Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris

[realist]

@RobertCLaity
Account suspended
Twitter suspends accounts which violate the Twitter Rules. Learn more

[W. Kevin Vicklund]

@RobertCLaity
Account suspended
Twitter suspends accounts which violate the Twitter Rules. Learn more

The 699th works quickly!

[Dr. Ken]

Isn't this like his second suspension? I could have sworn he blocked me on another account

[northland10]

His Twitter account was baned last year or earlier (he was going by Nationalist Robert Laity there though I don't remember his actual Twitter handle was). I don't know if the one above was a new one.

His FB account is still up.

[notorial dissent]

Continuing to prove too, also, that his learning curve remains flat.

[bob]

Not about Harris per se, but: P&E comment:

Crooked Judges rule in a criminal’s favor. Ted Cruz is NOT a “Natural Born Citizen” of the United States. An NBC is “one born IN the United States to parents who are BOTH U.S. Citizens themselves. Minor v. Happersett, USSCt. (1874), Unanimous.

(Because she's lonely and wants the clicks, Rondeau published an anti-Cruz letter to the editor. )

[noblepa]

Not about Harris per se, but: P&E comment:

Crooked Judges rule in a criminal’s favor. Ted Cruz is NOT a “Natural Born Citizen” of the United States. An NBC is “one born IN the United States to parents who are BOTH U.S. Citizens themselves. Minor v. Happersett, USSCt. (1874), Unanimous.

(Because she's lonely and wants the clicks, Rondeau published an anti-Cruz letter to the editor. )

Has Laity even read Minor? The ruling says no such thing.

It mentions "Natural Born Citizen" only in passing. The question was whether or not suffrage was a right of citizenship, guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.

The question is presented in this case, whether, since the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, a woman, who is a citizen of the United States and of the State of Missouri, is a voter in that State, notwithstanding the provision of the constitution and laws of the State, which confine the right of suffrage to men alone.

The closest that it comes to addressing NBC status and the two-citizen rule is:

. . . it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.

All that that means is that, in the case of Virginia Minor, there was no question as to whether she was a citizen.

[bob]

Has Laity even read Minor?

Read?, yes; understood: no.

"Minor says only those born in the United States to two U.S. citizen parents are natural-born citizens" has been a birther trope since Donofrio birthed it and Apuzzo (RIP*) trumpeted in 2008.

They don't care that it has been explicitly rejected by courts, because disagreeing judges are criminals.


* Rest in pudding? Rest in piss? Because Apuzzo certain didn't earn peace (or power).

[Luke]

Thank you, Bob!

Realist and I panicked all through the holidays worried that Rev Dr. Laity Esq's "Big 'PLAN B'" was about to take off. Folks rightfully suggested we have our GO BAGS ready and we did. Has Dr. Laity filed any new lawsuits or gotten DC to respond to his DEMANDS?

Or do we get a little break since Dr. Laity is laser-focused on Felito right now? I fear we're not out of the woods yet. Laity's mind is like a steel trap, here's what he posted at 5am 12/31.

Laity NY.JPG (52.72 KiB) Viewed 1283 times

[Ben-Prime]

. . . it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.

All that that means is that, in the case of Virginia Minor, there was no question as to whether she was a citizen.

Just like "it has never been doubted that all dishwashers are appliances" would preclude refrigerators from being classified the same, I think. Oh, wait, it doesn't, because nobody but the word "only" in there.

When it comes down to it, Laity's problem can be distilled to "Once upon a time, someone decided in their head to place a phantom 'only' in a single sentence in a court decision which changes the meaning of the sentence from inclusive to exclusive, and then ignored everything else in the very same court decision which expressly stated that this decision was not adjudicating the inclusivity vs exclusivity under consideration."

[Sam the Centipede]

When it comes down to it, Laity's problem can be distilled to [...]

Laity's real problem is that he reads everything through race-colored spectacles.

[roadscholar]

Also, his missive’s title is flawed. Obama and the rest are not imposters. One dictionary defines it as “a person who pretends to be someone else in order to deceive others, especially for fraudulent gain.” They never pretended to be someone else.

