Thanks to reader Northland10 for obtaining selected documents from Robert Laity’s appeal to the DC District Court of Appeals of his loss in his quo warranto case against Kama D. Harris in November in the DC District Court. I have previously written about that case in this article, Birther Robert Laity files first action against Kamala Harris questioning eligibility.
The appeal was docketed on November 19th. I believe these are the key documents in the case:
Laity submitted a Statement of Issues on November 20th that was docketed on November 25th:
Laity filed a Motion to Expedite on November 23rd that was docketed on November 30th:
Click to access laity-appeal-mition-to-expedite-1.pdf
Beth Brinkmann entered an appearance for Vice President Elect Harris and on November 30th filed a Motion for Summary Affirmance:
Laity mailed an opposition in response to the Motion for Summary Affrimance on December 1st that was docketed on December 11th.
On December 16th Harris’ Attorney Beth Brinkmann filed a reply to Laity’s response:
Click to access laity-appeal-reply-to-response-to-sa.pdf
Finally on January 3rd Laity filed a copy of a letter he had sent to Acting Attorney General Rosen renewing his notice of quo warranto against Kamala Harris that he had sent to AG Bill Barr in August.
I hope this all makes sense. It took a bit of work to get the documents in order since at least at the beginning Laity was mailing documents while the attorney for Vice President Elect Harris was filing electronically.
I might add some comments on the filings later.
Updated 2/8/2021: Laity’s appeal was dismissed unanimously by a three judge panel. They also issued an order to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for filing a frivolous appeal. Laity has 30 days to respond.
Updated 2/9/2021: Laity already filed a reply. A copy was made available at the Post & Email blog.
RC Radio Blog 
Gosh Laity’s empty accusations and elliptical conclusions seem so quaint in 2021. His stylings in nonsense have been overshadowed by the recent Kraken cases as the acorn is the mountain. Thanks for posting! It reads just fine.
Thanks for doing this.
There’s really little new here. The government’s motion for summary affirmance covers old ground; it will be granted because Laity lacks standing.
The only thing new is the further evidence of Laity’s stupidity. For example, Laity says Judge Sullivan should have recused himself because he was nominated by President Obama. Laity never asked the judge to recuse, and President Obama didn’t appoint Judge Sullivan.
And Laity does himself no favors by comparing himself to Thomas More.
You are correct of course about Judge Sullivan. He was appointed to federal court by Bill Clinton and had previously been appointed to DC court positions by Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush. . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmet_G._Sullivan
I suppose it fits Laity’s fantasy if he were appointed by Barack Obama.
In Laity’s response to the Harris Motion for Summary Affirmance he writes:
That seems to be by definition a non-particularized injury.
Oh and all this stuff about standing? It’s unconstitutional:
He cannot even get the name of the case correct. It is Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife,
I’m assuming he has not actually read Lujan. Actually reading cited cases is probably not part of his legal self-training (just like Lincoln did not read stuff to learn).
He’ll probably call it some leftist ruling. You know, that opinion composed by the bastion of the left, Antonin Scalia.
No, Laity hasn’t. He’s cribbing from Max Kennerly (a Pennsylvania litigator) who wrote this article: https://www.litigationandtrial.com/2017/02/articles/attorney/standing/
Imagine that, a personal injury attorney who has a problem with standing. 😆 All kidding aside, he seems to think the concept was pulled out of thin air but it is hard to think the courts would not define “case or controversy” from Article III in some formal, applicable test. That is exactly what they have done over the years. Standing isn’t likely to go away as a fundamental legal concept but it could evolve in the future.
6 days, 2 hours and 49 minutes until Kamala Harris becomes the Vice President of the United States. Oh how is your appeal going Mr. Laity?
1 day 15 hours and 50 minutes until VP Harris. Better get cracking Mr. Laity.
Dear Mr. Laity
If you file any more of your worthless papers in court please refer to Ms. Harris as Vice President Harris.
The D.C. Circuit sat on Laity’s motion to expedite. The case is now moot.
I wondered what the Post and EFail would have to say about the Biden Inauguration. Of course it was nothing:
Why Your Customers Care About Your eCommerce Site’s Web Design
Laity filed a petition for rehearing en banc. In Rondeau’s comments section (where Laity hides), he of course vowed a SCOTUS cert. petition if the D.C. Circuit continues to reject him.
Click to access Harris-En-Banc-.pdf
Thanks tbfreeman! More of his nonsense. Laity should be worried about sanctions rather than asking for an en banc hearing that will never happen. The three judge panel could take this into account when they decide whether to impose monetary sanctions. He really steps up the fantasy:
I think this is the point where an attorney would actually provide some proof for such a wild accusation. He might also what Biden does with managing the military has to do with his case.
Edit: By the time Laity is done with his filing at SCOTUS he is going to be out over $1200 in filing fees on this foolish case. That doesn’t include any sanctions the DC Circuit might impose. I can think of less expensive hobbies that provide more pleasure.
Dr. Esquire Laity doesn’t understand that the point of a PREB is to show the panel erred. It isn’t an opportunity to introduce new allegations or new claims. Especially when these new allegations and claims further show that sanctions are necessary to deter wasting the court’s time in the future.
I checked Rule 40 of FRAP, “Petition for Panel Rehearing”. Nothing seems to bar filing a a PREB with a sanctions motion still pending but I doubt the court looks favorably upon him doing that. Laity had 45 days to file for a rehearing. He could have easily waited 30 days to file.
But hey Robert now we can wager on the success or failure of the PREB. The offer still stands.
Come on Robert pony up what you are willing to risk. If you are so right on the law you should be willing to prove it.
