Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris

[bob]

P&E comment:

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.

Laity's inevitable cert. petition likely won't get dennied until the fall's long conference.

[Luke]

Laity had better get reading those rules! Sounds like some delicious new self-sanctions.

SCOTUS Fees.JPG (50.1 KiB) Viewed 7338 times

If he reads the Rules to, um, page 5, he too will be able to magically predict the outcome!

SCOTUS Review.JPG (86.36 KiB) Viewed 7338 times

https://www.supremecourt.gov/ctrules/20 ... eCourt.pdf

[Reality Check]

So Laity will waste another $300 to wait months to find his one line denial listed along with hundreds of others. He could really find a better hobby.


BTW: 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.

[Luke]

Shocking, RC!

On Facebook, Laity interrupted his racist, stupid multi-posts (he posts the same bullsh*t over & over & over as though that means it's more accurate) to post his fabulous P&E story. Of the more than 2.7 billion monthly active users on Facebook, Laity received a slightly less-than-impressive ONE REACTION from one Lorie Herberg*. Shows the huge, huge interest in birfing. We're going to need a whole forum section if this keeps up!

Laity FB.JPG (23.91 KiB) Viewed 7297 times

https://www.facebook.com/robert.c.laity


*

https://www.facebook.com/lorie.b.herberg
Lorie Herberg
MilitaryFamily NaturalBornCitizen = 2USParents + USBirth Required for POTUS & VP @Patriotress gab

Patriotress?

[northland10]

I love Robert's inability to understand various codes. In his petition for rehearing, he mentioned Chapter 35 of the DC Code (forgetting to mention which Title was a helpful thing). Checking and finding it to be Title 35, we find the following.

§ 16–3501. Persons against whom issued; civil action.
A quo warranto may be issued from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States or a public office of the United States, civil or military. The proceedings shall be deemed a civil action.

§ 16–3502. Parties who may institute; ex rel. proceedings.
The Attorney General of the United States or the United States attorney may institute a proceeding pursuant to this subchapter on his own motion or on the relation of a third person. The writ may not be issued on the relation of a third person except by leave of the court, to be applied for by the relator, by a petition duly verified setting forth the grounds of the application, or until the relator files a bond with sufficient surety, to be approved by the clerk of the court, in such penalty as the court prescribes, conditioned on the payment by him of all costs incurred in the prosecution of the writ if costs are not recovered from and paid by the defendant.

§ 16–3503. Refusal of Attorney General or United States attorney to act; procedure.
If the Attorney General or United States attorney refuses to institute a quo warranto proceeding on the request of a person interested, the interested person may apply to the court by certified petition for leave to have the writ issued. When, in the opinion of the court, the reasons set forth in the petition are sufficient in law, the writ shall be allowed to be issued by any attorney, in the name of the United States, on the relation of the interested person on his compliance with the condition prescribed by section 16-3502 as to security for costs.

Ignoring the obvious issue that he is not considered an interested person (he was not running for VP much like Lamberth stated Orly was not running for President, or even eligible). That is the annoying standing thing that confuses birthers.

Instead, we see that:

1. His filing never mentioned it was a petition for leave to have a writ issued. He just mentioned quo warranto and then ask the court to remove the VP.

2. He never filed a bond.

3. Since he was pro se, he did not have an attorney to issue the writ.

4. There is also the pesky matter that Kamala Harris, when Laity filed this, was not in DC and had not usurped, intruded into, or unlawfully held or excised, a franchise granted by the United States.

I wonder, if the insurrectionists had succeeded in stopping the count, would that be considered intruding into a franchise conferred by the United States?

[Foggy]

1. His filing never mentioned it was a petition for leave to have a writ issued. He just mentioned quo warranto and then ask the court to remove the VP.

2. He never filed a bond.

3. Since he was pro se, he did not have an attorney to issue the writ.

4. There is also the pesky matter that Kamala Harris, when Laity filed this, was not in DC and had not usurped, intruded into, or unlawfully held or excised, a franchise granted by the United States.

