Posted on 07/01/2011 4:01:29 PM PDT by SatinDoll
The US Supreme Court Center at Justia.com is the leading resource on the internet which publishes United States Supreme Court decisions. They have been caught red handed in an Orwellian attempt to revise US Supreme Court cases which mention Minor v. Happersett as precedent on the issue of citizenship, as opposed to the other issue decided in Minor, voting rights.
I have documented two incredible examples where Justia.com has been caught in the act of taking a hatchet job to US Supreme Court decisions by removing, not just the case name, “Minor v. Happersett”, but whole passages related to Chief Justice Waite’s statements on the citizenship issue which were cited favorably in BOYD V. NEBRASKA EX REL. THAYER, 143 U. S. 135 (1892), and POPE V. WILLIAMS, 193 U. S. 621 (1904).
I have published my complete investigation into this fraud perpetrated by Justia.com – including snapshots and evidence collected from the Way Back Machine at the Internet Archive – in the comments section of my previous report, THE EXPRESS LANE TO NATURAL BORN CLARITY. My investigation was triggered by a reader’s comment regarding Boyd. The comment was on a separate issue. But I then noticed that the Boyd case, as currently published by Justia.com, made reference to Minor v. Happersett without properly naming the case.
***************************************************
This is beyond shocking. Somebody, back in 2008, just prior to the election, ordered these revisions and saw to their execution. This is direct tampering with United States law. And it is evidence that Minor v. Happersett was known to be a huge stumbling block to POTUS eligibility.
It confirms that Minor v. Happersett was seen as a dangerous US Supreme Court precedent which construed the natural-born citizen clause of Article 2 Section 1 to make only those persons born in the US to citizen parents (plural)… eligible to be President.
According to binding US Supreme Court precedent, Obama is not eligible to be President. And we are obviously very late coming to this legal truth. Somebody at Justia.com tried to control and alter our awareness by hiding important Supreme Court references to Minor dating back to 2008. This is smoking gun proof of tampering. Please read my full report here.
There needs to be an investigation.
It’s all politics.
How effective are outraged citizens when they go banging on Congress because the President is violating the very Constitution he took an oath to uphold? Does Congress listen?
Congress ignored Americans when they screamed “NO” about Obama’s Healthcare legislation: many were voted out of office last year as a result. That left a Hell of a mark.
Now, even worse, Obama has made economic decisions that are dragging the nation down economically and refusing to uphold laws with which he doesn’t agree. That last is definitely an impeachable offense.
Will he be impeached? Tried and thrown out of office? I suspect there may well be an impeachment, but the Democratic Party will force him to resign rather than see the Party decimated as the result of a trial in the Senate. Obama is hiding much of his past; the Democrats don’t want the truth publicly outed for it will destroy the Party.
The Obamas already has a bolt hole: he spent over $20Million dollars of OUR money to help Kenya rewrite their national constitution. In the process, it was rewritten so Obama is now eligible to run for President of Kenya.
Rumors from staff at the White House indicate that the Obamas have overseas bank accounts. Gee, what a surprise!
It’s all politics.
How effective are outraged citizens when they go banging on Congress because the President is violating the very Constitution he took an oath to uphold? Does Congress listen?
Congress ignored Americans when they screamed “NO” about Obama’s Healthcare legislation: many were voted out of office last year as a result. That left a Hell of a mark.
Now, even worse, Obama has made economic decisions that are dragging the nation down economically and refusing to uphold laws with which he doesn’t agree. That last is definitely an impeachable offense.
Will he be impeached? Tried and thrown out of office? I suspect there may well be an impeachment, but the Democratic Party will force him to resign rather than see the Party decimated as the result of a trial in the Senate. Obama is hiding much of his past; the Democrats don’t want the truth publicly outed for it will destroy the Party.
The Obamas already has a bolt hole: he spent over $20Million dollars of OUR money to help Kenya rewrite their national constitution. In the process, it was rewritten so Obama is now eligible to run for President of Kenya.
Rumors from staff at the White House indicate that the Obamas have overseas bank accounts. Gee, what a surprise!
I would be happy if we could start by getting just one committee of the House of Representatives to hold a hearing on the Constitutional meaning of “natural born citizen.” It wouldn’t even have to focus directly on Obama, just on the Founders’ intent with that choice of words. That would be a place to start.
I have no idea which Senators would vote to remove Obama from office. Frankly, it would be unlikely the issue would get that far without intense pressure being applied for Obama to resign.
