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.

266 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.

          • WHY would I ever “Campaign for Joe Biden”. HE is a traitor!

            • John M. Woodman says:

              Biden’s done absolutely nothing to be a “traitor.”

              On the contrary, he’s finally restored some respect for our Constitution and the rule of law.

              Look, Bob, either you stand for the truth, our Constitution and laws, or you don’t.

              I’ve frankly had it with fake “patriots” who decorate their yards with flags and their web sites with eagles, but who are doing everything possible to overturn and destroy our Constitutional republic.

              I’m even done with giving you the benefit of the doubt for being deceived

              Because the fact is, you’ve had every opportunity, and more, to become undeceived.

              If you stand for Donald Trump, you stand for the destruction of everything our Founding Fathers gave us. Period.

              And that makes YOU a traitor.

              Certainly in the colloquial sense. Not quite in the legal one, but certainly in the common colloquial use of the word.

              So you need to decide whether you stand for America, or whether you’re just a form of fascist.

              • John M. Woodman says:

                And by the way, it doesn’t matter if you “feel” patriotic.

                It doesn’t matter if you “feel” that you “love” our country.

                Because you’re still attempting to quite deliberately murder it.

                And I for one am done giving you the benefit of the doubt.

                Because you’re just not THAT stupid.

            • Yes Bobby we get that you don’t know what traitor actually means.

        • 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 have proven that I am entitled to one.

    • 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).

          • See: 10USC Sec.903,Article 103. THAT section covers “ANY person…”

            • Northland10 says:

              No, it does not govern “ANY Person.” It only covers ANY person that is specified in 10 U.S. Code § 802 – Art. 2. Persons subject to this chapter. Article 103 Is part of chapter 47, i.e. UCMJ so is bound by the definitions in Article 2.

              Are you saying that I, a civilian who never served in the military, is subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice? In a country run by civilians, military law rules all citizens? Think about the ramifications of that.

              I don’t know what you learned in your study of law, but the statutes of most governments, even the canons of my church, have an initial chapter called General Provisions or similar. This is where they codify definitions and who may be subject to the statutes under the Title in question. I have not taken even one class in law and I knew that.

              When you look for support from statutes or case law, you need to read the law in its entirety, not just find one point that supports your conclusion.

              If you want to charge a civilian with espionage, you need to use 18 U.S. Code Chapter 37—ESPIONAGE AND CENSORSHIP

              • tbfreeman says:

                Laity didn’t study law: He bought a fake degree from a fake school in Florida.

              • I consulted with a Marine JAG officer on the coverage of non military personnel by 10USC 903.103. I am on solid legal ground. All spies are NOT in the Military. I had a Secret Clearance in the Navy. I know what the law is on the unauthorized accessing of our nations secrets ultra vires. Regarding not being able to remove a President by Quo Warranto. That is not what I am doing. I am seeking a court order called a “Writ of Quo Warranto” against Harris, et al, which REQUIRES her to prove that she is entitled to be IN the office of VP and/or the Presidency. The ONUS is on her. Not me.

              • Let’s make a little wager on your appeal being denied. How about $1000 ?

              • tbfreeman says:

                Laity, of course, has proof of this mysterious JAG officer’s existence, as well as proof of this mysterious officer’s legal advice. Otherwise, this just sounds like a tale about a Canadian girlfriend.

                And Laity “forgets” that the initial onus in a quo warranto proceeding is to prove that he is entitled to one. And the district court already said he wasn’t, and dismissed his case.

              • You guys misunderstood Laity. He doesn’t have a jag friend. He just watched the old TV show JAG on reruns.

              • Northland this just further proves Laity’s inability to actually read. As shown the President and Vice President let alone any civilian who hasn’t served in the military isn’t subject to the UCMJ but Laity still prattles on about it anyway. He used to cite a court case until NBC pointed out to him on Dr C’s blog that the case didn’t apply as we weren’t formally under a declaration of war. Laity doesn’t learn from his mistakes just as his parents didn’t learn from theirs.

