Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris

[Luke]

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.

Wait -- does this mean Laity's case might possibly be bounced Tuesday and we don't have to PANIC? Have been sweating bullets all weekend!

[Reality Check]

Tomorrow Laity's petition will be denied along with a page full of other cases. The P&E will run the obligatory article of how the court is afraid to take up the case of VP Harris's eligibility. Laity will comment defiantly that he is going to file a petition for rehearing even though the rules clearly state such petitions are not favored and are granted only in extremely rare circumstances. Laity will not comment here or on the RC Radio blog where he is not in Rondeau's protective cocoon of moderation.

In other words nothing changes with Birthers.

[Luke]

But, RC, the bright side is it will be another $200 self-sanction Rev Dr Laity Esq piles those bad boys up for our enjoyment! At least his stimulus checks went to good causes, Cockles, court fees, postage etc.

And imagine his fury, in his tiny, lonely room in Tonawanda, in the wee small hours of the evening when he only has his empty Facebook page to yell to the heavens...

Laity SHole.JPG (38.3 KiB) Viewed 6621 times

And nobody cares.

[bob]

Tomorrow Laity's petition will be denied along with a page full of other cases. The P&E will run the obligatory article of how the court is afraid to take up the case of VP Harris's eligibility. Laity will comment defiantly that he is going to file a petition for rehearing even though the rules clearly state such petitions are not favored and are granted only in extremely rare circumstances. Laity will not comment here or on the RC Radio blog where he is not in Rondeau's protective cocoon of moderation.

: P&E comment:

I have a plan B.

Besides, Rondeau wrote that article today: P&E: Laity Sends DeMaio’s “Open Letter” to U.S. Supreme Court, Receives Acknowledgement:

The plaintiff in a case docketed at the U.S. Supreme Court scheduled for conference last Thursday challenging Kamala Harris’s constitutional eligibility to serve has received an acknowledgement of Laity’s having electronically sent through the court’s website a link to “Open Letter to Justice Clarence Thomas” authored by legal analyst and longtime P&E contributor Joseph DeMaio.

* * *

Under the subject line, “FW: Open Letter to Justice Clarence Thomas – The Post & Email,” Laity addressed the email with the attachment to “clerk@supremecourt.gov” and “clarence.thomas@supremecourt.gov.” In a separate email, Laity sent the article through the court’s website, to which he received the response, “Thank you for your submission, it has been received and should it require any other information we will contact you at this e-mail address. – U.S. Supreme Court Webmaster” on Monday morning.

Laity’s email to the clerk and Thomas reads:

Open Letter to Justice Clarence Thomas – The Post & Email

by Joseph DeMaio, ©2021 May 23, 2021 Dear Justice Thomas: With respect, it is virtually certain that in the next Court conference – this coming Thursday, May 27, 2021 – the matter in Docket No. 20-1503, “Laity v. Harris” will be addressed. Further, it is also not altogether unlikely that, based on existing Court precedent, […]

Laity's use of a "contact us" form is newsworthy!

Bonus:

Detractors of Laity’s continued efforts to compel a review of Harris’s qualifications as a purported “natural born Citizen,” which the Constitution and 12th Amendment require for the president and vice president, respectively, have predicted that the court will deny Laity’s petition for certiorari on Tuesday, thereby closing the matter. Such observers generally say that anyone born in the United States, regardless of their parents’ citizenship at the time, is a “natural born Citizen.”

Previously in lower courts, Laity’s case was dismissed for lack of “standing,” an element his detractors say he cannot overcome. Early Monday morning in response to such a comment, Laity responded, “I have a plan B.”

Trolling Laity also is newsworthy!

[northland10]

Let's see,

- He's wrong about standing
- He's wrong about jurisdiction
- He's wrong about quo warranto

But at least he's wrong on the merits.

[northland10]

There was something posted to the docket on Friday, but not the "letter."

Apr 16 2021 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due May 28, 2021)

May 07 2021 Waiver of right of respondent Harris, Kamala to respond filed.

May 11 2021 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/27/2021.

May 28 2021 Waiver of United States of right to respond submitted.

