Birther Robert Laity files first action against Kamala Harris questioning eligibility

Robert C . Laity

Case dismissed, see below.

Robert Laity from Tonawanda, NY filed a complaint against Joe Biden’s running mate Kamala Harris in which he claims she is not eligible to serve because she is not a natural born citizen. I have written about Mr. Laity before. He had the last active Birther case in the 2016 election cycle. It was a ballot challenge filed against Ted Cruz in New York.

Laity filed his complaint in the US District Court for the District of Columbia. It was docketed on September 4th and assigned to Judge Emmet Sullivan. You might have read about Judge Sullivan in the news lately. He was the Judge in the Michael Flynn perjury case and is taking on the DoJ’s attempt to drop the case against Flynn even though he pleaded guilty twice.

Laity repeats the same debunked points that “two parent citizen” Birthers have espoused since Barack Obama was elected President in 2008. I discussed all of these in my article published on this blog last year when Birthers first noticed Kamala Harris was a contender for the Democratic presidential nomination titled, For the thousandth time: Anyone born on US soil under the jurisdiction of the United States is a natural born citizen, period.

There are other problems with this filing. First, Laity cites no statute in his petition. He claims he is filing whatever this is under his “First Amendment right to petition the government for a redress of grievances”. Does anyone wish to guess how far that will go with this court?

The title of Laity’s complaint is United States, ex rel, Robert C. Laity v US Senator Kamala Devi Harris. This implies Laity is filing a qui tam action under the federal False Claims Act. This is similar to the tactic that Phil Berg tried against Barack Obama. Under the False Claims Act. The False Claims Act was passed during the Civil War to allow whistle-blowers to report fraud being perpetrated on the government and be rewarded with a portion of the damages recovered by the government if fraud is eventually found to have occurred. The term “whistle-blower” was not in use at the time and instead the person reporting the fraud was called a “relator” in the law.

Laity does not seek damages in his action as Phil Berg did. Berg filed his qui tam action to attempt to recover a portion of President Obama’s salary as President. His case was of course dismissed. Instead Laity is asking for the court to issue an injunction prohibiting Kamala Harris from occupying the office of Vice President this election cycle and be permanently enjoined from ever occupying the office.

Federal courts may issue injunctive relief in two forms, a temporary restraining order (TRO), or a preliminary injunction. However, the plaintiff seeking such relief must satisfy a four factor test in either case:

  1. that he or she is likely to succeed on the merits of his claims;
  2. that he or she is likely to suffer irreparable harm without preliminary relief;
  3. the balance of equities between the parties support an injunction; and
  4. the injunction is in the public interest.

Laity meets none of the four requirements for an injunction. He must meet all four. Laity’s complaint fails to address any of these requirements.

The bottom line is that Laity’s complaint is either premature as a quo warranto action or is a request for a TRO without justifications and will be dismissed even if he follows the rules for service and other rules to get that far. The case will fail as has every other case Laity and every other Birther has filed.

Updated 10/27/2020:

Yesterday Attorney Benjamin J. Razi of the law firm Covington & Burlington, LLP, filed a motion to dismiss Laity’s lawsuit on behalf of defendant Kamala Harris. Thanks to commenter “tbfreeman” for posting a link to the Defendant’s Memorandum of Law in Support of the Motion to Dismiss. Here it is

The memorandum is well written and cites several Obama era Birther cases as precedents including Kerchner v Obama, Berg v Obama, Hollander v McCain, Tisdale v Obama, and Ankeny v. Governor of State of Ind.

Mr. Razi also cites Wong Kim Ark:

The seminal case is Wong Kim Ark. There, the Supreme Court addressed whether the U.S.-born child of Chinese parents was entitled to birthright citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, which provides that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States . . . .” United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 653 (1898).3 The Court answered affirmatively, explaining that, subject to exceptions inapplicable to Senator Harris, “[t]he fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens . . . .” Id. at 693 (emphasis added). The Court held that “[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization,” regardless of the person’s parents’ citizenship or immigration status. Id. at 704.

