In The Spirit of Truth.

My name is Leo Donofrio. I have a J.D. from St. John’s University. I’ve passed three bar exams; New York, New Jersey and the Multi-State. I’ve been licensed to practice law in New Jersey and the Federal Courts for the last twenty years.

I put my name and professional reputation on everything I post at this blog. From now on, if you want to post here, you must be licensed to practice law. State your real name and the jurisdiction(s) you are licensed in. NO EXCEPTIONS.

The national dialogue on the legal issues discussed here has often become juvenile at best and intentionally misleading at worst. If you tried to argue on a bar examination – or law school final – that the US Supreme Court in Ex Parte Lockwood did not acknowledge Minor v. Happersett as a precedent on the definition of federal citizenship, you would fail. Yet, all over the blogosphere anonymous propaganda pushing blatant falsehoods is rampant. “NOT UP IN HERE!”

Feel free to use the comment box for submitting letters to the editor. I am always happy to hear from you and will investigate tips and links alike, but only legal peers will see their commentary published. And such commentary by fellow members of the bar will be printed in full. My responses will follow in a separate comment.

Reading some of the responses to the legal revelations on Donofrio’s site, and seeing the dialog on the Jonathan Turley site, if Donofrio is to be successful in clearly communicating destruction of our legal foundations, he had little choice but to carefully filter his blog. Individuals with an interest in attenuating the impact of Donofrio’s discovery process, some of whom probably are attorneys, are using common legal and debating techniques to bury the truth in verbiage and misdirection. We at FR have become accustomed to this technique. In Court there are both a judge and the opposing council to cut off the irrelevant arguments. Donofrio is exposing the rotting core of our legal establishment. Every comment should help to focus and clarify the truth. Our enemies have succeeded by directing us away from the law, to reality show plots and titillating scandles. Leo knows this. Let's hope others, especially law students, will use the resource he has created.

At FR we simply give up when a thread deteriorates with two or three Obots arguing nonsense between themselves. That was probably their objective. The Obots may seem like ideologues, different classes of “birthers” used by the media to deprecate the relevance of eligibility arguments. It is this writer's supposition that they are provocateurs, doing the job of devaluing the discussions of serious and concerned citizens while reinforcing the impression that our legal system has been co-opted.

Most of our major law schools have been exposed to the injection of goal oriented manipulation of our legal foundations. Donofrio and his colleagues, Diane Potter, Cindy Simpson, Mr. Goodman, and probably a number of others revelation of whose identies will put their careers at risk, have exposed the very deliberate corruption and publication of Supreme Court documents, and traced the corruption to the doorstep of our current government. The disclaimers began immediately. Legal archives used by law students, along with several of our major law schools, have participated in the publication of deliberately "mangled" case studies. Justia.com blocked public access to the “WayBack Machine,” Google’s archives of their previously published pages containing the correct versions of the same cases, for all Supreme Court cases. They have hidden all of their archived supreme court cases, clearly to limit the damage, and suggesting that they have corrupted other cases.

The first defense was that real law firms would use Lexis or Westlaw, the expensive for-fee legal archival services. Donofrio easily countered that, with Robert Bauer's firm citing a Justia-published case. This is an enormously important case. Donofrio and colleagues have published the Cornell Law School corruption of one of the most important cases pointing to fact that Minor v. Happersett established precedent. Cornell is involved with Soros' Center for American Progess CIO Eric Malamud, connected with a federal grant to improve access to our legal system. This is change we can believe in, though it appears we will need to adopt it before learning about the version of law they suscribe to.

This has become a legal case, probably more valid than many proceeding in our federal courts, frightening because it includes the packed Supreme Court. Kagan and Sotomayor certainly know of Obama’s ineligibility, and would lose their jobs if the court were to decide that Minor established precedence, as Leo demonstrated in the twenty five plus Supreme Court decisions edited by Tim Stanley or his cohorts, at Justia.com. As well, the Ex Parte Lockwood case as published on the Cornell Law site, was amended to disguise the "held" law of Minor v. Happersett. There is even possible corruption of cases at Lexis (not asserted by Donofrio).

How deep is the corruption? Soros’ Center for American Progress CIO, Carl Malamud, has held his “law.gov” symposia in most of the major law schools in the US. Do a YouTube/Google search for law.gov. Malamud claims association with the Supreme Court, though that may or may not be true. See his public.law.org to judge for yourself. This is about more than Soros money; it is likely our tax dollars being directed to replace our capitalism with their globalist version.