Congress doesn’t need to do anything vis a vis ‘natural born citizen’. There already exists legal precedent. The fact is, Progressives and Liberals don’t like it one bit.
What needs to happen is on the state level. Each state must ascertain that candidates to national office - president and vice president - meet the U.S.Constitutional eligibility requirements stated in Article II, section 1.
“Why would textbooks from the 1800’s through the 40’s be less valid anyway?”
Cherry picking books from antiquity has nothing to do with what I was taught in school. You took this challenge on yourself when you said that there were “truckloads” available on Amazon and “it should then be a relatively simple matter to produce a civics textbook from the era”. It is not quite as easy as you thought is it?
So for the sake of argument... if Osama Bin Laden had taken an underage American wife and had a child that was born in this country and then took the child back to Pakistan to be indoctrinated to hate America... in your opinion is that child constitutionally eligible to be president? If so... what safeguard do you think the framers were trying to take by specifying that the president must be a natural born citizen?
I have no idea which Senators would vote to remove Obama from office. Frankly, it would be unlikely the issue would get that far without intense pressure being applied for Obama to resign.
Congress doesn’t need to do anything vis a vis ‘natural born citizen’. There already exists legal precedent. The fact is, Progressives and Liberals don’t like it one bit.
What needs to happen is on the state level. Each state must ascertain that candidates to national office - president and vice president - meet the U.S.Constitutional eligibility requirements stated in Article II, section 1.
I agree with you.
The emphasis must be placed on the election of 2012. It’s a “fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me” situation.
If you read closely Leo Donofrio’s comment about the quite interesting edits to the Justia database, you will see that it’s not just a question of a missing case name.
In the case Pope v. Williams, Justia apparently greatly shortened the text of a crucial paragraph that referred to Minor vs. Happersett, as well as removed the name of the Minor case.
Kleon’s exemplar of an assumed problem with their software cannot explain the massive editing of that paragraph in the Pope case.
Can you give us more examples, Kleon? If not, then can you explain how you happened upon this one other instance, unrelated to Minor vs. Happersett?
If Justia had such a problem with their software, which damaged their “mission” to provide the public with accurate information, then where’s a notification on their site of this problem and an explanation for how it happened and when it happened and how and when they fixed it? Not to mention an apology and a promise to do better, or is that beyond the realm of possibility, given the personages involved?
One might surmise that the Brown case exemplar was a pre-planned rationale (aka, a cover story) for the “error” in those too conveniently removed references to Minor vs. Happersett, just in case somebody among the public should notice before the election. (Like “birthers”?)
Even so, even if there’s such a software error, it does not explain the edited paragraph in Pope, unless Kleon can show us that other cases were edited in the same way, with actual paragraphs from SCOTUS cases being shortened and with sentences removed from the text of the case.
How can Kleon explain the editing of that paragraph in the Pope vs. Williams case BEFORE July 25, 2008, just as with the Boyd vs. Nebraska case? Same timeframe exactly.
The Wayback Machine, on March 1 2007, has the only archived example prior to July 2008. This cached page from 2007 showed the full paragraph with the reference to Minor vs. Happersett BY NAME on the Justia website.
That paragraph has suddenly been “fixed” on Justia since Donofrio reported his finding. It remained in edited form on April 3, 2009—the last “crawl” for that webpage in the Wayback Machine. But in the Google cache, it still REMAINED in edited form on May 23, 2011.
Therefore, the paragraph was “fixed” between May 23, 2011 and today, but certainly after Leo Donofrio outed them. It was fixed within the past few days because when I read his comments ON June 30, 2011, I immediately LOOKED at the Justia site. The Pope case was exactly as Leo Donofrio portrayed it—allegedly “deceptively edited” for political reasons. Many people have saved screenshots, not only from Justia and the Wayback Machine, but also from the Google caches.
Here’s an excerpt from the paragraph in question, as it should and does read at the FindLaw site, which is for “legal professionals” as opposed to the public:
“The privilege to vote in any state is not given by the Federal Constitution, or by any of its amendments. It is not a privilege springing from citizenship of the United States. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 22 L. ed. 627. It may not be refused on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, but it does not follow from mere citizenship of the United States. In other words, the privilege to vote in a state is within the jurisdiction of the state itself, to be exercised as the state may direct, and upon such terms as to it may seem proper, provided, of course, no discrimination is made between individuals, in violation of the Federal Constitution.”
