Another Smoking Gun!
Posted on Natural Born Citizen-By Leo Donofrio, Esq.-On October 20, 2011:
“New evidence conclusively establishes that 25 U.S. Supreme Court opinions were sabotaged then republished atJustia.com during the run up to the ’08 election. My prior report documented the scrubbing of just two cases. But last week, a third sabotaged case was discovered which led to a thorough examination of all US Supreme Court cases which cite “Minor v. Happersett” as they appeared on Justia.com between 2006 and the present.
Since Justia placed affirmations on each tampered opinion which state “Full Text of Case”, personnel may also be guilty of violating 18 U.S.C. 1018 by intentionally passing off tampered versions of US Supreme Court opinions as if they were official versions published by the US Supreme Court.
At this point, we do not know who committed these acts of sabotage. Since neither Obama nor McCain meet the Supreme Court’s definition of a “natural-born citizen” in Minor v. Happersett, the deception might have been undertaken on behalf of either one.
Regardless of who you supported in 2008, or whether you agree with the assertion of Minor’s relevance, every American should be outraged that 25 Supreme Court cases were surgically sabotaged and then passed off to the public as if the tampered versions contained the “Full Text of Case”. This is the very definition of “Orwellian” fascism. It’s propaganda. And there is no place for it in the United States. The sacrifices for truth and justice which created and have sustained this nation are wantonly debased by the subversive deception emanating from Justia.com servers.
We do not know at this point if Justia personnel were behind this or if their site was hacked. That being said, Justia’s reaction to my last report mirrored the deception of the sabotage. Instead of addressing the proof, Justia quietly and with stealth un-scrubbed the evidence without acknowledging or addressing the issue at all. And they placed “.txt robots” on their URL’s for the two previously identified cases so the Wayback Machine could no longer provide historical snapshots of those cases as published at Justia.
TWO LAYERS OF SABOTAGE:
In all 25 instances of tampering, the case name “Minor v. Happersett” was removed from Justia’s publication of each SCOTUS opinion which cited to it. Anyone searching for cases citing Minor at Justia or Google were led into a maze of confusion. In some instances, not only was the case name scrubbed, the numerical citation was also removed along with whole sentences of text.
But the deception goes deeper still. There are three official citations for Minor. v. Happersett: 88 U.S. 162, 21 Wall. 162, and 22 L. Ed. 627. Researchers will either search for the case by name, or by any of these three citations. Since it is common for legal researchers to query both the name of the case and/or the official numerical citation, these opinions were tampered for both.
In Kansas v. Colorado, Kepner v. U.S., Schick v. U.S., and South Carolina v. U.S., the citation left behind after scrubbing was “88 U.S. 422″. In Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization, the citation left behind was 88 U.S. 448. Minor officially begins at 88 U.S. 162 and finishes at 88 U.S. 178. So 88 U.S. 422, and 448 are completely bogus. (See collage of screenshots.) The other 20 cases cite to actual pages in Minor, but not to the official citations. While Justia linked from the bogus citations back to the first page of Minor, anyone searching for US Supreme Court cases citing Minor by querying the official citations would have been thwarted.
This further establishes that the sabotage undertaken at Justia was surgically precise. The reality that both candidates eligibility was questionable according to Minor v. Happersett appears to have been known and handled by somebody’s legal team. However, Justia CEO Tim Stanley was associated with “Obama For America 2008″. (Dianna Cotter’s article will take a closer look at Tim Stanley.)
RECAP OF PREVIOUS REPORT:
On July 1, 2011 I published a report: “Justia.com Caught red Handed Hiding references To Minor v. Happersett In Published US Supreme Court Opinions“. The article featured screenshots and links to the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine which chronicled tampering with two US Supreme Court opinions, Boyd v. Nebraska and Pope v. Williams. Both cases cite to Minor v. Happersett, the only US Supreme Court decision to directly construe the natural-born citizen clause in relation to a citizenship issue. The Court’s unanimous opinion in Minor defines those born in the US to citizen parents as natural-born citizens:
“The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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.” (Emphasis added.)