We have no legislature responsive to citizens, in part because Republicans too protected McCain's ineligibility, which they never confirmed in six hearings before the 2008 election. They are complicit. Until Donofrio taught us all about the intentionally concealed truth that Minor was frequently referenced stare decisis - cited precedence - this writer, while convinced of the intentions of the framers and founders, saw no legal recourse to this soft revolution.

Federal judges are all legal appointees, and no less so because they must be approved by Congress. Judges are owned by the political parties, and employed by them. They are not independent, and should, as Gov. Perry suggested, have term limits. All federal judges, all legislators, and certainly, many faculty at law schools around the nation know about Minor v. Happersett. The left counted on our ignorance, and helped to insure we wouldn't learn. by hiding all the clues pointing at Minor v. Happersett.

The writer can point to the “law.gov” lecture #5 at UC Berkeley's Boalt Law School, http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NIOQ5xSGRps, in which one might interpret Professor Berring’s description of an exercise he requires of all his law students (about half of those who pass through Boalt) to compare citations from Lexis and Westlaw, the legal archive fee services, with Justia, Findlaw and one other free archive site. The symposium was hosted by Carl Malamud and the first questioner is Tim Stanley. Would not at least one of Professor Berring’s students have found the corruption of the justia.com cases? The lecture on Youtube was held in 2010. With all the attention to presidential eligibility what are the chances at least one of the twenty five cases citing Minor was assigned by Professor Berring? Was Professor Berring warning Tim Stanley? He certainly warned the audience and his students about the risks in citing inaccurate cases - "Would you bet your career on a citation from one of the free sites?" Bob Bauer apparently didn't worry about that.

Donofrio is exposing the dirty underbelly of our legal foundations. If we depend upon men and not law, we lose our republic. If engineering schools showed such disdain for a foundation of proven principles, bridges and buildings would fall, weapons and communications would fail, and everyone would know. Whether or not it is about money (as Solyndra surely was for most of its participants - and it is the tip of at least twenty billions of phony investments), our legal scholars are showing their clay feet. Perhaps Jack Abramoff would explain the money trail which protected two ineligible presidential candidates. Follow the money.

This thread will have no more than a handful of replies. Compare that to the thousands posting on the X-Factor game show thread.

Have courage Godbbert. When someone presents facts which can be easily confirmed the Alinsky tactic is not to respond. A response draws attention to clear and confirm-able statements of fact. The corruption of an entire class of the publicly accessible archive of cases decided by our Supreme Court is unarguable. The presence of the perpetrators in many of our most prestigious law schools is unarguable. The fact that none in our academic establishment question whether the emporer has cloths when some clearly know about the Justia and Cornell corruption is unarguable. How many of our legal professors, officers of the court, hosted these criminal purveyors hawking transparency while they used their access to cover for an ineligible man with the power to distribute to them our money, knew of the subterfuge?

When Professor Berring spoke at the Soros-sponsored lecture, his co-speaker was former Google legal council, and now Twitter legal council. Is this about money? You betcha! How many could care less about Article II Section 1? How many have such little respect for our legal foundations that they are happy to play along? These people, including the legal institutions, are complicit by their silence. Law students may not attain a license to practice if they question the validity of inconvenient law. Did no professors of law see the perfidy of Tim Stanley and Malamud? Was no one in academia competent? Certainly Professor Chin of U of Arizona nailed McCain's ineligibility, but got quiet when Obama became the candidate. Even Larry Tribe, arguing about what our framers really meant, even though they didn't say it, stepped very carefully around Minor v. Happersett. Does that mean that they all knew the script? Did Larry Tribe, with the able assistance of Elena Kagen, who buried Tribe's plagiarism case, write the script? Is there any honor among Law professors, who swear an oath to defend the Constitution when they become officers of the court.

Donofrio has exposed corruption in our hallowed halls and the silence of the enemy is confirmation, just as Tim Stanley's blocking of all Justia's Supreme Court archives on the Wayback Machine is confirmation. Donofrio has shown us the truth. Now we need to find how best to inform the public, since our pundits are either afraid to address it, or are making more money by whining about other issues which come with the Marxist package.

A small group of useless drones camping out for the press may have been staged to divert attention from much more important issues, and few are more important than the legal confirmation of precedence that we have an ineligible chief executive doing his best to destroy the nation. Few issues are more clear than the removal of key citations to Minor v. Happersett, in twenty five cases, and the complete elimination of the key paragraph from the re: Lockwood decision, apparently the work of Carl Malamud's Center for American Progress decedent, public.resource.org. They are quiet because the truth is too easy to see.

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.