by Sharon Rondeau

(May 31, 2021) — The plaintiff in a case docketed at the U.S. Supreme Court scheduled for conference last Thursday challenging Kamala Harris’s constitutional eligibility to serve has received an acknowledgement of Laity’s having electronically sent through the court’s website a link to “Open Letter to Justice Clarence Thomas” authored by legal analyst and longtime P&E contributor Joseph DeMaio.

The Open Letter, which refers directly to Laity’s case, states, “Absent a constitutional amendment either clarifying the meaning of the eligibility restriction – or repealing and/or abrogating it altogether – the debates will continue.  Therefore, assuming, arguendo, that the pending petition in Docket No. 20-1503 will be denied, it would not be unprecedented for one or more of the Justices to articulate their own views as to the propriety (or impropriety) of that denial.  If such a view or views were to be disseminated, the likelihood is that that the issue would finally be perpetually avoided.”

Laughingly, in April 2010, Thomas admitted to a congressional panel that the high court was “evading the issue” of presidential eligibility, as DeMaio noted in his column.

Dated May 23, 2021, the Open Letter begins:

Dear Justice Thomas:

With respect, it is virtually certain that in the next Court conference – this coming Thursday, May 27, 2021 – the matter in Docket No. 20-1503, “Laity v. Harris” will be addressed.  Further, it is also not altogether unlikely that, based on existing Court precedent, and as has happened in past cases involving the same plaintiff/petitioner – Mr. Robert Laity – his challenge to the constitutional eligibility of Vice-President Kamala Harris as a “natural born Citizen” may be denied on the grounds that he lacks the “requisite standing” to maintain and support his certiorari petition, arguments to the contrary notwithstanding.

This conclusion is not posited to advocate or suggest either a granting or denial of the petition, but merely to acknowledge the reality that based on precedent, the Court may deny the petition.  Indeed, you may well concur in a determination that the petition be denied for lack of requisite standing under the Court’s existing precedent, including Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992).

With utmost respect, Mr. Justice Thomas, the issue of presidential eligibility as a “natural born Citizen” under Art. 2, § 1, Cl. 5 of the Constitution is not an insignificant one.  Instead, it goes to the very core of who the Founders intended would be entrusted with command over the “[A]merican army” and be mandated to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” These directives would seem to be at least as important as those regarding, for example, whether individuals seeking redress for alleged and perceived environmental habitat and endangered species damage resulting from events in Egypt and Sri Lanka possessed “standing,” as encountered in Lujan. 

Under the subject line, “FW: Open Letter to Justice Clarence Thomas – The Post & Email,” Laity addressed the email with the attachment to “clerk@supremecourt.gov” and “clarence.thomas@supremecourt.gov.” In a separate email, Laity sent the article through the court’s website, to which he received the response, “Thank you for your submission, it has been received and should it require any other information we will contact you at this e-mail address. – U.S. Supreme Court Webmaster” on Monday morning.

Acknowledgement from “webmaster” of Laity’s attachment of Joseph DeMaio’s “Open Letter to Justice Clarence Thomas” regarding Laity’s challenge of Kamala Harris’s constitutional eligibility to serve as vice president or president

Laity’s email to the clerk and Thomas reads:

From: Robert Laity
Sent: Monday, May 31, 2021 1:11 AM
To: clerk@supremecourt.gov; clarence.thomas@supremecourt.gov
Subject: FW: Open Letter to Justice Clarence Thomas – The Post & Email

Open Letter to Justice Clarence Thomas – The Post & Email

by Joseph DeMaio, ©2021  May 23, 2021  Dear Justice Thomas: With respect, it is virtually certain that in the next Court conference – this coming Thursday, May 27, 2021 – the matter in Docket No. 20-1503, “Laity v. Harris” will be addressed.  Further, it is also not altogether unlikely that, based on existing Court precedent, […]

Monday is a federal holiday, with all federal and state courts closed.

Laity contends that because Harris’s parents were not U.S. citizens when she was born in Oakland, CA in 1964, she is not a “natural born Citizen” as the Framers of the U.S. Constitution would have defined it. Referring to the 14th Amendment, one legal analyst, former Chapman University School of Law Professor John Eastman, has suggested that Harris may not qualify as even a statutory U.S. citizen, as she may not have been “subject to the complete jurisdiction” [emphasis Chapman’s] of the United States given her parents’ citizenship when she was born.

Detractors of Laity’s continued efforts to compel a review of Harris’s qualifications as a purported “natural born Citizen,” which the Constitution and 12th Amendment require for the president and vice president, respectively, have predicted that the court will deny Laity’s petition for certiorari on Tuesday, thereby closing the matter. Such observers generally say that anyone born in the United States, regardless of their parents’ citizenship at the time, is a “natural born Citizen.”

