him...

Obama Eligibility Challenge Reaches United States Supreme Court
Tuesday, January 28, 2014
***
Before filing his current case, Laity took part in the American Grand Jury organized by Bob Campbell* in 2009 and attempted to file a criminal complaint against Obama with a local magistrate, Leslie Foschio. “We were to give the presentments to our local officials, so I presented them to all three major networks in the area, and they all interviewed me, but not one of them put me on TV” Laity said. “I gave copies to my mayors, to the Supreme Court, and to all the U.S. District Court judges and magistrates. I sent letters out asking to swear out a criminal complaint against Obama, and it was Judge Foschio who told me – I went up to his chambers and spoke to his judicial assistant while he was in the other room and she went in and talked to him – ‘The first thing you have to do is notify your law enforcement about this complaint.’ I went to the FBI, and they said ‘We don’t take criminal complaints; we only investigate them.’ They gave me a number to call, and it was for the Secret Service. And they said, ‘We’ve talked to you about this before,’ and I said, ‘No, you haven’t.’ So I filed a local police report with my town police, and they gave me a complaint number. The chief of police told me that they were down there talking to them about me, not about my complaint…’What kind of guy is this? Do you have any trouble with him?’ The police told me that federal agents were in their precinct, and they did refer it to the FBI, and that was in 2010.”

But how can he be good with waiting when FREEDOM and APPLE PIE are at stake??? If Laity was a true Patriot, he'd track John Roberts down at a conference like Orly Taitz did. Laity lost a lot of points for this pussyfooting. Hope Rondeau gives him a big whatfor, what filler does she have until friggin October? SMH.

* Remember good old American Bob Campbell whom we discovered made all his instruments overseas? That was so funny. Whatever happened to that little weasel?

[bob]

P&E comment:

The lower court did NOT sanction me. They knew that if they did it would have given me standing and would have met with an appeal. They also knew that my appeal is not frivolous.

Bonus:

Do you ever tire of being wrong all the time?

To whom is your question directed?

[noblepa]

P&E: comments:

My case Laity v. Harris was initiated in the U.S.D.C. in D.C. That court is expressly authorized to address the issue of Quo Warranto in regards to any public official who holds office in D.C. See D.C. Code (Regarded as a Federal Statute) Chapter 35, Subchapter 1, Secs. 16-3501., 16-3502 and 16-3503.

* * *

My case is still pending before the Court on a rehearing petition. Looks like they will have to take it up in October. I can wait.

* * *

My case is NOT over. My Petition for rehearing is being prepared to be served on the parties, as I write this. I was advised by a U.S. Federal Magistrate in the WDNY. The U.S.D.C. in D.C. is solely empowered to address “Information(s) in the form of Quo Warranto at common law” which apply to ALL PUBLIC OFFICIALS who hold office in D.C. under Chapter 35 of the D.C. Code. Since that is a fact, the U.S. Supreme Court HAS the authority to review and issue the Writ of Quo Warranto. My pending brief outlines the fact that Kamala Harris is in office ultra vires. This is NOT a “Political question” that only Congress can resolve, as recently claimed in another eligibility suit against Harris in federal court elsewhere. Kamala Harris is NOT a Natural Born Citizen of the United States.

Bonus: an addendum by DeMaio.

I was waiting for "quo warranto" to show up.

[realist]

P&E comment:

The lower court did NOT sanction me. They knew that if they did it would have given me standing and would have met with an appeal. They also knew that my appeal is not frivolous.

Bonus:

Do you ever tire of being wrong all the time?

To whom is your question directed?

So all one has to do is file a crap lawsuit, then be so bad that the court sanctions you, and VOILA!! all of a sudden you have the standing you didn't have to sue. Who knew? I have no idea why more people don't do this.
Orly should have challenged Judge Land. And many other judges. If only she'd known.

[bob]

I was waiting for "quo warranto" to show up.

To recap:

Laity first threw paper at the court back in September; he believed what he filed was a quo warranto petition. (Whether he actually did is another but ultimately moot question.) Laity has been consistently vocal about his belief that his filing was a quo warranto petition.

Eggspurt DeMaio long-windedly implied Laity erred by seeking quo warranto relief. DeMaio can't write plainly to save his own life, and he didn't want to directly tell Laity that he was wrong.

Lindell's claiming he was going to file a quo warranto petition (Lindall actually hasn't filed a quo warranto petition) was an excuse for Laity and DeMaio to repeat their old points.

* * *

So all one has to do is file a crap lawsuit, then be so bad that the court sanctions you, and VOILA!! all of a sudden you have the standing you didn't have to sue. Who knew? I have no idea why more people don't do this.

Yeah, but the idea that you can appeal only if the judge sanctions you isn't even in the Top 10 Dumbest Things that Laity has said.

Some jerk* was trying to figure out how to say that (while not offending Rondeau's moderation) but gave up because it wasn't worth the effort.

*

[Frater I*I]

Bonus:

Do you ever tire of being wrong all the time?

To whom is your question directed?

My.....

Comment made it through moderation at the Pest & eFail....

