by Sharon Rondeau

(Feb. 13, 2021) — On Friday the plaintiff in a case challenging Kamala Harris’s eligibility to serve as vice president filed a petition for rehearing by the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, asserting that a three-judge panel rejecting his initial appeal rendered its decision in contravention of U.S. Supreme Court and the appellate court’s own precedents.

“…consideration by the full court is therefore necessary to secure and maintain uniformity of the court’s decisions,” Robert C. Laity asserted in his opening paragraph.

“Petitioner would most likely prevail on the merits of this case should the facts and the law that require a vice-president or president of the United States be a natural born citizen of the United States is adjudicated,” Laity wrote. “Petitioner has been shut out on an assertion of lack of standing. Dismissal with prejudice is not warranted.”

In its February 5 opinion, the three judges not only wrote that the outcome of the case was a foregone conclusion, but also ordered Laity to submit, within 30 days, a rationale for why he should not be sanctioned for allegedly having filed a “frivolous” lawsuit. On February 8, Laity responded to the court with, “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…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.”

On Friday Laity additionally asserted that the panel’s opinion that he lacks “standing” to challenge Harris’s eligibility is misguided. “I have demonstrated that since 2008 there has been a pattern of usurpations of our Presidency and Vice-Presidency as well as bi-partisan attempts to usurp the Presidency,” he wrote, referring to previous challenges he filed alleging non-natural-born-citizenship on the part of Barack Hussein Obama II, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, Illinois Sen. Tammy Duckworth, the late Sen. John McCain, former Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio.  “This is an untenable invasion upon the sovereignty of the United States Government. An American is duty bound by their citizenship to act to preserve the integrity of our highest offices and to defend the republic.”

Harris’s parents were visitors to the United States on student visas at the time their eldest daughter was born in Oakland, CA on October 20, 1964. Government documents released by a researcher last year appear to indicate that Harris’s mother, nee Shyamala Gopalan of India, never became a U.S. citizen. Her father, Donald J. Harris of Jamaica, states in his Stanford University professor emeritus biography that he naturalized as a U.S. citizen but without stating the year. However, at the time, neither parent had resided in the United States for the required five years to apply for citizenship.

Laity and many others believe that the Framers envisioned the term “natural born Citizen” invoked in Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution to mean an individual with unquestionably undivided allegiance to the new nation through his birthplace not only within the country, but also to parents who were already its citizens. The Framers made an exception for themselves to qualify for the presidency through the “grandfather clause,” which states, “…or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution.”

In 1804, the 12th Amendment was ratified, amending provisions of the Electoral College which elects the president and vice president as well as stipulating that all vice-presidential candidates must meet the qualifications of the president.

“The act of a usurper to take a salary from the U.S. Government to which he/she is not entitled is fraud under the False Claims Act,” Laity wrote on page 3 of his petition. “The FCA grants standing to those who bring such fraud to the attention of the Government. in Qui Tam. The defendant has been sworn into an office to which she is constitutionally barred from occupying. Article II and the 12th Amendment bars non “Natural Born Citizen” from being President and/or Vice-President.”

Federal courts possess the “sole authority” to issue a “Quo Warranto” action against any federal office-holder “in the District” accused of occupying a position without proper authority, Laity contended. “The usurpation of the vice-presidency by the defendant has opened the floodgates to a tyrannical regime,” he further asserted.

“The plaintiff has a particularized 14th Amendment ‘Liberty’ interest in ensuring that the President of the United States and the Vice-President of the United States be a bona-fide, constitutionally eligible occupant of said public office pursuant to Article II and the 12thAmendment,” Laity wrote on page 7. “The plaintiff is himself threatened actually with loss of liberty. Since 2008 when Barack Obama usurped the Presidency by fraud and again in 2012 the plaintiff has experienced a steady,palpable and evolving diminishment of his civil rights. In the election between Barack Obama and John McCain there was bi-partisan fraud. Neither Obama or McCain are/were Article II Natural Born Citizens of the United States…”

The final page of Laity’s brief contends that “Joseph Biden” participated in Obama’s alleged defrauding of the nation’s electorate in 2008 and 2012.  Further, Laity alleged, “Both Harris and Biden are constitutionally barred from holding ‘any office under the United States’ by virtue of their unlawful frauds against the United States,” and that therefore, ” The Panel’s affirmation in favor of defendant should be reversed.”

