[Threat of] N.Y. ballot challenge 2020

Post Reply
User avatar
bob
Posts: 27362
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

[Threat of] N.Y. ballot challenge 2020

#1

Post by bob » Wed Nov 27, 2019 2:03 pm

P&E: New York State Citizen Declares Preparedness to Take Additional Legal Action over Presidential Eligibility Requirement:
Laity wrote:“A PATTERN OF UNLAWFUL USURPATIONS”
Rondeau wrote:[Editor’s Note: Early Wednesday morning, The Post & Email received the following letter, with a separate signed signature page, from Robert Laity, a P&E reader and constitutional activist who previously sued in New York State courts and wrote to the U.S. Supreme Court over the Article II, Section 1, clause 5 “natural born Citizen” presidential criterion which he believes has not been met by numerous recent presidential candidates. One such candidate, Barack Hussein Obama, served two terms in the Oval Office and produced a “long-form” birth certificate image which was deemed fraudulent by a five-year criminal investigation.


* * *

Laity’s second issue is the New York State Board of Elections’ misrepresentation of the “natural born Citizen” requirement, which the agency expresses as “born a citizen,” a discrepancy he has attempted to bring to the Board’s attention for more than a decade. An inquiry as to the wording’s departure from that which is stated in Article II made by this publication more than two years ago similarly received no response.

Laity is author of “Imposters in the Oval Office[.]”]
This letter serves to confirm my telephonic contact and the discussion that ensued with your office on November 25, 2019. The gist of said discussion was regarding the 2020 Presidential election. I apprised your office that I had sued the State of New York in 2008, 2012 and 2016 regarding the appearance of candidates, on the ballot, for the Office of President who did not meet the established and longstanding U.S. Supreme Court definition of the Article II, U.S. Constitution term of art “Natural Born Citizen”.

Pursuant to Article II, U.S. Constitution no person except one who is a “Natural Born Citizen” of the United States is eligible to enter into the office of President of the United States. The U.S. Supreme Court has defined the term “Natural Born Citizen” as “One born in the United States to parents who are both U.S. Citizens themselves”- Minor v. Happersett, USSCt. (1874) (9-0).

Furthermore, in 2008 I formally notified this board that it was misrepresenting the Article II constitutional qualification criteria for being President, on it’s official website, as being “born a citizen”. The proper and appropriate legal term of art and U.S. Constitutional language is “Natural Born Citizen”. The two terms of art “born a citizen” and “Natural born citizen” are not tantamount. I further notified your office that the State of NY is facing a third lawsuit, which

I am prepared to file in the 2020 election cycle. Since 2008, no less then (7) ineligible candidates have ran for the office of the President of the United States in derogation of the U.S. Constitution. Those people are Barack Obama and John McCain in 2008, Barack Obama again in 2012, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal in 2016 and now in 2020 Tulsi Gabbard and Kamala Harris. A pattern of unlawful usurpations has now become evident on it’s face. Placing ineligible candidates on the NY State ballot is in derogation of NY State Election Law Sec. 61-122 (2)

I trust that you will take the appropriate and necessary corrective actions concerning these recidivistic attempts to circumvent the constitutional controls which were instituted by the founding fathers, against foreign influence into the sovereign affairs of the United States of America. The NY State Board was apprised eleven years ago of the misrepresentation of eligibility criteria on it’s website. The States continued refusal to correct that error after eleven years is malfeasant.
Executive summary: Laity says, "I've wasted your time before, and I prepared to waste more time!"

I'm a little surprised that Laity didn't throw in Yang as well. (There are "concerns" his parents weren't U.S. citizens when he was born (in New York).)


"For completeness," New York's primary will be held on April 28, 2020.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Orlylicious
Posts: 10423
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 4:02 pm
Location: With Pete Buttigieg and the other "open and defiant homosexuals" --Bryan Fischer AFA
Occupation: "Do Nothing Democrat Savage" -- Donald, 9/28/19 and "Scalawag...Part of an extreme, malicious leftist internet social mob working in concert with weaponized, socialized governments to target and injure political opponents.” -- Walt Fitzpatrick

Re: [Threat of] N.Y. ballot challenge 2020

#2

Post by Orlylicious » Wed Nov 27, 2019 8:20 pm

1. Awesome timing sending this brilliant letter on the day before Thanksgiving... maybe they'll all go in the office tomorrow and skip time with their families for this dynamite, urgent, timely matter?