Now here’s the same paragraph, as “deceptively edited” according to Donofrio, from the Justia site, as it appeared between July 2008 until only a few days ago:
“The privilege to vote in any state is not given by the federal Constitution, or by any of its amendments. It is not a privilege springing from citizenship of the @ 88 U. S. 491. In this case, no question arises as to the right to vote for electors of President and Vice President, and no decision is made thereon. The question whether the conditions prescribed by the state might be regarded by others as reasonable or unreasonable is not a federal one. We do not wish to be understood, however, as intimating that the condition in this statute is unreasonable or in any way improper.”
Where’s the part about STATES controlling the right to vote in any election—it being within their jurisdiction? Meaning, one might suppose, that it’s up to the states to decide who gets on the ballot (vetting candidates) and decide specifics about electors and how they vote. Or so I assume, not being a lawyer myself but being able to read.
One can guess why, in July 2008, somebody was concerned about states acting upon their Constitutional right to control elections and also that inconvenient SCOTUS precedent that proves Obama was never eligible to be placed upon ballots, not being a natural born citizen, by his own admission. July 2008 was arguably when the “birther” issue began. When citizens began to write to their representatives and publicize this issue.
Here are links. First the web archive and then a link to Donofrio’s more specific explanation:
http://wayback.archive.org/web/20080801000000*/http://supreme.justia.com/us/193/621/case.html
It isn’t just anyone with a liberal bent, if you research the persons involved in the Justia site, you will find many interesting connections, some of which lead to the usual suspect—Soros. Obama, Podesta, Sunstein, and Soros, among too many others, envision a “progressive” Constitution by 2020 and a new global order, too, based upon Marxism. Many lawyers and computer technologists are helping with this progressive “progression”, all to proceed, of course, without any vote of the AMERICAN people, especially not a Constitutional amendment to bring about their longed-for 2020 progressive Constitution. They KNOW the American people would never amend their Constitution in the way the progressives, and Soros, wish. So they will find another way to impose it upon us.
Sorry. I caught up with comments on this thread and see that other examples were given of the case NAME being missing in some other cases on Justia. I still haven’t seen an example of the text being radically altered, also.
The fact that these examples come so quickly to mind might support my contention that perhaps a certain number of other cases were messed with in order to provide cover (like when the cauterizers of Obama’s passport file also peeped at Hillary’s and McCain’s, in order to throw people off the trail, to make them think Obama’s file wasn’t their target, when the investigation proved otherwise. What was cauterized? Will the people ever know? I can guess.)
I checked the Wayback Machine and the timing for these alterations also fit with the convenient alterations of the crucial cases elucidating Obama’s ineligibility.
I put all the people you named and the classes of people like them under the umbrella term of "liberal." There are various flavors of Liberals, but they all have in common the notion that government should be used to equalize or rectify things they see as unfair.
Agreed.
We need some serious input from attorneys with extensive experience before the Supreme Court, as well as long-standing legal firms (100 years or more) to determine the extent to which this "US Supreme Court Center at Justia.com" is connected to official government sources. Is this an official part of the Judiciary Department? Is there any vetting required as there is for our intelligence agencies?
If the deletions were deliberate at which level must the perpetrator(s) have existed to pull it off?
Are these official U.S. Records?
Have the employment records between 2007 and 2011 also been compromised?
Who is best positioned and has the authority to investigate this "anomaly?"
I hope this thread reaches enough eyes to prevent its immedediate disappearance.
Shades of Sandy Burglar!!!
Justia.com is privately owned, like Google is privately owned, and basically does the same thing - connect referenced material, in this instance legal cases.
Hey Butter!
I have a comment on something you said:
“Kleon says he’s seen a Way Back Machine page showing that it happened elsewhere. He’s even posted a direct link that is supposed to take me to that page. But my computer won’t go to it. Apparently all this “evidence” is like the mythical unicorn that only appears to true believers. lol.”
I watched this whole thing develop. I literally watched these cases which Leo documents on his site be found, I saw them myself. Leo stated very clearly that it would disappear off the net the same way the first two cases in July did. So he screenshotted everything. I did a number myself, and I included in my article that the wayback machine would stop showing these pages as soon as the .txt robots from Justia could be written for them. We had hoped that Justia would come clean, and thie was their opportunity, Instead, they covered up again by trying to sweep it under the rug.
We knew that the Obots and others would go and say... oh this is a forgery. No. It isn’t. It is a deliberate tactic being used by Justia to try and make this go away.
It isn’t working. There is too much evidence. thus, obots etc are forced to attack the images, because the information IN the images is so complete and so dakmming they have no defense. If you can’t kill the message, kill the messenger right?