The memorandum also addresses Laity’s misreading of Minor v Happersett:

Laity’s citation to Minor v. Happersett is inapposite. That decision, handed down 25 years before Wong Kim Ark, stated in dictum that it was unsettled whether the U.S.-born children of foreign parents are natural born citizens. 88 U.S. 162, 167 (1874). The Court definitively answered that question in Wong Kim Ark; and it reaffirmed its holding in Plyler and Rios-Pineda. Because Laity’s Complaint acknowledges that Senator Harris was born in the United States (of parents who were neither foreign diplomats nor enemy soldiers), and because that is all that is required to be a “natural born citizen,” Laity’s Complaint fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted and should be dismissed.

What a wonderful and appropriate use of the word “inapposite”! Finally Harris’ attorney asks the court to dismiss the case with prejudice:

Dismissal should be with prejudice, which is warranted “when a trial court ‘determines that the allegation of other facts consistent with the challenged pleading could not possibly cure the deficiency.’” Firestone v. Firestone, 76 F.3d 1205, 1209 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (quoting Jarrell v. United States Postal Serv., 753 F.2d 1088, 1091 (D.C. Cir. 1985)). That is the case here. There are no other allegations Laity could add to save his claim. The Complaint acknowledges that Senator Harris was born in the United States and, as discussed above, nothing further is required to be a “natural born citizen.” The Court should not permit this frivolous case to proceed any further. See Tilsdale, 2012 WL 7856823, at *1 (dismissing claim that Barack Obama was ineligible for presidency with prejudice because “allowing leave to refile would yield the same result, given the underlying premise of [plaintiff’s] claim”).

I predict this request will be fulfilled fairly quickly.

Updated 11/6/2020:

Two additional documents were filed this week. Laity filed his own “Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss”. Laity finally gets around to citing some actual cases, there are citations of Minor v Happersett and the Venus of course. It’s 12 pages. He also tries to pull a fast one and quote from the 1797 translation of de Vattel and then says Vattel was translated to English in 1760. While that’s technically correct the 1760 version never used the term natural born citizen. The translation available in 1760 left the French term indigenes untranslated.

Here is Laity’s motion, which was docketed on 11/2:

The attorney for Senator Harris filed a quick reply only three pages long on 11/5:

Updated 11/11/2020:

Laity’s case was dismissed due to lack of standing:

This entry was posted in Birther Cases, Birthers, Natural Born Citizenship and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

140 Responses to Birther Robert Laity files first action against Kamala Harris questioning eligibility

  1. I updated the the article for accuracy and to reflect that Laity is requesting a TRO or preliminary injection although he does not say that in his complaint. Laity’s action is a perfect example of why the courts are not there to indulge in satisfying one’s personal wishes. Laity wrongly thinks Harris is not eligible and wants to disenfranchise millions of voters based on his ignorance.

  2. Robert Laity is from Tonawanda, NY. Many years ago I had occasion to visit Tonawanda on business. I found it to be a really depressing place. There were relics of industrial plants that had closed all over the place. It also had the largest garbage pile I had ever seen. On the plus side Ted’s Hot Dogs were the best I have ever had, there was a bar on River Road that had very good Buffalo wings, and you can bypass Tonawanda and go to Niagara Falls.

  3. Robert Laity says:

    Harris is NOT eligible. Neither was Obama,McCain,Rubio,Jindal, Cruz, Duckworth, Gabbard and Swarzenegger. Read my complaint again. I asked for a Permanent Injunction against Harris. It is espionage and treason to usurp the Presidency and/or Vice Presidency,by fraud, during time of war.

    • tbfreeman says:

      Didn’t they teach you in that fake law school that you can’t ask a court for an injunction first? You have to first prove that you are entitled to one, “counselor.”

      • Robert Laity says:

        My case is an “information in the form of Quo Warranto” and not a Qui Tam. I never said that I was an Attorney. I am not. I am however a qualified Legal Assistant who has worked (42) years in the Law.

        • John M. Woodman says:

          Honestly, you must not have learned much, or you’d be spending your time fishing. Or something useful.

          Want to make yourself useful? Go out and campaign for Joe Biden. Or investigate the masses of foreign influence on the current President of the United States.

        • tbfreeman says:

          It is obvious that Laity isn’t an attorney.

          Someone with any knowledge of the law would know you can just ask for an injunction; you have to explain why you are legally entitled to one. Laity failed to do that, and also failed to even acknowledge that when he was yet again puffing himself up.

    • I read your complaint. Maybe you could explain how you meet the 4 part test for a preliminary injunction or a TRO? You also do not meet the test for standing and do not have a particularized injury that the courts will insist that you demonstrate. You are just another voter like all of us. If you think Harris isn’t eligible you can vote for someone else or choose not to vote.