2.
The NY State Board was apprised eleven years ago of the misrepresentation of eligibility criteria on it’s website. The States continued refusal to correct that error after eleven years is malfeasant.
Think they're trying to tell you something, Laity?

3.
Robert Laity, a P&E reader and constitutional activist who previously sued in New York State courts and wrote to the U.S. Supreme Court over the Article II, Section 1, clause 5 “natural born Citizen” presidential criterion
Well, half of that is possibly true, maybe he can read but certainly he has comprehension issues. But shouldn't it be "previously sued and failed miserably" and "wrote to the U.S. Supreme Court and was blown off"? The P&E is laser focused on accuracy, maybe the fact checking team left early for the holiday after press time.

4. At least this time Sharon Rondeau didn't link directly to the PDF of Laity's pamphlet, last time she deprived the author of millions of dollars. Where's the lawsuit for that?

5. Here's NY State in 2017 telling him to pound sand. If he files again, would he be subject to a fine or something for filing this frivolous bullshit again? He keeps wasting their time and resources, it's not their fault he's an idiot unable to learn.
Matter of Laity v State of New York

Matter of Laity v State of New York 2017 NY Slip Op 06131 Decided on August 10, 2017 Appellate Division, Third Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. Decided and Entered: August 10, 2017 524197

[*1]In the Matter of ROBERT C. LAITY, Appellant,
v
STATE OF NEW YORK et al., Respondents, et al., Respondents.

Calendar Date: June 1, 2017 Before: McCarthy, J.P., Lynch, Devine, Clark and Aarons, JJ.
Robert C. Laity, Tonawanda, appellant pro se.
Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Jeffrey W. Lang of counsel), for State of New York, respondent.
Daniel M. Sullivan, New York City, for Rafael Ted Cruz, respondent.

Devine, J. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Hartman, J.), entered August 16, 2016 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to Election Law § 16-102, to, among other things, declare invalid the certificate of designation naming respondent Rafael Edward (Ted) Cruz as a Republican Party candidate for the public office of President of the United States in the April 19, 2016 presidential primary election.

On January 26, 2016, respondent Rafael Edward (Ted) Cruz filed a certificate of designation with the State Board of Elections seeking to have his name placed on the ballot for the April 19, 2016 presidential primary election as a Republican Party candidate for the public office of President of the United States. Petitioner then filed with the State Board general and specific objections to the placement of Cruz, as well as respondents Marco Rubio and Piyash (Bobby) Jindal on the ballot, asserting that the three men were ineligible for the office of President because they were not "natural born (c)itizen(s)" (US Const, art II, § 1). On February 23, 2016, the State Board issued determinations overruling petitioner's objections on the grounds that the objections were outside the ministerial scope of the State Board to determine, were made in the incorrect venue and that petitioner failed to provide the requisite proof of service of his objections. The State Board also noted that petitioner's objections were moot as to Jindal, who [*2]had not filed a designating certificate.
***
To the extent that petitioner challenges future presidential elections on the ground that the State allegedly "misrepresent(s)" the constitutional requirements for the office of President by allowing candidates to appear on the ballot whom petitioner considers ineligible, this claim is premature because any harm "is contingent upon events which may not come to pass" (Matter of New York State Inspection, Sec. & Law Enforcement Empls., Dist. Council 82, AFSCME, AFL-CIO v Cuomo, 64 NY2d 233, 240 [1984]; see Schulz v Cuomo, 133 AD3d 945, 948 [2015], appeal dismissed 26 NY3d 1139 [2016], lv denied 27 NY3d 907 [2016]). In light of our determination, we need not consider the alternative arguments for affirmance by the State and Cruz.

McCarthy, J.P., Lynch, Clark and Aarons, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.
https://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/a ... 24197.html

Kamala Harris and Tulsi Gabbard might just want to hang it up... or take steps to make Laity "disappear". :smoking:


Photo: Merry Christmas from the titular Mama June. Santa (aka Sugar Bear) and her lovely family!
Hey! Don't miss The Fogbow's Favorite TV Show starring the titular Mama June Shannon -- "Mama June: From Not To Hot!"