It went to conference the day before the response was required. It's not like it would have mattered as the US would have waived and the court was not going to request a response.

[Reality Check]

Laity's petition was denied. https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/cou ... r_e1p3.pdf
(Page 3).

[realist]

Laity's petition was denied. https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/cou ... r_e1p3.pdf
(Page 3).

Gee, I'm shocked.

[Luke]

Oh gosh, that was close! Realist and I were on pins and needles all weekend. Here's that shocking denial:

Laity Denied.JPG (21.58 KiB) Viewed 6495 times

No word from Rev Dr Laity Esq yet. This P&E exchange includes "deacon" calling Henry Wilson "henri"

Dennis Becker says:
Monday, May 31, 2021 at 8:23 PM

“Laity’s email to the clerk and Thomas reads:

From: Robert Laity
Sent: Monday, May 31, 2021 1:11 AM”

The open letter was published on the 23th.

The Supreme Court conference was on the 27th

He sent it on the 31st at 1 a.m., the morning of a national holiday when the Court will be closed.

The orders list comes out tomorrow at 10:00 a.m EDT.

I suspect the list has already been printed and this open letter is way too late.

Also I would suggest that it should have been sent to Justice Thomas’ law clerks.

Henry Wilson says:
Monday, May 31, 2021 at 9:23 PM

A party shouldn’t communicate only with the court; that’s an ex parte communication and is improper. A party should include all parties in any communication with a court.

Deacon says:
Tuesday, June 1, 2021 at 8:11 AM

Observe Henri, Kamala Harris did just that in,

Constitution Association, et al v Kamala Devi Harris,

motioning ex parte, to have default judgement against her set aside –
after not even bothering to respond to the suit to begin with.

Patent demonstration of Harris’ udder (sic) contempt
for rule of law & gross example of her deep, abiding
hubris & hypocrisy as a former quote,

‘chief law enforcement officer’,

unquote.

This is precisely the two tier justice schema you would
expect to be operating under machinations of a bald,
rapacious opportunist, within a pervasively corrupt politic.

Not for me, but for thee.

Henri, the agenda you prop is so thick
one could put bread to it for sandwich.

Again, have you not a care for the opinions
of God & man, Sir?

But Laity is ready! He has a mysterious Big 'Plan B'!

Robert Laity says:
Tuesday, June 1, 2021 at 12:30 AM

No Henry. Filing for rehearing is intrinsic with my plan A. Plan B is a much different approach.

Realist, do we have to start panicking for Big 'Plan B' yet? Or not until the rehearing is denied? Is it just for now?

[noblepa]

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.

His father was stationed in the Canal Zone at the time, and, according to Wikipedia, baby John was born in a small naval hospital in Coco Solo, which is in the Canal Zone, but near the non-CZ city of Colon.

He was a citizen by virtue of the fact that both of his parents were US citizens at the time of his birth, but, in fact, he was not born on US soil.

I'm not sure if a birth in the CZ, by itself, would have conferred US citizenship. Technically, it was US territory, not part of the nation of Panama. If a Panamanian employee of the naval hospital had gone into labor and had an emergency delivery at the hospital, I don't know if that baby would have been a US citizen or not.

[realist]

Realist, do we have to start panicking for Big 'Plan B' yet? Or not until the rehearing is denied? Is it just for now?

I think for now will be sufficient.

[Luke]

Rharon is wrong about this, the "waiver" was on the SCOTUS site on Friday, there's a comment on the P&E site linking to it. Shockingly, she doesn't include the denial in the headline, is that de minimis? Or maybe the presses were already running and it took a herculean effort to stop them enough to get that sentence about the denial in. But to be fair, the denial deserves an eight-part series; the staff must be working feverishly on that with an exclusive interview with Rev Dr Laity Esq on how SCOTUS is wrong and how the denial is actually a WIN because it sets up the rehearing and Big 'Plan B'!

The very best part of this is she calls him Robert C. LADY. The proofreading staff and interns must be so busy with the eight-part series the error slipped through. Heads should roll! Laity should SUE for defamation, they called him a LADY! He should write to Lindsey Graham at once for a CLASS ACTION lawsuit.

