by Sharon Rondeau

(Feb. 8, 2021) — On February 5, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued an opinion in the case of Robert C. Laity v. Kamala D. Harris denying the plaintiff’s request to “add defendants” and granting “summary affirmance” in favor of the defendant.

Laity filed his suit in early September claiming that as a vice-presidential candidate, Harris was ineligible to serve, should she be elected, in accordance with the U.S. Constitution and 12th Amendment.

Although born in the United States in 1964, Laity claimed Harris cannot qualify as a “natural born Citizen,” as Article II of the Constitution requires of the president and the 12th Amendment requires of all vice-presidential candidates, because of the status of her parents at the time of her birth.

Harris’s father, Donald J. Harris, was a citizen of Jamaica and her mother, Shyamala Gopalan, a citizen of India when she was born in Oakland, CA on October 20, 1964. Laity believes a “natural born Citizen” is an individual born in the United States to two U.S.-citizen parents.

The Framers did not define the term “natural born Citizen” at the Constitutional Convention, and much controversy has ensued since the Constitution was ratified in 1789, particularly in the 20th and 21st centuries as more individuals with ties to foreign countries, however remote, explored or launched presidential campaigns.

The panel opined that Laity does not have “standing” to challenge Harris’s constitutional qualifications.

The order includes a “show-cause” demand requiring that within 30 days, Laity explain why he “should not be sanctioned for bringing a frivolous appeal.”

Laity’s response issued on Monday states, in part:

There is not a scintilla of frivolity in taking action to ensure that the integrity of our nation’s highest offices are protected against foreign intrusion…The legal arguments presented by the appellant in addition to the arguments made by the attorneys who so diligently prepared the amicus brief regarding what an article II “Natural Born Citizen” is are not “wholly without merit”.  Were this case ever heard on its “Merits” the “disposition” of the case would have to be that Harris is not constitutionally entitled to hold her office. The evidence is overwhelming that Kamala Devi Harris is not the bona-fide Vice-President of the United States because she does not meet Article II and 12th Amendment criteria that she be a “Natural Born Citizen”.  That this court suggested sua sponte that my appeal is “frivolous” (that there is no serious purpose or value) in trying to ensure that our highest offices are not breached gives me great cause for concern.”

The full response to the court can be read here:

Join the Conversation

26 Comments

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. Ruling a case “frivolous” does not make it so. I have the right to dispute such a ruling on appeal. My case is NOT frivolous. I can assure you of that.

  2. The Letter from John Jay to George Washington as President of the Constitutional Convention, should put an end to any accusation of “Frivolity!
    https://www.scribd.com/doc/241491173/
    Also see http://www.kerchner.com/protectourliberty/naturalborncitizen/TheWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyandHowofNBC-WhitePaper.pdf for more of the story starting page 2: ” We learn from history and the records in our Library of Congress that in a letter10 dated 25 Jul 1787 from John Jay11 (who later became the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court under the new Constitution) sent to George Washington12, the presiding President of the Constitutional Convention (and who had been the Commander in Chief of the Continental Army during the Revolutionary War and who later became the first President of the United States under the new Constitution), wherein John Jay suggested the much more restrictive term and “kind”13 of Citizenship which is obtained only from Natural 3Law14 and the Laws of Nature and Nature’s Creator and not from positive, man-made, resolutions, statutory laws, treaties or amendments, that is requiring the future Presidents to be a “natural born Citizen”15, a person born in the country to parents (plural – father and mother) who were both Citizens (born or naturalized Citizens but both Citizens of some “kind”) of the country when their child was born in the country. Born in the country of a father who is a Citizen of the country and the mother is a Citizen of the country form the Three Legged Stool Test16 for a “natural born Citizen”. Without either leg it cannot stand.”

    1. Standing for suing in federal courts is derived from Article III of the U.S. Constitution. Unlike state courts, federal courts have only limited jurisdiction.

      The standing ruling cited by district and appellate courts in Laity’s case, Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, was written by Justice Scalia.

    2. Gary, it’s actually in the Constitution. Article III, Clause 1 of Section 2 authorizes the federal courts to hear actual cases and controversies only. Their judicial power does not extend to cases that are hypothetical, or which are proscribed due to standing, mootness, or ripeness issues. Federal courts are restricted on which cases they are allowed to judge. It’s not to avoid anything, it’s to follow the Constitution.

    3. It comes from “Admiralty Law” or Commercial Law, (I think). You must first show “Damages” that can be “Compensated for” to be “made whole” again.
      The Courts use it as a Legalistic Trick to avoid facing a Constitutional Issue.
      Constitutional Issues should be decided “on their own merit” not case law or precedents from Commercial Law.

  3. Robert, thanks for all your efforts. You are one hell of a Point Man. You are so correct, “don’t give up the ship”. Others out there, “keep in the fight too”.

    1. Thanks Jeff, On February 12, 2021 I filed a “Petition for Rehearing En Banc” in the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. More to come. Stay tuned.