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 45296
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: [Threat of] N.Y. ballot challenge 2020

#3

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Wed Nov 27, 2019 8:40 pm

:yankyank:



User avatar
bob
Posts: 27362
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: [Threat of] N.Y. ballot challenge 2020

#4

Post by bob » Thu Nov 28, 2019 1:28 pm

P&E: comment:
Laity wrote:The NY State Board of Elections has been deceiving “We the People” for over a decade. The nation has had two usurpers in 243 years. The first, in 1881 was Chester Arthur. The Second, Barack Obama, (127) years later started a runaway stream of ineligible frauds and usurpers of the Presidency. There have been no less the seven of them since 2008. Indeed, Congress has tried to erode the Natural Born Citizen criteria at least (8) times in the last couple of decades. These attempts failed in the Congress. Neither major party let that fact deter them from proffering candidates that are not eligible to be President and many of “we the people” were duped into believing that these usurpers were lawful candidates. They are not. It is every American’s duty as a citizen to prevent constitutionally ineligible persons to enter into the Office of the Presidency. I recall what Ted Cruz said in 2016. He said “If Obama can do it so can I”. He, as well as Obama know they are not eligible, as do many others.
Cruz, of course, never actually said those words; it is yet more imagined birther mythos.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 45296
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: [Threat of] N.Y. ballot challenge 2020

#5

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Thu Nov 28, 2019 2:00 pm

OTOH I don't thin Cruz was eligible based on Supreme Court precedent.



User avatar
bob
Posts: 27362
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: [Threat of] N.Y. ballot challenge 2020

#6

Post by bob » Thu Nov 28, 2019 2:24 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote:
Thu Nov 28, 2019 2:00 pm
OTOH I don't thin Cruz was eligible based on Supreme Court precedent.
Do you feel the same way about Gabbard? Because there's a lonely fellow in New York who could use some assistance....


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 45296
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: [Threat of] N.Y. ballot challenge 2020

#7

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Thu Nov 28, 2019 10:50 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote:
Thu Nov 28, 2019 2:00 pm
OTOH I don't think Cruz was eligible based on Supreme Court precedent.



User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 45296
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: [Threat of] N.Y. ballot challenge 2020

#8

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Thu Nov 28, 2019 10:52 pm

:pigsfly:



User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 15887
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: [Threat of] N.Y. ballot challenge 2020

#9

Post by Reality Check » Thu Nov 28, 2019 10:54 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote:
Thu Nov 28, 2019 2:00 pm
OTOH I don't thin Cruz was eligible based on Supreme Court precedent.
I assume you are referencing Rogers v Bellei?

If so I disagree that this case is precedent as to the presidential eligibility of citizens born abroad.


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

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 45296
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: [Threat of] N.Y. ballot challenge 2020

#10

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Thu Nov 28, 2019 11:45 pm

Reality Check wrote:
Thu Nov 28, 2019 10:54 pm
Sterngard Friegen wrote:
Thu Nov 28, 2019 2:00 pm
OTOH I don't thin Cruz was eligible based on Supreme Court precedent.
I assume you are referencing Rogers v Bellei?

If so I disagree that this case is precedent as to the presidential eligibility of citizens born abroad.
The case (which I think was wrongly decided, but it is a SCOTUS case) allows the citizenship of a citizen born abroad to be forfeit if he doesn't live in the U.S. for a specified period of time. How can a "natural born" citizen's citizenship be so fragile? And, if I recall, the case says the infant was "naturalized at birth."



User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 15887
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: [Threat of] N.Y. ballot challenge 2020

#11

Post by Reality Check » Sat Nov 30, 2019 10:20 am

Sterngard Friegen wrote:
Thu Nov 28, 2019 11:45 pm
The case (which I think was wrongly decided, but it is a SCOTUS case) allows the citizenship of a citizen born abroad to be forfeit if he doesn't live in the U.S. for a specified period of time. How can a "natural born" citizen's citizenship be so fragile? And, if I recall, the case says the infant was "naturalized at birth."
Natural born citizenship might be just as "fragile". In 1958 in Perez v Brownwell the court allowed the government to expatriate a natural born citizen who had two Mexican parents and had moved to Mexico when he was a child. He was denied a US passport on the basis he had voted in an election in Mexico. The government acted based upon based on the Nationality Act of 1940. The Perez decision was effectively overturned by subsequent SC decisions just as the statute that was the basis for the decision in Bellei was later repealed. Both decisions were arguably wrong. It's disturbing that the Supreme Court has on more than one occasion tried to invent for Congress the power to retroactively revoke citizenship that isn't delineated in the Constitution. That's a topic for another day.