“Government” Waives Right to File Response in Laity v. Harris “Eligibility” Case
GOVERNMENT NOT A NAMED DEFENDANT; DOCUMENT UNSIGNED
44 mins ago
by Sharon Rondeau

(Jun. 1, 2021) — On Tuesday morning, a “Waiver” appeared on the U.S. Supreme Court docket in the case Laity v. Harris, 20-1503, from “Elizabeth B. Prelogar, Acting Solicitor General, Counsel of Record” stating that “The Government hereby waives its right to file a response to the petition in this case, unless requested to do so by the Court.”

The filing is dated May 28, 2021, one day after the Court held a conference to decide whether or not to grant Laity’s request for a writ of certiorari.

As The Post & Email has reported, plaintiff Robert C. Lady has challenged Kamala Harris’s constitutional eligibility to serve as vice president or president of the United States. Laity sued Harris in her personal capacity and did not name “the Government” or any government functionary as a defendant.

Further, the Waiver is unsigned and does not indicate that Harris’s attorney, Beth Brinkmann of Covington & Burling, was notified of its filing.

Through Brinkmann on May 7, Harris had filed a Waiver of her right to respond to the petition.

On Tuesday morning, an “Order List” list issued by the Court indicated Laity’s petition for a writ of certiorari was denied.

According to the U.S. Justice Department, Prelogar began serving as Acting Solicitor General on Joe Biden’s first day in office. “The task of the Office of the Solicitor General is to supervise and conduct government litigation in the United States Supreme Court,” the website states. “Virtually all such litigation is channeled through the Office of the Solicitor General and is actively conducted by the Office. The United States is involved in approximately two-thirds of all the cases the U.S. Supreme Court decides on the merits each year.”

According to Law.com, Prelogar was earning just over $2 million annually in her position at private law firm Cooley, LLP, “where she advised major technology and social media clients, including Twitter, Uber and Facebook, according to a financial disclosure she filed after joining the Biden administration.” In her previous position at Justice, the website and The American Law Institute state, she assisted Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe of alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election.

Prior to beginning private practice Prelogar served as a law clerk to Judge Merrick Garland, who is now attorney general; the late U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg; and Justice Elena Kagan.

She's absolutely right. Prelogar waiving and a deep dive into her background is far more important than the denial. Go P&E!

[gshevlin2]

I am sure that Laity, after the fashion of Baldric, has a cunning plan B that he will unleash in due course...

[gshevlin2]

We're down to the dregs of people on social media claiming that Kamala is ineligible. I'm now slapping down people on Birdsite who cannot understand the 14th Amendment, have never read or heard of Wong Kim Ark, and who think that Kamala's birth certificate must be forged because....something something that I will think of later.
They're no longer sending their best and brightest. And, tellingly, not a lawyer to be seen.

[bob]

I am sure that Laity, after the fashion of Baldric, has a cunning plan B that he will unleash in due course...

P&E comments:

Filing for rehearing is intrinsic with my plan A. Plan B is a much different approach.

And, of course:

I can file a Petition for Rehearing within (25) days, if the court denies my first petition. You can bank on that happening if they decline.

I, personally, hope Laity seeks rehearing because that won't be denied until the long conference in the fall.

That way, he can retain his crown of Last Birther with (No) Standing. (I predict the Constitution Association boys will peter out once their lawsuit is dismissed; I believe they won't appeal.)

Edit: Not constitutional!

[Luke]

Still the best topic title of all time: Last Birther with (No) Standing

Somebody is reading here... Panicked about a huge possible lawsuit, someone on the P&E's staff has changed it from Robert C. Lady to Robert C. Laity. Bullet dodged thanks to The Fogbow! No word yet on who was fired for this, keep refreshing the page. But a tough break for Orly Taitz, she had her black lawyer's suit almost on.

Bonus question: The article is titled "Government” Waives Right to File Response in Laity v. Harris “Eligibility” Case. Why is "Government" in quotes?

[Foggy]

Bonus question: The article is titled "Government” Waives Right to File Response in Laity v. Harris “Eligibility” Case. Why is "Government" in quotes?

It's a corporation, not a legitimate government. Don't tell anyone.

