Makes sense, why lose $1,000 to you when he can grift $10,000 from the idiots?Reality Check wrote: ↑Tue May 11, 2021 6:23 pm 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.
Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris
Re: Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris
Re: Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris
Laity has already self-sanctioned himself over a $1000, and no one is sending him money. (Partially, to his credit, because he never asks for it.)Jim wrote: ↑Thu May 13, 2021 12:48 pmMakes sense, why lose $1,000 to you when he can grift $10,000 from the idiots?Reality Check wrote: ↑Tue May 11, 2021 6:23 pm 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.
- northland10
- Posts: 6513
- 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
For completeness, the Acting US Attorney filed an ex parte motion to set aside default (I assume ex parte is because they want to retain they were not served and are not making an appearance).bob wrote: ↑Thu May 13, 2021 12:18 pm P&E: comment: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).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.
* 3:20, with "20" representing that it was filed in 2020; de minimis.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 24.6.0.pdf
Seems they believe that sending a certified letter to the White House is not sufficient.
Here is the docket.
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18 ... -v-harris/
101010
- Reality Check
- Posts: 2456
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:46 pm
- Verified: ✅ Curmudgeon
- Contact:
Re: Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris
I agree. I have never seen Laity grift. He has many faults but that is not one of them. Mario is not a grifter either. I think his early lawsuits were funded by Kerchner who had enough money to blow thousands on Washington Times Birther ads.
Re: Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris
Please excuse my confusion between grifters and attention-seekers.
- Reality Check
- Posts: 2456
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:46 pm
- Verified: ✅ Curmudgeon
- Contact:
- Luke
- Posts: 6052
- 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
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
- Luke
- Posts: 6052
- 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
Anybody want to help Rev Dr Laity Esq with an answer to his question?
Bonus: Rharon started a Free Republic topic about the case: https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3960648/posts
Almost all the posts are by Chuckles. Hmmm, could Joseph DeMaio be a sock puppet of Chuckles'? DeMaio is a mysterious character, never replying himself but through Sharon, shady bio info...
Bonus: Rharon started a Free Republic topic about the case: https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3960648/posts
Almost all the posts are by Chuckles. Hmmm, could Joseph DeMaio be a sock puppet of Chuckles'? DeMaio is a mysterious character, never replying himself but through Sharon, shady bio info...
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
- SuzieC
- Posts: 1044
- 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
Ummm...who is Beth Brinkman and why is she interested in birfers?
- Luke
- Posts: 6052
- 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
Brinkmann is Harris' attorney at Covington & Burling
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
Re: Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris
Kerchner started that thread.orlylicious wrote: ↑Thu May 20, 2021 9:24 pmBonus: Rharon started a Free Republic topic about the case: https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3960648/posts
And most of the discussion there is about ... McCain and Cruz. Neither of whom (unlike Obama and Harris) were born in the United States.
I think Booth and Laity both baned my Facebook sock.Anybody want to help Rev Dr Laity Esq with an answer to his question?
Re: Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris
She's being "sued in the U.S. Supreme Court"?
Who knew?
Who knew?
X 4
X 33
- northland10
- Posts: 6513
- 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
I did not realize he still had a Facebook account (after being baned, or canceled, on Twitter). It's boring. It is just a mess of reposts, some fact-checked, from his prime time of 2-6 am. Even if lawsuit posts are reposts of the Pest and eFail (HT PatGund on the term).
Of the few posts he actually wrote, he shows a lovely freemason conspiracy hatred.
"Harry Windsor is a Freemason"
"Fauci is a Freemason"
Of the few posts he actually wrote, he shows a lovely freemason conspiracy hatred.
"Harry Windsor is a Freemason"
"Fauci is a Freemason"
► Show Spoiler
101010
Re: Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris
P&E comment:
Bonus: Open Letter to Justice Clarence Thomas (about Laity's petition; the "letter" is unsigned but by DeMaio).
Dr. Laity Esquire has been filing complaints ("in the federal sector") his entire adult life.Laity wrote:I KNOW how to draft a legal complaint. I have been doing so since 1972. I have represented hundreds of clients in the federal sector for almost fifty years.
