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

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

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

#101

Post by Reality Check »

The ruling in Grinols was already affirmed in the same Ninth Circuit too.
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

#102

Post by Reality Check »

northland10 wrote: Sun Feb 06, 2022 5:18 pm :snippity:
The "answer to Miscellaneous petition" is titled "amended opening brief." I may upload it somewhere eventually but it is too large for here (132 pages).
If you could email it to me I can post it on my blog and and link it here. I will PM my email address to you.
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5386
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

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

#103

Post by bob »

Reality Check wrote: Tue Mar 08, 2022 7:47 am The ruling in Grinols was already affirmed in the same Ninth Circuit too.
:yeahthat:

The 9th has tilted more conservative since then, but even so, no judge is going to disagree with Grinols. And certainly not for this poorly argued and moot nonsense.

Regardless of the (too-much-inside-baseball) path this case leads, it is going to die in a terse ruling, and without the "benefit" of oral argument. The only real question is when.

And the boys will have learned nothing from the experience.
Image ImageImage
Jim
Posts: 799
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:46 pm

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

#104

Post by Jim »

bob wrote: Tue Mar 08, 2022 1:03 pm
And the boys will have learned nothing from the experience.
Maybe it's just me...but I really believe they've become experts! :thumbsup: :dance:
Hidden Content
This board requires you to be registered and logged-in to view hidden content.
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

#105

Post by northland10 »

bob wrote: Tue Mar 08, 2022 1:03 pm Regardless of the (too-much-inside-baseball) path this case leads, it is going to die in a terse ruling, and without the "benefit" of oral argument. The only real question is when.
I thought oral argument was the default in the 9th or, at minimum, they did it if one of the parties requested, which birthers always do.
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

#106

Post by bob »

I thought oral argument was the default in the 9th or, at minimum, they did it if one of the parties requested, which birthers always do.
If the case goes to an argument panel. It might not even get that far.

And the panel can always conclude oral argument is unwarranted, and order the case submitted on the briefs. Which is a common occurrence in 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

#107

Post by Reality Check »

I think that a response from VP Harris to the appeal was due on 3/28. Has anyone seen anything?
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

#108

Post by Reality Check »

I obtained a copy of the Harris answering brief:

19
Submitted (ECF) Answering Brief for review. Submitted by Appellee Kamala D. Harris. Date of service: 03/28/2022. [12406301] [21-56287] (Norris, Brett) [Entered: 03/28/2022 01:25 PM
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

#109

Post by Reality Check »

As you might expect the assistant USA argues the lower court dismissal was correct based on the political question doctrine and lack of standing. Of course Grinols v Obama and Drake v Obama are both cited as appeals denied in the Ninth Circuit on similar grounds..
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

#110

Post by Reality Check »

The Constitution Association, Inc. Rombach filed a reply brief on April 15. I bought it on PACER so we could all see the wonder of it.

25, Reply Brief for review. Submitted by Appellant George F.X. Rombach. Date of service: 04/15/2022

Grinols was wrongly decided, the political question doctrine does not apply, blah, blah.
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5386
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

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

#111

Post by bob »

Reality Check wrote: Wed Apr 20, 2022 2:32 pm The Constitution Association, Inc. filed a reply brief on April 15. I bought it on PACER so we could all see the wonder of it.

25, Reply Brief for review. Submitted by Appellant George F.X. Rombach. Date of service: 04/15/2022

Grinols was wrongly decided, the political question doctrine does not apply, blah, blah.
Thanks!

"For completeness," this is the reply of George Rombach (PhD, JD, CPA, BBQ, WTF*), and not the association's reply. But Rombach basically is the association (in the real world); it will be interesting to see if the association's lawyer bothers to reply. (Replies are almost always optional.)

I'm taking the under on the lawyer filing a reply; it is just bad money after bad at this point. And this case isn't going to get oral argument, so the lawyer's job effectively is over.


* Pat's joke.
Image ImageImage
W. Kevin Vicklund
Posts: 2131
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:26 pm

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

#112

Post by W. Kevin Vicklund »

bob wrote: Wed Apr 20, 2022 6:15 pm
Reality Check wrote: Wed Apr 20, 2022 2:32 pm The Constitution Association, Inc. filed a reply brief on April 15. I bought it on PACER so we could all see the wonder of it.