        • 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 Obamaconspiracy.org 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. 😆

      • Robert Laity says:

        Kamala was born a British Subject. Just like Arthur and Obama, our nation’s first two usurpers. https://www.thepostemail.com/11/19/2017/imposters-oval-office/

        • tbfreeman says:

          What a stupid, pointless lie. Not that it is relevant, but Jamaica and India were independent countries when Harris was born. Laity pointlessly ascribes to Harris citizenship that she never held.

          • Both British Jamaica and India were members of the British Commonwealth of Nations when Kamala was born. She was born with British Citizenship under the British Nationality Act.

            • Northland10 says:

              The UK does not determine who can be a United States citizen or who can be a Natural Born Citizen of the United States. Are you really willing to let any country determine who we can call citizens or NBC?

              China could decide one day that anybody born in the US is a Chinese National. What then?

              Oh, and having the right to British citizenship does not mean the purpose exercised it. Kamala Harris did not exercise any right she may or may not have had, therefore, by choice, she chose not to be a citizen of the UK.

              Too also, a Commonwealth Citizen is not the same a British Citizenship.

              • The UK does however determine who shall be a Brit. Kamala Harris and Barack Obama were born Brits. See: The British Nationality Act. Brits cannot BE our President or VP. To THAT I am 100% sure the founders would agree.

              • johnmwoodman says:

                No, in fact they wouldn’t.

                Thomas Jefferson — remember him? The man who wrote the Declaration of Independence? Our third President? Louisiana Purchase? — was a French citizen at the time he was elected President of the United States.

                Doesn’t matter in the slightest. No one cared.

                James Madison — remember him? Father of the Constitution? Our fourth President? — was a French citizen when he was elected President of the United States.

                Doesn’t matter in the slightest. No one cared.

                George Washington — remember him? Father of Our Country? Our first President? — appears to have also a French citizen while President of the United States.

                Doesn’t matter in the slightest. No one cared.

              • johnmwoodman says:

                People too often imagine they know what the Founding Fathers would think.

              • Birthers have turned it into an art form, especially with John Jay’s letter to George Washington suggesting that the commander in chief be a natural born citizen. When Jay wrote his letter the Convention had not even fleshed out the duties of the office of the president or that he would be the commander in chief of the army. Of course they also read into Jay’s letter a definition of “natural born” that as a former British subject he would not have recognized. (Yes, I am making an inference too but one that is completely justified. Even Birthers admit that under English common law there was no requirement of parental subject-hood to be a natural born British subject).

              • tbfreeman says:

                Laity claims his beliefs are grounded in the British Nationality Act. Yet Laity repeatedly refuses to specify exactly which parts of the BNA support his beliefs.

                It is as if Laity has never read the BNA.

              • johnmwoodman says:

                One of the very small benefits of this long and detailed discussion with birthers is the understanding gained of some of these issues along the way.

                I have a son, born in the UK, who could claim UK citizenship (offhand, I’m not sure whether it’s automatic, or whether he has to affirmatively claim it).

                So theoretically, he could one day run either for President of the US or Prime Minister of the UK.

                Of course, either is unlikely (and the UK scenario far more unlikely than the US one, because there’s no reason for him to want UK citizenship). But thanks to all the birther stuff, I now have a very good idea of what would happen if he were to one day run for US President or Vice President.

                People like Laity would file lawsuits.

                If a defeated rival filed a lawsuit (also unlikely), then it seems possible the Supreme Court might take the case. And they would rule that he’s perfectly eligible.

                For the cases from people like Laity, every single one would be ruled against in the lower courts, or — in most cases — simply dismissed.

            • tbfreeman says:

              The British Commonwealth of Nations didn’t exist when Vice President Harris was born.

              No part of the British Nationality Act is applicable to Vice President Harris, Laity’s empty assertion notwithstanding.

              • You are patently incorrect. Harris was born to two Brits. She was born a “Natural born subject” of the UK.

              • tbfreeman says:

                You are free to believe your fantasies. Everyone else is free to ignore your fantasies.

                You argue but provide no evidence. Showing that you are just argumentative and desperate for attention.

              • tbfreeman says:

                Literally none of that is correct; neither of Vice President Harris’ parents was British when she was born. Laity refuses to cite the parts of the British Nationality Act that he claims support his beliefs.

          • Read the British Nationality Act. Kamala Harris was born under the protection of the Crown.

