Replies

Short??

LOL You ask more than you know!

Justia is a site with a search engine from Google called the Google Mini. It is has Google analytics. Search for a SCOTUS case and you will get a Justia link, they leverage Google, and bloggers use Google.

Justia redacted the Name “Minor v. Happersett” out of dozens of cases at its site, and redacted relevant text out of some of those cases which only reinforced the definition found in Minor, in fact it got even more specific, stating that Natural Born Status was only important in determining qualifications for POTUS.

Obama does NOT qualify under that LEGAL definition.

So here is Justia, which is a partner of Open.Resource.org, in fact it has the CEO and founder of Justia on it’s board. Justia in fact, gets undated files through Open.Resource.org.

Tim is a protégé of Carl Malamud, the founder of Open.Resource. Carl was the former CTO – Chief Technology Officer for … wait for it… The Center for American Progress http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_American_Progress once run by John Podesta, and funded in part by George Soros. Just google Carl Malamud and The Center for American Progress.

Yeah. You got it. That’s the connection. BAM Right there. The citations and text removed at Justia were SURGICAL in their precision. Not to mention the fact that Justia has taken its who Supreme Court Server off the Wayback Machine. No one can see it now.

It is quite possibly the biggest story of the year.

Thanks again Danae. Here is my attempt to summarize what has gone on: What was the objective? Before and after November 2008 many questions were raised about Obama’s elibibility, as they were raised about McCain's eligibility. Clearly, few understood the Constitution's eligibility requirements for president,or Green Card carrying Calero would not have been on the presidential ballot. We were told “The Constitution nowhere defines the term “natural born citizen.” That should have been the first warning, since how many understood that the Constitution avoids defining terms because that would render it dependent upon an ever-changing language. You may find one partial definition if you read carefully, but our framers explicitly intended that definitions come from our common-language and common-law at the time of our framers.

When Obama’s supporters legally shielded all of his documents, and produced a suspicious scan of a birth document, that became the focus. Some searched for the definition in our Supreme Court Archives, finding many references, such as Chief Justice Marshall's citation to Law of Nations in his decision in “The Venus, 12 US 253.” That, the cadre pointed out, was dictum - not necessary to the decision. Such was the case in about a dozen other cases. But there was one case in which the definition of natural born citizen was the core of the Case, Minor v. Happersett, 88 US 152.

Legal technocrats, people who appear to have been sponsored by, who else, George Soros, men and women who preached the value of transparency based upon public access to the core of our legal precedence, Supreme Court case documents. People who have sponsored symposia at virtually all of our most prestigious law schools, Berkeley, Yale, Cornell, Harvard, ..., knew exactly which cases would support the Supreme Court's unanimous decision in Minor v. Happersett as precedence, and they corrupted just those citations - “mangled” them, in the words of Justia.com’s CEO, Tim Stanley

The evidence has been captured by a number of legal sleuths, most of whom have passed their evidence to Leo Donofrio. If there was any doubt that the crime was committed, the subsequent blocking by Justia of all of its Supreme Court Archives should eliminate that doubt. Besides, some those who still believe in the importance of our legal foundations captured the pre-Summer 2008 documents offered by Justia, documents which did not show the “mangling” of citations to Minor v. Happersett. Jusia even corrupted the numerical citations which would have led to Minor v. Happersett, so that those searching on the web would get no hint of the precedence - stare decicis - established by Minor.

Look through the Youtube presentations on the Center for American Progress channel. You will see videos of dozens of lectures by leaders both from legal academia and information start-ups, such as the CEO of Twitter, all under the auspices of “law.gov,” a project with which Stanley, Malamud (who was Chief Information Officer for Center for American Progress before being proposed by NYT and Tim Stanley as Director of the US Printing Office). Center for American Progress has been described as a Heritage Foundation for progressives, and is a Soros-funded organization.

Finally, connecting what is clearly a conspiracy to hide the law, a case with language that leaves no doubt of the precedence of Minor. Ex Parte Lockwood, had the key paragraph removed, not just at Justia.come, but at The Supreme Court collection of Cornell University's Law School. Guess who was working with Cornell University? Tim Stanley. Any doubt that our legal systems have been penetrated and corrupted?

Leo Donofrio has done an amazing job of revealing what may just be the tip of the iceberg, the concealment of an ineligible president by progressive/communist lawyers who have prominent roles in our major law schools. It is impossible to believe that no Cornell faculty knew what was being done. Read the Donfrio site to see what was deleted from Re: Lockwood.

Perhaps to his credit, Professor Bob Berring, professor of legal information at UC Boalt Law School, participating in a Malamud, and thus Soros-organized series at law schools around the country, “Law.gov,” warns all his students of the potential for corruption of legal information by assigning as an exercise the comparison of citations from Lexis, Westlaw, and the three “free” sites, two of which were founded by Tim Stanley, FindLaw and Justia. If you watch the Berring session, pay attention to the Q&A where Tim Stanley asked the first question. Berring clearly understood the risk.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIOQ5xSGRps

One hopes that Berring’s students, even if they are apparently afraid to speak publically about the consequences of depending upon the progressive archive of Supreme Court documents, have learned of the wisdom of Berring’s exercise. Now, which law schools in the US believe our legal structure has meaning, or do they all presume that the law is a living body of knowledge, as many believe the Constitution is a living document, changable with the politics of the party in power.

One point which Leo Donofrio doesn't mention ( http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com ), is that besides a tap into the public trough for investment capital, Stanley didn't found two legal search archives just to promote socialism. As Al Capone once explained, he robbed banks because that's where the money was kept. Legal practice is where there is lots of money (more law students than science and engineering students combined). Court documents are owned by citizens, though there may be some charges for access. Stanley is a “VAR,” or value added reseller of Google services, and uses its “cloud.” With little capital investment he had a chance to become the preferred archive for law schools around the country, and was well on his way. He may be a “progressive,” clearly connected, if not, like Malamud, a “fellow” of the Soros/Podesta’s Center for American Progress; but a case can be made for the profit in corrupting our legal foundations and providing a for-profit service of altering legal documents to order.