Re: Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris
Posted: Thu Jun 03, 2021 11:22 pm
Falsehoods Unchallenged Only Fester and Grow
http://thefogbow.com/forum/
P&E comment:Laity wrote: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.
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 wrote:[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.
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!
Bonus: an addendum by DeMaio.Laity wrote: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.
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.”
Laity wrote: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.
Frater I*I wrote:Do you ever tire of being wrong all the time?Laity wrote:To whom is your question directed?
I was waiting for "quo warranto" to show up.bob wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 1:37 pm P&E: comments:Bonus: an addendum by DeMaio.Laity wrote: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.
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.bob wrote: ↑Tue Jun 15, 2021 1:46 pm P&E comment:Laity wrote: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:Frater I*I wrote:Do you ever tire of being wrong all the time?Laity wrote:To whom is your question directed?
To recap:
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.
My.....
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.
Is this supposed to make any sense?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
orlylicious wrote: ↑Tue Jun 15, 2021 7:02 pmObviously, 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.
Laity wrote:My Petition for Rehearing will be filed today. More to come. Stay tuned.
Laity's pissing his money away is newsworthy!"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.”
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.bob wrote: ↑Fri Jun 18, 2021 1:47 pm P&E: Laity Files with SCOTUS for Rehearing:Laity's pissing his money away is newsworthy!"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.”
(Nothing yet on the docket.)