Join the Conversation


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.


    The Guy Who Could Save Our Republic: Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich

    by Rachel Alexander | Posted: Feb 22, 2021

    “During a time when many Republican officials have been unwilling to do anything to battle election fraud, a few are holding firm.

    Last year, Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich got involved with six election lawsuits, including successfully suing the Democratic county recorder when he tried to send out mail-in ballots to everyone in Maricopa County. Brnovich wrote to the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors a few days after the election urging them to more than double the hand audit. He also filed an amicus brief in support of the Arizona State Senate demanding that the supervisors turn over the Dominion voting machines for inspection.

    Now, Brnovich is taking on the DNC in a case before the Supreme Court that is going to determine whether states can take measures to combat election fraud. Oral arguments are scheduled for March 2. This will likely determine whether what we saw in the presidential race can continue or whether states will be able to stop it.”


  2. Being “born in the United States” is not a crime. Usurping the vice-presidency of the United States by fraud is a crime. As I said, anyone who has knowledge that a crime has been committed and acquiesces to it
    without alerting the authorities is complicit. Citizens DO have standing in a quo warranto. Either by permission of the US AG or leave of the court. The “jury is still out” as they say as to whether or not my standing in this case will be granted.

  3. Evidence of Barack Obama’s use of a stolen CT Social Security number 042-68-4425 and other fraudulent and counterfeit ID. Please, forward to Peter Navarro and all former Trump officials and GOP law makers. Time for a criminal prosecution and a senate trial in a year, when GOP takes the majority in the House

    Posted on | February 15, 2021 |

    Evidence of Obama’s use of bogus IDs compiled by Attorney
    Orly Taitz

    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

    Attorney Orly Taitz on Cliff Kincade show: After Trump, Will Republicans Impeach Obama and Biden?

    After Trump, Will Republicans Impeach Obama and Biden?

  4. To answer your question, everyone that sees the commission of a crime and does not report it to the proper authorities IS guilty of misprision. The DC court HAS jurisdiction. I have already proven that. I must now prove that I have standing. The fact that “judges disagree” is the very reason appeals are provided for Henry.

    1. Because everyone can see that Harris occupies the Office of the Vice President, everyone who doesn’t file a lawsuit against her is subject to criminal prosecution?

      There’s no indication that judges disagree, or might even possibly disagree, on standing. The D.C. Circuit Court already rejected a similar case involving Montgomery Sibley.

      1. Everyone that knows that Harris is ineligible and who does nothing to point it out to the authorities or acquiesces to it is complicit. I am not Montgomery Sibley.

      2. “Everyone” knows that Harris was born in the United States, but almost no one filed a lawsuit against her. Does that mean almost everyone is criminally complicit, including everyone who reads this site? Should everyone reading this site consult a criminal lawyer due to their criminal complicity?

        Courts work on precedent; they apply the law that was developed in earlier cases. The D.C. Circuit already ruled that citizens don’t have standing to seek a writ of quo warranto. And the D.C. Circuit already ruled that Sibley’s attempt to obtain one against Obama was the same as Laity’s attempt to obtain one against Harris.

  5. Robert, thanks for your efforts here. I made a copy of this article. Next Friday
    I have an appointment with one of my PA state reps. Indeed, I’ll be sharing this topic to him. Also, I am asking readers to do the same.

    *The following two questions I have are not a joke…I’m really serious with them.
    So, if anchor baby KING kamala harris can run for VP, and win, can an illegal alien’s anchor baby run for VP? *How about an alien couple from MARS who fly their UFO to Earth….they land, and the pregnant MARTIAN mammy spits out a healthy little green/gray crying baby….can that (MARTIAN) anchor baby run for VP in future?
    Remember, the word used is “person”…not “Earthling” in the writing. So whose to say an Alien from MARS is not a “person?”