McCain clearly does not meet the definition since he was born in Panama. And since Obama’s father was never a US citizen, the current POTUS doesn’t meet the Supreme Court’s definition of a natural-born citizen either. Minor v. Happersett has, therefore, been the subject of an intense disinformation campaign. Falsehoods about the case have been widely spread. The two most flagrant are:
1) that Minor was only a voting rights case – not a citizenship case – and therefore the Court’s discussion of federal citizenship was dictum and not precedent
2) that Minor was overruled by the 19th Amendment
Both criticisms are false. Unfortunately, many of the Supreme Court cases which cite to Minor as precedent on citizenship were scrubbed by Justia along with other cases that continued citing Minor as good law on voting rights issues well after the adoption of the 19th Amendment. As you will see from the holding in a Supreme Court opinion from 1980, the contention that Minor was overruled by the 19th Amendment is false.
PATTERN OF JUSTIA SUBTERFUGE:
The tampering exhibits a very noticeable pattern. Below, I will include screenshots as well as links to the Wayback Machine which illustrate this pattern clearly.
In most of the cases scrubbed at Justia, the Wayback Machine evidence shows that the very first snapshots taken of Justia URL’s for these cases was in 2006, with a couple of snapshots taken in early 2007. In all of the cases, the first snapshots exhibit that Justia originally published the cases correctly as they appear in the official US Supreme Court reporters. However, by November 2008, all 25 opinions had been sabotaged.
Some cases scrubbed the words “Minor v. Happersett” every time they appeared, and some left it in one time, but removed it in other places. References to The Slaughterhouse Cases, Scott v. Sandford, and Osborn v. Bank of United States (citizenship cases which prove troublesome for Obama’s eligibility) were also scrubbed along with full sentences from majority opinions (as was done in Pope v. Williams), and dissents (as was done in U.S. v. Wong Km Ark). The scrubbing was surgically precise as to the issue of POTUS eligibility. The Wayback Machine snapshots prove that the tampering stayed in effect through the final snapshots taken in 2010.
RECAP OF MY INITIAL REPORT REGARDING “BOYD v. NEBRASKA” and “POPE v. WILLIAMS.“
After I published the first report on July 1, 2011, the Boyd and Pope cases were un-scrubbed at Justia so that Minor v. Happersett was reinstated to each opinion, and the citations were corrected. The other 23 cases, known only to the sabateur(s), were also un-scrubbed. Perhaps they thought nobody would ever discover the depth of the operation, because they failed to place blocking robots on the other 23 cases. This allowed us to look back into history and see the tampering unfold for each case on the Wayback timeline.
The initial report documented that Justia.com had removed the case name, “Minor v. Happersett” from its published opinions of Boyd and Pope. The report also documented that, in the Pope opinion at Justia, full sentences discussing Minor v. Happersett were removed thereby changing – not only the citations in the case – but also the Court’s statedopinion.
Within an hour after I published that report, Justia.com had re-instated the opinions to include the missing references to Minor and the missing text without commenting or noting the revisions. Justia then further covered the trail of deceit by placing robots on their URL’s for Boyd v. Nebraska, and Pope v. Williams, so that access to the Wayback Machine’s snapshots is no longer possible for those cases. (Should they now scrub the robots, here are screenshots for Justia’s Boyd and Pope opinions which show the robot blocking.)
Justia’s stated mission is as follows:
“Justia’s Mission:
To advance the availability of legal resources for the benefit of society.”
Justia CEO and founder, Tim Stanley, is known as a leading light advocating for freedom of legal information on the web. Stanley was also the founder of Findlaw, which he sold to West Publishing for $37 million. So, what’s good for the goose should be good for the gander, and therefore Stanley is the last person who should be using robots to hide previous versions of Supreme Court cases (which are in the public domain anyway).
I haven’t spoken to Tim Stanley or anyone else at Justia. I did not think it prudent, seeing as how Justia tried to cover their tracks after my last report, to contact them prior to releasing the rest of the evidence I gathered from the Wayback Machine. I needed to publish before they could place robots on the URL’s for the other 23 tampered opinions.
OTHER BLOGGERS ARE COMING TO THE STORY:
Other bloggers following the developments discussed herein will be contacting Justia.com in the days ahead as this story develops. I held back on publishing this follow-up so I could enlist the help of these other bloggers and journalists who have already viewed the evidence. Dianna Cotter, who has published articles for Accuracy In Mediaand Examiner.com, has documented everything, and she has worked closely with me in the days leading up to this report. She will publish a follow-up later today at Examiner.com.
Furthermore, whoever was responsible for placing the robots on Boyd and Pope at Justia should know that Dianna Cotter and I have forwarded and discussed the information published below with writers at The Washington Times, Accuracy In Media, Free Republic and many other publications.