Laity filed a two page response to the OSC for sanctions. He filed a ten page PREB. He should have spent more time on the reply to the OSC and explained why his appeal is any less frivolous than the handwritten, prisoner filed, pro se lawsuit against Barack Obama that the court cited.
It’s almost like he wants to be sanctioned.
BTW, while it is certain that Laity’s PREB will fail I don’t think it is certain the court will impose monetary sanctions. First Laity is pro se so the court would tend to be more lenient with a nonsense appeal. Second he paid the filing fee. The court might have issued the OSC as a warning shot to Laity and make him go through the motion of answering. I think the Third Circuit did something similar to Mario Apuzzo. Apuzzo took the OSC seriously and issued a lengthy response.
Apuzzo’s experience is useful. After the 3d Circuit affirmed the dismissal for lack of standing, it issued a sanctions OSC because the standing issue was clear. Apuzzo, being Apuzzo, wrote a tome about natural-born citizenship, to show his earnestness in attempting to litigate that issue. The 3d Circuit discharged the OSC; no sanctions imposed. There’s an argument that Apuzzo is more worthy than Laity of sanctions because, as an attorney, he should have known better and he also had an ethical obligation to present adverse authority. But Apuzzo also tried a lot harder than Laity to avoid sanctions; Laity’s 2-page F.U. basically invites sanctions.
It is also funny how “always available” Laity continues to hide behind Rondeau’s moderation.
Yes, the court admonished Apuzzo for not citing Berg v Obama as precedent. Berg v Obama was in the same Circuit and dismissed on similar grounds. He came up with a lame assed excuse for not citing it.
The Court gave Laity 30 days to show why he shouldn’t be sanctioned in their order issued February 5th. Laity filed a completely ineffective response IMO. That 30 day period ends over the weekend. The Court has not responded to his request for a hearing by the full DC Circuit. The next few weeks could see a resolution on both issues.
New docket entry this week but it was only the return receipt of the order they sent to him by registered mail. As he sent in his response and petition for rehearing already, he obviously was paying attention to the docket (either on Pacer or his getting notified by email).
Thanks. Does PACER charge to search and view dockets or only for downloaded documents?
They charge for searches (10 cents a page on results) and viewing/downloading is essentially the same thing (the only difference is whether you save the document). I have Recap installed on my Chrome browser so opening the docket and viewing the docs adds to Courtlistener but only for district courts, not the appeals courts. Most circuits do have their published opinions and unpublished decisions/judgements posted on their website.
There is a minimum per quarter so if you come under it, they do not bill you.
Oh, and for the large documents, they only charge up to 30 pages, i.e. $3. So the 250-page monsters cost the same as a 31 page one. However, there is a separate mental penalty for slogging through 250 pages from the likes of Orly and Klayman.
Thanks for the PACER information. I see they will only bill if your balance is $15.01 at the end of a quarter? I assume that charges accumulate and do not reset every quarter?
There is still no word on Laity’s request for an en banc hearing nor the court’s sanctions order in the DC Circuit. I know this may come as a shock but the court probably has more important cases to handle. 😆
You done spoke too early.
https://thefogbow.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=6418#p6418
Thanks for the link with the order. That is about what I expected. At least the court ruled that his appeal was frivolous. Will Laity learn his lesson? I doubt it.
If the past is prologue, Laity will seek cert., and then claim SCOTUS’ denial is proof that it agrees with him.
As expected: Laity’s hiding behind Rondeau’s wall of moderation:
“Read my response to the Court on standing in which several court cases were referenced that supported my contention on standing and the fact that it was in the courts discretion to GRANT standing upon my posting of bond. Furthermore, just (12) days ago SCOTUS in an (8-1) opinion ruled that “Nominal damages” is sufficient to show standing. The USCCA judges just chose to IGNORE my reply and erroneously claim that I proffered no claim of standing. That is simply not true. See: Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski, USSCt. (March 8, 2021). I WILL be filing a Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the next (90) days. More to come.”
Robert, and I know you read here, the DCCA did not ignore your reply. Go back and read the DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS to the complaint that you filed in DC District Court filed by attorney Benjamin Razi filed on behalf of then Senator Kamala Harris. Particularly read the section on standing on page 4. You will see that you have no particular injury other than the fact that you did not want a Democratic administration to win the election. The case you now cite does you no good whatsoever since you are not even close to meeting the standing test imposed by the Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife case.
So sure you can go ahead and spend $300 plus whatever the printing costs are these days and file an appeal to the SCOTUS and you can spend another $200 for a motion for reconsideration after the appeal is denied. The outcome is as certain as the sun coming up tomorrow morning there in upstate New York. Think of all the delicious Ted’s Hot Dogs $500 would buy.
Laity at the P&E: “It is never a waste of time to defend the constitution. Never a waste of time.”
Laity is thrilled to waste more money to prove that he’s learned nothing.
Mario Apuzzo left a comment at the P&E. Of course Sharon will not let any dissenting comments through moderation so I will reply here.
While Mario may be technically correct that Laity’s dismissal was due to lack of standing he is wrong on the latter point. The issue of whether Harris is a natural born citizen is inseparable from standing. Without standing there is no issue in the legal sense. It is exactly what the Third Circuit. told you in Kerchner v Obama. There is no issue on VP Harris’s eligibility just as there was no issue with President Obama. The opinion of of a handful of angry Birthers even if one adds “Esq” after his name is meaningless. Misreading a Supreme Court decision on women’s suffrage from the 1870’s or trying to apply something from a treatise written by a Swiss philosopher who had died 20 years before the American Constitution was written doesn’t make it an issue either.