    1. In NY State one must be qualified for the Office they run for. For they cannot enter said office when they don’t meet the criteria outlined in the law. For some odd reason, ineligible candidates are somehow falling through the cracks by the federal law and being allowed to run for President and VP. That said, since Harris is barred from holding that office, by law, then she is NOT the bona-fide Vice-President, she is a usurper. NO person can be President or VP who was not born in the United States to parents who are both US Citizens themselves.

      In your hypothetical, an extraterrestrial “person” not being a citizen of the US until he/she naturalized would not be able to be President or VP. Naturalized persons are not eligible to be President or VP. That said, IF the US Congress , who legislates Naturalization Laws, provided for the Naturalization of “Martians”
      as US Citizens, then the child of naturalized “Martian-Americans”, if born IN the USA would be eligible to be our President or VP.

      1. Mr. Laity; your answer to the hypothetical extraterrestrials’ eligibility status is spot on! But, I thought your statement regarding the odd reasons for ineligible’s to fall through the cracks is, in my perceptions not a mystery! The Deep State has been running our governments for decades. They call the shots; they decide ultimately who will run, win and/or be appointed. I offer you as a recent example, the Presidential election. Even the NYT exposed the machinations of the Deep State to steal the election from Trump and install the usurpers Biden and Harris. The Deep State is an intermarried cesspool of nepotists who train, teach, indoctrinate and rule over the politicians, especially each new group that gets voted into their club. The politicians benefits in their collaboration with the aforementioned are myriad, endless; as long as they tow the Deep State line. Their attitude is: “to hell with the Constitution! We’ll subscribe to it only when it serves our purposes!”. This is my understanding of the issue.

  7. GOD Bless Mr. Laitys’ tenacious perseverance! Unfortunately however, our politicians have consistently demonstrated their willful ignorance and utter disdain for our Constitutional laws. I present the kangaroo impeachment trial of President Trump as an example of my statement. Also, the courts are apparently, controlled by the Deep State and will not entertain any challenges to the eligibility of the culprits he listed. The courts have proven their impotence ad nauseam! They kow-tow to a “higher authority”! The issue of eligibility is dear to me. I have obsessed over it since 2007, when I first was made aware of the issue. My fervent desire is to see Mr Laitys’ case proceed and succeed, as well as other patriots challenges to the issue. The fact that none of the people who are ostensibly guilty of treason and felonies have not been held accountable for their transgressions churns the bile to the back of my throat! I want accountability and retribution! It will take a massive effort on the part of our citizenry to right these wrongs. I afraid we are not up to it. However, I find a glimmer of hope in the fact that only twenty percent of our population of the original colonies supported the revolution! And after seven years of war they won!!! Keep banging on the doors of the courts Mr. Laity, for yourself and for us! I for one is counting on you, thank you! Your patriotism is remarkable! GOD SPEED!
    Doctor Lou

  8. Would the Supreme Court or any court, please define the term natural-born Citizen as it appears in the Constitution. Does it mean, a person born in the United States to citizen parents (plural) who are themselves citizens? Is that the correct or incorrect definition?
    If it is correct, then Barack Obama should not have been president of the United States and the country has a constitutional crisis of immense proportions. If it is correct, then Kamala Harris should not be vice-president of the United States and the country has another constitutional crisis of immense proportions.
    If it is incorrect, then what, pray tell, is the correct definition? We, the American people, would like to know. But we will never know because those over educated cotton-pickers in black robes will never cotton-picking tell us, ever! Why? Because these cotton-picking Ivy League morons have screwed-up bigtime and this cotton-picking constitutional nightmare has gotten so far out of cotton-picking hand, it will take a cotton-picking constitutional convention to fix it. And that aint cotton-picking likely.

    1. There are no less then (6) US Supreme Court opinions that have defined, affirmed and reaffirmed the meaning of “Natural Born Citizen” of the United States as “one born in the United States to parents who are [both] US Citizens themselves”-Minor v. Happersett,USSCt. (1874) (unanimous). Others are “The Venus”; “Wong Kim Ark”; Shanks v. Dupont; among others cited in the Amicus Brief filed in my case by the US Allegiance Institute.