    • Northland10 says:

      Robert Laity Said:

      It is espionage and treason to usurp the Presidency and/or Vice Presidency,by fraud, during time of war.

      Would you mind explaining where in the US Code it states running for VIce President, even by fraud, is espionage and treason? Are Jamaica and India enemy states to whom we are engaged in a war with? Is running for Vice President sharing defense documents or classified information with a foreign nation to benefit that nation against us?

      And, Senator Harris has not disputed that her parents were not citizens. If she did not lie about her parentage, how can there be a fraud? Everybody knows she was born here with immigrant parents. How is there fraud?

      To be honest, being elected to office is not treason. You are also wrong on the definition of Natual Born Citizen.

      • I hope you do not mind that I fixed the formatting on your comment.

      • Robert Laity says:

        See 10 USC. The Uniform Code of Military Justice. If Harris or anyone else for that matter is not eligible to be in the office as VP or President, he/she is gaining access to the nation’s secrets by fraud. We are at war at this time. Obama committed treason and espionage. Imposters (ineligible candidates) are NOT actually in office. That is why I filed a quo warranto. Harris must prove she is eligible to hold that office. She isn’t. I have six SCOTUS cases backing me up. An NBC IS one born IN the US to parents who are BOTH US Citizens themselves. Harris was apprised of this. She is NOT eligible. Her taking office as VP or President during war time IS treason and espionage.

        • Northland10 says:

          Seriously? Read 10 U.S. Code § 802 – Art. 2. Persons subject to this chapter. Kamala Harris is not a member of the military. She is a civilian. She is not subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (and neither is the President). Even if she were later President, she would not be subject as she is a civilian, which is intentional. The commander in chief is, by the Constitution, a civilian.

          Also, war has never been declared by Congress so officially, we are not at war.

          Additionally, you are completely, 100%, wrong on parents’ citizenship mattering for persons born in the is country. It has not mattered before and it does not matter now. SCOTUS does not have even 1 case supporting you (that includes Minor, to which you and others have created a conclusion that is not there).

        • John M. Woodman says:

          How many cases have you lost? Why do you keep doing this?

          Do you know what the definition of insanity is?

        • tbfreeman says:

          Laity’s continued ignorance is hilarious.

          Laity doesn’t have six SCOTUS cases backing me up. Laity continues to misread the same cases that birthers have been misreading for a decade know. They keep citing them to courts, and the courts keep telling them they are wrong.

          Yet they never learn from their mistakes.

    • Sorry Bobby you already had your ass kicked by NBC and a few others on on your claim about espionage and treason during a time of war the last time you made this claim. The case you tried using to support your argument defined “time of war” as being during a declaration of war by congress. There is no declaration of war currently so even under your loose standard there was no espionage and treason committed. You’ve lost every case Bobby. Harris is eligible despite your whining.

    • I guess Robert thinks Kamala is a Jamaican spy. 😆

    • Orlylicious says:

      Hi Robert! Congrats on your successful appeal, sounds promising!

      What about presidents who were ADOPTED? If someone isn’t sure, or was lied to, what happens?

      It is most commonly believed that the only two adopted presidents were Bill Clinton and Gerald Ford, although some sources include a third, Abraham Lincoln.

      Based on your scholarship, what’s the disposition of those presidents? And future adoptees?

  4. John M. Woodman says:

    One wonders why all these birthers, so SO concerned about “foreign influence” on the Presidency, don’t bat an eye at the fact that the current President is MARRIED to a woman who didn’t become a US citizen until she was 36 years old?

    Or a President who appears to be hundreds of millions of dollars in debt to, among others, a foreign bank.

    • Good point and it is a near certainty that Melania entered the country on a tourist visa and remained illegally.

      Trump could clear it all up by releasing her immigration records.

    • Robert Laity says:

      President Trump IS a Natural Born Citizen. HE WAS born in the US to parents who were both US Citizens themselves. Just like EVERY other President execept Arthur and Obama (Both Brits) and the first (7) Presidents who were grandfathered in by Art. II.

    • John M. Woodman says:

      Or the fact that the current President of the United States has a secret Chinese bank account.

      Move on. Nothing to see here.

      Gotta investigate that foreign influence of Kamala Harris whose parents were born somewhere else.