In fact, that would be a better title: Pretenders in the Oval Office. Or usurpers. But not imposters; they are all the people they claimed to be.

[bob]

"For completeness," P&E comments:

[The DNC and RNC] are keeping ME busy [because they aren't challenging Cruz's eligibility].

* * *

An NBC is “one born IN the US to parents who are BOTH US citizens themselves”. Cruz is a criminal. He knows he is ineligible. He is committing Fraud.

* * *

All Natural Born Citizens are citizens but NOT all Citizens are Natural Born Citizens.

* * *

You are not free to ignore the over (7) US Supreme Court precedents that support MY claim. Cruz IS a criminal fraud.

* * *

You STILL need instruction on what an NBC is. You get an “F-“. Go back and study. You fail.

[notorial dissent]

When it comes down to it, Laity's problem can be distilled to [...]

Laity's real problem is that he reads everything through race-colored spectacles.

Too, also, he's an illiterate racist twit

[Gregg]

Also, his missive’s title is flawed. Obama and the rest are not imposters. One dictionary defines it as “a person who pretends to be someone else in order to deceive others, especially for fraudulent gain.” They never pretended to be someone else.

In fact, that would be a better title: Pretenders in the Oval Office. Or usurpers. But not imposters; they are all the people they claimed to be.

Ha! They want to make you believe that, anyway.

[northland10]

When it comes down to it, Laity's problem can be distilled to [...]

Laity's real problem is that he reads everything through race-colored spectacles.

Too, also, he's an illiterate racist twit

I have played with him a few times online. Explaining things to rock is far more productive. He ignores anything that does not fit into his already decided outcome. He comes off with the same "I know everything so listen to nobody" attitude on the P&E (Pest and eFail for PatGund) as well, and that is to those who are supportive.

He tells others. He listens to nobody.

[Sam the Centipede]

Very true, N10! The only good reasons for engaging with the uber-birthers are the noble one of going it persuades uncommitted readers of the falsity of the birhers' lies, or the more practical one of having a laugh by teasing them.

I recall gently asking on a blog the late and unlamented Mario Apuzzo to please indicate legal scholars or other jurists who support or agree with his notion of citizenship and he very rapidly went off the rails, screeching that I hadn't provided any evidence against his views, so hurrah! another victory to Apuzzo!

Walls of stupidity are difficult to knock down when they are built on foundations of racism and mortared with hatred.

[bob]

P&E comment:

Not only has the US Supreme Court NOT rejected “that definition” they are the ones who DEFINED IT as “One born in the U.S. to parents who are both U.S. Citizens themselves”. Cruz is a fraud. Had I had the requisite “Standing” in the cases that I filed, Obama, Biden, Pelosi and Harris would all be prosecuted for treason against the United States. They are all complicit with usurpation of the Presidency and Vice-Presidency, by fraud, during time of war. A crime punishable by the death penalty if convicted.

Among Laity's shortcomings is writing coherently, but he implies here that he knew he lacked standing when he filed his failsuit against Harris. Which is the opposite of his usual line about all courts being (fraudulently, criminally, and treasonously) wrong.

[pipistrelle]

P&E comment:

Not only has the US Supreme Court NOT rejected “that definition” they are the ones who DEFINED IT as “One born in the U.S. to parents who are both U.S. Citizens themselves”. Cruz is a fraud. Had I had the requisite “Standing” in the cases that I filed, Obama, Biden, Pelosi and Harris would all be prosecuted for treason against the United States. They are all complicit with usurpation of the Presidency and Vice-Presidency, by fraud, during time of war. A crime punishable by the death penalty if convicted.

Among Laity's shortcomings is writing coherently, but he implies here that he knew he lacked standing when he filed his failsuit against Harris. Which is the opposite of his usual line about all courts being (fraudulently, criminally, and treasonously) wrong.

“Standing” is in scare quotes so it’s not a real thing.

[bob]

“Standing” is in scare quotes so it’s not a real thing.

"Standing" is just legal mumbo-jumbo for "judges are too scared of the truth!"

