On March 18th the DC Court of Appeals denied Robert Laity’s request for a hearing in en banc in his quo warranto case against Vice President Kamala Harris. A hearing en banc is a rehearing of an appeal recently rejected by a three judge panel by the full court. The ruling was brief and indicated not one of the members of the court spoke up in favor of the rehearing. In other words the rejection was unanimous.
At the same time the three judge panel discharged the order to show cause why Laity should not be sanctioned for filing a frivolous appeal. This means Laity is off the hook for monetary sanctions but the court said that his appeal was still frivolous and that if he ever brought another frivolous case before the court he would not be so fortunate.
Here are the two orders:
Laity left a comment at the Birther blog Post & Email in which he vowed to press on with an appeal to the Supreme Court. As the old saying goes his chances of success there are slim and none and slim left town.
Laity’s comments at the P&E demonstrate a complete misunderstanding of standing. It seems to be a disease with Birthers from Phil Berg to Mario Apuzzo to Orly Taitz to Monty Sibley and to dozens of pro se litigants like Laity. This would make a good make a good subject for Mike Dunford’s Twitter feed.
People like berg and apuzzo know better. They’re just lying to their fellow birthers. Laity is just ignorant.
Apuzzo just likes to bloviate thousands of words and pretend to be a Constitutional attorney. Laity is beyond ignorance and into Dunning-Kruger territory.
Has anyone heard anything about Berg lately? Last I heard he was an Uber driver.
I recall Uber booted Berg for DWB (driving while birfering), i.e., customers complained about him. I think he discussed this on Volin’s show, but the Great Crash wiped the archives. He has a Twitter account, but he hasn’t touched in a few years.
Laity posted at the completely unreliable Post & Email blog that his petition for writ or certiorari is at the printers and he will be filing it soon at the Supreme Court. Even thought the Court no allows many motions to be filed electronically the writs still have to be filed the old fashioned way. That involves printing 40 booklets of a special size using a certain weight paper. Printers typically charge $1500 or more depending on the number of pages. When you add the $300 filing fee and shipping cost to the printing costs Laity will easily be out of $2,000 for filing a completely frivolous appeal.
I suspect that the reason the Court has kept Rule 33.1 intact for writs is to discourage kooks like Laity from filing frivolous appeals. Laity is living proof that it doesn’t work in all cases.
One advantage for folks like us who follow this nonsense is that the Supreme Court now has a very good electronic docket system allows anyone to download copies of filings at no charge.
It my money and my time RC. The Justices will be hearing from me quite soon.
How likely do you think the Supreme Court is going to overturn Newman v. United States ex Rel. Frizzell, 238 U.S. 537 (1915), Mr. Laity?
This is from the opinion in Newman v United States ex. Rel. Frizzell:
Why it is almost as if they had frivolous litigants like Laity in mind when they wrote that.
In particular, explain why the Court should overturn its ruling on what Congress meant in differentiating between “third party” and “interested party” when Congress has had at least two revisions to the law (1963 and 1970) and chose not to correct the Court. The presumption is that when Congress has an opportunity to correct a Court ruling on the definitions of terms used in a law and passes on that opportunity, the Court ruling is indeed what Congress intended.
Yes it is your money and your time to waste. I wanted to let my readers know just how much you were wasting. I suppose everyone has a hobby. Yours seems to be filing frivolous cases against legitimate office holders you do not like. Do you even understand why the lower court, the three judge panel, and the entire DC circuit denied your case and your appeal? Obviously you do not or you would not be wasting the effort to file for certiorari in the Supreme Court.
But it isn’t just Laity’s money and time.
Laity also is wasting judicial resources. The filing fees do not begin to cover the costs for the clerks to docket, process, and eventually recommend denial.
You make a very good point. That’s why the DC Circuit should have levied monetary sanctions against Laity. They asked him to explain why his appeal was not frivolous. Instead of doing that he doubled down with his nonsense theory on eligibility, quo warranto, etc.. We who follow him know a slap on the wrist will do nothing.
I searched the Supreme Court docket just now and Laity’s writ for certiorari is not there yet. I suppose VP Harris is safe for at least another week. 😆
But Laity is holding court in his favored spot (i.e., behind Rondeau’s moderation).
They are all afraid of an honest and open debate on the facts. Sharon cannot allow to let us comment there and they are afraid to come here and engage.
Laity left a comment while hiding behind Sharon Rondeau’s protective moderation at the P&E indicating that his petition to SCOTUS had been delivered by courier to the Clerk’s office at the Supreme Court. I assume we will see it show up on the docket soon. We can expect to see the usual chain of events play out. First, it will be docketed with a response due date. Second, a waiver of response by VP Harris’s attorneys will be filed (behind the scenes the pool clerks will have reviewed it and determined it has no merit), then it will be scheduled for conference, and finally it will be denied. The entire process should take a couple of months.
Don’t forget the Petition for Rehearing which will be distributed for a conference, and then denied.
Yes, you mean the part where Laity provides nothing new and restates the same garbage about McCain, Obama, Minor v Happersett, blah, blah blah? Then the court denies him again? How could I forget!
From Rule 44 of the Supreme Court:
In every SCOTUS case (including the one non-birther one), he has filed a petition for rehearing. Remember, he knows the law better than all the justices. We the People decide the law, Robert represents We The People, and Rule 44 can’t change that.
I wonder if anybody mentioned that we the people, i.e. me, has fired him from representing we the people.
Here was an exchange Robert had with Henry Wilson at the P&E:
Robert doesn’t understand the difference between a bulldog and an idiot. In this case Robert fits the definition of an idiot often attributed incorrectly to Albert Einstein: “An idiot is someone who keeps trying the same thing over and over again while expecting different results.” Laity compares himself to a bulldog. A better canine analogy would be a small yapping dog who doesn’t have hold of anything but just annoyingly yaps and yaps until someone gets tired of it and kicks it out of their way.
And: “Keep it up Henry. I want you to. You are just making me MORE resolved to push this as far as I can. You are actually motivating me NOT to give up. I cannot be discouraged.”
No kink-shaming Laity for his public-humiliation fetish.
Hey Bob Laity, since this actual question would not be allowed at the Post & Email, can you name one concrete outcome from your foolish lawsuits other than wasting the court’s time and money and wasting your own time and money?
And is busy yapping at a yard gnome.
Rondeau posted Laity’s petition; its only virtue is its brevity: https://www.thepostemail.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Laity-v.-Harris-pdf-file-Brief-SCOTUS.pdf
Petition now on the SCOTUS docket: https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-1503.html
(Response due May 28, 2021)
So, June 10th conference, and a June 14th denial of cert.
That would be my guess with his inevitable petition for rehearing lingering until the fall term. I would love to see a Mike Dunford dissection of Laity’s petition on Twitch.
What did Mike ever do to you? 😉
Hey, he reviewed the Kraken filings and several from that crazy lawyer in Texas who wants the entire government declared null and void.