Spring forward.
To delete this message, click the X at top right.

Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris

Post Reply
User avatar
p0rtia
Posts: 4915
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:55 am

Re: Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris

#101

Post by p0rtia »

I love the part where they show him sticking on the stamp!
User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 2177
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:46 pm
Verified: ✅ Curmudgeon
Contact:

Re: Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris

#102

Post by Reality Check »

bob wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 12:07 pm P&E Laity Notifies Harris Counsel of Docketing of “Eligibility” Case:
:snippity:
OLD MAN MAILS LETTER: FILM AT ELEVEN.
:rotflmao: Of course that is worthy of a brand new article the Pest & Efail
User avatar
Luke
Posts: 5587
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:21 pm
Location: @orly_licious With Pete Buttigieg and the other "open and defiant homosexuals" --Bryan Fischer AFA

Re: Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris

#103

Post by Luke »

And brilliant commentary!
Ann Marie says: Saturday, May 8, 2021 at 9:34 AM
It is another case of usurping the Constitution and the Office of Vice President/ President just as Obama did. The Democrats are evil and they know she is ineligible for the position but they do not care because the USA is a cooperation so to the Dems the Constitution does not matter. I believe that is why scotus can get away with their corrupt rulings. Check out when the usa became a cooperation it will enlighten you as to how things in this cooperation are happening. President Trump was working to resolve and dismantle this cooperation and give us back our country. :lol:

Sinnie Kemp says: Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 3:32 PM
Harris is definitely not qualified to be Vice President of the Unites States of America since both her parents were not US citizens at the time she was born.

Robert Laity says: Friday, May 7, 2021 at 5:27 AM
Biden and Pelosi are complicit with Obama usurping the Presidency and with Harris usurping the vice-presidency. That makes them all guilty of treason against the U.S. and Espionage, since we are in war time. That also means that, under 18USC Sec.2381, if convicted, NONE of the (4) would be able to hold “any office under the United States”.*

James Carter says: Friday, May 7, 2021 at 10:15 AM
Absolutely, positively, no doubt about it. And the mainstream-media and big tech social-media are co-conspirators.

The fact that during the 2008 election a Senate sub-committee investigated the eligibility of Republican nominee John McCain when questions about his eligibility were raised in public but did not do likewise to Democrat nominee Barack Hussein Obama when questions about his eligibility were subsequently raised in public should cause every objective minded intelligent adult to ask: “Why one but not the other?”

The fact that the SCOTUS has been avoiding the issue of Obama’s eligibility/lack thereof for more than a decade should cause every objective minded intelligent adult to ask: “Why?”

Ed Sunderland says:
Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 12:07 PM
God Speed Robert!

Robert Laity says: Friday, May 7, 2021 at 5:20 AM
Thanks Ed. Kamala is a fraud and usurper.

* As always, you're right Bob, Laity has toned it down, kinda.
18 U.S. Code § 2381 - Treason
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 807; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(2)(J), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)

Vividness from Laity Pant's on Facebook. You should be thanking us, Laity -- you are happiest when you can bitch and whine.


Laity Pants.JPG
Laity Pants.JPG (22.69 KiB) Viewed 9793 times
Lt Root Beer of the Mighty 699th. Fogbow 💙s titular Mama June in Fogbow's Favourite Show™ Mama June: From Not To Hot! Fogbow's Theme Song™ Edith Massey's "I Got The Evidence!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5jDHZd0JAg
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5382
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

Re: Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris

#104

Post by bob »

On Friday, Harris waived her response.
Image ImageImage
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5382
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

Re: Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris

#105

Post by bob »

P&E: Laity v. Harris: A Hypothetical Amicus Curiae Brief:
Joseph DeMaio wrote:"A SUBSTANTIVE QUESTION"

* * *

To begin with, one of the core principles of Supreme Court decisions addressing the “standing” issue is that a “generalized” claim of injury in fact, shared or endured by the populace at large, is insufficient. One must possess a “particularized injury” in order to have “requisite standing.” And yet, if “everyone” has suffered the same wrong, why does not everyone possess the same, individually-particularized injury? Stated otherwise, if all are injured, is anyone not injured?

