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.

This entry was posted in Birthers. Bookmark the permalink.

11 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.

  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. 😆

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