Well, I am a witness to all of it. That is why I wrote in Examiner the way I did. I KNOW what I saw and have complete confidance in what I saw.
“Fair enough, I can see that argument. It doesn’t address why they didn’t expunge the references from the other law archives, like FindLaw”
I can answer that for you easily. Findlaw was originally founded by Tim Stanley. He sold it to West Publishing for 37 Million and got a 200K salary and stayed on as an employee. Well the new owners and Stanley didn’t see eye to eye, and Stanley got sued for Breech of Contract. tha tcase got settled, but Findlaw and Justia are not buddies.
Whoever messed with Justia’s site had access to Justia’s code. NOT the code of other sites. Whoever made the changes had access to Justia. Thats why you do not see it elsewhere. But keep im mind, Stanley said that the “error” affected their entire Supreme Court Server...
Yes, I believe what you said about that. Kleon was claiming that the Minor v Happersett cases weren’t the ONLY ones where they did that so it must have just been some little formatting change they made and then coincidentally changed it back right after Donofrio pointed it out.
But now that we’ve seen that Waybackmachine is willing and able to manipulate their stuff to cover for Obama, that means that they could easily have changed a Wayback page to make it seem like the same phenomenon happened with other cases besides Minor v Happersett. That’s the way they have functioned with everything else: when somebody notices a discrepancy, quick, create a forgery that has the same discrepancy and then say, “Well, it must not be a discrepancy because it happened this other time too...”
For instance, they are STILL trying to claim that the BC’s were alphabetized a month at a time before being numbered at the end of the month - even after I’ve pointed out repeatedly that Okubo said they were numbered the same day they were received in their office except in very rare instances. They’ve come up with Waidelich’s BC and now this other one that WND had an article about - both trying to show that Obama’s number is not a discrepancy. But Okubo said what she said, so now we’ve just got 3 discrepancies instead of one.
I hope that makes sense. I’m about brain-dead right now. My co-worker has been in the hospital so I’ve been covering for him, at the same time as working on sewing a quilt for a wounded soldier (that’s supposed to be done by Veteran’s Day) and planning a youth-led worship service for All Saints Day. A lot of details and a lot of work. All stuff I love to do but sleep would be nice too. In the meantime I just hope my sleep-deprived mouth doesn’t say anything too stupid. lol
I don’t know that the Wayback Machine has anything to do with it. Justia can insert .txt robots on their end to exclude certain specific URLs from being readable at Wayback.
It wasn’t some little bit of formatting either. There was specific text removed, citation numbers got changed, the case name got removed, there was a LOT going on there, and no “ .* “ in regex can do that. the * includes or excludes only the characters associated with it, its a qualifier, and it has to have some thing to qualify, in this case it was “Minor v. Happersett” and the specific text of other cases which made a variety of statements which didn’t have that case name in it also got removed. That is no accident.
I don’t know the other history you are speaking about with regards to Hawaii. So I can’t really address that. Internet.org has been around since the internet began, thats 1986, back when it was a university communication system.
I think this scrubbing of web resources by leftists is widespread. When Rev. Wright became an issue on the Sean Hannity Show, I looked up his church website, http://www.tucc.org/ . It had 10 items identified as its purpose. One of these 10 was American slave reparations. A couple weeks later the website had changed, and I couldn’t find it on the Wayback Machine ( http://www.archive.org/web/web.php) , even though it shows up. After this Justia story, I went back and checked again, and Wright’s church has a new site. If you search the old site, http://www.tucc.org/ , you will see what I mean. The new site, http://www.trinitychicago.org , shows that it was established Sep. 2008. Go figure. More hiding of Zero’s past.
This hiding of his past history goes back quite a ways.
The Democratic Party sent an activist to Jakarta, Indonesia, back in July, 2007, to buy up all the Indonesian government’s record on Barry Soetoro/Barry Obama. This included all Soetoro family pictures, as well.
He was a little boy back then. What is to hide?
Unless, of course, he isn’t really who he claims to be.
I may disagree with many here when I say this: The 2008 presidential election made me proud to an American. We had two great candidates: one liberal, one conservative, both of whom connected with the mainstream.
Well you're right about one thing, almost everyone here would disagree. You were proud? PROUD? You were proud that a Marxist idiot won the Democratic nomination? I have NO doubt that you also voted for him... NONE! and if you think McCain is a conservative, you are even crazier than I thought.
Blade Byron is an RINO. Simple as that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.