Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris

[p0rtia]

I love the part where they show him sticking on the stamp!

[Reality Check]

P&E Laity Notifies Harris Counsel of Docketing of “Eligibility” Case:

OLD MAN MAILS LETTER: FILM AT ELEVEN.

Of course that is worthy of a brand new article the Pest & Efail

[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.

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 (22.69 KiB) Viewed 17517 times

[bob]

On Friday, Harris waived her response.

[bob]

P&E: Laity v. Harris: A Hypothetical Amicus Curiae Brief:

"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 dodges the issue that's before SCOTUS.

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.

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?

[northland10]

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).

[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]

But didn't laity tell us he already has 3 votes in his pocket to grant cert?

[Reality Check]

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.

[Suranis]

Just one of his sources> was it his Right or Left Buttock?

[roadscholar]

Neither; it was the ventriloquist in the middle.

[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.

[SuzieC]

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.

[much ado]

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]

Bollocks!

[noblepa]

Bollocks!

Now, that's British slang!

[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

[bob]

P&E comment:

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.

[Foggy]

SCOTUS becomes complicit if they ignore that fact.

Ooooh, that sounds kinda threaty!

[bob]

SCOTUS becomes complicit if they ignore that fact.

Ooooh, that sounds kinda threaty!

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?

[northland10]

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

It's dead, Jim.

[Jim]

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.

[Reality Check]

Ooooh, that sounds kinda threaty!

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.

[bob]

P&E: comment:

[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.

[realist]

P&E: comment:

[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?