25, Reply Brief for review. Submitted by Appellant George F.X. Rombach. Date of service: 04/15/2022

Grinols was wrongly decided, the political question doctrine does not apply, blah, blah.
Thanks!

"For completeness," this is the reply of George Rombach (PhD, JD, CPA, BBQ, WTF*), and not the association's reply. But Rombach basically is the association (in the real world); it will be interesting to see if the association's lawyer bothers to reply. (Replies are almost always optional.)

I'm taking the under on the lawyer filing a reply; it is just bad money after bad at this point. And this case isn't going to get oral argument, so the lawyer's job effectively is over.


* Pat's joke.
Until the pet for cert to SCOTUS.
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5386
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

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

#113

Post by bob »

W. Kevin Vicklund wrote: Wed Apr 20, 2022 6:20 pmUntil the pet for cert to SCOTUS.
That, too, would be more bad money after bad. After the 9th nukes this case, my guess is Rombach will file his own cert. petition and the association will file nothing in SCOTUS. The result will be same, but with fewer self-sanctions.

(Gentle readers will recall Rombach basically ghost-wrote the association's opening brief.)

* * *

Rombach listed as a potential related appeal EIPC v. [SoSoCA], which was a Sore-losers of 2020 Greatest "Hits." :yawn:
Image ImageImage
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 & Appeal, Ninth Circuit

#114

Post by noblepa »

IANAL, but I scanned the document.

One thing I noticed is that they claim that VP Harris FALSELY asserted that she had not received the complaint. Isn't there a legal definition of proof of service? If it had been properly served, it should be relatively easy to show that she was served. OTOH, serving the president or vice president is a little different than serving you or me. Perhaps they didn't follow the procedures to serve the VP.

Also, looking at the names of some of those cases that they cite, I find it hard to believe that all of them have a bearing on the definition of Natural Born Citizen.

As to their assertion that the Constitution never gives Congress any say in the eligibility of candidates, I would argue that the whole process of certifying the election results, as played out on January 6, 2021, is defined by the Constitution and supporting legislation. The question of eligibility can not be separated from that process. I think that it has to be inferred that ineligibility (if it were real) would have to be one of the grounds on which Congress could rightly decline to certify the election.
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5386
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

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

#115

Post by bob »

noblepa wrote: Wed Apr 20, 2022 7:09 pmOne thing I noticed is that they claim that VP Harris FALSELY asserted that she had not received the complaint.
Why state a fact when you can mistate an opinion as a fact? :towel:
Isn't there a legal definition of proof of service? If it had been properly served, it should be relatively easy to show that she was served. OTOH, serving the president or vice president is a little different than serving you or me. Perhaps they didn't follow the procedures to serve the VP.
The boys literally just mailed a copy of the complaint to the White House. The DOJ said service on a federal employee requires more. The boy replied Harris was still a mere candidate when the case was filed, and that a federal employee and officer are different.

The judge punted and just dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Which was the correct call: If the court lacks jurisdiction to hear the merits, it also lacks jurisdiction to determine if service was proper.

Rombach's inclusion of this utterly pointless whinge will impress only Rombach; it will have the opposite effect on the poor shipping clerk who has to read this dreck.
Also, looking at the names of some of those cases that they cite, I find it hard to believe that all of them have a bearing on the definition of Natural Born Citizen.
Rombach wrote:Further, the Supreme Court has previously applied the rule of law in relation to the definition of ‘natural born Citizen’ (a child born to both parents who were citizens of the United States at the time the child was born in the United States) in at least five published cases. See The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814); Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 245 (1830); Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857); Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-168 (1875); and United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702 (1898).
This reads like Laity wrote it, but it is actually a decade-old birther trope on which no court has bit.

But, "for fun": the words "natural-born citizen" don't appear in The Venus; "natural-born citizen" appears only in a concurring opinion of Dred Scott (yaknow, the worst decision from SCOTUS). Wong Kim Ark is the backbone to every eligibility case that Obama won on the merits, so clearly that hasn't flown in the real world.