    • Mrs. RC and I were talking this morning and she said we should be very concerned that after Trump is out of office in January he might try to peddle US secrets for money abroad. I makes sense. He is in deep debt to foreign entities and he tries to put a monetary and/or personal value on everything. If he could find someone to pay for intelligence he wouldn’t hesitate to sell out the country that rejected him.

  5. tbfreeman says:

    I know Laity believes himself to be supersmart, but he didn’t properly plead a quo warranto action.

    If only there was a case (perhaps from D.C. District?) explaining the requirements:

    • Northland10 says:

      Judge Sullivan could just copy the Quo Warranto part and substitute Taitz with Laity. The quixotic quest language works just as well for him.

    • Robert Laity says:

      I never said that I was “supersmart”. I am however, patriotic enough to fight for the integrity of our government. I am one who honors his oath.

      • You aren’t a patriot. You are trying to subvert our election process by depriving me and millions of others our right to vote for Kamala Harris whom I consider to be a great candidate and person. It’s obvious she has no foreign ties or allegiance. Trump on the other hand was helped by Russia to win in 2016 and has taken every opportunity to side with dictator Vladimir Putin against the interests of the United States and our true allies in the world.

        Fortunately you will lose and Harris will be the first female Vice President.

        • Robert Laity says:

          The phony case against Trump aka the “Russia election hoax” was dismissed by the Senate. Trump was acquitted. Harris on the “other hand” has prison in her future.

          • Trump’s acquittal by members of his own party in the Senate is a joke and proves nothing. Trump threatened and withheld aid from Ukraine in an effort to blackmail them into smearing his likely opponent in 2020. There was a massive and illegal intervention by Russia into the 2016 election on behalf of Donald Trump.

      • John M. Woodman says:

        If you were fighting for the integrity of our government, you’d be concerned about the massive real foreign influence on this White House.

      • tbfreeman says:

        Laity lives and breathes arrogance, and constantly touts his puffed-up accomplishments. The reality is his highest academic achievement is a bachelor’s degree from an online school.

        Laity chuffs himself by claiming his pointless, frivolous lawsuits are somehow patriotic, that is somehow honorable to lie about another.

        • Robert Laity says:

          Erie Community College, Buffalo State Teachers College, the State University of Buffalo, Excelsior College are ALL fully regionally accredited universities. NOT “online”. That said., many courses of study are “online”. SO what? As long as they are regionally accredited online courses are fine.

          • tbfreeman says:

            You know who thinks Excelsior College is an online institution? Excelsior College:

            “At Excelsior College, a not-for-profit, regionally accredited online institution….”


            Laity, unsurprisingly, misses the point: He huffs and puffs and boasts and brags, but his real-life accomplishments are much more modest: He magickly transforms his highest academic achievement (a bachelor’s degree from an online school) into six degrees.

      • Northland10 says:

        Patriotic enough does not equate to victory. There are many generals who would be considered patriotic and great lovers of their country yet they were removed from those commands because they were incapable of winning the day. Patriotism is using your talents to better the nation, not a talent unto itself.

        But as you see it as a matter of patriotism, I will state that I see those who understand correctly that Harris and Obama are Natural Born Citizens as being just as patriotic.

        Now the current President is loyal to only himself, not the country or the people. He is no patriot.

  6. tbfreeman says:

    Leaving this for later:

    • John M. Woodman says:

      My predictions for the future:

      Sun will rise tomorrow.

      US government will demand income taxes from citizens in April 2021.

      Baseless birther case will fail.

      • John M. Woodman says:

        You just have to wonder why Laity bothers.

        I guess some folks just have nothing better to do.

        Honestly, I would think… taking up hiking? Talking to old friends on the phone?


        Sitcom reruns?

    • tbfreeman says:

      To answer Laity’s question: RC, in fact, did correctly predict that Laity’s case would be dismissed.

      In turn, Laity had predicted the impeached lame duck would win in a landslide. How’d that work out?

  7. tbfreeman says:

    As expected: Harris moves to dismiss Laity’s stupid, pointless, frivolous waste of paper:

    Harris cites Laity’s buds, Charles Kerchner and Montgomery Sibley, for Laity’s lack of standing. And Steve Ankeny’s case for the uncontradicted (save birthers) ruling that birth in the United States is sufficient to confer natural-born citizenship.

