Spring forward.
To delete this message, click the X at top right.

Constitution Association, Inc v Kamala Devi Harris, SD California & Appeal, Ninth Circuit

Post Reply
User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 2177
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:46 pm
Verified: ✅ Curmudgeon
Contact:

Constitution Association, Inc v Kamala Devi Harris, SD California & Appeal, Ninth Circuit

#1

Post by Reality Check »

We have been discussing this case over on the Laity thread but I figured it deserved its own topic since it is still technically alive. All the case documents are available at Court Listener.

I also have a post on it at the RC Radio blog.
User avatar
Luke
Posts: 5587
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:21 pm
Location: @orly_licious With Pete Buttigieg and the other "open and defiant homosexuals" --Bryan Fischer AFA

Re: Constitution Association, Inc v Kamala Devi Harris, SD California

#2

Post by Luke »

Great article and nice photo of George Rombach. Will they go back for more? Didn't even see photos posted from their annual dinner; the marks seem to have moved on to audits.

Realist and I are still kinda panicked, they have their 30 days and Laity has been so quiet about "Big 'Plan B'" which means he must be over the target.


Image
Lt Root Beer of the Mighty 699th. Fogbow 💙s titular Mama June in Fogbow's Favourite Show™ Mama June: From Not To Hot! Fogbow's Theme Song™ Edith Massey's "I Got The Evidence!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5jDHZd0JAg
User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 2177
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:46 pm
Verified: ✅ Curmudgeon
Contact:

Re: Constitution Association, Inc v Kamala Devi Harris, SD California

#3

Post by Reality Check »

Thanks. The dismissal without prejudice is actually quite ridiculous. Judge Robinson (a Trump appointee) listed a number of reasons with citations why their case is hopeless yet allowed them a second bite at the apple. Robinson also ignored ex parte motions by the US claiming that the plaintiffs never properly served the Vice President. He briefly mentioned that the default was issued by his clerk but never explained if it meant anything, Since the complaint was dismissed one could assume the default was moot. Maybe one of the attorneys might comment on that.

I assume that the plaintiffs will file an amended complaint and will once again try to serve Harris as if she was not a government employee (which they claimed in a replay to the US) and will once again fail to effect service.
User avatar
northland10
Posts: 5598
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:47 pm
Location: Northeast Illinois
Occupation: Organist/Choir Director/Fundraising Data Analyst
Verified: ✅ I'm me.

Re: Constitution Association, Inc v Kamala Devi Harris, SD California

#4

Post by northland10 »

I think this one has been discussed in the Laity thread, the birther dregs thread, and the birther remainder thread. I have left Bob in charge of letting somebody know to go to Pacer and get the doc. Somebody is slacking lately.
101010 :towel:
User avatar
northland10
Posts: 5598
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:47 pm
Location: Northeast Illinois
Occupation: Organist/Choir Director/Fundraising Data Analyst
Verified: ✅ I'm me.

Re: Constitution Association, Inc v Kamala Devi Harris, SD California

#5

Post by northland10 »

My impression on the without prejudice was that, while realizing that it was very likely impossible to remedy the flaws, the judge felt the courts should error on the lenient side. Assuming they screw up service again, it won't really cause any time losses to boot it again. I somehow recall a great deal of the dismissals of the past were without prejudice. Most get the point that they have to actually fix the errors, except for folks like Klayman.

As for ignoring the service issue, he could. This ruling was sua sponte, on the court's own accord. The complaint was so lacking that the court needed no MTD to explain that the court lacked jurisdiction (which, IIRC as an IANAL, the court can rule on without waiting for a motion).

Even if the defendants were held in default, the ruling would have been the same. Default does not mean you win, it means the defendants cannot argue their side. In this case, no defendant argument is needed because the law is clear and that comes first.

The thing is with birther suits, I remember so many of them demanding jury trials but there would be nothing for a jury trial to decide. They decide the facts of the case, and there is no dispute on the facts. Both sides agree that Harris was born in the United States to parents who were not at the time citizens of the United States. Whether that makes them NBC is not a matter of facts for the jury but a matter of law for the judge. Granted, they rarely get that far as they fail way before that.
101010 :towel:
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5386
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

Re: Constitution Association, Inc v Kamala Devi Harris, SD California

#6

Post by bob »


TL;DRW, but I'm assuming Gibbs agrees with Dr. Laity Esquire. :roll:
Image ImageImage
User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 5830
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:25 pm

Re: Constitution Association, Inc v Kamala Devi Harris, SD California

#7

Post by Suranis »

That reminds me of when some Republicans were arguing they could impeach Hillary Clinton before she was even elected.
Hic sunt dracones
User avatar
northland10
Posts: 5598
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:47 pm
Location: Northeast Illinois
Occupation: Organist/Choir Director/Fundraising Data Analyst
Verified: ✅ I'm me.

