JUSTIA.COM CAUGHT RED HANDED HIDING REFERENCES TO MINOR v. HAPPERSETT IN PUBLISHED SCOTUS OPINIONS

Natural Born Citizen ^ | July 1, 2011 | Leo Donofrio

[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.

[butterdezillion]

This thread is a perfect example of what you describe. Immediately we had a poster saying that he/she had “checked it out” and because Justia has the corrected version posted right now, Donofrio must have forged the screenshot; anybody who had been interested in facts, logic, and evidence would have seen this immediately and rejected Donofrio’s “conspiracy theory”.

When that was shown wrong by the Google-cached page, the argument changed to saying it was a system-wide problem that just got solved yesterday. First an example that was apples and oranges because the text of the decision clearly never did include the titles of the cases. Then an example from Way Back Machine that my computer won’t let me go to. A big waste of my time. And again, accompanied by claims that a person would have to be wilfully blind or lazy in order to not realize that Donofrio’s claim is crazy.

There are people on both sides of the issue who attack people rather than dig into facts, and there are debunked claims that show up over and over again on both sides of the eligibility issue. I suppose that is just human nature.

But the game you described is played out in every eligibility thread, usually by the same people. As long as the game is still being played and people are kept busy sorting out the meaning of the word “is”, Obama has what he needs to be able to continue destroying this nation.

The Bible says that where there is no clear signal the troops can’t be called into battle. As long as Obama’s people can keep everything blurry, they’ve won. I’m sick of blurry. If everything is blurry it’s fudge-able, and that means that we can’t count on anything. Nothing is solid. The rule of law is blurry, and facts are blurry; that’s what the Obot disinformation army is all about. The whole running of this country is a big debate. When a government agency breaks the laws/rules we have to wait and see how they will try to justify it, and the game goes on and on and on. When we catch a crook who’s in the country illegally, we have to debate what to do, and in the end the crook goes free to rape, murder, or steal from somebody else.

It’s crazy. It’s absolutely crazy. A double-minded man is unstable in all his ways, and this nation is unstable in all its ways. Everything we’ve built the nation on is up for debate now. We have no Constitution. We have no rule of law. We have no courts. We have no evidentiary standards. We have no genuine news reporters. We have no scientific method or peer review; it’s all politicized, based on federal research grants. We are one big post-modern brain fart, and unless something major changes very soon, the nation will dissipate from a lack of genuine substance just like a fart. I doubt we’ll even be able to collect enough of the remains in order to give America a proper burial. I guess that’s appropriate; America will die of post-modernism and her ashes will scatter on the wind because nobody even knew what or where her body ever was. Bah!

[butterdezillion]

My apologies. I am notoriously bad with names, and I forgot to ping you. I’m sorry.

[Jeff Winston]

I do try to avoid dealing with you, and I'm also trying, literally, to get on the road. But here, what you're implying is a mangling of the law, so I'm going to respond.

Make note. It not only prohibits them from being "Natural born citizens" it prohibits granting them ANY citizenship at all! They are not EVEN citizens.

You've taken it completely out of context.

The passage you cited DOES NOT APPLY TO CHILDREN BORN IN THE US OF FOREIGN PARENTS. It applies to those born overseas of US parents.

And it seems to be a good indication of the degree of scholarship on your side of the debate.

Here's the context.

And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.

Happy 4th!

[SatinDoll]

I believe you’ve described an assault against our nation. The following is a description, found at Wikipedia, of the expression “coup d’état” and what it means.

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

A coup d’état, or plural coups d’état — also known as a coup, putsch, and overthrow — is the sudden, extrajudicial deposition of a government, usually by a small group of the existing state establishment — typically the military — to replace the deposed government with another body; either civil or military. A coup d’état succeeds if the usurpers establish their dominance when the incumbent government fails to prevent or successfully resist their consolidation of power. If the coup neither fully fails nor achieves overall success, the attempted coup d’etat is likely to lead to a civil war.

Typically, a coup d’état uses the extant government’s power to assume political control of the country. In Coup d’État: A Practical Handbook, military historian Edward Luttwak says, “A coup consists of the infiltration of a small, but critical, segment of the state apparatus, which is then used to displace the government from its control of the remainder”, thus, armed force (either military or paramilitary) is not a defining feature of a coup d’état.

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

Sure sounds like an apt description of what we’re experiencing.

[DiogenesLamp]

Make note. It not only prohibits them from being "Natural born citizens" it prohibits granting them ANY citizenship at all! They are not EVEN citizens.

You've taken it completely out of context.

The passage you cited DOES NOT APPLY TO CHILDREN BORN IN THE US OF FOREIGN PARENTS. It applies to those born overseas of US parents.