Nonetheless, no remaining birther will ever be convinced Rombach's statement is wrong.
As to their assertion that the Constitution never gives Congress any say in the eligibility of candidates, I would argue that the whole process of certifying the election results, as played out on January 6, 2021, is defined by the Constitution and supporting legislation. The question of eligibility can not be separated from that process. I think that it has to be inferred that ineligibility (if it were real) would have to be one of the grounds on which Congress could rightly decline to certify the election.
And Grinols says as much, which is why Rombach argues Grinols was wrongly decided. The 9th affirmed Grinols in an unpublished ruling, which very strong suggests the 9th agrees with Grinols. Which Rombach will soon enough learn.
Image ImageImage
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 & Appeal, Ninth Circuit

#116

Post by northland10 »

I forget exactly but I think they tried to serve the VP by mail but wanted it to be considered personal service to an individual (not as a government officer). Birthers think that the VP, or Obama previously are not really in their office so they must sue them as individuals.

Individuals must be served personally by an a process server or some individual over 18. Government officials may be served by mail sent to various government attorney offices. If they sent to her at the WH by mail, and they claimed she was sued as an individual only, she was not served properly. If they were serving her in her official capacity, they sent it to the wrong place. It is just that simple, I think in my IANAL brain.

I imagine there is probably a way to serve an officer on an individual basis by leaving it with somebody authorized in the office. Calling ahead and asking always helps.
bob wrote: Wed Apr 20, 2022 6:15 pm "For completeness," this is the reply of George Rombach (PhD, JD, CPA, BBQ, WTF*), and not the association's reply. But Rombach basically is the association (in the real world); it will be interesting to see if the association's lawyer bothers to reply. (Replies are almost always optional.)

I'm taking the under on the lawyer filing a reply; it is just bad money after bad at this point. And this case isn't going to get oral argument, so the lawyer's job effectively is over.
Reply was due 21 days after service of the answering brief, and the service was on 28 March. I think CA may be out of time which may be fine with their attorney. I suppose it could be in process and not on the docket yet.
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 & Appeal, Ninth Circuit

#117

Post by northland10 »

George wrote:As to their assertion that the Constitution never gives Congress any say in the eligibility of candidates, I would argue that the whole process of certifying the election results, as played out on January 6, 2021, is defined by the Constitution and supporting legislation. The question of eligibility can not be separated from that process. I think that it has to be inferred that ineligibility (if it were real) would have to be one of the grounds on which Congress could rightly decline to certify the election.
Even if Congress did have a say on eligibility, they confirmed Electoral College results without an objection to eligibility. If Congress has a say, only Congress can argue for that right but would first need a court to overrule their actual actions. Since Congress never actually exercised any say in eligibility, there is nothing for a court to rule on.

He is arguing a theoretical that, even if a court actually ruled on it, would mean nothing because Congress never brought up eligibility on Jan 6 or for Obama's elections. There is nothing for the courts to order.
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 & Appeal, Ninth Circuit

#118

Post by bob »

northland10 wrote: Wed Apr 20, 2022 7:43 pmEven if Congress did have a say on eligibility, they confirmed Electoral College results without an objection to eligibility. If Congress has a say, only Congress can argue for that right but would first need a court to overrule their actual actions. Since Congress never actually exercised any say in eligibility, there is nothing for a court to rule on.
And that dovetails with the ruling in Drake (which Rombach didn't cite): Harris now is the vice president; the only constitutionally prescribed method now to "challenge" her eligibility is via impeachment (or, in theooooory, quo warranto). Rombach's case is moot (too also).
Image ImageImage
User avatar
Frater I*I
Posts: 3210
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:52 am
Location: City of Dis, Seventh Circle of Hell
Occupation: Certificated A&P Mechanic
Verified: ✅Verified Devilish Hyena
Contact:

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

#119

Post by Frater I*I »

God damn, when will the courts final stick a stake in the heart of this bullshittery....
"He sewed his eyes shut because he is afraid to see, He tries to tell me what I put inside of me
He's got the answers to ease my curiosity, He dreamed a god up and called it Christianity"

Trent Reznor
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5386
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

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

#120

Post by bob »

Frater I*I wrote: Wed Apr 20, 2022 10:37 pm God damn, when will the courts final stick a stake in the heart of this bullshittery....
This is the problem with frivolous lawsuits (generally): It takes time (read: money) to dispatch them.