Previously in lower courts, Laity’s case was dismissed for lack of “standing,” an element his detractors say he cannot overcome. Early Monday morning in response to such a comment, Laity responded, “I have a plan B.”

Join the Conversation

33 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. “Laity’s email to the clerk and Thomas reads:

    From: Robert Laity
    Sent: Monday, May 31, 2021 1:11 AM”

    The open letter was published on the 23th.

    The Supreme Court conference was on the 27th

    He sent it on the 31st at 1 a.m., the morning of a national holiday when the Court will be closed.

    The orders list comes out tomorrow at 10:00 a.m EDT.

    I suspect the list has already been printed and this open letter is way too late.

    Also I would suggest that it should have been sent to Justice Thomas’ law clerks.

    1. A party shouldn’t communicate only with the court; that’s an ex parte communication and is improper. A party should include all parties in any communication with a court.

      1. Observe Henri, Kamala Harris did just that in,

        Constitution Association, et al v Kamala Devi Harris,

        motioning ex parte, to have default judgement against her set aside –
        after not even bothering to respond to the suit to begin with.

        Patent demonstration of Harris’ udder (sic) contempt
        for rule of law & gross example of her deep, abiding
        hubris & hypocrisy as a former quote,

        ‘chief law enforcement officer’,

        unquote.

        This is precisely the two tier justice schema you would
        expect to be operating under machinations of a bald,
        rapacious opportunist, within a pervasively corrupt politic.

        Not for me, but for thee.

        Henri, the agenda you prop is so thick
        one could put bread to it for sandwich.

        Again, have you not a care for the opinions
        of God & man, Sir?

        .

        1. As the docket for the Constitution Association’s case indicates, unlike Laity and his eleventh-hour letter, the federal government did serve its motion to set aside the default.

          And there’s nothing untoward about a litigant not acknowledging improper service. With the likely explanation being that the federal Department of Justice wasn’t even aware of the lawsuit until the clerk informed it of the entry of default.

          Not all men’s opinions have value, especially those who claim to speak for God.

        2. The ex parte communication in Constitution Association, et al v Kamala Devi Harris was proper. The Constitution Association, Inc. has never properly served Harris as a government official under FRCP. After the clerk entered a default the government entered an ex parte motion pointing out that the problems with service and asking the judge to void the default. By filing ex parte the government maintains the position that Harris was never properly served. In Laity’s case the communication with Justice Thomas was via email and not filed as a motion to be docketed. It is apples and oranges.

          The motion in one case is allowed. In Mr. Laity’s case the communication was improper and in fact useless because it is clear the case had already been denied at conference last Thursday.

        3. .

          Further, to the last, Kamala Harris openly incited criminals
          to Riot & Insurrection in June & July 2020,
          .
          . in front of the ENTIRE WITNESSING WORLD,
          .
          . Henri,
          .
          thus disqualifying herself to run for deputy dog catcher
          .
          . – let alone US VICE PRESIDENT –
          .
          and all WHILE campaigning illegitimately
          for THE OFFICE!

          Then Kamala Harris paid for the Rioters’ bail in Minnesota,
          into the hundreds of thousands of dollars – that they might
          be promptly released to the streets once more,

          for further mayhem!

          So far, 34 HAVE DIED and many hundreds injured,
          in the Harris-incited violence.

          And yet you persist Henri.

          Kamala Harris willfully consigned TENS OF THOUSANDS
          of elderly Americans to physical & mental abuse
          .
          . UNTO DEATH,
          .
          in her profligate, ACTIVE complicity in the
          Companion Canard of Epidemic designed to mature
          the Global Election Management Fraud of 2020
          to her Usurping Purpose.

          In deed, this is rich.

          Layering it on thus, Harris may show aptitude as
          a Froster of Cakes – should she survive legion charges
          to her account which include penalty of death,
          to land in a federal cell & assume office of prisoner –
          but little else.

          Kamala Harris, has much to answer for criminally
          under 18 USC 2381 – 2384, including Treason, Misprision
          of Treason, Riot & Insurrection, Sedition, Espionage,
          and more.

          One so assured of Supporting Entrenchment,
          must have ample reason to have publicly behaved
          in such cavalier disregard, for even appearance
          of lawfulness.

          The whole system rots.

          And still you persist Henri.

          Robert Laity’s facts, argument, legal strategy & execution
          are not the problem Frère Henri.

          Just as one so unwaveringly obstinate in the
          face of facts is not the truth.

          Can you not repent at last Brother?

          .