The purpose of this offering, however, is not to address directly the standing issue.
So DeMaio's :yankyank: dodges the issue that's before SCOTUS. :roll:
Instead, those questions [about the meaning of natural-born citiizen] – and ersatz responses, not to be confused with “answers” – will be relegated to lower court opinions, convoluted law review articles, solicitor general opinions or the ruminations and heavily-footnoted penumbras of memoranda and reports from the Congressional Research Service (“CRS”).
So, in other words, the law. :yawn:

DeMaio's inclusion of the CRS serves to launch his usual screed over an ellipsis that originally appeared in a 2009 CRS publication, but did not appear in a later printing.
Not only does this misleading conclusion violate the integrity of published Supreme Court opinions, it may well also constitute a breach of the federal false statements act, 18 U.S.C. § 1001. That statute, originally passed in 1934 as an amendment to 18 U.S.C. § 80 of the federal criminal code, was intended by Congress to penalize the knowing and willful acts of falsifying, concealing or covering up by trick, scheme or device any material fact within the jurisdiction of any federal agency, including the Congress, as discussed here.

The law also criminalizes the acts of knowingly and willfully making materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations, including false writings or documents knowing that the same contain any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or entries. Significantly, the statements or writings which might constitute the basis for the offense need not be made under oath, the violation of which would otherwise constitute a separate offense under federal forgery or perjury laws.
So people are going to big-kid prison because someone made a mistake that was later corrected.

And, of course:
Section 212 of the de Vattel tome provides, in relevant part, that “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” [...] While some debate persists regarding the distinction, in 1758, between the French term “indigenes” and the Anglicized 1760 translation “natural born citizens,” that anomaly was resolved by the Supreme Court in the 1875 decision in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875).
Minor certainly didn't resolve that, and "natural born citizen" does not appear in the 1760 edition.
Oh, and not to put too fine a point on it, last night your faithful servant channeled John Jay and George Washington. They concurred: the Elg ellipsis and the fallout from it need to be addressed and corrected.
I think this is DeMaio's attempt at humor?
Image ImageImage
User avatar
northland10
Posts: 5596
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:47 pm
Location: Northeast Illinois
Occupation: Organist/Choir Director/Fundraising Data Analyst
Verified: ✅ I'm me.

Re: Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris

#106

Post by northland10 »

bob wrote: Sun May 09, 2021 1:49 pm On Friday, Harris waived her response.
Shocking!!!

If they distribute this week, he could make the last week in May conference. If not, it will probably be an early June rejection. Either way, it may be likely that his petition for rehearing will end up on the summer list. Only if he really quickly turned around a May 27 conference denial would he be able to make the last distribution before summer (and that assumes that he will be on the next list and not a later one).
101010 :towel:
User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 2177
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:46 pm
Verified: ✅ Curmudgeon
Contact:

Re: Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris

#107

Post by Reality Check »

I think it's more likely to be denied at conference on either June 3rd or 10th.

I have been reading a bit on court procedures. I used to think the clerk tipped off the government on frivolous appeals not to bother replying. However, I think that either the Solicitor General's office or in this case Beth Brinkmann at Covington and Burlington makes that determination to waive the right to respond. Then the docketing clerk can forward the petition immediately to the cert pool clerk without waiting until the due date to forward the petition and any response(s) over. I think this is done as a courtesy to the court. One outcome from conference could be a request for a response but it isn't going to happen in this case.
Atticus Finch
Posts: 310
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:59 am

Re: Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris

#108

Post by Atticus Finch »

But didn't laity tell us he already has 3 votes in his pocket to grant cert?
You don't need religion to have morals. If you can't determine right from wrong then you lack empathy, not religion.
User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 2177
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:46 pm
Verified: ✅ Curmudgeon
Contact:

Re: Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris

#109

Post by Reality Check »