      1. I agree with you about the 19th and 20th century court cases that support your position (see below). You have documented these cases for the court and the court ignores them, why? Because their political masters require it. They will not rule in your favor because both political parties and the corporate media do not want what you are selling. To find in your favor would bring on heat these cotton-pickers are not willing to endure.

        I hope I’m wrong, but I don’t think I am.

        In the Supreme Court decision, The Venus, 1814, Justice John Marshall defined “natural-born citizen” citing Vattel, but using his own words stated “Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says, ‘the citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or indigenes, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.’

        In U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the Supreme Court held children born in the United States, of permanently domiciled alien (permanent legal resident) parents, are native-born citizens. But the Court did not hold these children to be natural-born citizens. To the contrary, the Court has consistently used the term “natural born citizen’ to apply only to persons born on U.S. soil, to citizen parents (plural).

        The decision was based on the 14th Amendment. This case is often used by some as evidence that any citizen born in the U.S. can be President. However, the 14th Amendment only stated, “all persons born in the United States…excluding Indians not taxed….” were citizens and were to be given “full and equal benefit of all laws.” The Ark decision did not assert or imply the definition of natural-born citizen in the Constitution had changed.

        In Inglis v. Trustees (1830) and Elk v. Wilkins (1884), the plaintiff was born in the United States, of a father owing allegiance to sovereignty other than the United States. In each case, the Court determined that the plaintiff did not acquire U.S. citizenship at birth: his nationality at the time of birth was that of his father, not his birthplace.

        In Dred Scott v. Sandford (1856), Justice Daniels’s concurring opinion characterized the view that:” natural -born citizens are those born in the country to parents who are citizens”.

        In Minor v. Happerset (1874), the decision most on-point, the Court defined two classes of citizens. The first consisted of citizen children born in the United States to U.S.-citizen parents (plural). The second consisted of U.S. born children of non-U.S.-citizen parents. The Court used the term “natural-born citizen’ to apply to members of the first class. While both classes are citizens, only persons in the first class are natural born.

        In Kwock Jan Fat v. White (1920), the Supreme Court referred to Mr. Kwock as a natural-born citizen. He was born in the United States to a father who was a native-born citizen and a mother who was a U.S. citizen by marriage.

        In Perkins v. Elg (1939), the Supreme Court referred to Marie Elizabeth Elg as a natural-born citizen. She was born in the U.S. to a father who was a naturalized citizen and a mother who was a U.S. citizen by marriage.

        Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971) stated children born outside the United States to U.S. citizen parent(s) are citizens through a naturalization Act of Congress and these children would be aliens without such an Act.

        Whenever the Supreme Court has referred to a person as a natural-born citizen, that person was always born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents.

        1. In the case of Kwock Jan Fat, his mother could not be a citizen by marriage. The Naturalization Act of 1855 only allowed derivative citizenship by marriage if the woman “might lawfully be naturalized under existing laws.” A Chinese woman or man could not naturalize under US law.

          So unless she was born in the US, which is not indicated in the opinion, Kwock Jan Fat had only one citizen parent.

  9. When was Laity threatened with incarceration or placement on a domestic terrorist list for supporting the former president? How do these threats, if true, relate to Harris?

    What is case number for the Information filed federal district court in New York?

    1. There have been numerous reports in the public realm that Trump supporters should be designated as “domestic terrorists”, that they should be rounded up, that they should be placed on no-fly lists, censored on social media, put in concentration camps and even killed. Harris has been heard to incite riots, she is a usurper during time of war. That makes her a traitor and a spy under 18USC and 10USC. Biden is complicit with Obama’s treason and espionage against the USA.
      These threats “relate to Harris” and Biden in that they have condoned the suggestions. That is an actual and imminent threat to my Liberty interests., a legally protected right. There is no case # assigned for the information filed with the US Attorney for the WDNY. I was instructed, in a meeting with US Magistrate Leslie Foschio of the WDNY to file the complaint against Obama with my local police who would then forward it to the proper authorities and that proper venue to file the information was IN DC. The Chief of Police of Tonawanda, NY, where I reside forwarded my complaint to the Chief of Police in DC. DC is where my current case against Kamala Harris is being adjudicated.