Bonus: Open Letter to Justice Clarence Thomas (about Laity's petition; the "letter" is unsigned but by DeMaio).
- Reality Check
- Posts: 2456
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:46 pm
- Verified: ✅ Curmudgeon
- Contact:
Re: Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris
Laity's petition at SCOTUS is on the list for conference today. We will not see the official denial until Tuesday morning.
He has already committed to another self sanction by filing a petition for rehearing.
He has already committed to another self sanction by filing a petition for rehearing.
- Luke
- Posts: 6052
- 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
Are they all revved up and excited and partying over Laity's sure fire win?
Thinking Rharon is baking a cake in the shape of a birf certificate, DeMaio is enjoying a Dr Pepper, Miki Booth is panting...
Hope they are really, really expecting VICTORY!
Thinking Rharon is baking a cake in the shape of a birf certificate, DeMaio is enjoying a Dr Pepper, Miki Booth is panting...
Hope they are really, really expecting VICTORY!
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
- Luke
- Posts: 6052
- 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
SHOCKING that Dan did not include Laity v Harris! Set him straight on this slam dunk case. ETA: He followed me on Twitter after that Dan Nowicki is The Arizona Republic's national politics editor.
And in a sure sign of success, on the case page is “May 28 2021 Waiver of United States of right to respond submitted.”
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.asp ... -1503.html
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/ ... 0-1503.pdf
The government is trying to make it look like they are putting on a brave face, but it's obvious from this they are PANICKING.
Realist, we might need that prayer group Monday night.
And in a sure sign of success, on the case page is “May 28 2021 Waiver of United States of right to respond submitted.”
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.asp ... -1503.html
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/ ... 0-1503.pdf
The government is trying to make it look like they are putting on a brave face, but it's obvious from this they are PANICKING.
Realist, we might need that prayer group Monday night.
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
Re: Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris
Laity (in March) wrote:Read my response to the Court on standing in which several court cases were referenced that supported my contention on standing and the fact that it was in the courts discretion to GRANT standing upon my posting of bond. Furthermore, just (12) days ago SCOTUS in an (8-1) opinion ruled that “Nominal damages” is sufficient to show standing. The USCCA judges just chose to IGNORE my reply and erroneously claim that I proffered no claim of standing. That is simply not true. See: Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski, USSCt. (March 8, 2021). I WILL be filing a Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the next (90) days. More to come.
Reality Check wrote: ↑Sat Mar 20, 2021 4:39 pmBTW: The case Laity cites, Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski, has nothing to do with Laity's case. Laity of course ignores the fact that the standing test has more than one prong for him to meet.
P&E comment:
Laity wrote:I cited SCOTUS precedent in my brief that provides for third party standing under certain circumstances. See: Uzuegbunam, et al v. Preczewski, et al, #19-968, USSCt. (March 2021).
Nominal damages are sufficient to prove standing. I cited redressable injuries and meet all the elements necessary to prove standing.
Uzuegbunam had alleged his public college violated his free speech rights. The lower courts had dismissed as moot because the college later changed its speech rules and he graduated. SCOTUS told them to think about it again, as the later circumstances didn't invalidate his claim that his rights had been violated (but rather informed the nature of the remedy and damages (read: attorney's fees)).
- Luke
- Posts: 6052
- 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
It sure is helpful, and lucky for the world, that the Rev Dr Laity Esq is willing to make his absolutely certain pronouncements from on high -- no research needed, no fees to be paid, no doubts -- this is the Word of the Laity. Good to know about McCain, saves us all so much time hearing from the Oracle.
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
-
- Posts: 2397
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:26 pm
Re: Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris
Nominal damages don't provide standing, they prevent loss of standing due to mootness. If you present a claim for nominal damages, you still have to prove standing.bob wrote: ↑Sun May 30, 2021 1:28 pmLaity (in March) wrote:Read my response to the Court on standing in which several court cases were referenced that supported my contention on standing and the fact that it was in the courts discretion to GRANT standing upon my posting of bond. Furthermore, just (12) days ago SCOTUS in an (8-1) opinion ruled that “Nominal damages” is sufficient to show standing. The USCCA judges just chose to IGNORE my reply and erroneously claim that I proffered no claim of standing. That is simply not true. See: Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski, USSCt. (March 8, 2021). I WILL be filing a Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the next (90) days. More to come.Reality Check wrote: ↑Sat Mar 20, 2021 4:39 pmBTW: The case Laity cites, Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski, has nothing to do with Laity's case. Laity of course ignores the fact that the standing test has more than one prong for him to meet.