The editorial staff has really gone to pot since the glory days of birferizm....

[Luke]

Bonus:

Do you ever tire of being wrong all the time?

To whom is your question directed?

Obviously, it was directed toward REALIST. Ever since his horrible breakup after co-owning The Post and Email with Sharon (remember that handsome graphic with him dancing over her logo?) everything is his fault.

[northland10]

A comment on the same article.

Bill Van Allen says:
Sunday, June 13, 2021 at 2:21 PM
@red_zed
@robertbarnes
a frontal attack using quo warrranto May never the political special writs constraints but either an administrative procedures act attacking Roberts administrative misprocess handling of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts article 2 under APA administrative procedures act

Is this supposed to make any sense?

I didn't include 2 links, one to an article that said Roberts appointed Judge Mauskopf as the Director of Administrative Office of US Courts and the other apparently some link back to a P&E article, maybe this one, but with somebody named Robert Barnes. I read the article about the appointment (through the actual Law.com site and not one that wanted to download something). That did not help at all.

Edit: Even if I try to read some sense into, I then get stuck with, does APA even apply to the Administrative Office of the US Courts? Aren't they part of the judicial branch, Article III, not the Executive Branch?

Edit: ETA take 2: I read through the US code for the Administrative Office of the US Courts. That helped even less.

Did Robert break APA by appointing a new director, which is required in the law for the Administratie Office of the US Court?

Maybe he thinks a judge cannot be appointed to that post due to the "no practicing law" rule but I assume that means while they are in the office not before or after but I don't read law like poots/birthers so not sure.

[realist]

Bonus:

Do you ever tire of being wrong all the time?

Obviously, it was directed toward REALIST. Ever since his horrible breakup after co-owning The Post and Email with Sharon (remember that handsome graphic with him dancing over her logo?) everything is his fault.

[bob]

Is this supposed to make any sense?

In Van Allen's mind, yes.

Regardless of Van Allen's intent, it does not make sense in the reality-based world.

[bob]

P&E comment:

My Petition for Rehearing will be filed today. More to come. Stay tuned.

[realist]

P&E comment:

My Petition for Rehearing will be filed today. More to come. Stay tuned.

[Luke]

Keep those self-sanctions rolling, Laity baby! Keep rolling those dice!

Another $200.00 back in the pockets of the President Joe Biden-run government

Frank Sinatra - Luck Be A Lady (1966)





By the way, if you haven't seen this, we're loving it, it's the A&E Biography of the Rat Pack. Lots of great footage and info. ALMOST as interesting as re-reading all the filings in Laity v. Harris.

[bob]

P&E: Laity Files with SCOTUS for Rehearing:

"MORE INFO WHEN I RECEIVE IT"

As promised, plaintiff Robert C. Laity has filed a petition for rehearing with the U.S. Supreme Court on his petition for a writ of certiorari concerning whether or not Kamala Harris is eligible to serve as vice president of the United States.

* * *

On Friday morning, Laity sent The Post & Email the FedEx proof of delivery he received from the preparer, Cockle Legal Briefs, showing that 40 copies of the petition for rehearing were delivered to the Supreme Court building at 9:26 AM on June 17, 2021.

In the email, Laity included the note, “More info when I receive it.”

Laity's pissing his money away is newsworthy!

(Nothing yet on the docket.)

[noblepa]

P&E: Laity Files with SCOTUS for Rehearing:

"MORE INFO WHEN I RECEIVE IT"

As promised, plaintiff Robert C. Laity has filed a petition for rehearing with the U.S. Supreme Court on his petition for a writ of certiorari concerning whether or not Kamala Harris is eligible to serve as vice president of the United States.

* * *

On Friday morning, Laity sent The Post & Email the FedEx proof of delivery he received from the preparer, Cockle Legal Briefs, showing that 40 copies of the petition for rehearing were delivered to the Supreme Court building at 9:26 AM on June 17, 2021.

In the email, Laity included the note, “More info when I receive it.”

Laity's pissing his money away is newsworthy!

(Nothing yet on the docket.)

Don't you have to state a reason that SCOTUS ought to reconsider, or can you simply say "I didn't like that ruling, please, please, pretty please look at it again"? I can't imagine what grounds Laity might have come up with, other than re-arguing his original case.

[chancery]

It’s a pickle.

In litigation generally, a request for rehearing or reconsideration of a court’s order requires a showing that the court failed to address controlling law or factual circumstances that had been presented to it. You’re not supposed to (i) repeat an argument that the court previously considered and rejected or (ii) advance a wholly new argument that’s just occurred to you.*

It’s not possible to apply these principles when the court’s order reads in its entirety “certiorari denied,” because there is no way to tell what the court did or did not consider.

Thus it’s not surprising the Supreme Court Rule 44.2 provides that a "petition for the rehearing of an order denying a petition for a writ of certiorari shall be limited to intervening circumstances of a substantial or controlling effect or to other substantial grounds not previously presented."

I look forward to learning whether Laity's petition comports with Rule 44.2
________
* Litigants In fact frequently do either or both of these things, and occasionally they succeed. But usually they don't.