Whoa, you're really picky, N10.

[bob]

P&E comments:

It is never a waste of time to defend the constitution. Never a waste of time.

And:

Those courts are ALL wrong. All of them.

The only thing that Laity has "learned" from his experience is that ... everyone else is wrong.

[Luke]

Another 4am post from the Rev Dr Laity Esq. What a shame DL2XIT didn't put him on SCOTUS. At least the P&E has had a dash of entertainment value this weekend; recently it's been a dull ghost town.

Robert Laity says:
Sunday, March 21, 2021 at 4:10 AM

Cheryl, It states in the pertinent section that “No Person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, AT THE TIME of the adaption of this constitution shall be eligible to the office of President…” That means that those non natural born U.S. citizens alive at the adaption of our constitution WERE eligible. It was well understood that an NBC is one born IN the U.S. to two U.S. Citizen parents. There were no NBCs of the US prior to the US becoming a nation. The first President born in the US to two US Citizen parents was President Martin Van Buren (#8). The first (7) were not NBCs but were grandfathered in as “citizen(s) of the United States at the time of the adaption of this constitution”.

NONE of those people alive at the time of the adaption of our constitution is alive today, as far as I know. That means that the only citizens that are eligible today to be President or V.P. are Natural born US Citizens. Our US Supreme Court has affirmed and reaffirmed the definition of NBC as one born IN the United States to parents who are US Citizens themselves. Anyone not meeting that criteria is not eligible to be President or V.P.

[bob]

P&E comments:

The US Supreme Court however has affirmed and reaffirmed that an NBC is one born in the US to parents who are both US Citizens themselves. Those cases control [ . . . ]. Also see the Naturalization Act of 1790 and 1795. The last part of your comment on being born overseas to US Citizen parents. That was the law in 1790 but it was REPEALED in 1795. Any court that ruled that a person born overseas,even to US parents, is an NBC is wrong.

* * *

[T]he opinion of errant Judges who don’t want to perform their constitutional duty. That you acquiesce to that stance shows that you care not about the Constitution and the over six SCOTUS cases that define NBC as one born in the US to parents who are both US Citizens.

As expected, Laity has learned nothing from this experience, and continues to believe only he is correct.

At this point, the comments are just Laity's late-night bickering with those trolling him.

And, "for completeness": Joseph DeMaio's The Continuing Presidential Eligibility Debate.

[Luke]

This is cool, there's a long book preview of Demonizing a President: The "Foreignization" of Barack Obama By Martin A. Parlett at the link below.

There's a whole section in the free preview with Berg, Taitz, all the fails... it starts off with some of the early birthing of "Is Mr. Charles Evans Hughes a “Natural Born Citizen” published in Chicago Legal News".


https://books.google.ae/books?id=tBaDBA ... ws&f=false

[Luke]

Damn, looks like the jig is up, kids. "Marla" just checked in at the P&E. She seems like a true Constitutional expert. Well, at least Harris was VP for almost two months.

Marla says:
Tuesday, March 23, 2021 at 12:41 AM
That’s bs. Kamala Harris needs a writ of mandamus and she needs to prove eligibility

[northland10]

Damn, looks like the jig is up, kids. "Marla" just checked in at the P&E. She seems like a true Constitutional expert. Well, at least Harris was VP for almost two months.

Marla says:
Tuesday, March 23, 2021 at 12:41 AM
That’s bs. Kamala Harris needs a writ of mandamus and she needs to prove eligibility

This is not like whether or not Obama was born here, and had a BC to prove it (not that they accepted it even when he whipped it out). Marla wants Kamala to prove but proof is about the facts of the person, not the interpretation of the law. It is not Kamala's job to prove what the law is.

- I pull out my Driver's License to prove that I am licensed by the state of Illinois to travel operate a motor vehicle. I am not proving I took the real driver's test that said that licenses are not required to travel.

- I pull out my DL to prove I am a little older than 21. I am not proving that the drinking age is 21 or 18, or unconstitutional.