            • tbfreeman says:

              I’ve read the British Nationality Act. And there’s no portion that’s applicable to Vice President Harris. If Dr. Esquire Laity believes there is, he’s free to cite some specifics.

              • Northland10 says:

                It may be possible that, because Jamaica included born in the country or her father was a Jamaican citizen (descent through father), she may have had rights as a British Subject through being a Commonwealth Citizen (though there is no proof that she chose to accept that citizenship). It is all a nothing burger anyway because other countries nationality laws do not determine who is a citizen, or NBC, in the United States.. We do not allow other countries to decide who may be our President but apparently, Robert does.

                This is all moot, of course, since his appeal was dismissed and no other attempt will succeed because Robert is completely wrong.

        • Laity once again demonstrates he uses words that he doesn’t understand the meaning of. They were legally and lawfully elected. We don’t let other countries tell us who our born citizens are.

    • 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?

      • ALL Presidents and VPs MUST prove that they were born IN the US to biological parents who were BOTH US Citizens themselves. If they can’t prove that because they were adopted, then they are out of luck.

        • Even with those six degrees you cannot get this simple thing right . What candidates must do is first meet whatever criteria their own party has for being on the ticket then they have to meet each state’s requirements for getting on the ballot. In some states that’s as simple as providing a letter saying they are qualified. We know that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris met all the requirements, won 306 electoral votes and were inaugurated as President and Vice President on January 20th.

          • A Vice-President MUST meet the criteria in Article II, Sec. 1, Clause 5 and the 12th Amendment. Harris does NOT!!

            • tbfreeman says:

              As every judge who heard an eligibility challenge on the merits as ruled: birth in the United States is enough for natural-born citizenship. Laity’s contrary, stubborn delusions notwithstanding.

              • John M. Woodman says:

                One of the mysteries for me is how people can have every court in America rule that their legal theory is wrong, and still at least appear to keep believing it.

                I don’t quite understand the psychology here. Or the reasoning.

                It seems to me that people like Laity like know full well their claims are wrong, but just decide to keep going for the attention.

                Perhaps Laity, being a psychologist, can explain it to me.

              • If Laity we so sure of his legal arguments were right you think he would have jumped on a chance to back it up with some $$$. Maybe he isn’t so sure?

              • Looks to me like he can gain an easy thousand here.

                A bit of advice: If he takes you up on it, I’d set up the money on both sides in some sort of escrow.

                Personally, I’m still waiting on two different $25,000 prizes that I won from birthers.

              • Good idea. I would accept you as an escrow agent.

              • I kept challenging Mark Gillar to wager that Obots would go to jail back around 2012-2013 when he put out that video showing Obots being locked up. He was too chicken to take the bet. Just like Robert C. Laity.

              • The wager offer weeds out the wheat from the Birther chaff. Laity blusters about his fake law degree and proclaims he knows more than any attorney. But when it comes to putting cold cash on the outcome of the case he will not. He knows he is going to lose. At least he left a few comments here where he cannot hide under Sharon Rondeau’s skirt like OPOVV, Charles Kerchner, Tom Arnold, and the other regular commenters at the P&E do. I guarantee you that every comment here pointing out that Laity is wrong would have been zapped at the venerable Post & Email electronic newspaper blog.

              • johnmwoodman says:

                Not surprising.

                People who make a career of sorts of spreading falsehoods don’t like to be publicly called out on it.

              • I am curious who made the $25,000 bets with you and what they were about? Were those made in a public forum?

                BTW, if $1000 is too much for Robert to lose we could make it $100.

              • johnmwoodman says:

                Yeah, I could do the escrow if you both wanted. We could think of something.

                It’s too bad Gillar didn’t take the bet.

                Looks like Laity is a chicken, too.

              • johnmwoodman says:

                They were more “prizes” than bets.

                One was covered in my book. It was offered on YouTube by “TruthSeeker33” or some such.

                I claimed the prize, never received it. I later found out who had offered it. It was some guy who sings in Las Vegas or somewhere. I don’t remember his name offhand. Something like Carmen something or other.

                The other was our friend Scott, who offered a different $25,000 prize. You will recall that I claimed that one as well.

                Still waiting on both of those.

