Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris

[bob]

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.

Technically, WTF?

"Ex rel." means "on the relation of," i.e., Laity was suing on behalf of the federal government. Meaning the government was the plaintiff.

Laity can't even get that correct.

(To be charitable, Laity likely meant the federal government was a respondent in SCOTUS.)

[bob]

"For completeness": P&E: The Four Corners of the Constitution:

"'EVASION' OF THE ISSUE"

Once again – lamentably, but not unexpectedly – the U.S. Supreme Court has successfully evaded addressing, let alone resolving, the question of what the “natural born Citizen” clause in the Constitution means. On Tuesday, June 1, 2021, the Court again denied a petition for a writ of certiorari in “Laity v. Harris,” Docket No. 20-1503. Regrettably as well, it did so without a single dissenting comment from any Justice[.]

DeMaio's horrid prose obscures any point that he might have.

[Luke]

A devastating day in the tiny republic of birfestan

DEMAIO DECLARES BIRTHERISM IS DEAD!

Future debate on the topic will likely diminish significantly, if not evaporate completely…, unless and until a Republican presidential candidate with questionable “de Vattel” bona fides appears on the scene. Then watch the Gray Trollop reignite the debate.

Unless the Court changes its collective mind following a promised motion to reconsider from Mr. Laity, the ersatz “law of the land” regarding the meaning of the “natural born Citizen” clause will now be informed by lower federal and state court decisions; the products of the Congressional Research Service; the opinions of former Solicitors General; the talking heads of CNN and MSNBC; and the bulk of law review articles on the topic…., but not the U.S. Supreme Court.

Indeed, the Court’s refusal to grant the Laity certiorari petition – if for no reason other than to address the “standing” issue in the context of the self-executing mandates of Art. 2, § 1, Cl. 5 as opposed to “standing” in the context of laws passed by Congress, thus implicating “separation of powers” concerns – sets the stage for virtually anyone merely born here, if elected, to usurp the presidency as well as the vice-presidency.

Some rare footage from behind the iron gates of birfestan was secretly obtained at great risk to the reporter. The wailing, crying and sadness could be heard for miles.





And you are right, Bob, that article is horribly, horribly written, one of the worst. And clearly he knew this was coming, he spent a lot of time "writing" it. They all knew it was a loser and would get tossed, but Rharon wanted clicks and the dead-enders hoped maybe, this time, they wouldn't be made fools of again. H

ow much longer will they keep repeating stupid talking points that were debunked a decade ago? On the old board, mentioned it's like an experiment with rats or mice to see how long they'll keep banging their heads against the wall for nothing as there is no cheese at the end of the maze.

[keith]

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

Wasn't Plan B years ago? We gotta be up to Plan ZZZGC5 by now. Maybe even Plan 9 From Outer Space.

[bob]

Wasn't Plan B years ago?

Ages ago, Gallups promised a Plan B. But then went to Plan ... A? And then Plan VIP?

Hidden Content

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

[realist]

Indeed, the Court’s refusal to grant the Laity certiorari petition – if for no reason other than to address the “standing” issue in the context of the self-executing mandates of Art. 2, § 1, Cl. 5 as opposed to “standing” in the context of laws passed by Congress, thus implicating “separation of powers” concerns – sets the stage for virtually anyone merely born here, if elected, to usurp the presidency as well as the vice-presidency.

It doesn't set the stage, that's always been the production on the stage. The way it's always been, confirmed by SCOTUS in 1898. You are all just too ignorant to understand that, or are just a bunch of liars. Or both.

[Foggy]

If, heaven forfend, Joe Biden were to shuffle from this mortal coil and begin pining for the fjords at any time between now and January 20th, 2024, I suspect the Kamala birther movement will pick up some real momentum. After all, the chief of the Obama birther movement is currently unemployed and cooling his heels in Bedminster, NJ, with plenty of free time to pursue the issue. .

[noblepa]

If, heaven forfend, Joe Biden were to shuffle from this mortal coil and begin pining for the fjords at any time between now and January 20th, 2024, I suspect the Kamala birther movement will pick up some real momentum. After all, the chief of the Obama birther movement is currently unemployed and cooling his heels in Bedminster, NJ, with plenty of free time to pursue the issue. .

Jan. 20, 2025

[Foggy]

[Luke]

This comment at P&E is exactly right. It's more thorough than my previous explanation in this topic and shows without a doubt that this ridiculous "evading" nonsense is an example of the stupidity and lack of reasoning skills birthers have. Impressive that Rharon let it through when it undercuts years of lying over there.