[Luke]

Seems like Rev Dr Laity Esq remembers his Secret Service visit and wobbles on the line of threatening execution. He's inching towards it though and Fogbow members will not hesitate to report his threats to the Secret Service again. As Bob says, "I'm not saying it was The Fogbow but..."

For those not familiar with Minor, this is a nice overview: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/88/162. This was a SUFFRAGE case, it was about whether Virginia Minor was able to vote.

MINOR v. HAPPERSETT.
Supreme Court
88 U.S. 162
22 L.Ed. 627
21 Wall. 162

MINOR v. HAPPERSETT.
October Term, 1874

ERROR to the Supreme Court of Missouri; the case being thus:

The fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States, in its first section, thus ordains:1

'All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law, which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction, the equal protection of the laws.'

And the constitution of the State of Missouri2 thus ordains:

'Every male citizen of the United States shall be entitled to vote.'

Under a statute of the State all persons wishing to vote at any election, must previously have been registered in the manner pointed out by the statute, this being a condition precedent to the exercise of the elective franchise.

In this state of things, on the 15th of October, 1872 (one of the days fixed by law for the registration of voters), Mrs. Virginia Minor, a native born, free, white citizen of the United States, and of the State of Missouri, over the age of twenty-one years, wishing to vote for electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, and for a representative in Congress, and for other officers, at the general election held in November, 1872, applied to one Happersett, the registrar of voters, to register her as a lawful voter, which he refused to do, assigning for cause that she was not a 'male citizen of the United States,' but a woman. She thereupon sued him in one of the inferior State courts of Missouri, for wilfully refusing to place her name upon the list of registered voters, by which refusal she was deprived of her right to vote.

The registrar demurred, and the court in which the suit was brought sustained the demurrer, and gave judgment in his favor; a judgment which the Supreme Court affirmed. Mrs. Minor now brought the case here on error.

In other words, Rev Dr Laity Esq (and his birfer pals) miss the point of the case. Wonder if Laity agreed with Missouri and SCOTUS then that women shouldn't be able to vote? Because that's what happened.

Being unanimously of the opinion that the Constitution of the United States does not confer the right of suffrage upon any one, and that the constitutions and laws of the several States which commit that important trust to men alone are not necessarily void, we AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT.

It wasn't until it was passed by Congress June 4, 1919, and ratified on August 18, 1920, the 19th amendment granted women the right to vote.

PS: Realist has been frantically texting since Laity's comment, how much panicking should we be doing? His heart is set on FELITO 2024!

[Suranis]

[bob]

The Cruz "editorial" fell off the P&E's landing page, but Laity isn't done:

Cruz is not eligible to be President or VP. My efforts are not frivolous. The DC Circuit TRIED that with me already. Threatened to file sanctions against me for filing a so called “Frivolous” case. THEY had to back down. The matter is not frivolous. The Quo Warranto case I filed against Harris was dismissed on claimed “Lack of Standing” and not because of any frivolity of the case. This is not a “hobby”. This is a serious effort to defend our American Republic.

* * *

The five plus SCOTUS decisions defining NBC as “one born in the U.S. to parents who are both U.S. Citizens themselves” are not going to just disappear.

* * *

Ineligible candidate should be precluded from running AT ALL. In fact NY State Election Law states this very prohibition. The NY State Board of Elections can’t even get the Article II requirement straight. I told them (13) years ago that the requirement is that one be a “Natural Born Citizen” yet NY State continues to misstate the requirement to be President and VP as being “Born a citizen”. These two different terms of art are NOT tantamount.

* * *

[Cruz won his eligibility challenges o]nly because of corrupt malfeasant Judges.

Laity's now rewriting his smackdowns.

Confidential to "Fred": Rondeau approved your comment.

[notorial dissent]

Laity does like to retcon his failures, since in the real universe that is indeed all he has to show for his wasted life.

[realist]

Laity wrote:
Cruz is not eligible to be President or VP. My efforts are not frivolous. The DC Circuit TRIED that with me already. Threatened to file sanctions against me for filing a so called “Frivolous” case. THEY had to back down.

That’s right, folks. The DC Circuit HAD to back down because Laity. What a dipshiy.