        4. Harris has not been charged with any crime.

          Regardless, the remedy for removal of a sitting vice president is impeachment in the House and conviction in the Senate.

      2. Published material from a news source are already in the public realm and available to all parties. The DOJ (AGUS and Solicitor General) were copied.

        1. That the information is publicly available does not make an ex parte communication any less improper.

          The header doesn’t show that the federal government received a copy. Nor does it show that Harris’ attorney received a copy.

    2. I can file a Petition for Rehearing within (25) days, if the court denies my first petition. You can bank on that happening if they decline.

      1. Filing a petition for rehearing would be a waste of money and a waste of the court’s time. I cite Supreme Court Rule 44(2):

        “2. 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.”

        Just saying the same things you said before does not meet the grounds for granting a rehearing. The request for rehearing has to be based on substantial intervening circumstances or something not presented before that completely changes the circumstances. How would you plan meet the requirements of this rule?

        1. You will have to wait and see “How” I will “meet the requirements of this rule”. It is my money. I do not consider it a “waste of money”. Furthermore, holding a corrupt government accountable is NEVER a waste of the courts time. That is what the court is entrusted to do by “We the People”.

        2. Frivolous filings accomplish nothing; the attempt will have no practical result. And there’s nothing corrupt about the routine application of existing law.

          Frivolous filings also waste taxpayer money by unnecessarily expending scarce judicial resources.

    1. Fortunately for you, TP&E website will not deny your God-given right to your twisted troll views as itemized in the First Amendment to the US Constitution.

      1. What’s twisted or trolling about predicting the same defeat for this case as 200+ other eligibility cases that have been brought since 2009? Does anybody here really think the Supreme Court is going to accept this case?

        And for those writing about unhappy about the legal concept of standing, it actually is a conservative principle. Courts *should* be limited to what they are able to judge. That’s what standing is. It isn’t about saying no, the rules are about what cases they can say yes to. Justice Scalia wrote, THE DOCTRINE OF STANDING AS AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF THE SEPARATION OF POWERS by Antonin Scalia, which can be read at https://cpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/sites.suffolk.edu/dist/3/1172/files/2015/11/Scalia_17SuffolkULRev881.pdf.

      2. It would not violate the First Amendment if this site chose not to publish comments. Including comments that violate its policy against personal attacks.

        Regardless, the courts have spoken repeatedly about standing as well as the meaning of natural born citizen. So it is not difficult to anticipate what they will again say.

        1. .

          Let us dispel obfuscations
          of Messrs. Henri et Jacques,
          that our Record mayhaps enjoy,
          peradventure, fidelity to facts.

          [Despite what increasingly mounts to
          prevarication – and reprobate at thats.]

          Without too much offending tender, [if stubborn] sensibilities to boot.

          In Constitution Assoc. et al v Kammy, suit was filed
          Monday, 7 December 2020 in San Diego, after Madame Harris
          had relinquished US Senate seat in illicit gambit for US VP.

          No Elector votes – specious or otherwise – tallied.

          Nothing established.

          Kamala Harris was private citizen and “CA, et al”
          named her thus in suit, in her Private Capacity,
          with none other, in her scope – save Felony At Large
          due her willful Video Incitement to Riot & Insurrection.

          Even a fake candidate for office is not of the guv’mint.

          Her Illicit Candidacy & Fraudulent Sortie in Faux Election,
          did not render her in possession of government status –

          At All.

          Still hasn’t.

          On the contrary, any removal will needs must occur in Arrest,
          not impeachment, her status remains putative –
          and by now Harris is doubtless screaming, “Mani-Pedi!” –
          hanging & clawing thus.

          Be cautioned to steer clear the teeth, by the way.

          These children do not play nicely in the sandbox.

          Brothers, under FRCP Rule 12 the Great Imposter
          as private person, was obligated to respond within 21 days
          of receipt of summons – not the guv’mint 60 day window.

          But again, you know these things.

          You know.

          Robinson erred in this – or chose it.

          In the present masqued defeat of due process in
          America’s Judiciary, the Gentlemen of “CA, et al”,
          suffered this affront by the court, in stoic patience,
          waiting for a 60 day trajectory nonetheless,
          reaching to Friday, 7 May 2021.

          Yet you would deny them even the dignity of a proper summons
          aptly & truly effected [perhaps that record is within your view,
          like the rest of the world] in the intervening period of
          bobbling & weaving by practiced Ring Contestant Harris.

          Just bah’cause Judge Todd [his clerk acts at his direction]
          applied it, doesn’t make it to Hoyle. Are you really going
          to quibble on this thing too Gennimin?

          Will you at last yield?