      1. Vague, unsubstantiated, non-specific threats (by unknown speakers) not directed at any particular person, that were (somehow) “condoned” (whatever that means) by Harris, isn’t a particularized injury.

        So it is unsurprising that the district court dismissed the case, and that the appellate court affirmed the dismissal with an order to show why sanctions shouldn’t be imposed.

        1. You didn’t read my Petition for Rehearing En Banc very intently. I presented case law attesting to the fact that an intangible injury affecting a Legally protected interest such as life, liberty, or property is enough to establish standing and is a concrete injury. It is both Concrete and Particularized, has nexus to Harris’ act to usurp the Vice-Presidency and which the court has the power to take appropriate action that would remedy my complaint.

        2. My reading was sufficiently intent.

          The complaint sought a writ of quo warranto, which has been dismissed. Instead of addressing that dismissal, the petition for rehearing added in unrelated claims, like unknown people making unspecified threats that Harris somehow adopted, and somehow can be remedied only by removing her from office.

  10. “The FCA grants standing to those who bring such fraud to the attention of the Government. in Qui Tam. ”

    Under the False Claims Act you may be barred from filing a claim.

    31 U.S. Code § 3730 (e) (4) (A) The court shall dismiss an action or claim under this section, unless opposed by the Government, if substantially the same allegations or transactions as alleged in the action or claim were publicly disclosed—

    (iii) from the news media,

    unless the action is brought by the Attorney General or the person bringing the action is an original source of the information.

    IIRC, Professor Eastman made the claim about eligibility of VP Harris in Newsweek Magazine before you filed your lawsuit.

    1. Thanks for the information about Professor Eastman. I am not looking for any share of any monetary award for my disclosure. I never saw the Newsweek Article. I will read it. Do you believe that I have made “substantially the same allegations…? If I am barred from filing the FCA the fact remains that I have done my civic duty under the laws against Misprision of Felony by filing my quo warranto case. I believe that I have met my burden to prove standing. The main remedy I want is for Harris to prove that she is eligible to be VP or President. I believe she is not. The onus is on her to prove her eligibility if the Writ of Quo Warranto is issued.

      1. Laity may believe he has met his burden, but so far four judges disagree. And the onus is on Laity to articulate a basis to invoke the federal courts’ jurisdiction.

        Is everyone who didn’t file a lawsuit against Harris guilty of misprision?

  11. Lack of standing is the coward/TRAITOR way of avoiding issues. Every American citizen has standing to challenge violations of the Constitution but the deep state, including judges, are controlled by satan and will do as he and soros tell them!!!!! It seems as if our only option is the one our founders faced. As much as I don’t like the idea some may have to fight a war to gain liberty. I am too old and disabled to be of any help. I have the military training and experience but not the physical ability to be a warrior.

      1. Do you know if he didn’t? I cited in my appellant brief the opinion of an attorney that “Standing was pulled out of thin air by the court” and that “standing is no where to be found in the constitution”.

        1. There’s no evidence that Satan compelled Scalia to write Lujan. And as the D.C. Circuit affirmed the dismissal for lack of standing, it appears it was not impressed with Max Kennerly’s opinion.

    1. Unfortunately, I have to agree with you, I, too, am too damn old, but that was in their plan. Wait until most Vietnam Nam Era veterans, (the conservative ones), could be killed by a virus, or too old to participate in a revolution or civil war.

      The younger people have almost four generations that have been educated through this country’s socialist ‘education ‘ system, and will soon be running this country. Their timing was impeccable!

      1. 848484,
        “TOUGHER THAN WOODPECKER LIPS” I highly admire your spirit young man! I’m 59 and will proudly help hold the line in front of you. Is my current physical condition equal to that when I was 19 going through Jump School at Ft Benning, Georgia in the middle of July? Depends on how bill clinton defines “equal to!” (shaking my head in disgust).
        No I can’t win the Mr Olympia competition right now but I guarantee that I could meet biden, schiff & schumer behind the gym and beat the living daylight out of those three stooges. Ok, Secret Service, come get me…but Madonna and Robert Denuttso Deniro have standing appointments for the pokey before me.
        God bless ya 848484, brother.