So, pick your poison: Kill them off quickly (and push more worthy cases down the pile) or let them zombie-like linger?
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 & Appeal, Ninth Circuit

#121

Post by Reality Check »

northland10 wrote: Wed Apr 20, 2022 7:33 pm I forget exactly but I think they tried to serve the VP by mail but wanted it to be considered personal service to an individual (not as a government officer). Birthers think that the VP, or Obama previously are not really in their office so they must sue them as individuals.

Individuals must be served personally by an a process server or some individual over 18. Government officials may be served by mail sent to various government attorney offices. If they sent to her at the WH by mail, and they claimed she was sued as an individual only, she was not served properly. If they were serving her in her official capacity, they sent it to the wrong place. It is just that simple, I think in my IANAL brain.

I imagine there is probably a way to serve an officer on an individual basis by leaving it with somebody authorized in the office. Calling ahead and asking always helps.
:snippity:
Reply was due 21 days after service of the answering brief, and the service was on 28 March. I think CA may be out of time which may be fine with their attorney. I suppose it could be in process and not on the docket yet.
Rombach tried to serve V. P. Harris by mailing a copy to the White House. He claims the VP is not a government employee so she does not fall under the rules for serving an officer of the federal government. Of course since the district court kicked out the case on jurisdiction it never ruled on that ridiculous argument.

Rombach ignored what the Ninth Circuit actually ruled in Grinols. The Ninth affirmed Grinols based on mootness. Since Obama had already been certified by Congress there was nothing the court could do to change that since it lacked the power to undo that. So no case or controversy that the court could rule upon still existed. Rombach has the same issue and the Ninth will dismiss for similar reasons.
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 & Appeal, Ninth Circuit

#122

Post by northland10 »

Reality Check wrote: Thu Apr 21, 2022 3:35 pm Rombach tried to serve V. P. Harris by mailing a copy to the White House. He claims the VP is not a government employee so she does not fall under the rules for serving an officer of the federal government. Of course since the district court kicked out the case on jurisdiction it never ruled on that ridiculous argument.
And his ridiculous argument ignores the rules on service, IIRC. If you are suing somebody personally, then it has to be personal service, not mailed. You get to mail it if you are serving a government official. Lawyers are free to correct me but I thought that was what is stated in the FRCP.
101010 :towel:
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 & Appeal, Ninth Circuit

#123

Post by noblepa »

bob wrote: Wed Apr 20, 2022 7:28 pmThe boys literally just mailed a copy of the complaint to the White House. The DOJ said service on a federal employee requires more. The boy replied Harris was still a mere candidate when the case was filed, and that a federal employee and officer are different.
If that is true, then, aside from the failure to follow proper procedure, they mailed it to the wrong address. As a candidate, or even as a Senator, she was not working in the WH until January 20, 2021.
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 & Appeal, Ninth Circuit

#124

Post by noblepa »

bob wrote: Wed Apr 20, 2022 7:28 pm But, "for fun": the words "natural-born citizen" don't appear in The Venus; "natural-born citizen" appears only in a concurring opinion of Dred Scott (yaknow, the worst decision from SCOTUS). Wong Kim Ark is the backbone to every eligibility case that Obama won on the merits, so clearly that hasn't flown in the real world.

Nonetheless, no remaining birther will ever be convinced Rombach's statement is wrong.

And, while Minor does use the phrase "Natural Born Citizen", it is only as what even this IANAL can recognize as dicta. It and the two-parent requirement is mentioned only to point out that it is irrelevant to the case. Birthers love to claim that the case supports the two-parent requirement, when, in fact, the ruling says no such thing.
User avatar
Dr. Caligari
Posts: 183
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:39 am
Location: Irvine, CA
Occupation: retired lawyer

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

#125

Post by Dr. Caligari »

And his ridiculous argument ignores the rules on service, IIRC. If you are suing somebody personally, then it has to be personal service, not mailed. You get to mail it if you are serving a government official. Lawyers are free to correct me but I thought that was what is stated in the FRCP.
It's a bit more complicated than that. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e)(1) lets you, as one permitted method of service, follow "state law for serving a summons in an action brought in courts of ... the state where the district court is located or where service is made." California state court, IIRC, permits service on an out-of-state defendant by certified mail. So he may not have been as fractally wrong on that issue as he was on others.
J.D., Miskatonic University School of Law
Post Reply

Return to “Law and Lawsuits”