Atticus Finch wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 12:35 pm But didn't laity tell us he already has 3 votes in his pocket to grant cert?
Why yes he did at the P&E:
Robert Laity says:
Friday, April 30, 2021 at 3:52 AM

Because the makeup of the court has “Change[d]”. That’s why. One of my sources advises me that, so far, at least (3) of the required (4) Justices needed to hear the case are open to hear it. I just need one more.
User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 5826
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:25 pm

Re: Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris

#110

Post by Suranis »

Just one of his sources> was it his Right or Left Buttock?
Hic sunt dracones
User avatar
roadscholar
Posts: 732
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:17 am
Location: Baltimore
Occupation: Renaissance Mechanic
Contact:

Re: Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris

#111

Post by roadscholar »

Neither; it was the ventriloquist in the middle. ;)
The bitterest truth is more wholesome than the sweetest lie.
User avatar
northland10
Posts: 5596
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:47 pm
Location: Northeast Illinois
Occupation: Organist/Choir Director/Fundraising Data Analyst
Verified: ✅ I'm me.

Re: Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris

#112

Post by northland10 »

I believe I would be safe in saying that he does not even have Thomas's were evading the issue" support. He is not shy of writing a dissent to a petition denial yet after all these years, crickets.
101010 :towel:
User avatar
SuzieC
Posts: 925
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:25 am
Location: Blue oasis in red state
Occupation: retired lawyer; yoga enthusiast
Verified:

Re: Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris

#113

Post by SuzieC »

Suranis wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 12:57 pm Just one of his sources> was it his Right or Left Buttock
I do enjoy the British slang you often bring to the forum Suranis.
User avatar
much ado
Posts: 1382
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:42 pm
Location: The Left Coast

Re: Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris

#114

Post by much ado »

SuzieC wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 6:27 pm
Suranis wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 12:57 pm Just one of his sources> was it his Right or Left Buttock
I do enjoy the British slang you often bring to the forum Suranis.
It's not British slang.
Dave from down under
Posts: 3907
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:50 pm
Location: Down here!

Re: Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris

#115

Post by Dave from down under »

Bollocks! ;)
User avatar
noblepa
Posts: 2403
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 2:55 pm
Location: Bay Village, Ohio
Occupation: Retired IT Nerd

Re: Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris

#116

Post by noblepa »

Dave from down under wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 10:35 pm Bollocks! ;)
Now, that's British slang!
User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 5826
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:25 pm

Re: Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris

#117

Post by Suranis »

Yes, its not slang.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buttocks
The buttocks (singular: buttock) are two rounded portions of the exterior anatomy of most mammals, located on the posterior of the pelvic region. In humans, the buttocks are located between the lower back and the perineum. They are composed of a layer of exterior skin and underlying subcutaneous fat superimposed on a left and right gluteus maximus and gluteus medius muscles. The two gluteus maximus muscles are the largest muscles in the human body. They are responsible for achieving the upright posture when the body is bent at the waist; maintaining the body in the upright posture by keeping the hip joints extended; and propelling the body forward via further leg (hip) extension when walking or running.[1] In the seated position, the buttocks bear the weight of the upper body and take that weight off the feet.

In many cultures, the buttocks play a role in sexual attraction.[2] Many cultures have also used the buttocks as a primary target for corporal punishment,[3] as the buttocks' layer of subcutaneous fat offers protection against injury while still allowing for the infliction of pain. There are several connotations of buttocks in art, fashion, culture and humor. The English language is replete with many popular synonyms that range from polite colloquialisms ("posterior", "backside" or "bottom") to vulgar slang ("arse," "ass," "bum," "butt," "booty," "prat").

