Constitution Association, Inc v Kamala Devi Harris, the Other Harris Birther Lawsuit

George Rombach – Plaintiff and Treasurer of the Constitution Association

Now that Robert Laity’s lawsuit against Vice President Harris has been denied and denied again by SCOTUS we can turn our attention to another Harris Birther lawsuit that has been festering in the Southern District of California. A group calling themselves the “Constitutional Association, Inc” filed a complaint asking for an injunction preventing Harris from assuming the office of Vice President citing the Birther invented definition of natural born citizen (requiring that both parents be US citizens at the time of birth) and the usual sources (de Vattel, Minor v Happersett, John Jay’s letter to George Washington, etc.). The plaintiffs go even further and claim that Harris was not even a citizen at birth because her father (Jamaican) and mother (Indian) who both resided in California at the time were not under the jurisdiction of the United States.

The Constitution Association officers are President Douglas V. Gibbs, conservative radio host in San Diego, Dennis Jackson, Vice President, and George Rombach, Treasurer. They are all named plaintiffs in the complaint.

The initial complaint was filed on December 7, 2020 before the Electoral College voted to make Joe Biden President Elect and Kamala Harris Vice President Elect. The plaintiffs tried to serve Harris by mailing a copy of the summons and complaint to the White House. On April 26 the plaintiffs filed for default since Harris had never responded. The same day the clerk entered a default against VP Harris.

Then on May 12th the Vice President through the local US Attorney’s office filed an ex parte motion to set aside the default and dismiss the complaint since Harris had never been properly served under the rules for serving a complaint upon a government employee. On May 17th Judge Todd Robertson issued an order to show cause why the case should not be dismissed the issues of standing and subject matter jurisdiction and gave the plaintiffs until June 3rd to file a response to the ex parte motion filed by the US Attorney’s office.

The plaintiffs filed their response on June 3rd and claimed that the Vice President was not a government employee and had been properly served. On June 10th the acting US Attorney filed a reply to the plaintiffs’ response.

On June 11th the Constitution Association filed additional motions including an amended response to the government’s ex parte motion, a request for a hearing, and a request for recognition as class status. The latter two motions were docketed along with notices from the court that they contained procedural errors. (See the docket for more details.)

A decision on the ex parte motion to dismiss is pending.

Most of the court documents are available at Court Listener

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

16 Responses to Constitution Association, Inc v Kamala Devi Harris, the Other Harris Birther Lawsuit

  1. I just checked the docket and there seems to be no new activity in this case.

  2. tbfreeman says:

    Court’s order is up: Dismissed (no jurisdiction), but without prejudice to them filing an amended complaint within 30 days.

  3. We have passed the 30 day deadline for the Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint. There is nothing new on Court Listener as of this morning.

  4. tbfreeman says:

    Judgment entered. District court case officially over.

    (But there’s still time to appeal, if they want that.)

  5. The Constitution Association website has not updated the case status. The last entry was posted in April when the Vice President had supposedly been served. You can still donate money if you wish though. 😆

    As far as I know this was the last unresolved Harris Birther lawsuit from the 2020 election cycle.

  6. So maybe it will be finished during President Harris’s [first] term

  7. tbfreeman says:

    The 9th Circuit isn’t happy with the boys: It told them their clubhouse (i.e., their Constitution Association) must be represented by an attorney. So they need to get one, quick.

    This attorney could also represent each of the boys well. But if they don’t get an attorney, then the 9th is going to dismiss the association and make the boys go back to the district court, and each file notices of appeal in their own names.

    Meanwhile, their opening brief is due in January. Tick tock!

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: Logo

You are commenting using your 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