  4. I get it, “standing” is a legal requirement found in Article III of the United States Constitution. If a plaintiff cannot show he has been harmed or injured, he does not have legal standing and is not the right plaintiff to appear before the court. It is meant to keep cases without merit off the docket.
    Question:
    Is anyone in the United States ever harmed or injured if an unconstitutional president or vice-president is managing the country or (in the case of the VP) voting in the Senate. What about unconstitutional members of congress? For example, one who is not a U.S. citizen. The Constitution requires that the president and vice-president be natural-born U.S. citizens and members of congress be U.S. citizens. Is a voter/citizen in that members state or district harmed or injured by representation by an unconstitutional member who cannot legally vote in congress or perform any duty required of a congress member? The same question applies to the courts. Judges must be U.S. citizens to serve in that position.
    If I am a defendant before an unconstitutional judge and he sends me to prison for 100 years, have I or have I not been harmed? My non-attorney mind says, I have been harmed.
    If that unconstitutional member of congress votes for legislation that passes, by a single vote, his, and harms me and my company. Have I not been harmed. My non-attorney mind says yes, I have been.
    If the unconstitutional president sends me off to a foreign war and I am wounded, captured, or killed. Have I been harmed. My non-attorney mind again says, yes, I have been.
    What about the tax money I have paid to support these unconstitutional people, their salaries, their offices, and their staffs? My non-attorney mind says, yes, I have been harmed.
    It appears to this non-attorney, me, that “standing” is a great excuse for judges to not have to make decisions they do not want to make

    1. Standing is, broadly speaking, about generalized versus particularized harms.

      A ruling in your criminal trial is a particularized harm, as only you have it. Whereas a vote in Congress is a generalized harm, as many people will have the same harm.

      In this instance, Mike Pence has individualized harm. People who voted for Pence have a generalized harm.

      1. “Particularized Injury”?? So as long as you injure everyone, you’re OK??
        What part of “WE THE PEOPLE” is not forgotten so quickly by that interpretation??
        With that logic, the Constitution offers no protection to the “People” as a whole as any violation of the “Natural Born Citizen Clause” would injure ALL Citizens; then by definition it is a “moot phrase”. The Framers never meant the phrase to be meaningless – a violation of the Qualifications for office injures ALL citizens alike and any citizen should have the right to challenge on the basis of qualification for office.

        ELmo

        1. Your observations about standing mirror those articulated by the dissent in Lujan. Most of the justices, however, agreed with Justice Scalia’s interpretation of Article III.

          The clause isn’t meaningless: Mike Pence could articulate a particularized injury, but he so far hasn’t chosen to file a lawsuit.

          And before the election, lawsuits could have been filed in states’ courts, which don’t have the same standing requirements. But who actually did?

    2. Glen, You are right on point. You are harmed in the cases you present. I have sent Sharon a copy of my recently filed “Petition for Rehearing En Banc”. This means that the three judge Panel order would be reviewed by the entire (17) Judge entourage of the US Court of Appeals in D.C. if the Petition is granted. If denied, Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court is the next step.

    1. “Don’t give up the ship”- James Lawrence, Captain (U.S.N.), U.S.S. Cheasapeake, (1813). The Republic is worth saving and it must be preserved even if it means dying in the process. Every generation is entrusted with the defense of our nation and must carry the torch. Deep State subterfuge is happening on our watch. Many people before us have died in the defense of these United States. Many more most likely will die in its defense. The freedoms and liberties that we enjoy must be preserved for ourselves and our posterity. “It’s a moral imperative”- Chris (Val Kilmer) in “Real Genius”.

        1. Ruling a case “frivolous” does not make it so. I have the right to dispute such a ruling on appeal. My case is NOT frivolous. I can assure you of that.

        2. A court’s ruling that a case is frivolous does make it so, as courts are empowered to make such determinations.

          Laity has the right to further appeal, but there’s no indication that a reversal is likely.

      1. ATTENTION MR ROBERT LAITY;
        Thank you for standing tall complete with your massive “orchic” substance hanging!
        (This is first time you probably heard this, and I’m not sure how I thought of it)
        Ask the court this; If an Alien couple from MARS flew here in UFO, landed, Mammy Alien was pregnant, gives birth, so that Alien “ANCHOR BABY”, like KING KAMALA HARRIS, can run for President or VP?
        Constitution says “persons”…whose to say an Alien from Mars is not a “person?” Hey, if a boy dressed like a girl can pole-vault and sprint in girls’ competitions, well, BEHOLD, we’re gonna call Martian ANCHOR BABIES born here “person.”…BY GOD! (I can almost hear the trumpets from Heaven blowing….DISCLAIMER: I have faith in God but not in man, (or SCOTUS…nor LUCAFERIAN DEEP STATE.)
        BTW, Mr Laity, mucho gracius for your endurance under SATANIC-NEBUCHADEZZAR!

        1. I won’t stand down. Our Republic is in danger. I told the court in my recent Petition that it would be Misprision if I had not filed the Quo Warranto. I am being threatened with sanctions because the court claims the case is frivolous. It is not. The threat of sanctions does not deter me. The sovereignty of the United States is in peril by condoning usurpations of our highest office. These usurpations are on our watch. I cite what it says in the Declaration of Independence. “With firm reliance on the protection of divine providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor”. Every American has a civic duty to resist tyranny whenever it rears its ugly head.

        1. @Bill Van Allen,
          Thanks for link. I downloaded all 309 pages…holy moly! I see that the New Yorker Republican Party has summoned all of those people/companies/entities to court? This is quite extensive…colossal in size. Will you summarize the M O of this Summons for us in a couple of sentences if you get the time Sir, please and thank you?