Re: Constitution Association, Inc v Kamala Devi Harris, SD California

#8

Post by northland10 »

They have been screaming to "lock her up" even before she was indicted and even after 4 years of Trump, she still remains unindicted unlike some in Trump's grand.

They love the Constitution when it's convenient.
101010 :towel:
User avatar
Maybenaut
Posts: 2579
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:07 am
Location: Maybelot
Verified: ✅✅

Re: Constitution Association, Inc v Kamala Devi Harris, SD California

#9

Post by Maybenaut »

bob wrote: Mon Oct 04, 2021 9:58 pm
TL;DRW, but I'm assuming Gibbs agrees with Dr. Laity Esquire. :roll:
I wonder… does he mention Articles 2 and 3 of the UCMJ? They matter. Article 2 spells out who is subject to the UCMJ, and Article 3 discusses court-martial jurisdiction. :think:
"Hey! We left this England place because it was bogus, and if we don't get some cool rules ourselves, pronto, we'll just be bogus too!" -- Thomas Jefferson
User avatar
northland10
Posts: 5598
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:47 pm
Location: Northeast Illinois
Occupation: Organist/Choir Director/Fundraising Data Analyst
Verified: ✅ I'm me.

Re: Constitution Association, Inc v Kamala Devi Harris, SD California

#10

Post by northland10 »

TL:DW but my experience with folks like Laity and Gibbs is that what the UCMJ or whatever law says is of little importance to their claim. You mention things like the specific laws involved to Laity and he tells you your wrong without any citation, changes the subject, or runs away to come back later as if nothing was said before.
101010 :towel:
User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 2177
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:46 pm
Verified: ✅ Curmudgeon
Contact:

Re: Constitution Association, Inc v Kamala Devi Harris, SD California

#11

Post by Reality Check »

I watched it. Gibbs actually says no.The president is not subject to the UCMJ and cannot be tried in criminal court. Robert Laity needs to edumacate poor Doug.
User avatar
noblepa
Posts: 2403
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 2:55 pm
Location: Bay Village, Ohio
Occupation: Retired IT Nerd

Re: Constitution Association, Inc v Kamala Devi Harris, SD California

#12

Post by noblepa »

northland10 wrote: Tue Oct 05, 2021 8:03 am They have been screaming to "lock her up" even before she was indicted and even after 4 years of Trump, she still remains unindicted unlike some in Trump's grand.

They love the Constitution when it's convenient.
They love the Constitution, but they don't understand it. Not. A. Clue.
User avatar
northland10
Posts: 5598
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:47 pm
Location: Northeast Illinois
Occupation: Organist/Choir Director/Fundraising Data Analyst
Verified: ✅ I'm me.

Re: Constitution Association, Inc v Kamala Devi Harris, SD California

#13

Post by northland10 »

The dismissal order was filed on 28 September with leave to file an amended complaint no later than 30 days from the filing of the order. By my count, that means last Thursday, 28 October, was the deadline. There is nothing new on the docket so either the court is scanning some pile of papers (not sure if they were inartfully collated and defectively stapled) or, it's dead Jim.
101010 :towel:
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5386
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

Re: Constitution Association, Inc v Kamala Devi Harris, SD California

#14

Post by bob »

northland10 wrote: Mon Nov 01, 2021 3:44 pm The dismissal order was filed on 28 September with leave to file an amended complaint no later than 30 days from the filing of the order. By my count, that means last Thursday, 28 October, was the deadline. There is nothing new on the docket so either the court is scanning some pile of papers (not sure if they were inartfully collated and defectively stapled) or, it's dead Jim.
Yeah; I've been waiting as well.

My WAG is the boys gave up, and now we're just waiting for the shipping clerk to enter the final dismissal order. :waiting:

In theory, they don't have to file an amended complaint: they could just take their final dismissal and then appeal that to the 9th.
Image ImageImage
User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 2177
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:46 pm
Verified: ✅ Curmudgeon
Contact:

Re: Constitution Association, Inc v Kamala Devi Harris, SD California

#15

Post by Reality Check »

bob wrote: Mon Nov 01, 2021 4:05 pm :snippity:
Yeah; I've been waiting as well.

My WAG is the boys gave up, and now we're just waiting for the shipping clerk to enter the final dismissal order. :waiting:

In theory, they don't have to file an amended complaint: they could just take their final dismissal and then appeal that to the 9th.
Me three. I just checked the docket this morning and there was nothing new. There hasn't been an update on the CA's website in forever. I think they got their 15 minutes of fame out of this one and are moving on.