[gshevlin2]

I am sure that Laity, after the fashion of Baldric, has a cunning plan B that he will unleash in due course...

P&E comments:

Filing for rehearing is intrinsic with my plan A. Plan B is a much different approach.

And, of course:

I can file a Petition for Rehearing within (25) days, if the court denies my first petition. You can bank on that happening if they decline.

I, personally, hope Laity seeks rehearing because that won't be denied until the long conference in the fall.

That way, he can retain his crown of Last Birther with (No) Standing. (I predict the Constitutional Association boys will peter out once their lawsuit is dismissed; I believe they won't appeal.)

Laity just wants to keep the case going so that he can say "I am suing to have Kamala Harris declared ineligible in front of The Highest Court In The Land". The fact that the case is doomed is something he will resolutely refuse to acknowledge.

[bob]

Bonus question: The article is titled "Government” Waives Right to File Response in Laity v. Harris “Eligibility” Case. Why is "Government" in quotes?

It's a corporation, not a legitimate government. Don't tell anyone.

And one that Biden usurped by letting Pence certify his victory.

* * *

Still the best topic title of all time: Last Birther with (No) Standing

For the newbs: On Fogbow 1.0 (RIP), "Last Birther with (No) Standing" was a contest to see which birther would stay in the game the longest. Laity "won" by challenging Cruz's eligibility because the judge (i.e., me) declared that case was a stalking horse for then-President Obama's eligibility.

Now the Constitution Association boys may steal Laity's crown. But I have faith in Laity's tenacity.

[Luke]

Wow, is this a preview of "BIG 'PLAN B'"? Dynamite! And maybe, just maybe, Universe Shattering! And Bill appears to be copying ridiculous troll lawyer Robert Barnes, who is wrong about almost everything. Barnes is in hot competition for the Apuzzo! Award.

Bill Van Allen says:
Tuesday, June 1, 2021 at 12:43 PM @robertbarnes

Certiorari denied

Laity v Harris

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/cou ... r_e1p3.pdf

Next move Kagan and Sotomayor recusal for rehearing certiorari conference and combined with Article 2 APA (administrative procedures act) SCOTUS chief judge Roberts’ court administration office at SCOTUS and in each USCAs Circuit judicial councils and each and every of the 50 state and territory chief judges


Bill Van Allen says:
Tuesday, June 1, 2021 at 5:16 AM

The rule of threes will be applied when laity adds challenge to Kagan and Sotomayor recusal as Obama appointment.

Brilliant! Get Cockles on the phone and keep those self-sanctions going!

[Atticus Finch]

Amazing he was so close with 3 justices in the bag and needed one more. I wonder who were the holdouts.

[northland10]

Maybe he had to have more than his 4 because RBG and Scalia rose from the grave just go vote against this stupid s***.

I forgot who was one of his "3" but if one was Alito, that would seem odd. Alito is the son of an Italian immigrant Though Senior came over when he was very young, that really does not mean anything to birthers. If he were a Democratic candidate for President, Laity and others would be expecting paperwork on naturalization and when that did not fit their theory, the goalposts move.

[Luke]

Realist, do we have to start panicking for Big 'Plan B' yet? Or not until the rehearing is denied? Is it just for now?

I think for now will be sufficient.

Whew! That's a big, big sigh of relief!

Dunford was also just shocked by this news!

[bob]

Bonus question: The article is titled "Government” Waives Right to File Response in Laity v. Harris “Eligibility” Case. Why is "Government" in quotes?

"For completeness":

Laity sued Harris in her personal capacity and did not name “the Government” or any government functionary as a defendant.

Which is correct. Laity sued then-candidate, then-Senator Harris. (Hence why she was represented by private counsel.)

That the feds bothered to file a waiver is curious; it'll give the three remaining birthers something ponder for years.

Hidden Content

This board requires you to be registered and logged-in to view hidden content.

[Luke]

Shock.gif (16.95 KiB) Viewed 6312 times

But... Rev Dr Laity Esq:

Robert Laity says:
Tuesday, June 1, 2021 at 3:13 PM

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. More to come. I don’t give up easily.