JustiaGate: CEO Tim Stanley Claims Innocense After Blocking Access To Wayback Machine

JustiaGate: CEO Tim Stanley Claims Innocense After Blocking Access To Wayback Machine Snapshots Of All Supreme Court Cases Published By Justia.

+++++++++++++
Warning what you are about to read is epic. You were warned! ~D
+++++++++++++

Yesterday, in a stunning development, Justia CEO Tim Stanley blocked Wayback Machine access to all US Supreme Court cases published by Justia.com. This is the epitome – the textbook definition even – of hypocrisy. As Dianna Cotter previously reported:

“Justia founder Tim Stanley has for years prided himself and his companies on principles of ‘freedom of information’. On June 19th, 2008, Stanley addressed the Legislative Council Committee at the Oregon State Legislature with the following…

‘In the end, we both recognize the importance of providing the public with online access to our nation’s laws because such actions promote understanding, participation in and respect for our democratic institutions and legal system.’

Furthermore, commenting on a legal dispute Justia had with the State of Oregon, Stanley stated:

“We agree that public policy demands that state laws remain in the public domain. To otherwise permit the State of Oregon or any other governmental body to restrict access to the laws that govern all of us would make a mockery of the legal doctrine that all persons have presumed knowledge of the law. “

Does Tim Stanley believe that his publication of Supreme Court cases should be held to the same open standard? Not so much.

Ann Barnhardt (of bacon laced koran burning fame) puts in all together nicely. Synthesizing JustiaGate, October 24, AD 2011 12:38 PM MST