- I fill out other forms to prove my identity and my eligibility to work in the US (i.e. SSN card), not to prove the law.

There are no doubts about Kamala's birth in the United States to parents who were not citizens. She need not prove that because it is already common knowledge. Even if the law required two-parent citizens, she would not need to prove that because it is common knowledge her parents were not yet citizens.

What they actually need is an opinion from the court that says you have to have 2 citizen parents. Unfortunately, they believe the law already agrees with them so it is Kamala who has to prove otherwise. Of course, as we know, that's not how this works. It's not how any of this works.

The birthers still don't get it that when 50 states do not attempt to keep her off the ballot because she does not follow their definition of NBC, that somehow they might be wrong.

[p0rtia]

Thank you, Northland. That was a highly enjoyable rant read.

[bob]

"For completeness": P&E comment:

I am in the process of preparing my “Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit”.

Translation: I am appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court. More info to come shortly.

[Foggy]

Be still my heart.

[bob]

P&E comments:

Laity v Harris is currently on print schedule by Cockle Legal Briefs and is being prepared for Petition for Writ of Certiorari at this time. The US Allegiance Institute [aka Apuzzo] Amicus Brief is being inserted in the case appendix.

* * *

Kamala Harris is not eligible to BE President or Vice-President. She is not a “Natural Born Citizen” of the United States. I believe that Harris may have Pseudobulbar Affect.

* * *

Kamala Harris is NOT eligible constitutionally to BE President under Article II. Neither is she now the bona-fide Vice-President. She is disqualified also under the 12th Amendment. Harris probably suffers from Pseudobulbar affect. I call her “Cackling Kamala”.

Speaking of Apuzzo:

First, Kamala Harris is neither the president nor is she constitutionally eligible for that office, for she is not a natural born citizen. While she was born in the U.S., arguably while subject to its jurisdiction, making her only a “citizen” of the U.S. under the Fourteenth Amendment, she was not born to two U.S. citizen parents, an additional requirement to be an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Second, we should not be making light of her flippant attitude regarding serious world events.

[realist]

P&E comments:

Laity v Harris is currently on print schedule by Cockle Legal Briefs and is being prepared for Petition for Writ of Certiorari at this time. The US Allegiance Institute [aka Apuzzo] Amicus Brief is being inserted in the case appendix.

* * *

Kamala Harris is not eligible to BE President or Vice-President. She is not a “Natural Born Citizen” of the United States. I believe that Harris may have Pseudobulbar Affect.

* * *

Kamala Harris is NOT eligible constitutionally to BE President under Article II. Neither is she now the bona-fide Vice-President. She is disqualified also under the 12th Amendment. Harris probably suffers from Pseudobulbar affect. I call her “Cackling Kamala”.

Speaking of Apuzzo:

First, Kamala Harris is neither the president nor is she constitutionally eligible for that office, for she is not a natural born citizen. While she was born in the U.S., arguably while subject to its jurisdiction, making her only a “citizen” of the U.S. under the Fourteenth Amendment, she was not born to two U.S. citizen parents, an additional requirement to be an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Second, we should not be making light of her flippant attitude regarding serious world events.

[p0rtia]

The attempt to strengthen the argument with an irrelevant/unfounded claim of physical ailment says it all.

[Reality Check]

Dear Robert,

We call you terminally stupid.

[noblepa]

"For completeness": P&E comment:

I am in the process of preparing my “Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit”.

Translation: I am appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court. More info to come shortly.

IANAL, but doesn't petitioning for a Writ of Certiorari apply only to SCOTUS, not the US Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit?

[bob]

IANAL, but doesn't petitioning for a Writ of Certiorari apply only to SCOTUS, not the US Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit?

The language is archaic but correct: the petitioner asks for a writ to review the lower court's ruling; if granted, the writ will be directed "to" the lower court.