I would not be surprised if the judge waits an additional 30 days before closing the case.
User avatar
Luke
Posts: 5587
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:21 pm
Location: @orly_licious With Pete Buttigieg and the other "open and defiant homosexuals" --Bryan Fischer AFA

Re: Constitution Association, Inc v Kamala Devi Harris, SD California

#16

Post by Luke »

No way! They are secretly working with Rev Dr Laity Esq on "Big 'Plan B'" and will dazzle the court with an entirely new filing that is guaranteed to succeed! After their massively successful annual dinner, they're unstoppable. Laity is back with his dear friend the state judge going line by line through the complaint so it's perfection. Victory will be theirs!!*





* Or it'll just be trashed in a month, continuing the 100% FAIL rate of birfers.
Lt Root Beer of the Mighty 699th. Fogbow 💙s titular Mama June in Fogbow's Favourite Show™ Mama June: From Not To Hot! Fogbow's Theme Song™ Edith Massey's "I Got The Evidence!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5jDHZd0JAg
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5386
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

Re: Constitution Association, Inc v Kamala Devi Harris, SD California

#17

Post by bob »

Judgment entered today. Donezo.

But there's still time to file a notice of appeal. So not truly dead just yet.
Image ImageImage
User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 2177
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:46 pm
Verified: ✅ Curmudgeon
Contact:

Re: Constitution Association, Inc v Kamala Devi Harris, SD California

#18

Post by Reality Check »

bob wrote: Fri Nov 05, 2021 2:33 pm Judgment entered today. Donezo.

But there's still time to file a notice of appeal. So not truly dead just yet.
Filed under tossing out the garbage before the weekend.

What happened to the Birther spirit of filing motion after motion for reconsideration? Laity must have a sad.

If this is the best they could do with a Trump appointee then they would have less than zero chance on appeal to the 9th Circuit.
Jim
Posts: 799
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:46 pm

Re: Constitution Association, Inc v Kamala Devi Harris, SD California

#19

Post by Jim »

northland10 wrote: Mon Nov 01, 2021 3:44 pm, it's dead Jim.
I'd say RIP, but we know old birther nonsense doesn't die, it just moves on to its next victim.
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5386
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

Re: Constitution Association, Inc v Kamala Devi Harris, SD California

#20

Post by bob »

Reality Check wrote: Fri Nov 05, 2021 2:53 pmWhat happened to the Birther spirit of filing motion after motion for reconsideration? Laity must have a sad.
The boys were full of bluster at their presser, on the various blog shows, their own YouTube channel, etc.

I'm sure they'll use this time for self-reflection. :roll:
Image ImageImage
User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 2177
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:46 pm
Verified: ✅ Curmudgeon
Contact:

Re: Constitution Association, Inc v Kamala Devi Harris, SD California

#21

Post by Reality Check »

gov.uscourts.casd.694824.19.0.pdf
(136.93 KiB) Downloaded 58 times
Dismissed w/o prejudice again so I assume they could refile the mess if they wished to cough up the filing fee?
Jim
Posts: 799
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:46 pm

Re: Constitution Association, Inc v Kamala Devi Harris, SD California

#22

Post by Jim »

Reality Check wrote: Fri Nov 05, 2021 3:01 pm gov.uscourts.casd.694824.19.0.pdfDismissed w/o prejudice again so I assume they could refile the mess if they wished to cough up the filing fee?
Maybe we could hook them up with Lindell and they can all just march into SCOTUS and make their cases. :rotflmao:
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5386
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

Re: Constitution Association, Inc v Kamala Devi Harris, SD California

#23

Post by bob »

Reality Check wrote: Fri Nov 05, 2021 3:01 pmDismissed w/o prejudice again so I assume they could refile the mess if they wished to cough up the filing fee?
Yeah. Self-sanctions! :dance:

Or they could appeal. Self-sanctions! :dance:
Image ImageImage
User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 2177
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:46 pm
Verified: ✅ Curmudgeon
Contact:

Re: Constitution Association, Inc v Kamala Devi Harris, SD California

#24

Post by Reality Check »

If they refiled the case would it be assigned to Judge Robinson again or be randomly assigned?
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5386
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

Re: Constitution Association, Inc v Kamala Devi Harris, SD California

#25

Post by bob »

Reality Check wrote: Fri Nov 05, 2021 3:53 pm If they refiled the case would it be assigned to Judge Robinson again or be randomly assigned?
I presume the shipping clerk would ... ship it to the same judge.
Image ImageImage
Post Reply

Return to “Law and Lawsuits”