    • OK who had “frivolous” in the first sentence? Ding, ding, ding.

      Edit: This reply is really a thing of beauty. It kicks some serious Birther ass.

    • John M. Woodman says:

      As I was considering the cost of having to make a reply to Laity, it struck me what an idiotic, money-wasting, destructive, pointless, asinine bit of stupidity his legal action is.

    • John M. Woodman says:

      You would think these people would have learned something — anything — from 12 years of failed birtherism.

      But no.

      • Funny that the high priced attorney with a real law degree and years of experience agrees with our arguments and disagrees with the pro se guy who filed the files frivolous lawsuit lawsuits..

  8. I updated the article to include the defendant’s reply filed yesterday. Thanks to tbfreeman for the link.

    • Charlie Hughes says:

      Laity has responded at the P&E.

      Mario will try to file amicus. LOL

      • He better hurry. 😉

        Edit: To clarify things, Laity has filed an response in opposition to the Harris motion to dismiss.

        Robert Laity Wednesday, October 28, 2020 at 8:10 AM

        I have already filed my “Plaintiff/Relators memorandum of law in support of motion IN OPPOSITION to defendant’s motion to dismiss”. Harris’ motion to dismiss is being opposed. Mario Apuzzo will also be submitting an Amicus brief in this matter. The Ankeny case was wrongly decided. Kamala Harris is NOT eligible to be President or VP.

        • The only question is whether Mario will request permission to file as amicus or he will just drop his 10,000 word pile of tripe.

          • John M. Woodman says:

            Can I make a prediction?

            Mario’s pile of nonsense will meet with the exact same success as his previous attempts.

            Which is to say, none.

            • Mario is really getting lazy. He didn’t even file his own lawsuit (through his puppet and probable benefactor Charles Kerchner of course) but instead is just going to file an amicus brief in Laity’s lawsuit. What’s ironic is that Harris’ attorney cited Apuzzo’s losing Kerchner v Obama case in his brief. So tell us how is this amicus brief suppose to help Laity?

              Of course another possible explanation is that Mario doesn’t want to add another loss to his already dismal record. 😉

        • Charlie Hughes says:

          BTW, in other Harris birther news – apparently Gielow’s lawsuits in Virginia got a response from the Election Board and he filed a it.

          The Mecklenburg Circuit Court shows:

          10/26/20 Demurrer CLW DEFENDANT’S TO COMPLAINT
          10/28/20 Brief CLW PLAINTIFF’S IN OPPOSITION

          He posted his response at the Facebook page for Rural and Red Political Action Committee. Unfortunately the court’s website does not include copies of the responses. From what he wrote the Board said they have no duty to investigate the eligibility of a candidate.

          • Ah I see. Thanks for posting this.

            Your comment should have been automatically approved after I approved the first one. I have had that happen with another user. I am not sure if I can fix it since it is a issue.

          • Gielow claims on Facebook that his case “was dismissed for lack of a lawyer to argue it”. Actually he is incorrect. It was dismissed because he stupidly sued under the name of an entity instead of his own name.

            It would still be interesting to see the other documents in the case.

            Edit: I checked the docket and Gielow brought the case with two plaintiffs listed, the Rural and Red Political Action Committee and his own name. I can understand the PAC being dismissed as a plaintiff but not the entire case. I am wondering if there is more to the story that Gielow is not telling us.

            • Charlie Hughes says:

              Gielow’s personal Facebook page has an plea to an unnamed lawyer for help.

              “Letter to a constitutional lawyer seeking assistance in the case of Rural and Red v State Board of Elections.

              Dear Xxxxxx,

              I waited expectantly all day for a reply, hoping against hope, that someone, somewhere might offer to assist in my attempt to, through our system of justice, at least challenge a process which has resulted in us having a candidate of highly questionable eligibility on the ballot for Vice President of the United States. …”


  9. tbfreeman says:

    Rondeau posted a preview of Laity’s opposition to dismiss:

    Laity should sue the lawyer who sold him his fake degree because this opposition is absolutely horrible.

    • Laity’s latest Twitter account is a cesspool of election conspiracy garbage from Infowars and other lovely right wing sites.

    • It’s like when Laity read the professionally repaired brief that Vice President Elect Harris’s attorney Mr. Razi he thought “Oh crap you mean I was supposed to cite actual cases and stuff”? So he quickly threw this latest reply together and cited six cases in the Supreme Court, none of which actually support his case, and then he again shows the judge that he is a lunatic by claiming Barack Obama was a usurper and therefore a criminal. He even wrote a book about it! You couldn’t write comedy any better than this.