              • We all know how credible Scott E. is. 😆

              • johnmwoodman says:

                We exchanged a few emails. He acted like it was a real thing. He was talking about having me come up to Vermont to claim the prize. I was like, okay, I’ll play along for a while here. Cautiously. Who knows? Maybe Scott’s for real and has access to money somewhere that no one knows about. Stranger things have happened — like the secretary who secretly amassed an $8 million fortune. Granted, it was unlikely, but perhaps better odds than the lottery, and no cash to play.

                Scott never came through, of course.

            • John M. Woodman says:

              Hence her disqualification and removal from office.

              Oh, wait. She HASN’T been disqualified and removed from office.

              And never will be.

              Hmm. Maybe you’re just wrong.

            • The all caps “NOT” and two “!!” is really a WINNING legal argument!! Oh wait …

        • Northland10 says:

          Where is the requirement they “must prove” in the Constitution, US Code, etc. Also, you are wrong about Natural Born Citizenship.

          It does not take 2 citizen parents. It never did and it never will. Your arguments do not say what you claim.

          Oh, BTW.. your appeal will fail though I am not 100% the reasons. It is will be one or more of the following, Standing, Mootness, Political Question, Jurisdiction, relief the court cannot provide, or your arguments are wrong, wrong, wrongity wrong.

          And if you think you are doing Quo Warranto, read all the past failures. You are wrong on that to.

          • Mine IS an “Information in the form of quo warranto at common law”. The onus IS on Harris to prove that she is in office legally. She is NOT!! I filed the action under Chapter 35 of the D.C. Code.

            • tbfreeman says:

              And your challenge was dismissed because you failed to prove that a writ of quo warranto was, well, warranted.

            • And Newman v. United States ex Rel. Frizzell, 238 U.S. 537 (1915) explains why you will fail. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/238/537/

              “Owing to the many reasons of public policy against permitting a public officer to be harassed with litigation over his right to hold office, Congress has not authorized, but has placed obstacles in the way of, a private citizen on his own motion to attack an incumbent’s title to office.

              Under the District of Columbia Code, a third person may not institute quo warranto proceedings without the consent of the law officers of the government and also of the Supreme Court of the District.

              The District Code makes a distinction between a “third person” and an “interested person” in maintaining quo warranto proceedings.

              While every citizen and every taxpayer is interested in the enforcement of law and in having only qualified officers execute the law, such general interest is not a private but a public interest, which is not sufficient to authorize the institution of quo warranto proceedings.

              The mere fact that one is a citizen and taxpayer of the District of Columbia does not make him an interested party who may maintain quo warranto proceedings against the incumbent of an office on the consent of the court, although the law officers of the government refuse such consent.

              An interested person within the meaning of the provisions of the District Code in regard to quo warranto proceedings is one who has an interest in the office itself peculiar to himself whether the office be elective or appointive.

              Unless the right to maintain quo warranto proceedings under the District Code were limited to persons actually and personally interested, every officer attached to the government at Washington would be subject to attack by persons having no claim in the office or interest therein different from that of every other citizen and taxpayer of the United States.”

              Laity can only claim to third party status, which requires that he get consent from AGOTUS or the DC District Attorney. He is not an interested party within the meaning of the law, as explained by the Supreme Court in Newman. Since Laity is unable to obtain consent from either of those Attorneys, his quo warranto action fails as a matter of law.

              • tbfreeman says:

                Even Mario Apuzzo, the dumbest birther attorney not named Orly Taitz, knows that a quo warranto is a loser: http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2021/01/former-president-donald-j-trump-should.html

              • Even Orly knows Quo Warranto will not work to remove a president or vice president. She said this on her blog recently:

                “I did Quo Warranto before and the judges are saying that only attorney generals can do quo warranto, not private attorneys. Regardless of the form of an action, they keep denying us standing, so it doesn’t matter the essence of the case or form of a complaint, the keep dismissing, saying that 75 million Trump voters have no standing. We are reduced to slaves without a voice”

              • Good analysis on why his quo warranto is DOA.

              • Newman was literally the first hit on my search. It predates Massachusetts v. Mellon by 8 years, so it doesn’t have the exact wording for modern standing doctrine, but it’s evident that it is a direct precursor to Mellon. Too bad Kaptain Kangaroo’s scholarship is effectively non-existent, or he could have saved himself a lot of money.