I have also forwarded evidence of the tampering (screenshots, Wayback Machine URLs and downloaded HTML for each Wayback snapshot) to Cindy Simpson (who published an article yesterday at American Thinker which discusses Minor v. Happersett). I have also shared the evidence with attorney Mario Apuzzo who is writing an analysis of Justia’s sabotage of Wong Kim Ark, a case which was subjected to multiple instances of tampering by Justia. (I will update my report with links to the reports of Dianna Cotter and Mario Apuzzo when they are published later today.)
I reached out to people I trusted before publishing so that all of the evidence could be documented by multiple sources, media publications and attorneys. The evidence has been viewed and documented by so many sources now that any attempt by Justia to block it, the way that it blocked the evidence of my first report, will be futile. This tampering happened at Justia.com. That is a fact. The questions which need to be answered now are who ordered it and who carried out the subversive plot.
Additionally, the US Supreme Court’s Public Information Office was forwarded the evidence. I have personally spoken with one staffer and one official there. Dianna Cotter has also been in contact with the SCOTUS PIO.
TAMPERING WITH OFFICIAL WRITINGS IS A CRIME UNDER 18 U.S.C. 1018:
§1018. Official certificates or writings:
"Whoever, being a public officer or other person authorized by any law of the United States to make or give a certificate or other writing, knowingly makes and delivers as true such a certificate or writing, containing any statement which he knows to be false, in a case where the punishment thereof is not elsewhere expressly provided by law, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both."
The statute covers a “person” authorized by any law of the US to make or give official writings. Justia.com is authorized – according to the federal Public Domain laws – to re-publish US Supreme Court opinions. In every case that was tampered, the words “Full Text of Case” appear on each scrubbed opinion. Since the cases were intentionally sabotaged by the removal of text, the affirmation at the top of each page, which indicated that one is reading the “Full Text of Case” is knowingly false. It’s the inclusion of this intentionally false statement, which makes this a crime under the statute.
Each of the 25 instances of tampering carries a maximum sentence of one year in prison. There are 25 possible counts, so the saboteur(s) could potentially face serious prison time. And there may be other relevant criminal violations as well.
FALLOUT UPON THE REST OF THE ELECTRONIC LEGAL PUBLISHING COMMUNITY:
Not only were those who consulted Justia for these cases defrauded, this behavior has also cast doubt upon the entire enterprise of electronic legal publishing. The other bloggers I have shared the evidence with are rounding up interviews with heavyweights in the legal publishing field, including West (who has previously sued Justia CEO Tim Stanley).
Furthermore, the American Association of Law Libraries (AALLNET) have been notified and are discussing the issue with Dianna Cotter.
I imagine the American Bar Association will not be pleased and that Tim Stanley, if he is behind this, could be disbarred in California and the federal courts.”
Continue Reading:
Note: The following articles and/or blog posts and video relate to this disturbing issue-You Decide:
I. JustiaGate!
Posted on Examiner-By Dianna Cotter, Portland Civil Rights Examiner-On October 20, 2011:
“Someone was incredibly busy in June 2008 working on an illegal front invisible to the public; searching and altering Supreme Court Cases published at Justia.com which cite the only case in American history - Minor v. Happersett (1875) - to directly construe Article 2 Section 1’s natural-born citizen clause in determining a citizenship issue as part of its holding and precedent. In this unanimous decision, the Supreme Court defined a “native or natural-born citizen” as a person born in the US to parents who were citizens; a definition which excludes from eligibility both Barack Obama and John McCain.
In June 2008 no one was discussing Minor v. Happersett 88 US 162 (1875) with regard to Obama. In fact, those who were discussing the then Senator’s citizenship status had focused instead on his birth in Hawaii in a attempt to prove the future president was not born in the United States despite publication of the Senator’s short form computer generated Birth Certificate. It would not be until October of 2008 that Barack Hussein Obama’s eligibility would be questioned as to his status as a dual citizen at the time of his birth.
Meanwhile, at the “Supreme Court Center” of the influential legal research website Justia.com, efforts were underway corrupting at least 25 Supreme Court cases by erasing references to the words “Minor V. Happersett” along with references to other relevant cases on the issue along with the insertion of misleading numerical ciations. And In two documented cases actual text was removed.
Clearly this was done in these specific cases in order to prevent their being found by internet researchers long before anyone had even begun to look for them, even before Obama would win the Democratic Nomination at the DNC Convention in Denver, Colorado in August ‘08. This is premeditation and intent to deceive.
