Posted on 12/14/2011 8:52:08 AM PST by Danae
Did Justia.com deliberately aid Barack Obama in 2008 by helping to hide the one legal case that might prevent him from legally qualifying for the presidency?
((Snip))
Justia is a Google Mini-powered website which has singled itself out as one of the most comprehensive and easy-to-search legal sites on the internet. Other legal resources such as Lexis can cost as much as $5,000 a month for a subscription, and it's impossible to hyperlink to cases which include copyrighted headnotes and analysis. This is why powerful law firms such as Perkins Coie (where former Obama White House Counsel Bob Bauer practices law) have cited Justia's pages.
((Snip))
(((New information)))
On Nov. 3, 2008, one day before the election, Donofrio petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to stay the ballots in New Jersey from being used the next day in the case Donofrio v. Wells, claiming that the eligibility of both Obama and McCain had not been verified by the NJ secretary of State as required by law.
In his research, Donofrio had found a reference to McCarthy v. Briscoe, 429 U.S. 1317 (1976), an important precedent which allows the Supreme Court -- or even one justice acting alone if an emergency stay is requested -- to order a secretary of state to insert a name on the ballot. The holding of the case implies a reciprocal power to remove names from ballots for the several secretaries of State, as well as the U.S. Supreme Court.
Back in '08, Donofrio couldn't find the in chambers decision anywhere online. Forced to go old-school, he procured it from a brick-and-mortar law library. But to this day, McCarthy v. Briscoe remains elusive at Justia. If you look in their "Volume" database and click "429," all of the in chambers opinions are mysteriously absent.
(Snip)More at site.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
The Usual Suspects Ping!
bookmark
Winston Smith at the Ministry of Truth
The whois registrar for the justia.com domain is one Timothy Stanley. Any ideas?
Leo needs to reread Craig v. U.S., 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.
The U.S. Constitution does not define the term “Natural born citizen,” but does require a Presidential candidate or VP candidate to be a Natural born citizen to be eligible.
Consequently, eligibility for POTUS and VP can only be determined by eliminating those who are not eligible.
If any person is not a citizen
or a Naturalized citizen
or under 35
or not a resident in the US for the last 15 years,
then he is not eligible for POTUS or VP.
All others are eligible to be POTUS or VP.
It has taken me a long while to get over the fact the courts seems to be turning a blind eye to his in-eligibility, but I think I have it figured out;
SCOTUS is afraid of the "fallout" should they find him not a natural born citizen, blood in the streets as Obama worshipers went berserk, laws overturned, executive orders erased, it'd make too much work for them....Legal challenges etc..
He went to Harvard Law School: http://www.linkedin.com/in/tstanley
and here: https://www.facebook.com/timstanley
Bookmark.
Read the full article. I have many ideas about that.
A circuit Court does not and cannot trump SCOTUS. Irrelevant point. Read In Re Lockwood. Minor’s decision is clearly a HOLDING.
I guess this is what happens when you rely too heavily on the Internet. The United States Reports are the official reports of the U.S. Supreme Court (cited ___ U.S. ___). They are bound books, and are available at your local library or county law library at the County Courthouse. The county law library is funded by taxpayers and open to all. You can also find hardbound copies of Shephard’s Citations to check out where else the case has been cited. I know its a lot of work to the wired generation, but it is how I got through law school, and did most of my legal research during a 35 year legal career. And you can’t “erase” the cases, too many volumes out there.
“Naturalized” and “natural born” are NOT the same thing. One can become naturalised; one cannot change how one was born.
Linked in shows his work, education and support for/group membership. Note that he belongs to Obama for America.
http://www.linkedin.com/in/tstanley
This has previously been discussed on FR a couple of months ago. Nothing has come of it and nothing will.
Interesting to say the least.
“Public.Resource.Org
It turns out that Justia received additional help from their close counterpart in the open government information movement, Public.Resource.Org (PRO), founded and run by Carl Malamud. Malamud was also the chief technology officer for The Center for American Progress, a progressive think-tank funded in part by none other than George Soros. Tim Stanley is on the Board of Trustees at Public.Resource.Org, and Justia is PRO’s top benefactor. Stanley is also a co-convenor of Malamud’s Law.gov organization, which, despite appearances, is not a government entity.”
Absolutely true! Those dusty books are there for a reason - serious research. Just because bloggers and site trolls can’t get something instantly, doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist.
You are both correct. However, we are talking about the internet. Not a Law library. How many people do you know who are going to go to a Law library and do the HOURS of research needed to even FIND cases which deal with Citizenship? You have to know where to look for one. Most people don’t. Shoot, most Americans aren’t bloggers, or even internet junkies let alone political junkies interested in Constitutional qualifications for POTUS
You see, the blogosphere drives the news today in many ways. If a blog story gets enough traction in the right places, the MSM starts to notice. If it gets talked about on conservative radio, then the MSM might actually run a story on it. People in 2008 didn’t even know what they were looking for, and when we did find Minor, we could not find citations in other cases to it like we should have. It made it seem as if Wong Kim Ark was more important, and without a doubt, it is NOT. Minor is tremendously important.
Be that all as it may, it is STILL immoral and utterly inexcusable that ANYONE would scrub anything out of SCOTUS cases anywhere for any reason. 100% dead to rights WRONG. That it was done by “champions of free government information for all the people” is just blatant hypocrisy.
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.