          .

        2. Hi all,

          Just a FYI.

          Senator Harris was a US Senator until January 17, 2021. She was required to resign before she could be sworn in on January 20th.

          Carry on.

        3. The former vice president certified Harris’ victory, and she was sworn in as the vice president on January 20.

          The plaintiffs didn’t attempt to serve Harris until February. And the service was improper, as it didn’t comply with Rule 4.

          The court unsurprisingly noticed this, which is now why the plaintiffs must explain why they believe the court has jurisdiction to hear their case.

          It is not difficult to predict that their lawsuit will be dismissed; the only question is whether the court will primarily rely on mootness or lack of standing.

        1. Plan B is presently in progress concurrently with the last step of plan A. I WILL be filing a PFR within the next (25) days.

        2. Henry, In response to your previous comment about Harris not being charged with a crime and on the issue of impeachment. I HAVE filed a formal police report with the DC Police. It was filed in December of 2020. I have provided a copy of the complaint to Sharon.

          Regarding impeachment of “sitting” Presidents and VPs, Harris is neither. She is a fraud and a usurper, not actually IN the office from which removal is sought. the impeachment protocol does NOT apply to frauds. Prominent and well known Constitutional Scholar Edwin Vieira has said as much. Impeaching a fraud is inappropriate.

          Harris, like Obama, is subject to arrest by any duly authorized law enforcement officer in DC. Harris has been accused of impersonating a public official under the DC Code.

        3. Laity has no authority to initiate criminal proceedings. Like anyone, he can make a request to a law enforcement agency. But it is manifestly clear that his requests have been ignored.

          The former vice president certified Harris’ victory in the Electoral College. She took the oath of office for the vice presidency on January 20. Laity might not like these facts, but they did happen.

          Vieira is entitled to his opinion, but he’s not an expert in the executive branch, and there’s no indication that judges or serious scholars give any weight to his opinion on this topic.

      1. Robert, being “accused” of a crime such as impersonating a Public Official DOES NOT give any Law Enforcement Officer the right to arrest her. The accusation is under DC Law and DC Officers would seek the power to arrest her BUT…..they first MUST HAVE a legal ARREST WARRANT! You cannot arrest on accusations alone unless backed up by that Official arrest warrant.

        1. .

          Dear Jim Boy,

          Seems like, now you’re gettin’ somewhere.

          ‘Course Federal Marshals might serve in arrest,
          especially for the Inciting to Riot part.

          Or better still Citizen’s Arrest, repairing to the injured
          People’s Original Constitutional Authority – including
          a Cornucopia of Possibilities reserved to Their Prerogative
          and memorialized under Their 9th & 10th Amendments –
          some of which may have yet to be imagined.

          But there’s more.

          Fact that Faux Candidate for US VP & British Subject Harris
          is openly subject to arrest for Inciting Riot & Insurrection –
          which mounts to Espionage & Sedition in context
          of influencing a US Election,
          especially in present time of War & National Emergency,
          with overwhelming evidence of foreign state involvement
          in the Global Election Management Fraud of 2020,
          including the Queen’s Privy Council (QPC), ie. The British Crown,
          [to whom Mz. Harris owes allegiance by birth, due Jamaican Pop]
          through Machinations of QPC Wrangler Lord Mark Malloch Brown,
          who unleashed the British Firm Smartmatic’s Venezuelan Software
          called “OpTech” upon US State Jurisdictions*, to effect
          the Gross Digital Election Fraud, from sea to shining sea –
          places Madame Harris in a special category of dangerous
          “Loony ‘Toons Cray Cray” – as her Marxized, CM CT PC CD**
          Faux Domestic Constituency, might well put it.

          So much so, that Harris herself represents
          a Clear & Present Danger to the American Republic
          [Democracy is only a word Brah] – and thus forthwith
          needs must be taken into close arrest pending charge,
          like, Yesterday.

          Good on ya Mate!

          * Madame Harris’ husband Douglas Emhoff is UK law firm
          Partner at DLA Piper, previously run by Sir Nigel Knowles
          (with whom Emhoff interfaced directly in Washington, DC),
          himself a QPC Crony to Lord Malloch Brown,
          and fellow QPC Wrangler for the British Crown.

          No, one can’t make this stuff up, can one.

          Dare ya ta even try.

          Cheerio!

          **CM – Cultural Marxism
          CT – Critical Theory
          PC – Politically Correct
          CD – Cognitive Dissonance

          .

        2. Those who said they would perform a citizen’s arrest on Obama tended to receive a visit from the Secret Service.

          And Harris isn’t a British subject, which is a mostly obsolete term that doesn’t apply to her.