  10. tbfreeman says:

    Mario Apuzzo and William Olson filed an amicus brief in support of Laity.

    But it did no good, as the court dismissed Laity’s joke of a case due to lack of standing, which was entirely predictable. (People, in fact, did predict this exact ending.)

    Laity can sanction himself and pay for an appeal. Because Laity is stupid, I’m sure he will.

    • I will add the dismissal to the main article. The failure was quite predictable.

    • Technically, Apuzzo and Olson filed nothing because Judge Sullivan denied their leave to file motion as moot in his case dismissal order.

    • Orlylicious says:

      You can always count on Robert C. Laity! “Alleging” is so cute.

      Robert Laity says:
      Monday, November 16, 2020 at 8:03 PM
      This case was dismissed in the U.S. District Court in D.C. alleging “Lack of Standing” and “Failure to State a Claim…”. It is NOW on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of D.C. Circuit.

      • If the timing on his case filed in 2016 against the State of NY is any guide and Laity exhausts every possible opportunity to appeal we can expect his case to eventually die when his petition for rehearing in SCOTUS is denied well into the second year of Kamala Harris’s Vice Presidency.

        What a waste of time and money!

    • Orlylicious says:

      You can always count on Robert C. Laity! How does he think the appeals court will correct his “alleged” standing and “failure to state a claim” issues? Hope he’ll come back and illuminate us. Regardless, this will be exciting to watch, the outcome is so uncertain!

      Robert Laity says:
      Monday, November 16, 2020 at 8:03 PM
      This case was dismissed in the U.S. District Court in D.C. alleging “Lack of Standing” and “Failure to State a Claim…”. It is NOW on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of D.C. Circuit.

      • Yes, interesting that he throws in “alleged”. The issues with his case were very real as we told him. He misinterpreted the decision in another way too. The court dismissed his case for lack of standing and then said since he lacked standing there was no need to examine the failure to state a claim issue. He would of course lost on that one too.

        • tbfreeman says:

          You would think Laity’s fake law school would have taught him that the parties make allegations; courts rule, hold, find, etc.

          But Laity’s paying $505 (plus associated costs) for the privilege to hear that he’s still wrong. Self-sanctions are the best sanctions!

          • It cost him $400 to file in district court and now $505 to file an appeal. Think of the good $905 could do if donated to a good cause like an animal shelter or a food bank? Instead Laity chooses to piss it away on a lost cause.

            • And I have seen a photo Laity’s home. Let’s say … it is not palatial. I doubt he is in a great position to piss away $905. If it makes him feel somehow important to get his name posted on a has been Birther blog run by an idiot then I guess that’s what floats his boat.

              • orlylicious says:

                When is Laity coming back to crow about his success and show us his guaranteed-successful appeal? He should rub our noses in his powerful victories, that’s certainly worth the $905.

                Stop hiding Laity and come take a bow!

              • Don’t hold you breath. I think he prefers to hide behind Sharon Rondeau’s wall of biased moderation.

  11. It appears Twitter finally got around to banning Laity again. 😆 Don’t worry Robert. You can still post at Rondeau’s Birther cesspool where she will protect you from the evil Obots.

  12. tbfreeman says:

    Unrelated to Laity’s fail, but Donofrio has sparked up his old blog to opine about the election. Donofrio’s so far ignoring inquiries about Harris’ eligibility.

  13. John M. Woodman says:

    Is anyone tracking the Trump post-election lawsuits? Seems to me that would be a worthwhile endeavor for someone.

    I know he has 2 wins and 34 losses to date, but I’m not clear on exactly what those entail.

    How many distinct lawsuits are there? Where are they? How many of the 34 losses have been appeals?

    I know the 2 wins are minor, but what did he win?

    I know they’ve said they’re currently planning to appeal Boockvar.

    Someone who’s interested should do a running summary of where we are in all of this.

  14. tbfreeman says:

    So Apuzzo created a stupid organization to support Laity’s lawsuit; it filed a proposed amicus brief that was promptly ignored when the court dismissed Laity’s suit.

    The organization issued a press release congratulating itself for “forcing” the judge to dismiss due to lack of standing:

    • That’s pure Apuzzo. Claim an embarrassing defeat is really a victory.

