Fogbow

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.

Makes sense, why lose $1,000 to you when he can grift $10,000 from the idiots?

Jim wrote: ↑Thu May 13, 2021 12:48 pm

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.

Makes sense, why lose $1,000 to you when he can grift $10,000 from the idiots?

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.)

bob wrote: ↑Thu May 13, 2021 12:18 pm P&E: comment:

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.

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.

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).

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/

bob wrote: ↑Thu May 13, 2021 12:59 pm
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.)

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.

Please excuse my confusion between grifters and attention-seekers.

Jim wrote: ↑Thu May 13, 2021 2:44 pm Please excuse my confusion between grifters and attention-seekers.

Oh he is definitely an attention seeker.

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...

Ummm...who is Beth Brinkman and why is she interested in birfers?

Brinkmann is Harris' attorney at Covington & Burling

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

Kerchner started that thread.

And most of the discussion there is about ... McCain and Cruz. Neither of whom (unlike Obama and Harris) were born in the United States.

Anybody want to help Rev Dr Laity Esq with an answer to his question?

I think Booth and Laity both baned my Facebook sock.

She's being "sued in the U.S. Supreme Court"?

Who knew?

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"

P&E comment:

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.

Dr. Laity Esquire has been filing complaints ("in the federal sector") his entire adult life.

Bonus: Open Letter to Justice Clarence Thomas (about Laity's petition; the "letter" is unsigned but by DeMaio).

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.

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!

realist wrote: ↑Fri May 21, 2021 9:05 am She's being "sued in the U.S. Supreme Court"?

Who knew?

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.

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)).

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.

bob wrote: ↑Sun May 30, 2021 1:28 pm

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)).

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.

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.

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.

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.

Exactly!

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.