Educating the Confused – Robert Laity – Original Jurisdiction

In his ‘complaint‘ to the FBI, Robert ‘argues’ that

Violation of the Constitution
The ruling against the state of Arizona by Judge Susan Bolton concerning its new immigration law is illegal. “In all cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State may be Party, the supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction.” The way this reads to me is a law suit against any State must be heard by the Supreme Court
He has probably tried to parse our Constitution
Article III, Sec. 2, clause 2 says:”In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction.”
Which says nothing about original jurisdiction being exclusive.
The facts?
U.S. Code › Title 28 › Part IV › Chapter 81 › § 1251 28 U.S. Code § 1251 – Original jurisdiction

(a) The Supreme Court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies between two or more States.

(b) The Supreme Court shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction of:

(1) All actions or proceedings to which ambassadors, other public ministers, consuls, or vice consuls of foreign states are parties;
(2) All controversies between the United States and a State;
(3) All actions or proceedings by a State against the citizens of another State or against aliens.
How hard is it to check the US Code?…
And this issue was settled by the first Congress in 1789, just in case our friend wants to argue that somehow the courts have undermined our Constitution here. Congress divided original jurisdiction into exclusive and non-exclusive jurisdiction.
What a little bit of understanding of the history of our Nation could do for one’s arguments…
Furthermore, the FBI does not investigate these issues. If you believe that a court lacked jurisdiction, you raise the issue on appeal, assuming that it was properly raised in the original case.
Basic stuff really. Anyone could have researched this in less than 5 minutes of searching using Google.
The ‘complaint’ itself is quite hilarious as it really provides few examples of crimes which the FBI would investigate. Such as the complaint that socialist policies are unfair and that President Obama has been living a life of luxury. I guess Robert does not believe that this President deserves the same benefits that previous Presidents have enjoyed. I wonder why…

4 thoughts on “Educating the Confused – Robert Laity – Original Jurisdiction

  1. I am one of the signatories on that Complaint. Obama has never been President. He is a usurper and a fraud and he did so during war time which makes Obama a spy. See: Laity v NY, U.S.Supreme Court docket# 13-875.

  2. I have already shown how your claims are without any merit my friend.

    He cannot be a usurper because he has clear title to the office. So he is at worst a de facto president. There is no time of war to bring civilians under the UCMJ either.


  3. Robert has surrendered Honor. His Loyalty is counterfeit. He gives aid and comfort to our enemies by trying to de-legitimize our duly elected President. And he does not care. That is conduct unbecoming.

  4. Robert is very confused and internally contradictory about his claims. But worse, he has been quite sloppy in his ‘research’.

    Not that it matters, the limited issue before the court is not worthy of a Supreme Court taking any notice.

    I am not very impressed by his ‘arguments’ and have exposed several of them as being somewhat poorly supported by logic, reason and evidence.

    But that’s perhaps a standard too high for some.

Comments are closed.