    • Robert Christopher Laity says:

      I do not “HIDE”. I am quite accessible. My case is on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Stay tuned. Biden was elected by fraud and Kamala Harris is a usurper and fraud.

      • Oh really? The courts don’t seem to think so. So far Trump’s nutty Kraken lawsuits are 1-47 in cases decided to date and the 1 win was insignificant and involved the cure period on votes in Pennsylvania. Your lawsuit was dismissed at the district court level and has a snowball’s chance in hell on appeal.

      • tbfreeman says:

        “Stay tuned” has been the birther mantra since 2008. A smarter person would learn from the mistakes, but they wouldn’t be birthers if they were smart.

        Not that there’s any evidence of fraud, but Laity’s case doesn’t even allege fraud. And it was dismissed for lack of standing. The D.C. Circuit will affirm the dismissal for lack of standing.

      • Kamala Harris is going to be sworn in as the first female Vice President on January 20, 2021 and there is nothing you or Donald Trump can do about it.

      • John M. Woodman says:

        I continue to puzzle at how people can go through life without the slightest shred of intellectual honesty.

        Did you not have parents who taught you things? Did you not at least even have teachers in school?

        • Notice that Laity is allowed to comment here even though what he posts is nonsense and he is advocating to overthrow the results of a free and fair election. That’s completely unpatriotic and borders on sedition. Meanwhile Rondeau and Donofrio delete most any comment with a morsel of truth.

          Right now no one is permanently banned here. I gave Ike a time out because he ignored the rules and is a troll.

      • Robert, isn’t it time to reach across the aisle so to speak and come together as a nation? Can we not all join in congratulating the new President Elect Joseph R. Biden and Vice President Elect Kamala D. Harris? Isn’t this a great day for democracy and a great day for America? It’s time to celebrate.

      • John M. Woodman says:

        59 courts with over 80 judges appointed by both Democrats and Republicans have failed to find any widespread fraud whatsoever.

        Robert, RC is right. It’s time to congratulate our new President-Elect and Vice-President-Elect and wish them the best of success.

        • Yes, John that is what a real patriot should do. Both Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are good and decent people. They have long careers in public service. They deserve a chance to see if they can help America in a time of need. A real patriot would say “I voted for the other guy but he lost. Time to get behind the new leaders.” What do we think Robert will say?

          • John M. Woodman says:

            Well, we’ve been disappointed in the patriotism of birthers again and again, haven’t we?

            Patriotism isn’t publicly declaring yourself a “patriot” and putting a flag on your web page or even flying a physical one.

            Patriotism is standing up for the ideals of this country, and the good of your fellow Americans. It’s refusing to spread false allegations of widespread “voter fraud” when 59 courts and 80+ judges have made it clear that no court-worthy evidence of that has been presented.

            It’s refusing to mangle the Constitution to claim that the President you personally don’t like is ineligible, when he isn’t.

            It’s standing up for the principle that all of us are created equal, and have equal rights. It’s accepting a black man as President or a black woman as Vice President as readily as you would accept a white man.

            Patriotism is wearing a damn mask, even when you aren’t particularly worried about getting sick with COVID yourself.

              • John M. Woodman says:

                You see, people of the Greatest Generation understood what patriotism was.

                In our age, too many have reduced it to a self-congratulatory label and waving a piece of cloth. And that’s it.

            • I think Laity’s problems go beyond his false patriotism. I question his sanity. He sent this to the DC Police Chief:

              Click to access dc-police-complaint-against-biden-harris-pelosi-.pdf

              • John M. Woodman says:

                Had to save that to figure out how to read it.

                I’m sure Chief Newsham will get right on that.

                Meanwhile, America has sustained a massive attack from Russia, breathtaking in its scope and effect. The damage will likely last for decades.

                We’ve known about it for days already. And the current President of the United States utters not a single word of criticism or even acknowledgement that we’ve just taken a massive punch to the gut.

                Instead, he’s spreading lies and misinformation and doing his best to outright overturn the Republic.

                If Trump were a Russian agent, tasked with undermining America and destroying it as much as possible, what would he do differently?

                I can’t think of a single thing.

                And people like Laity — and the rest of the birthers as well — make not a peep in defense of our nation.

              • “Had to save that to figure out how to read it.”