P&E comment:Laity wrote:I cited SCOTUS precedent in my brief that provides for third party standing under certain circumstances. See: Uzuegbunam, et al v. Preczewski, et al, #19-968, USSCt. (March 2021).
Nominal damages are sufficient to prove standing. I cited redressable injuries and meet all the elements necessary to prove standing.
Uzuegbunam had alleged his public college violated his free speech rights. The lower courts had dismissed as moot because the college later changed its speech rules and he graduated. SCOTUS told them to think about it again, as the later circumstances didn't invalidate his claim that his rights had been violated (but rather informed the nature of the remedy and damages (read: attorney's fees)).
Re: Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris
But that’s how all these nutbag birthers, including birther attorneys (and I use that term very loosely) read court opinions. They read one sentence in a SCOTUS opinion, and decide that is the law, no matter whether it is dicta, and sometimes even claiming VICTORY!! from a dissent.
One or two of them know better and are just not being candid with the Court. The rest, including Laity, are just ignorant AND stupid.
One or two of them know better and are just not being candid with the Court. The rest, including Laity, are just ignorant AND stupid.
X 4
X 33
- noblepa
- Posts: 2604
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 2:55 pm
- Location: Bay Village, Ohio
- Occupation: Retired IT Nerd
Re: Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris
Laity (in March) wrote:Read my response to the Court on standing in which several court cases were referenced that supported my contention on standing and the fact that it was in the courts discretion to GRANT standing upon my posting of bond. Furthermore, just (12) days ago SCOTUS in an (8-1) opinion ruled that “Nominal damages” is sufficient to show standing. The USCCA judges just chose to IGNORE my reply and erroneously claim that I proffered no claim of standing. That is simply not true. See: Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski, USSCt. (March 8, 2021). I WILL be filing a Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the next (90) days. More to come.
Reality Check wrote: ↑Sat Mar 20, 2021 4:39 pmBTW: The case Laity cites, Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski, has nothing to do with Laity's case. Laity of course ignores the fact that the standing test has more than one prong for him to meet.
IANAL, but I don't believe that a court GRANTS standing. It is not theirs to grant. The court FINDS that you have standing or that you don't.
I realize that this is picking fly shit our of pepper, as an old boss of mine was fond of saying.
Its just like the old saw that one is innocent until proven guilty. You are PRESUMED innocent. You either are guilty or you are not guilty. The courts doesn't MAKE you guilty. You did that when you committed the crime. The jury/court merely found out that you are guilty.
Back to standing. A party either has standing or they do not. Standing is not something the court grants. They FIND that you have standing or that you do not.
-
- Posts: 2397
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:26 pm
Re: Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris
Exactly!noblepa wrote: ↑Sun May 30, 2021 9:43 pm
IANAL, but I don't believe that a court GRANTS standing. It is not theirs to grant. The court FINDS that you have standing or that you don't.
I realize that this is picking fly shit our of pepper, as an old boss of mine was fond of saying.
Its just like the old saw that one is innocent until proven guilty. You are PRESUMED innocent. You either are guilty or you are not guilty. The courts doesn't MAKE you guilty. You did that when you committed the crime. The jury/court merely found out that you are guilty.
Back to standing. A party either has standing or they do not. Standing is not something the court grants. They FIND that you have standing or that you do not.
- Reality Check
- Posts: 2456
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:46 pm
- Verified: ✅ Curmudgeon
- Contact:
Re: Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris
It has been a long time since I examined John McCain's birth circumstances. I thought he was born in the Canal Zone and was a citizen by his father's status as a citizen. I believe Congress passed a law a few years after his birth which retroactively made people born in the Canal Zone citizens at birth. So McCain was either natural born as a child of a US citizen born abroad or a retroactive citizen at birth. I don't think any court case cast doubt on his eligibility.