Artery Superior gluteal artery, inferior gluteal artery
Nerve Superior gluteal nerve, inferior gluteal nerve, superior cluneal nerves, medial cluneal nerves, inferior cluneal nerves
Never say this forum is not educational
Hic sunt dracones
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5382
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

Re: Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris

#118

Post by bob »

P&E comment:
Laity wrote:Her chances of staying in office are slim. I don’t give up. Kamala Harris is a usurper,fraud and spy under US law. SCOTUS becomes complicit if they ignore that fact.
:smoking:
Image ImageImage
User avatar
Foggy
Dick Tater
Posts: 9552
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 8:45 am
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater/Space Cadet
Verified: as seen on qvc zombie apocalypse

Re: Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris

#119

Post by Foggy »

Laity wrote:SCOTUS becomes complicit if they ignore that fact.
Ooooh, that sounds kinda threaty! :boxing:
Out from under. :thumbsup:
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5382
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

Re: Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris

#120

Post by bob »

Foggy wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 12:49 pm
Laity wrote:SCOTUS becomes complicit if they ignore that fact.
Ooooh, that sounds kinda threaty! :boxing:
I'm still working on the "becomes" part.

I mean, isn't SCOTUS already complicit? (For Obama, of course.) How many complicits need to stack before they are explicit?
Image ImageImage
User avatar
northland10
Posts: 5596
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:47 pm
Location: Northeast Illinois
Occupation: Organist/Choir Director/Fundraising Data Analyst
Verified: ✅ I'm me.

Re: Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris

#121

Post by northland10 »

Distributed for Conference of 27 March 2021. It will be listed as Denied on the 1 June order list.

It's dead, Jim.
101010 :towel:
Jim
Posts: 799
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:46 pm

Re: Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris

#122

Post by Jim »

northland10 wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 1:03 pm Distributed for Conference of 27 March 2021. It will be listed as Denied on the 1 June order list.

It's dead, Jim.
Can we shred it, burn it, and scatter its ashes in the Atlantic...I'm damn tired of it keeping reincarnating itself.

Image
User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 2177
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:46 pm
Verified: ✅ Curmudgeon
Contact:

Re: Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris

#123

Post by Reality Check »

Foggy wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 12:49 pm :snippity:
Ooooh, that sounds kinda threaty! :boxing:
Bobby is pining for another visit from the Secret Service. He talks a big game but he won't back up his claims. I offered to bet him $1,000 that his appeal at the DC Circuit would be denined but he ignored me.
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5382
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

Re: Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris

#124

Post by bob »

P&E: comment:
Laity wrote:[If SCOTUS denis cert.], prompt refiling for rehearing will ensue. Congress has abrogated its responsibility to check and balance usurpers of the Presidency and Vice-Presidency. The courts have “evaded” the issue long enough. I urge them to take up the task of preserving the integrity of the Presidency and Vice-Presidency. BTW, the U.S.D.C. for the Southern District of California has issued a DEFAULT ruling against Kamala D. Harris in Constitution Association, Inc. v. Kamala Devi Harris, Case # 320*-cv-2379-TWR-BLM, U.S.D.C.-Southern District of California. It is an eligibility case.
Dr. Laity Esquire doesn't know the difference between a clerk's entry of a default and a default ruling (which isn't a thing).

* 3:20, with "20" representing that it was filed in 2020; de minimis.
Image ImageImage
User avatar
realist
Posts: 1117
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:25 am

Re: Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris

#125

Post by realist »

bob wrote: Thu May 13, 2021 12:18 pm P&E: comment:
Laity wrote:[If SCOTUS denis cert.], prompt refiling for rehearing will ensue. Congress has abrogated its responsibility to check and balance usurpers of the Presidency and Vice-Presidency. The courts have “evaded” the issue long enough. I urge them to take up the task of preserving the integrity of the Presidency and Vice-Presidency. BTW, the U.S.D.C. for the Southern District of California has issued a DEFAULT ruling against Kamala D. Harris in Constitution Association, Inc. v. Kamala Devi Harris, Case # 320-cv-2379-TWR-BLM, U.S.D.C.-Southern District of California. It is an eligibility case.
Dr. Laity Esquire doesn't know the difference between a clerk's entry of a default and a default ruling (which isn't a thing).
So what, she just didn't waste her time and money to respond?
Image
Image X 4
Image X 32
Post Reply

Return to “Law and Lawsuits”