So far, 25 corrupted SCOTUS have been identified, and this number may continue to rise as the scope of the tampering becomes apparent. These cases all relied upon Minor, some specifically referencing its definition of Natural Born Citizen - a definition which makes Obama ineligible to be President as that definition is part of the holding and continuing precedent, issued from the highest court in our nation making it the law of the land, even now.
The most extreme sabotage so far discovered appears to have been done to the landmark decision United States v. Wong Kim Ark which was sabotaged to remove “Minor v. Happersett” three times, along with one reference to “Scott v Sandford”, another to the Slaughterhouse Cases and some accompanying text relevant to the issue. These surgical alterations would alter and shape the national dialogue; leaving a persistent and incorrect interpretation of the meaning of the ‘natural born citizen’ clause. There is no doubt whatsoever that this was the specific intent of those responsible for this illegal editing of American history and law.
As previously mentioned, the specific distinction between Citizen and Natural Born Citizen made in Minor v. Happersett is in the holding of the case, the section which creates the Law, and it is this Law which has been repeatedly cited over the decades since. In order to minimize the importance of Minor, someone at Justia deliberately decided to make these supporting citations as difficult as possible to find.
This has had the desired effect, diluting the importance of Minor v. Happersett in the national dialogue across the blogosphere’s political spectrum ever since. The end result: the one case which defines Natural Born Citizen was reduced to seeming irrelevance, and thus the conversation never got past doorkeepers already in Obama’s camp in the mainstream media.
Of course, a lawyer going into Court would never rely upon anything but an official source for Supreme Court law, but 99.9% of the population have no access to dusty law texts, or expensive legal research services such as Lexis and Westlaw. Those who committed these crimes were well aware of this, and used it to their advantage.
The manipulation at Justia.com diluted the importance of Minor by killing the citations in Supreme Court cases spanning over 100 years. Since Google most often returns Justia.com’s version of the case being searched for as the first or second hit, Justia’s version of Supreme Court opinions are most influential in the blogosphere’s forums and comments. Erasing those citations and text on the internet literally erases the importance of Minor and its precedents to millions of Americans otherwise unlikely to ever step into physical Law Library.
This is nothing short of appalling. Justia swapped their tampered versions of the cases for the actual Supreme Court opinions and then pawned them off as if the tampered versions contained the “Full Text” of the Supreme Court’s opinions. Yet Justia CEO Tim Stanley claims that making case law available to the public for free is the mission of Justia. In reality, Justia has been re-inventing our legal history and passing it off as genuine.
Attorney Donofrio’s Full report “Justia.com Surgically Removed “Minor v Happersett” from 25 Supreme Court Opinions in run up to ’08 Election”, published today explains that exposure to criminal punishment is a direct result of not just the tampering, but more specifically, as a result of placing text on every tampered page which states, “Full text of case”:
Regardless of who you supported in 2008, or whether you agree with the assertion of Minor’s relevance, every American should be outraged that 25 Supreme Court cases were surgically sabotaged and then passed off to the public as if the tampered versions contained the “Full Text of Case”. This is the very definition of “Orwellian” fascism. It’s propaganda. And there is no place for it in the United States. The sacrifices for truth and justice which created and have sustained this nation are wantonly debased by the subversive deception emanating from Justia.com servers. - Leo Donofrio Esq.
Clearly, the corruption of Supreme Court Cases was systemic and surgically targeted within Justia.com, one of the largest and best known legal research sites on the internet. Justia is nothing if not efficient in driving traffic to its site; this is after all their business. Today they partner with Google and have Google Analytics within their site which does two things; it increases Justia’s visibility on Google searches, and it pushes their website to the top of those searches done on legal issues. When specific search terms are erased out of a document, naturally that document will not appear on a search. Anyone searching for the case name “Minor v. Happersett” and “citizenship” would never see the dozens of cases manipulated by Justia.com.
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 statements:
“Our goal is to provide academic researchers, government officials, attorneys, and the public with advanced features, including full‐text search, annotations by legal professionals, and comparison tools to visualize the differences in the law between the individual states…”
And
“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.”
To describe these comments, made at roughly the same time Supreme Court Cases were being scrubbed and deliberately altered at his site as ironic, is an understatement of gross proportions.
Only a person thoroughly educated in the law would know precisely which cases to look for in order to direct the changes to be made to those cases. Furthermore, only someone with access to Justia.com’s database could physically make these changes from inside the website. This artificially created a near empty result set and the cases which did turn up led those inexperienced in the law, nowhere.
This appears to violate every principle Tim Stanley and Justia.com have built their business upon.