Des Courney says:
Wednesday, June 2, 2021 at 1:46 AM

“Moreover, as discussed here, it is telling that back in 2010, Justice Thomas, in explaining why the Supreme Court had not at that time yet taken up an “eligibility” case on the merits would select the term “evading” as opposed to “avoiding,” when the eligibility issue involved one Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.”

Hi everybody,

I don’t think this is completely accurate as the discussion was not about President Obama. Instead Justice Thomas’ and Congressman Serrano’s back-and-forth was about someone born outside the US (specifically in Puerto Rico). This appears to have been a long running discussion between the Puerto Rico-born Serrano and Justice Thomas as documented by CSPAN.

March 7, 2007 House Appropriations Subcommittee hearing;

Rep. Serrano: “I really appreciate the fact that you’re here before us. I also appreciate the fact that off the record, there, you told me I probably am not eligible to run for President but that is an ongoing thing with me. Someday I may bring it before you whether or not somebody born in Puerto Rico can run for President , but we really welcome you today …”

https://www.c-span.org/video/?197007-1/ ... urt-budget

March 13th, 2008, House Appropriations Subcommittee hearing;

Rep. Serrano: “…although I must say on a personal level that for about ten years I’ve been trying to get out of you an unofficial comment on whether or not someone born in Puerto Rico can serve as President and from what I understand from a different California case you may have to decide on Mr. McCain, so if you do I’ll try to get myself included in the same package. …”

https://www.c-span.org/video/?204419-1/ ... urt-budget

April 23rd, 2009, House Appropriations Subcommittee hearing;

Rep. Serrano: “Although I always have some personal concern about asking the third branch to come and testify before us about buildings, staffing levels, and computers, rather than whether I can run for President or not, these hearings provide …”

https://www.c-span.org/video/?285453-1/ ... urt-budget

April 15th, 2010 House Appropriations Subcommittee hearing;

Rep. Serrano: “We always thank you for your service and tell the other seven we do the same thing.”

Justice Thomas: “Thank you Mr. Chairman and it is always an honor to be here. You and I have been at this together for a decade and a half. And ummm…”

Rep. Serrano: I glad to hear you don’t think there has to be a judge on the Court because I’m not a judge. I haven’t been a judge.”

Justice Thomas: “And you don’t have to be born in the United States so you never have to answer that question.”

Rep. Serrano: “oh really.”

Justice Thomas: “yeah.”

Rep. Serrano: “So you haven’t answered the one about whether I can serve as President but you answer this one.”

Justice Thomas: “We’re evading that one. We’re giving you another option.”

Rep. Serrano: “Thanks a lot.”

Justice Thomas: “Thank you, Mr. Chairman

https://www.c-span.org/video/?293017-1/ ... urt-budget

The 2007 comment by Congressman Serrano is interesting, if accurate, because it may indicate that Justice Thomas does not considered US citizens born in US territories as natural born citizens. WAG on my part.

It's almost like Rharon is throwing up her hands and realizing she's lost a decade of her life peddling lies and hate and gotten nothing but #DeadBirthers from it. Well, maybe a few nights of hot animal sex with Walter Fitzpatrick too also.

Henry Wilson says:
Tuesday, June 1, 2021 at 11:49 PM
The U.S. Supreme Court does not grant certiorari just to hand out participation trophies to lower courts that came to the correct result using the correct reasoning.

Rather, the U.S. Supreme Court grants certiorari where there is a split among the lower courts on how to interpret and apply the law.

That the lower courts have consistently applied Lujan (and, by extension, Article III) in these cases, coupled with the U.S. Supreme Court’s consistently denying certiorari in these cases, is a fairly clear indicator of the U.S. Supreme Court’s beliefs.

Interestingly, not many comments on these stories. Maybe birfers haven't gotten to them yet, but might be that they are finally disgusted by a decade of fail and tuning out. Hey, with only 10 of them left, if 4 leave that's a huge drop!

[Atticus Finch]

Indeed, the Court’s refusal to grant the Laity certiorari petition – if for no reason other than to address the “standing” issue in the context of the self-executing mandates of Art. 2, § 1, Cl. 5 as opposed to “standing” in the context of laws passed by Congress, thus implicating “separation of powers” concerns – sets the stage for virtually anyone merely born here, if elected, to usurp the presidency as well as the vice-presidency.