            • Nope, the onus is on you Laity. You’re the one making the accusations. It’s on you to prove it. Obviously you can’t. You don’t get to shift the burden of proof.

        • tbfreeman says:

          Every judge who heard an eligibility challenge on the merits rejected the argument that Laity repeats.

        • As always Bob you come here to post things that are entirely inaccurate. There is no onus to prove citizen parents since it was never a standard. The onus is on you to prove Obama or Harris were ineligible. You failed to do that every which way from sunday.

        • Yeah no that’s not true at all. You’re the one making the accusations against them. It’s up to you to prove your claims, which you can’t.

  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.

    https://www.vox.com/21472063/trump-tax-returns-debts-owes-money?__c=1

  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: https://casetext.com/case/taitz-v-obama

    • 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.

            • Biden sold his influence to Ukraine. He and his criminal family took bribes in the Millions of dollars. Biden is complicit with Obama’s treason and espionage against the United States, along with Nancy Pelosi. Obama,Biden,Pelosi and Harris are TRAITORS.

              • This comment actually should be removed because it contains completely false and unsubstantiated claims but I will leave it because no one takes Laity seriously anyway.

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

          Looks like I nailed that one! it was an easy call though.

      • 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….”

            https://www.excelsior.edu/

            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?

        Gardening?

        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: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.221957/gov.uscourts.dcd.221957.7.0.pdf

    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 response.to it.

          The Mecklenburg Circuit Court shows:

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

          http://ewsocis1.courts.state.va.us/CJISWeb/CaseDetail.do

          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 WordPress.com 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. …”

              https://www.facebook.com/harold.gielow.3

  9. tbfreeman says:

    Rondeau posted a preview of Laity’s opposition to dismiss: https://www.thepostemail.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Harris-Motion-in-Opposition-to-Motion-to-Dismiss-.pdf

    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.

      https://www.thepostemail.com/2020/09/13/harris-eligibility-suit-docketed-in-federal-court/#comment-423117

      • 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: https://www.usallegianceinstitute.org/usai-press-release-11-23-2020

    • 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.

  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

  21. tbfreeman says:

    UPDATE: The D.C. Circuit, in a short unpublished order, summarily affirmed the district court’s dismissal.

    The D.C. Circuit also issued an OSC, directing Laity to explain why he shouldn’t be sanctioned for filing a frivolous appeal.

    P&E has the details, including Laity’s arrogant response to the OSC: https://www.thepostemail.com/2021/02/08/a-declaratory-judgment-action-in-a-court-of-law-is-the-best-chance-that-we-have-to-learn-the-truth-about-the-2020-presidential-election-and-the-capitol-invasion/

  22. Laity left this at the P&E:

    “Robert Laity says:
    Tuesday, February 9, 2021 at 3:01 AM

    “Don’t give up the ship”- James Lawrence, Captain (U.S.N.), U.S.S. Cheasapeake, (1813). The Republic is worth saving and it must be preserved even if it means dying in the process. Every generation is entrusted with the defense of our nation and must carry the torch. Deep State subterfuge is happening on our watch. Many people before us have died in the defense of these United States. Many more most likely will die in its defense. The freedoms and liberties that we enjoy must be preserved for ourselves and our posterity. “It’s a moral imperative”- Chris (Val Kilmer) in “Real Genius”.”

    What a drama queen! I don’t think he is going to forfeit his life but his wallet might have to forfeit some greens. (Notice the time of his comment.) Laity needs to put that psychology degree to work and diagnose himself in need of professional help.

    • johnmwoodman says:

      All to die on a hill of belief in a false and futile narrative of unreality, that can’t remotely be justified in law, and that serves virtually no purpose at all.

      I mean, unlike Donald Trump — as shown by his repeated and relentless actions in favor of Vladimir Putin, one of America’s worst adversaries — it’s not like Kamala Harris has the slightest allegiance to India, or Jamaica, or Britain.

      None of which are even our enemies in the first place.

      And all while there are actual, real, and serious threats to our republic that he could be making a contribution to fighting, but that he simply ignores.

      But birtherism was always sort of a political psychosis.

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:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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