Here is what I SUSPECT happened with regards to Obama's elevation to power. This is just my theory given the evidence. Since there is no longer any journalism in this country, people like me are left to assemble the facts as best they can, and then parse and synthesize those facts into the most likely theory. I wish I didn't have to do this. I wish that journalists would dig for and then report the truth. But since they refuse, this is the best that we can do. From the get-go in 2007, Obama wanted to run against McCain. Here is a quote from an AP story dated 2/2/2008 :
Obama advisers have said privately for months that McCain would be their preferred opponent among all those who sought the GOP nomination.
Citation URL here: The thing that has ALWAYS bothered me the most about the 2008 election was NOT the ascendency of Obama himself. That is no mystery. The truly imbecilic electorate in this country was told by the media to vote for the black guy, because voting for the black guy would wash all of their sins away. Good people vote for the black guy, and to so much as ASK a question about his background or qualification is RAAACIST. And the sheep ran to the slaughter, as they were told. This is no mystery. The mystery is the fact that McCain was a weak, Bob Dole-esque candidate who was performing poorly in the primaries, and then all of a sudden, Romney dropped out and McCain was it. It was bizarre. Now I think we know, to some extent, what happened. Yes, McCain was indeed a Bob Dole redux. McCain had an unattractive personality and comportment, somewhat like Dole, was an injured war hero, like Dole, and was just on the cusp of being too old to run, like Dole. The whispered cover-story was, "It's his turn. He spent five years in the Hanoi Hilton. Let him have this." But that isn't why Obama wanted McCain. Obama wanted McCain because McCain provided Obama with cover vis-a-vis Obama's eligibility. McCain was born on a U.S. Naval Air Station in the Panama Canal zone, and thus there was a question about his eligibility per Article 2 Section 1 of the Constitution. Was McCain born on U.S. soil? Note the question: Was McCain born ON U.S. SOIL. A big hullabaloo was made about this, climaxing in Senate Resolution 511, co-sponsored by Senator Barack Obama himself, affirming that McCain was eligible under Article 2 Section 1. Here is that URL: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-sr511/text Note the date: April 10, 2008. We now know that at EXACTLY the same time as these Resolution 511 thrashings were going on, Justia.com was scrubbing all mentions of Minor v. Happersett from their SCOTUS archives. Now some argue that these rulings were still available on LexisNexis and WestLaw. That's right. But LexisNexis and WestLaw are expensive PAY services. Justia.com is the only real FREE online law library. How many Americans are going to fork out the big bucks for access time on LexisNexis or WestLaw to investigate SCOTUS precedents for the definition of "Natural Born Citizen"? Uh, you could probably count the total on one hand, and still be able to pick your nose. Obama wanted to shift the focus from the definition of "Natural Born" and the focus on the parents to the physical location of birth as the one and only relevant factor - when it is NOT the only relevant factor. Obama was confident, having Marxist co-conspirators in Hawaii who were ready to perjure themselves with regards to his original birth certificate, that he could fake his way to proving that he was born in Hawaii. He thought that he could wave the "certificate of live birth", which is the document generated for foreign-born children like his sister, Maya, and that this would satisfy the lapdog press. If any further questions came up, he could get a Hawaii state official to lie and say that they had "physically seen" his original long-form birth certificate, even though no such thing existed. Remember, Marxists lie, and they lie without the slightest compunction. This was no big deal and is EXACTLY what was accomplished. Back to Justia.com . The meme that was put out in the press with regards to the question of the definition of "Natural Born Citizen" was that the term was totally ambiguous and had never been defined. THIS IS THE BIG LIE THAT JUSTIA.COM WAS COVERING. The term had been defined by SCOTUS in a UNANIMOUS decision in 1875. The case was Minor v. Happersett, and the Minor decision had been cited in subsequent cases as precedent. This is what Justia.com edited away so that if any journalists or citizens were to go online and research the question using standard search engines, they would come up dry and never see Minor or any of the subsequent case law citing Minor without having an expensive pay subscription to either Lexis or WestLaw. Here is a quote from a Washington Post piece about McCain's eligibility dated May 2, 2008. Emphasis mine.
But Sarah H. Duggin, an associate law professor at Catholic University who has studied the "natural born" issue in detail, said the question is "not so simple." While she said McCain would probably prevail in a determined legal challenge to his eligibility to be president, she added that the matter can be fully resolved only by a constitutional amendment or a Supreme Court decision. "The Constitution is ambiguous," Duggin said. "The McCain side has some really good arguments, but ultimately there has never been any real resolution of this issue. Congress cannot legislatively change the meaning of the Constitution."
Here's a hotlink to this WaPo citation. That is a stone-cold lie. There HAD been a resolution in the form of a UNANIMOUS SCOTUS decision in Minor that explicitly definined NBC as a citizen born to two U.S. citizen parents. Duggin almost certainly knew this, being a law professor who had claimed to have studied the Natural Born issue "in detail". Duggin, like Justia.com, has some serious explaining to do, and may be staring down a sedition charge. So, in conclusion, I think the reason that Obama wanted McCain is because McCain provided cover and shifted the eligibility issue from the nationality of the parentage, which CLEARLY and OBVIOUSLY disqualified Obama as unanimously defined and codified by SCOTUS in Minor, and shifted the focus the the physical locale of birth, which Obama was confident he could bluff. And here we sit, with our government usurped by a Marxist-Communist cabal, fronted by a puppet who can only produce a forged birth certificate that is so laughably obvious in its forgery that it defies belief. And we are mere weeks away from a global financial collapse, with said usurping contingent fanning the flames of hot civil war, and doing everything it can to start World War 3. The Rule of Law matters. Article 2 Section 1 matters, and was written for a reason. Am I a Birther? You're damn straight I am. Please see the post immediately above for a collection of Denninger's authoritative and objective proofs of the April 27 birth certificate forgery. Final note: I do NOT believe that McCain is directly involved in this. The man spent five years in the Hanoi Hilton. No, he is not personally involved in elevating a Communist to the White House. McCain is, like the rest of them, a power-hungry, money-hungry man who isn't too terribly bright. He is just another "useful idiot". His time in the Hilton didn't spare him from his own character flaws, but a Communist he is not.

There HAD been a resolution in the form of a UNANIMOUS SCOTUS decision in Minor that explicitly definined NBC as a citizen born to two U.S. citizen parents.

Minor does not "explicitly define[] NBC as a citizen born to two U.S. citizen parents." The Court merely noted that the children of two U.S. citizen parents are natural-born citizens. But it also said that "Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts."

You could look at this quote and say that it merely refers to "citizens" as opposed to "natural-born citizens," and many birthers do. But, the reference to "natural-born citizens" earlier in the case defines the children of two U.S. citizens as NBCs "as distinguished from aliens or foreigners," a construction that does not seem to allow for a third category of citizens-by-birth who are not natural-born citizens.

So, while the case may support (and certainly does not harm) the argument that NBCs are those citizens born to U.S. citizen parents, it would not be accurate to say that the issue was decisively ruled on in Minor (particularly since the discussion was dicta, and because the discussion does not even purport to address the then-uncommon circumstance of people being born to one U.S. citizen parent and one non-U.S. citizen parent).