Demaio is a day late and a dollar short with his birtherism epiphany that "anyone merely born here, [is eligible for the presidency]". But the stage was set 223 years ago when Chief Justice C.J. Fuller observed in his dissent in the Wong Kim Ark case:

"Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that "natural-born citizen" applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances; and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not." United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169, U.S. 649, 715 (1898) (C.J. Fuller, dissenting) (emphasis added)

[Reality Check]

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.

All correct but after McCain was born Congress passed a law decreeing that all persons born in the CZ going back to the creation in 1904 were citizens at birth if one or both parents were US citizens. So this law retroactively made McCain a "citizen at birth" and some would say a natural born citizen. In 2008 the courts seemed to struggle more with McCain's circumstances of birth than Obama's in early eligibility lawsuits although they all failed on the usual grounds of standing and failure to state a claim.

[bob]

And serious law professors have argued that McCain's retroactive grant of citizenship means he isn't a natural born citizen because he didn't acquire citizenship at birth.

To be sure, it is a minority viewpoint. But one that has been taken more seriously than the birthers' obsession with Vattel.

[chancery]

Wasn't Plan B years ago?

Ages ago, Gallups promised a Plan B. But then went to Plan ... A? And then Plan VIP?

Well, it's all fun and games, but I'm worried what would happen if Plan B involves a federal civil rights lawsuit. Let's just hope that Mr. Laity doesn't know about 42 U.S.C.§§ 1983 & 1985.

[realist]

Wasn't Plan B years ago?

Ages ago, Gallups promised a Plan B. But then went to Plan ... A? And then Plan VIP?

Well, it's all fun and games, but I'm worried what would happen if Plan B involves a federal civil rights lawsuit. Let's just hope that Mr. Laity doesn't know about 42 U.S.C.§§ 1983 & 1985.

Yeah, gosh, let's hope.

[noblepa]

And serious law professors have argued that McCain's retroactive grant of citizenship means he isn't a natural born citizen because he didn't acquire citizenship at birth.

To be sure, it is a minority viewpoint. But one that has been taken more seriously than the birthers' obsession with Vattel.

Since both of his parents were citizens at the time of his birth, wouldn't he have been a citizen at birth? Let's ignore the question of NBC for the moment. I believe that the law, even in 1936, was that children born to US citizens, anywhere in the world, were citizens by right of birth. For it to be otherwise would be a huge slap in the face of military personnel. His father was serving his country in the US Navy, stationed in the CZ. His wife, John's mother, was a US citizen. And his new son John would be denied citizenship?

I think that the retroactive recognition of citizenship to children born in the CZ may only have applied to those children whose parents were not citizens at the time of their birth. I don't think his citizenship depended on the retroactive grant of citizenship to children born in the CZ.

[bob]

Since both of his parents were citizens at the time of his birth, wouldn't he have been a citizen at birth?

LMGTFY: Why Senator John McCain Cannot Be President: Eleven Months and a Hundred Yards Short of Citizenship.

[raison de arizona]

And serious law professors have argued that McCain's retroactive grant of citizenship means he isn't a natural born citizen because he didn't acquire citizenship at birth.

To be sure, it is a minority viewpoint. But one that has been taken more seriously than the birthers' obsession with Vattel.

Since both of his parents were citizens at the time of his birth, wouldn't he have been a citizen at birth? Let's ignore the question of NBC for the moment. I believe that the law, even in 1936, was that children born to US citizens, anywhere in the world, were citizens by right of birth. For it to be otherwise would be a huge slap in the face of military personnel. His father was serving his country in the US Navy, stationed in the CZ. His wife, John's mother, was a US citizen. And his new son John would be denied citizenship?

I think that the retroactive recognition of citizenship to children born in the CZ may only have applied to those children whose parents were not citizens at the time of their birth. I don't think his citizenship depended on the retroactive grant of citizenship to children born in the CZ.

I've seen the argument that at the time of McCain's birth, 1936, the law covered births outside the jurisdiction of the US. Therefore, since the CZ was under the jurisdiction of the US, his citizenship wasn't covered until the 1937 law.

I don't agree.

Whoops, ninja'd!

[Uninformed]

I don’t pretend to understand all the nuances of these arguments but...