                Yes, I noticed the PDF embedding was messed up too. I think it is because of the column wide of the reply. I will try it again with a wider column.

  15. tbfreeman says:

    Leo Donofrio has woken from his nap and is attempting to undo the 2020 election with yet another epic misreading of a case. You would have thought he would have learned in 2008 that he was bad at law.

    Donofrio, coward that he is, blocks my comments at his site. But he follows me, so he can receive an e-mail when I post. Hi, Leo! There’s an entire world beyond your moderated bubble.

    • Are you talking about his misreading of Foster v Love, the law, or both?

      • tbfreeman says:

        His misreading of Foster is the crux of his (excuse me, “the”) complaint. But to even get to the point where a court will entertain his Foster misreading also relies on some other misreadings.

        And, of course, Donofrio’s misreading of Minor spawned imitators like Laity.

    • Yes, the coward Leo removed my comments also. I told his readers I would bet anyone that Biden receives a majority of the electoral votes next week. If anyone is interested in doing a guest article on his stupid original action request from SCOTUS email me and I will publish it after review.

    • I cannot find Leo’s John Doe case on the docket.

      • tbfreeman says:

        It has been two weeks since he claimed to have mailed it.

        Donofrio’s being quiet about it; I suspect SCOTUS returned it to him, unfiled.

        • And of course the Leo the Liar would never tell us that. 😆

          • tbfreeman says:

            SCOTUS did return Donofrio’s papers, unfiled. Donofrio then threw a hissy fit on his blog. And then ragequit. Again.

            • John M. Woodman says:

              His ragequitting most unfortunately only lasted a week.

              • Donofrio thinks he found the magic key to bypass the Eleventh Amendment at get SCOTUS to take his case under original jurisdiction. Things just don’t work that way. Once his petition is denied again expect to read more claims of corruption.

              • John M. Woodman says:

                Birthers always imagine that they are the most brilliant geniuses in the history of the world.

              • tbfreeman says:

                I’m not surprised. Donofrio’s ragequitting his ragequitting is very on-brand for him.

              • John M. Woodman says:

                I’m going to ragequit reading his blog.

                Oh, actually, I did already. With the one exception of the other day, I ragequit tuning in to him or just about any of these clowns 8 years ago.

              • tbfreeman says:

                Ex-ragequitter Donofrio posted another article, essentially urging the impeached lame duck to file a writ of quo warranto.

                Best part was his digs at Orly Taitz, who did that a decade ago.

              • And of course at the bottom:

                “Comments are closed”

              • As we’ve explained before you cannot remove a president through a quo warranto acion. The Constitution only mentions death, resignation (I am not sure that is specifically mentioned), impeachment and conviction, and the 25th Amendment. Donofrio is living proof of what happens when you mix a little legal knowledge with hallucinogenic drugs.

  16. I have to say that I have never quite anticipated the swearing in of a Vice President as much as I am the swearing in of Kamala Harris. Thanks to Robert Laity for making this one even more special. See, he can do something good after all.

  17. tbfreeman says:

    Eligibility suit round-up! I am aware of four birther cases filed against Vice President-elect Harris:
    1. One in a Virginia state court that was dismissed and not appealed.
    2. One in an Ohio state court that removed to federal court, then dismissed, and not appealed.
    3. One in a federal court in California (San Diego) that was just filed; it is still pending.
    4. And Laity’s appeal in the D.C. Circuit, which will eventually affirm the lower court’s dismissal.

  18. Laity is demanding that the DC Chief of Police arrest Harris along with Biden and Pelosi. Oh and Barack Obama while you are out arresting all these folks.

    Click to access dc-police-complaint-against-biden-harris-pelosi-.pdf

  19. I just checked the SCOTUS Docket and nothing filed by Leo is docketed. Laity’s appeal in his case against VP Elect Harris has been docketed and there are several items on the case docket. If anyone has a PACER account and wants to fork over a few bucks for copies I would be glad to publish them.

    • tbfreeman says:

      The only things I’m seeing are a few housekeeping matters; nothing of note.

      Laity did claim that he filed a motion (in the D.C. Cir.) to add Biden and Pelosi as defendants to his appeal. That denial is inevitable.

  20. Pingback: Laity v Harris – Appeal to the DC District Court of Appeals | RC Radio Blog

Leave a Reply (Please see the RC Radio Blog comment policy). Your first comment will be moderated

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s