Jeff, this sort of dishonest argument is exactly why people feel like wringing your neck. You are either obtuse, forgetful, or intentionally misleading, or all of the above. I have REPEATEDLY said that: NO ACT OF CONGRESS CAN OVERRIDE AN ARTICLE OF THE US CONSTITUTION. I have further said that the "Naturalization act of 1790" does not override the constitution, but it DOES show what the founders were thinking regarding "natural born citizen." It is readily apparent that they had an objection to a foreign father just for ordinary citizenship, let alone "Natural Born Citizen."

They wouldn't even ALLOW the child of a foreign father to have NATURALIZED citizenship. (by statute.) You are correct that the STATUTE only applies to those born over seas, but the MINDSET is to forbid ANY citizenship to those born of foreign fathers.

So it begs the question. If they wouldn't even ALLOW citizenship for the children of Foreign Fathers, why would they believe that the children of Foreign Fathers would be "Natural born citizens?"

By what stretch of logic can you argue that citizenship specifically banned by statute (because of a foreign father) is equivalent to our highest level of citizenship?

[SatinDoll]

Allowing someone else to control the source of your information is never good.

The Nazis burned books. That fact should never be forgotten.

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

What Donofrio is saying is that they took out the title of the case so that those who would search for references to Minor v Happersett would not be able to see the different places where it was used as precedent in other cases.

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. And it ignores the fact that the citation in Boyd does not quote the definition of NBC from Minor, so someone looking for that wouldn't have found Boyd anyway. And anyone looking for cases dealing with citizenship and eligibility would have found their way to Boyd and then, via the link, to Minor. The fact that this alleged deletion would have had such a negligible effect still makes me doubt it was an intentional attempt to scrub info, but I know you're a collector of anomalies, so I can see why this appeals to you.

[butterdezillion]

Thank you. Now I can do some checking. Random checking of cases. Just changing the volume number randomly I stumbled across this one (Snowden v Hughes) at http://web.archive.org/web/20080311023329/http://supreme.justia.com/us/321/1/case.html ) On page 7 (or at least I guess that’s a page number)it said this on March 11, 2008:

“to state citizenship and derived solely from the relationship of the citizen and his state established by state law. In re Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 83 U. S. 74, 83 U. S. 79; Maxwell v. Bugbee, 250 U. S. 525, 538; Prudential Ins. Co. v. Cheek, 259 U. S. 530, 539; Madden v. Kentucky, 309 U. S. 83, 90-93. The right to become a candidate for state office, like the right to vote for the election of state officers, Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 88 U. S. 170-178; Pope v. Williams, 193 U. S. 621, 632; Breedlove v. Suttles, 302 U. S. 277, 283, is a right or privilege of state citizenship, not of national citizenship, which alone is protected by the privileges and immunities clause.”

Every case there has a title of some kind listed, although the Slaughterhouse cases are not referenced individually because they were never given individual titles.

On July 24, 2008 it said this:

“to state citizenship and derived solely from the relationship of the citizen and his state established by state law. 83 U. S. 74, 83 U. S. 79; Maxwell v. Bugbee, 250 U. S. 525, 250 U. S. 538; Prudential Ins. Co. v. Cheek, 259 U. S. 530, 259 U. S. 539; Madden v. Kentucky, 309 U. S. 83, 309 U. S. 90-93. The right to become a candidate for state office, like the right to vote for the election of state officers, 88 U. S. 170-178; Pope v. Williams, 193 U. S. 621, 193 U. S. 632; Breedlove v. Suttles, 302 U. S. 277, 302 U. S. 283, is a right or privilege of state citizenship, not of national citizenship, which alone is protected by the privileges and immunities clause.”

The reference to the Slaughterhouse cases has just the number reference rather than “In re Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 83 U. S. 74, 83 U. S. 79”. But of all the other cases, the only one that had anything altered was Minor v Happersett. This is not an across-the-board, site-wide situation. Minor v Happersett was the only case that got its title taken off.

The page at Justia now has that corrected. Just for kicks I did the same type of Google search that had allowed me to show that as of June 21st the page that Donofrio screen-capped was exactly as Donofrio said it was. I did this search: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=1003&bih=594&q=%22like+the+right+to+vote+for+the+election+of+state+officers%2C+88+U.+S.+170-178%22&oq=%22like+the+right+to+vote+for+the+election+of+state+officers%2C+88+U.+S.+170-178%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=undefined&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=3545l6700l0l3l3l0l2l0l0l151l151l0.1l1 . It gave me a listing of a cached entry for that page, showing that the last time that page was cached it had the term “”like the right to vote for the election of state officers, 88 U. S. 170-178” (lacking the “Minor v Happersett” title). But when I clicked on that link to see the cached page (so I could see when was the last date it was cached) I got a screen saying, “
Your search - cache:MjgJVAUeE2IJ:supreme.justia.com/us/321/1/case.html “like the right to vote for the election of state officers, 88 U. S. 170-178” - did not match any documents. “

But the original search I did included other sites that matched the search terms, including the one that is cached at http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:j2C9BJ_FrsQJ:www.clubjuris.com/usa/us_supremecourt/321/1/case.php+%22like+the+right+to+vote+for+the+election+of+state+officers,+88+U.+S.+170-178%22&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com . That was cached on June 5, 2011.