[Luke]

That is soooo exciting! A new specialty for the Rev. Dr. Laity Esq., psychiatrist! "Pseudobulbar Affect" is so clever, did anyone know he was pursuing that degree as well? LM K will be so impressed. Wonder if he's self-disagnosed his Delusional Disorders?

Delusional.jpg (84.05 KiB) Viewed 6592 times

Features.JPG (61.55 KiB) Viewed 6592 times

Causes.JPG (57.04 KiB) Viewed 6592 times

So filing at SCOTUS will be another $300 Self-sanction for Robert. Add it to the list. Can't find at Cockle how much they charge to print, but clearly, Rev. Dr. Laity Esq will mess it up and need a lot of corrections. But surely he'll have his appendix in perfect shape.

How Much Time Does Cockle Legal Briefs Need To Print My Booklet Brief?
The biggest variable in a printing schedule is the length of the appendix, if any. That is why we ask you to send us your appendix documents right away. Without any obligation from you, we can review your appendix for completeness, prepare an estimate of costs, and discuss your proof and printing schedule. You can send us your brief much later in the schedule—often as late as 10 a.m. Central the workday before the due date.

And what distinguished discussion would be complete without commentary from The Putz?

Mario Apuzzo says:
Wednesday, March 31, 2021 at 10:23 AM
First, Kamala Harris is neither the president nor is she constitutionally eligible for that office, for she is not a natural born citizen. While she was born in the U.S., arguably while subject to its jurisdiction, making her only a “citizen” of the U.S. under the Fourteenth Amendment, she was not born to two U.S. citizen parents, an additional requirement to be an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Second, we should not be making light of her flippant attitude regarding serious world events.

[chancery]

So filing at SCOTUS will be another $300 Self-sanction for Robert. Add it to the list. Can't find at Cockle how much they charge to print, but clearly, Rev. Dr. Laity Esq will mess it up and need a lot of corrections. But surely he'll have his appendix in perfect shape.

A professional legal printer like Cockle will likely charge a couple of grand for preparing the petition, far more than the filing fee.

Here’s a mildly interesting account of what one bright but somewhat neurotic pro se litigant with basic desktop publishing skills went through to print the required booklets for a cert petition without using a professional legal printer, but with binding services from Kinko’s. His out-of-pocket cost was ~$800 for a job quoted by a printer at about $1,800.

http://www.aarongreenspan.com/writing/2 ... eme-court/

The litigant in question was a Harvard classmate of Zuckerberg, and, needless to say, the case involved the founding of Facebook. Greenspan v. Random House, 859 F. Supp. 2d 206 (D. Mass. 2012), aff’d, No. 12–1594, 2012 WL 5188792 (1st Cir. Oct. 16, 2012), cert. denied, 569 U.S. 942 (2013).

Edit -- A sample:

[T]he Supreme Court uses its desktop publishing and printing guidelines as a weapon against the American public. The mechanics of this weapon are detailed in an obscure rule that virtually no one has ever heard of, Supreme Court Rule 33.1. Rule 33.1 is quite long, and among attorneys who are members of the Supreme Court Bar, feared. It can make or break a case, and it has.

That's because what the Supreme Court wants from petitioners, and more than wants, requires of them, is something akin to a seventeen-leaf clover. Or a fire-breathing dragon with a single beefy arm, that's also half giraffe. Its major components certainly do not exist in nature—nor in any common retail store in the country, for that matter. It seems hard to believe, but if you are not in prison and you are not completely unable to pay the $300 docketing fee, you have no choice but to either shell out that $1,800 to $1,900 (though prices do vary), or undertake an epic quest to create this strange sacrificial offering so that the justices might notice the suffering you have come to the courts to resolve.

[Foggy]

Mario Apuzzo says:
Wednesday, March 31, 2021 at 10:23 AM
First, Kamala Harris is neither the president nor is she constitutionally eligible for that office, for she is not a natural born citizen.

Golly, I'm so far behind the times, I didn't even know she is claiming to be president. When the heck did that happen?

[pipistrelle]

https://reason.com/volokh/2020/04/15/sc ... rule-33-1/