“SECTION 1993, REVISED STATUTES OF 1878
8 FAM 301.5-1 TEXT AS ORIGINALLY ENACTED
(CT:CITZ-1; 06-27-2018)
a. As originally enacted, section 1993 provided for transmission of citizenship only through fathers. It stated: All children heretofore or hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were or may be at the time of their birth citizens thereof, are declared to be citizens of the United States; but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to children whose fathers never resided in the United States.
b. Congress rectified the inequity in this law through the enactment of section 301(h) INA (8 U.S.C. 1401(h)) which specifically provides for acquisition of U.S. citizenship by children born abroad prior to 1934 to U.S. citizen mothers who had previously resided in the United States (see 8 FAM 301.4 and 8 FAM 301.7).”

https://fam.state.gov/fam/08fam/08fam030105.html#M301_5

[Foggy]

... McCain's retroactive grant of citizenship means he isn't a natural born citizen ...

That's OK, I wasn't going to vote for him in any future elections anyway.

[Luke]

My heart rate soared when seeing that PANIC icon Realist! Clearly VP Harris is just hanging by a thread here, just praying Zullo and Gallups don't make up, make out, and get involved in "BIG 'PLAN B'" or it'll be curtains for us. Just a hunch, but it could be for sure this time!

A kinky comment slipped through at Rharons (not mine): Sword fighting with Zorro!

Stephen Hiller says:
Wednesday, June 2, 2021 at 2:46 PM
Something about sword-fighting with Zorro. Until John Roberts has his sword that he hides behind taken away, it appears hopeless. What is that “sword” you might ask. Perhaps all the other corruptocrats blackmailing him for doing the same thing they do. Read the Bible, Romans chapter 1.

Sounds like Stephen has been participating in some wild parties at the P&E? Who knew Rharon was such a swinger? Romans 1:

God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men

This Bill Van Allen guy posted a link to some insane Strunk stuff, maybe Bill is Strunk? Bill seems to miss that it's from Sep 2020

Just don't know where to begin with this link/article, it's like if you threw a bunch of words into a hat and just randomly picked them out. Wonder how it went for him.

Bill Van Allen says:
Wednesday, June 2, 2021 at 3:11 PM
https://patriots4truth.org/2020/09/11/c ... candidate/

And somebody is sure it's going to work out (in Sep 2020):

prsmithsr says: September 11, 2020 at 6:48 pm
This will, unfortunately, go nowhere for the same reason the lawsuits against Obama went nowhere…lack of standing with the court. Only Trump (and maybe Pence) can file such a lawsuit and get standing.

Our Spirit says: September 11, 2020 at 6:49 pm
Actually, Mr. Strunk has standing. He is in a very unique position. Read carefully or perhaps he will drop by and explain.


Handsome graphic.

[Luke]

Rev Dr Laity ESQ has "The Way We Were" on repeat on his CD player as, with bitter tears, he's manically filling his Facebook timeline with memories that no one is liking or sharing.

Laity 1.JPG (59.39 KiB) Viewed 4042 times

Laity 2.JPG (36.88 KiB) Viewed 4042 times

Laity 3.JPG (34.91 KiB) Viewed 4042 times

Laity 4.JPG (62.73 KiB) Viewed 4042 times

Laity 5.JPG (32.9 KiB) Viewed 4042 times

Can it be that it was all so simple then?
Or has time re-written every line?
If we had the chance to do it all again
Tell me, would we?
Could we?

[bob]

Van Allen and Strunk are cohorts. I've never seen/heard them at the same time, so I suppose it is possible Van Allen is an alter ego of Strunk.

It would be dumb and pointless if Strunk did that. But no one ever said Strunk is smart.

Regardless, his/their word salad is incomprehensible but voluminous.

[Luke]

There is like NO TRACTION at the Post and Email about this thunderbolt of justice.

On DeMaio's "Four Corners" article, only four birthers even commented: Bill Van Allen, Stephen Hiller, Jonathan David Mooers and James Carter.

Des Courney debunked the "evading" nonsense, and whomever that brilliant Henry Wilson is, mighty impressed.

The "Government" story with the denial was even worse: Laity (whom you'd expect, but with only one comment), Tom Peden, Gary Willmot and Bill Van Allen.

Where are all those Birthers who said they would NEVER, EVER GIVE UP? It's only been 11 years, what kind of quitter wimps are they? Where's Rambo Ike? No-Nonsense Nancy? Even radio silence from Miki Booth. To say nothing of Foggy's pal FALCON. Shameful. Sharon Rondeau must be so hurt.

They've got to get some ACTION going over there to get the Birther Second Wind! Maybe if Orly Taitz can do something SPECTACULAR as Foggy recommended years ago.

Maybe it's time for another BIRTHER SUMMIT!

[bob]

whomever that brilliant Henry Wilson is

Hidden Content

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