Birther Robert Laity files first action against Kamala Harris questioning eligibility

Robert C . Laity

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.

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

32 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.

    • 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?

    • 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. 😆

  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.

      • 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.

  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?

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