So not only can we see that Minor v Happersett was treated differently than the 5 other titled cases cited right next to it, we can see that Google denies it has the cached Justia site that matches those search terms even though they listed the cached site when I did the search.

Sort of like the 1960-64 birth index that has Virginia Sunahara’s name listed, but the HDOH denies that they have a birth record for her.

What this says to me is that they are all screwing with us and then accusing us of being crazy. Not cool in my book, nor in the book of anybody with a conscience. But that shows us the post-modern psy-ops that Google, Justia, the HDOH, and other entities are pulling on the entire world in order to cover for Obama - to keep us all chasing the little inconsistencies and debating the definition of “is” all over again multiple times... while Obama destroys the foundations of this country and the ability of anybody to know ANYTHING.

I’m sick of this crap. It’s anarchy. Nobody can know anything. Rules, laws - heck, even words themselves - don’t mean anything. It’s all just one big blurry mash of “nothing matters” - no foundations, nothing we can count on, and the only “truth” that matters is what the media can get to “stick”. We’re running military operations in Libya to try to kill GAdaffi and his followers, but it’s not “force” - and even if it is “force” we don’t know whether the War Powers Act that Obama violated is Constitutional in the first place. If it’s not, then not only would Obama need Congressional approval - he’d need a declaration of war. But Obama says he doesn’t have to answer any questions and everybody in his administration has flipped the bird at Congressional subpoenas and gotten away with it so far.... so nobody can make anything “stick” anyway.

This is utter madness. A nation cannot survive this. We are going 250 miles an hour around a curve rated for 15 mph. Whoever is driving this car is on a death wish and committing vehicular homicide on the nation sitting in the passenger seat.

[butterdezillion]

Maybe they don’t yet control all of the legal sources.

The point isn’t whether a person would eventually get to Minor v Happersett, but that a person wouldn’t be able to know all the different places where the logic of Minor was used as a precedent.

But the even bigger point as of now is this whole thing that nobody knows what source is going to do what manipulations. And when a source does a manipulation and gets caught then the sources just need to work together to make it appear as if there are other non-Obama-related instances where the same thing happened - in order to frame honest people as crazy. Way Back Machine is a Google thing, and in a recent post I showed that Google is screwing with us too. Somebody accused Donofrio of manipulating a screenshot. I doubt Donofrio has the ability to do that, but Google and Way Back Machine certainly would - and Google has shown a willingness to screw around with us.

They’re trying to create a disconnect from reality. If you knew that Google, Justia, the SCOTUS docket, etc were all willing to screw around, exactly what would you put past them? How would you find information you could trust?

People are talking about why people believe in “conspiracy theories”. My question for everybody is why - when we’ve seen the manipulations and outright lies by SO MANY DIFFERENT SUPPOSEDLY-TRUSTWORTHY SOURCES (including multiple government agencies at all different levels) - we should believe the supposedly-credible sources. And if we have nobody we can trust to tell us the truth and not mess around with the information, what’s left? We’re all left to our own ways of trying to figure things out. Anything goes.

That’s why this is serious business. In the past I’ve talked about the implications for the rule of law, and that is critical. But these people are delving even deeper. What they are doing are psy-ops like the military and/or cops use to break down the resistance of an enemy. Obama recognizes that people who care about truth are enemies. He has to disable us by getting us to a point where we can’t know truth, nobody can do anything about it even if we know it, and we are so divided and distracted that we don’t stop him before he destroys this country.

He’s trying to create scenarios where people will shut out anything that is said because they can’t know if it’s true anyway. That’s what disinformation agents are for - to create a situation where nobody can trust anybody else because we have no way of knowing who is true and who is jerking us around, and wouldn’t have time to dig through it all even if we COULD find out the truth.

IOW, he’s trying to come between every person and every other person. Now THAT is invasive. It’s corrosive. It is literally mind control on a massive scale. And until we recognize the level to which it is being done and actually find some consequences for those who do it, it will continue to be very effective. It’s the equivalent of setting a stink-bomb in the jewelry store so everybody gets so disgusted they leave, and the place is free to be ransacked.

[Brown Deer]

Lower right hand corner...all the way at the bottom.
Have a Happy Day! Now who put that on there?