Duggin almost certainly knew this, being a law professor who had claimed to have studied the Natural Born issue "in detail". Duggin, like Justia.com, has some serious explaining to do, and may be staring down a sedition charge.

A law professor "may be staring down a sedition charge" because she told a newspaper reporter that the question had never been decisively settled? Lunacy.

You could look at this quote and say that it merely refers to "citizens" as opposed to "natural-born citizens," and many birthers do.

Not "birthers," but by people who read and comprehend English. The only way to do think that part refers to "natural-born citizens" is out of self-confusion.

But, the reference to "natural-born citizens" earlier in the case defines the children of two U.S. citizens as NBCs "as distinguished from aliens or foreigners," a construction that does not seem to allow for a third category of citizens-by-birth who are not natural-born citizens.

Not at all. This category would be defined as naturalization at birth. The source that Minor plagiarized for its NBC definition talks about such naturalizations.

So, while the case may support (and certainly does not harm) the argument that NBCs are those citizens born to U.S. citizen parents, it would not be accurate to say that the issue was decisively ruled on in Minor (particularly since the discussion was dicta, and because the discussion does not even purport to address the then-uncommon circumstance of people being born to one U.S. citizen parent and one non-U.S. citizen parent).

Sorry, but the clause "as distinguished from aliens or foreigners" separates out all persons NOT born to two citizen parents. Any person born to only one citizen parent would either be considered a foreigner needing to be naturalized or, at best, have citizenship that is in doubt. If someone is characterized as a natural-born citizen, it is because there ARE NO DOUBTS. The doubts are removed because there are no alien or foreign considerations. With an NBC, you don't have to see if the parents are ambassadors or foreign ministers; you don't have to see if there's a treaty that controls the citizenship through a foreign parent; you don't have to decide if the parents satisfy the subject clause of a constitutional amendment; you don't have to check for statutory declarations or collective naturalization; etc. All those factors have to be considered for anyone who is NOT born in the country to citizen parents. Therefore, NO OTHER COMBINATION = NBC.

Once again, you misstate our argument when you say: it would not be accurate to say that the issue was decisively ruled on in Minor

The argument isn't misstated. That Minor was decisive is manifest from the fact that the Supreme Court unanimously rejected Virginia Minor's argument of being a citizen by virtue of the 14th amendment AND that the decision was cited decisively more than 20 years later in Wong Kim Ark, when the court noted that children born in the country of citizen parents were EXCLUDED from the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment and summarized Minor's citizenship as being a product of BOTH jus soli and jus sanguinis criteria:

That neither Mr. Justice Miller nor any of the justices who took part in the decision of The Slaughterhouse Cases understood the court to be committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is manifest from a unanimous judgment of the Court, delivered but two years later, while all those judges but Chief Justice Chase were still on the bench, in which Chief Justice Waite said: "Allegiance and protection are, in this connection" (that is, in relation to citizenship),

reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other: allegiance for protection, and protection for allegiance. . . . At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of [p680] parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class, there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.

Minor v. Happersett (1874), 21 Wall. 162, 166-168. The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States, although not entitled to vote, the right to the elective franchise not being essential to citizenship.

Earlier in the WKA decision, Justice Gray reinforced this point by noting that the Constitution (after its 14th amendment was construed) did NOT say who NBCs are:

In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that." And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision.

Before anyone misreads the previous passage, Gray does NOT say common law is used to define NBCs. He said common law was used as an "aid" in the construction of the citizenship provision of the 14th amendment. Summarized: NBCs are not defined by the Constitution. NBCs are EXCLUDED from the birth clause in the 14th amendment. The birth clause of the 14th amendment is interpreted in the light of the common-law. The cited common law relies on parents adhering to the United States in their allegiance. This means if they aren't citizens, they must have an expressed intention to permanently reside in the U.S., which is established through permanent domicile.

It is no use. You are arguing with people who cannot read English. At least, not more than a sentence fragment at a time.

There isn’t a crayon in the world big enough to draw a picture that they could see. All they would do is try to analyze the wax used in the crayon, and how many layers there were in the wax...

“At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”

Only someone who cannot read would take that to mean “There are NBC, and that requires two citizen parents, and there are born citizens who are not NBCs, and there are aliens.”

Further, the quote comes from here:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html

Oh golly. That is right. You can find Supreme Court cases, using Google, without using justia. Half of the cases I have bookmarked are from other websites. Makes the whole conspiracy thing seem pretty stupid, but again - there ain’t a crayon big enough...

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.