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.

[YHAOS]

"There needs to be an investigation."

It will never happen in the Senate. I will have to happen in the House.

[freedomwarrior998]

Typical response of one who would rather believe in a fantasy, rather than utilize reason. I am sorry that the world hurts you so much. Wrap up the tin foil a bit tighter, perhaps the Lizard People can’t get you that way.

The fact is, Leo is claiming that Justia took out a case name, and edited a paragraph to “HIDEZ DA TRUF”...

He claims the the Justia page has edited the text of the opinion to read only like this:

“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.”

Yet, a direct link to the Justia page in question, shows both the presence of a case name, and a complete unedited paragraph:

“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. 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. The state might provide that persons of foreign birth could vote without being naturalized, and, as stated by Mr. Chief Justice Waite in Miner v. Happersett, supra, such persons were allowed to vote in several of the states upon having declared their intentions to become citizens of the United States. Some states permit women to vote; others refuse them that privilege. A state, so far as the federal Constitution is concerned, might provide by its own constitution and laws that none but native-born citizens should be permitted to vote, as the federal Constitution does not confer the right of suffrage upon any one, and the conditions under which that right is to be exercised are matters for the states alone to prescribe, subject to the conditions of the federal Constitution already stated. although it may be observed that the right to vote for a member of Congress is not derived exclusively from the state law. See Federal Constitution, Art. I, Section 2; Wiley v. Sinkler, 179 U. S. 58. But the elector must be one entitled to vote under the state statute. (Id.) See also Swafford v. Templeton, 185 U. S. 487, 185 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.”

http://supreme.justia.com/us/193/621/case.html

[tutstar]

ping

[SatinDoll]

So...why aren’t you challenging Leo Donofrio at his own site, rather than grandstanding here?

Are you a coward?

[longtermmemmory]

is this another pimp my blog thing?

or is this just a plant by media matters to maker every look all tin foil hat

[Let_It_Be_So]

“It’s an unofficial cite that links people to Court cases.”

What’s an unofficial “cite”? Is that the same thing as an unofficial “site”?

[butterdezillion]

Let me guess. You immediately assume that Leo forged a screen shot but accept at face value the BC that not one expert will say is genuine (and all but one who have spoken out have said it is definitely NOT genuine)?

The “reason” you utilize depends on Leo forging a screenshot. You ridicule others as having tin foil hats because you claim that Leo is committing a conspiracy. lol.

[Kleon]

just like that paper from Obama’s law firm, that argued against the natural born clause, showing they clearly understood it was to a citizen father.

A paper from Obama's law firm? Do you have a link?

[philman_36]

Lower right hand corner...all the way at the bottom.
BOYD V. NEBRASKA EX REL. THAYER, 143 U. S. 135 (1892)

Have a Happy Day!
Now who put that on there?

How is it that you tell the last edit day of a webpage? Anybody?

[hedgetrimmer]

Grand Jury or Attorney General in the county where it was published, to investigate?

What should it be?

[Tucker39]

Another small “Exhibit-A” might be the property which Obammy calls home in Chicago being deeded to several other individuals concurrently, including the name of the deceased person in Connecticutt who actually owned the SS Card number of ONE OF the SEVERAL SS cards that Obammy uses; if I remember the report correctly. There’s some deep doo-doo connected to that character in the white hut......but I see no evidence that ANYONE who is in a position to really DO something about it gives a hoot about it.

[philman_36]

javascript:alert(document.lastModified) in the address bar does NOT work!

[butterdezillion]

Could somebody post this image?

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:CMSJBi5RW2cJ:supreme.justia.com/us/143/135/case.html+%E2%80%9CAs+remarked+by+Mr.+Chief+Justice+Waite+in+%40+88+U.+S.+167%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com

I’ve got it saved on my computer but have forgotten how to post an image in html (and lost the instructions I was given. sigh).

[Kleon]

Now who put that on there?

Obviously the same person who added the smiley face to the long-form birth certificate. It's a calling card.

[philman_36]

Care to offer an opinion as to why javascript:alert(document.lastModified) in the address bar does NOT work!

[butterdezillion]

You seem computer literate. If you know how to do html, could you post this image please, ASAP?

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:CMSJBi5RW2cJ:supreme.justia.com/us/143/135/case.html+%E2%80%9CAs+remarked+by+Mr.+Chief+Justice+Waite+in+%40+88+U.+S.+167%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com

[Kleon]

Care to offer an opinion as to why javascript:alert(document.lastModified) in the address bar does NOT work!

It works for me. It's not going to tell you anything, though, because of the content to the right that's always being updated.

[LucyT]

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, ..."

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.

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

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.

[snip]

According to binding US Supreme Court precedent, 0bama 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..."

. . . . Article and comments.

. .

[Kleon]

Okay, I looked into this, and it turns out Leo is just being a loony conspiracy theorist again without checking his facts first.

This is the Justia entry for Brown v. Board of Education as it appears today.

Notice under footnote 5, it has a link to "Slaughter-House Cases."

This is Google's web cache of the same page from a few days ago.

As you can see, the name and link to the case are missing.

This appears to be a site-wide problem that they fixed and had nothing to do with covering up for Obama.

[mo]

aiding and abetting DNC fraud in the fund-raising for Election ‘08.

The plaintiffs will be starting to organize shortly.