You [Jeff Winston]posted a thread in an attempt to discredit Attorney Leo Donofrio. The thread was pulled. The person discredited was Jeff Winston.
Pulled on 06/29/2011 5:46:22 AM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
Too much bs and whining by the poster”

freedomwarrior998: "Here is a lesson... instead of taking the ramblings of lunatics on blogs at face value... see if they are lying to you."

Really 0bot?

Donofrio has shots from the Way Back Machine showing it was like that since 2008. So from 2008 until at least ten days ago the reference was edited out, and sometime within the last 10 days (Donofrio says within the last day or two, depending on when he posted his analysis) it was changed.

So all the big garbage about Donofrio forging the screenshot is shown to be wrong. The left ALWAYS projects onto others what they themselves do. Always. Predictable and pathetic.



There is a familiar pattern taking place lately on threads relating to Obama’s eligibility. First the Obots attack and belittle other freepers, then they post some bogus links that most people won't bother to follow. It is pure Alinsky... directly from the Obama play book.

[bushpilot1]

[Red Steel]

;-)

[Red Steel]

Jeff, this sort of dishonest argument is exactly why people feel like wringing your neck. You are either obtuse, forgetful, or intentionally misleading, or all of the above. I have REPEATEDLY said that: NO ACT OF CONGRESS CAN OVERRIDE AN ARTICLE OF THE US CONSTITUTION. I have further said that the "Naturalization act of 1790" does not override the constitution, but it DOES show what the founders were thinking regarding "natural born citizen." It is readily apparent that they had an objection to a foreign father just for ordinary citizenship, let alone "Natural Born Citizen."

They wouldn't even ALLOW the child of a foreign father to have NATURALIZED citizenship. (by statute.) You are correct that the STATUTE only applies to those born over seas, but the MINDSET is to forbid ANY citizenship to those born of foreign fathers.

So it begs the question. If they wouldn't even ALLOW citizenship for the children of Foreign Fathers, why would they believe that the children of Foreign Fathers would be "Natural born citizens?"

By what stretch of logic can you argue that citizenship specifically banned by statute (because of a foreign father) is equivalent to our highest level of citizenship?

Seem simple enough to understand, especially for some of these anti-Birthers who have been haunting these threads for a very long time.

[freedomwarrior998]

Reflexively screaming “OBOT” at anyone who doesn’t buy into your conspiracy theories, only makes you look more delusional. Just sayin’.

For your information, one can be against Obama and his socialist policies, and work for his legitimate defeat in the next election, without buying into Lizard People, UFOs, FEMA Camps, Black Helicopters, and other assorted nonsense.

If all you have is “OBOT” then you really don’t have much at all.

[Kleon]

But of all the other cases, the only one that had anything altered was Minor v Happersett. This is not an across-the-board, site-wide situation. Minor v Happersett was the only case that got its title taken off.

I think this might have to do with the fact it was hotlinked while the others were not. The other example I posted, from Miranda, had the name of Cohens hotlinked and was removed while the non-hotlinked names were unaffected. That doesn't appear to be the case with all the links on the site, but it's certainly not confined to the cases Donofrio is freaking out over. In Miranda, the name of Cohens v. Virginia disappears and reappears from the text at exactly the same times as this supposed scrubbing of Minor.

[Brown Deer]

[DiogenesLamp]

Maybe they don’t yet control all of the legal sources.

I don't regard any tampering done by the people who administrate Justia.com as proof of influence from the administration. More like, Most Lawyer types are already partisan liberal democrats, and some of those working on Justia noticed that this information was inconvenient, so they did their partisan duty and made it go away during the discussion of his eligibility.

It is no different from the News and Media people (Union Members all from Liberal districts like New York and Los Angeles.) using their positions of influence to spike stories which demonstrate that Obama is a complete idiot, and pushing stories which make their political opponents look like Nuts,Kooks, Idiots and Racisists.

In other words, it isn't coordinated, it is the natural consequence of letting anyone with a liberal bent near the controls of any sort of power or influence.

[DiogenesLamp]

Seem simple enough to understand, especially for some of these anti-Birthers who have been haunting these threads for a very long time.

Upton Sinclair wrote: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it."

It is my firm belief we are looking at willful ignorance, not the honest kind. Whether it is motivated by personal interest or personal preference, or just simple bull headedness it has the same effect. Some would call it "Cognitive dissonance."

Some people, having made up their minds early and with little information, have decided that they would rather see the country reduced to rubble before they admit the "birthers" are right. They hate us worse than the enemy because we had the audacity to dare challenge the illogic of their early made opinions. To them, it transcends political value, and directly challenges them on a personal level.

[jh4freedom]

Citations of Minor v Happersett made it to the Supreme Court of the United States for Justices’ conferences in the Petitions for Writs of Certiorari submitted for both Kerchner v Obama (Apuzzo) and Hollister v Soetoro, et. al.(Hemenway).