DC Court of Appeals Denies Laity’s Request for a Hearing en Banc

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.

About Reality Check

I have been following politics since my teens a very long time ago. I began debunking the Birther myths since late 2008. I commented an Birther sites and also fine sites like Obama Conspiracy Theories and Politijab. In 2009 I noticed that even though there were probably a dozen Birther run radio programs not a single anti-Birther program existed. Therefore I started "Land of the Obots" on Blog Talk Radio. I later changed the name to Reality Check Radio. The program ran weekly until sometime around 2016. This blog was originally begun to provide a place to discuss the radio show, my guests, and topics covered on the show.
This entry was posted in Birthers. Bookmark the permalink.

29 Responses to DC Court of Appeals Denies Laity’s Request for a Hearing en Banc

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

      • tbfreeman says:

        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.

  3. 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.

      • W. Kevin Vicklund says:

        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:

          “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.”

          Why it is almost as if they had frivolous litigants like Laity in mind when they wrote that.

      • W. Kevin Vicklund says:

        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.

      • tbfreeman says:

        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.

  4. 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. 😆

    • tbfreeman says:

      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.

        • Northland10 says:

          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:

            Any petition for the rehearing of an order denying a petition for a writ of certiorari or extraordinary writ shall be filed within 25 days after the date of the order of denial and shall comply with all the form and filing requirements of paragraph 1 of this Rule, including the payment of the filing fee if required, but its grounds shall be limited to intervening circumstances of a substantial or controlling effect or to other substantial grounds not previously presented.

            • Northland10 says:

              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:

                Henry Wilson says:
                Monday, April 26, 2021 at 2:55 AM

                Will the U.S. Supreme Court deny by June, or not until October?


                Rob Laity says:
                Monday, April 26, 2021 at 1:00 PM

                Wilson, Despite your constant gainsaying, I told you that I can NOT be deterred from a mission. A pit bull will relax it’s mouth muscles just enough to get a stronger grip. I am made BOLDER by my detractors. Kamala Harris is a fraud,usurper,traitor and spy under 18USC and 10USC.

                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.

              • tbfreeman says:

                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?

  5. Northland10 says:

    RC: 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 is busy yapping at a yard gnome.

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 )

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