I believe there are two good reasons that were the courts ever to find a case properly brought against a candidate like Cruz or Gabbard and decide whether they were natural born citizens they would rule in the affirmative. First, the simplest and easiest to apply definition of a natural born citizen is a citizen at birth. The Constitution provides for graduated lengths of citizenship, 7 for representatives, 9 for senators, and lifelong for presidents in order to serve office. Second, under English common law and statute natural born subjects included children born abroad to English fathers. This is the definition for the term that the authors who included it would have understood.

The reality is that we may not see the combination of a viable candidate who was born abroad and the right case brought against him or her in our lifetimes. The question is likely to go unanswered.


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

Heather Heyer, November 2016

Grumpy Old Guy
Posts: 2174
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 10:24 am
Occupation: Retired, unemployed, never a lawyer

Re: [Threat of] N.Y. ballot challenge 2020

#12

Post by Grumpy Old Guy » Sat Nov 30, 2019 10:40 am

Wasn’t there an early 19th century case about inheritance where the SC ruled that a North (or South) Carolina born woman who married a British officer during the Revolutionary War and moved to England did not lose her State citizenship, so her children could inherit US property?



User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 15887
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: [Threat of] N.Y. ballot challenge 2020

#13

Post by Reality Check » Sat Nov 30, 2019 11:23 am

Grumpy Old Guy wrote:
Sat Nov 30, 2019 10:40 am
Wasn’t there an early 19th century case about inheritance where the SC ruled that a North (or South) Carolina born woman who married a British officer during the Revolutionary War and moved to England did not lose her State citizenship, so her children could inherit US property?
Was it Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)?


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

Heather Heyer, November 2016

W. Kevin Vicklund
Posts: 63
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 10:45 pm

Re: [Threat of] N.Y. ballot challenge 2020

#14

Post by W. Kevin Vicklund » Sat Nov 30, 2019 11:34 am

Grumpy Old Guy wrote:
Sat Nov 30, 2019 10:40 am
Wasn’t there an early 19th century case about inheritance where the SC ruled that a North (or South) Carolina born woman who married a British officer during the Revolutionary War and moved to England did not lose her State citizenship, so her children could inherit US property?
You're thinking of Shanks v. Dupont, 28 US 242 (1830), and the decision there was a bit different than what you remember. She was found to have elected to cast off her citizenship by marrying the British officer during the War, and could therefor pass on her inheritance to her alien children under the Treaty of 1794. Alien children couldn't inherit from citizen parents by right (I think they could still inherit if it was through a will, but I'm unclear on those details) until new inheritance laws were written. This fact is why the birther claim that the meaning of natural-born changed without a single document announcing this change is so ludicrous. Pretty much anyone who held significant real estate was aware of how natural-born children were able to inherit, and in particular, John Jay was a renowned estate lawyer who literally wrote the book on estate law. This was not some esoteric legal term that was only known by a few legal scholars, it was well known and reasonably well understood by the well-to-do, and any change would have to be done through the normal legal processes (legislation or court order). The fact that no such documentation exists, and that SCOTUS recognized well into the 1830s that the British definition of natural-born still applied unless individual states had changed their laws on inheritance, is proof that the definition of natural-born did not change.



User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 45296
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: [Threat of] N.Y. ballot challenge 2020

#15

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Sat Nov 30, 2019 3:44 pm

Let's invite Blovario to post his opinion. His 400,000 word brief would be amusing to laugh at (but not to read).



Grumpy Old Guy
Posts: 2174
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 10:24 am
Occupation: Retired, unemployed, never a lawyer

Re: [Threat of] N.Y. ballot challenge 2020

#16

Post by Grumpy Old Guy » Sat Nov 30, 2019 4:41 pm

Thanks for the replies about Shanks v Dupont.

To go back to the lead entry in this thread, I am sure that every not white enough Democratic candidate is shaking in his/her boots that Laity is going to get them off the ballot. :rotflmao:



User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 13017
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: [Threat of] N.Y. ballot challenge 2020

#17

Post by Notorial Dissent » Sat Nov 30, 2019 9:13 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote:
Sat Nov 30, 2019 3:44 pm
Let's invite Blovario to post his opinion. His 400,000 word brief would be amusing to laugh at (but not to read).
If nothing else it would be a good insomnia cure, or perhaps a doorstop if someone had that much paper to waste.


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”