The manipulations at Justia.com were initially discovered by Attorney Leo Donofrio on July 1, 2011, when he published his initial report, “Justia.com Caught Red Handed Hiding References to Minor v. Happersett In Published US Supreme Court Decisions,”. Upon publication of his original discovery documenting the sabotage of Boyd v. Nebraska, and Pope v. Williams, two Supreme Court cases which cite to Minor v. Happersett as precedent on citizenship, two things happened almost immediately: First, the altered pages were returned to their original versions at Justia within an hour or so of Donofrio’s publication. Second, despite Justia CEO Tim Stanley’s cries for freedom of legal information (and law suits compelling the same), robots have now been placed on the Justia URL’s for the Boyd and Pope cases at InternetArchive.org, also known as the Waybackmachine. These robots make it impossible to see the tampering as it unfolded in mid-2008... with those cases.
So much for freedom of information.
One can, however, still see the tampering from screenshots taken by Donofrio and are attached to that original report on July 1, 2011 at his blog, Natural Born Citizen, which has been singularly focused on the issue of Presidential eligibility since late 2008.
As Donofrio documents in his article today, when he discovered a third tampered case, instead of rushing to publish it, he contacted a number of other bloggers and reporters to help document the evidence before Justia dispersed their robots to block it. While Donofrio originally only discovered two cases of tampering, somebody at Justia knew where the bones were buried and went about reinstating “Minor v. Happersett” in the at least 25 cases which it had earlier sabotaged. It appears that whoever knew about these additional despoiled cases, must have believed by fixing them before the corruption was exposed no one would ever suspect they too had been altered.
What tipped Donofrio off last week to the extent of Justia’s tampering was the case “Luria v. United States”. This case also firmly supports Minor on citizenship, and he double checked the text to see if it included references to Minor. It did… something he had not noticed upon previous readings of the case at Justia.com.
With his new insight into SCOTUS case tampering, he plugged the URL into the Waybackmachine to see if it had been altered in the past. Bingo. It had. Furthermore there was nothing blocking his ability to see those snapshotted pages, and how they had been altered compared to the original text. The gun wasn’t just smoking, the bullet was still flying.
A brief explanation of the how the Waybackmachine works. It takes snapshots of internet pages. It may not record the day a given webpage changed, but it documents the changes when it does hit that page. Thus a date on the Waybackmachine of April 13, 2004 means this was the date the snapshot was taken, not when the changes were necessarily made. There is no way of knowing precisely when the change occurred as the waybackmachine does not record the precise instant the change is made, it is only sometime later when the Internet archive records it.
The evidence he discovered there, at the time of publication of this article, is still available and shows the same exact same pattern of behavior - deception - that Justia exhibited with the Boyd and Pope cases Donofrio published back in July.
If Justia hasn’t blocked access to the WaybackMachine for their publication of Luria v. US, 231 U.S. 9 (1913) by the time you read this, then it continues to be evident and accessible that on Nov. 4, 2006 the Waybackmachine recorded Justia published the true original opinion issued by the Supreme Court with no tampering evident. Minor v. Happersett is cited on page 22 directly referencing Presidential eligibility as follows:
The July 6, 2008 Waybackmachine snapshot of Luria v. US is the first snapshot that shows the tampering:
Notice that “Minor v. Happersett” has been removed along with the reference to “Osborn v. United States”, another case which causes trouble for Obama (and McCain). All of the WaybackMachine snapshots between July 6, 2008, and April 13, 2010 for this case, show the same tampering. The current, live Justia page for Luria v. US has been un-scrubbed and shows the original Supreme Court text. It is only with an archival resource such as the Waybackmachine that the alterations can be seen.
At publication, insertion of the URL into the Waybackmachine for this page at Justia still reveals the changes made to this page over time. Repeat this entire process with 25 Supreme Court cases and the extent of the tampering becomes evident.
This is disturbing enough, yet there was another subtle and insidious layer of deception. In every single instance of tampering, the numerical citation attached to Minor V. Happersett, has also been altered. (See Donofrio’s blog for a complete break down of this.) Changing these numbers is yet another layer of deception practiced at Justia.
While Donofrio documents in detail what the finer points of law in both versions mean in his article, this Examiner.com publication documents what this reporter has personally witnessed – the tampering of Supreme Court Cases online in the guise of “Full Text of Case”. This article is not the legal opinion of an attorney; it is witness to an event.
It’s important to note that the only way Justia could block all access to previous versions of their publication of cases would require .txt robots to be placed on their entire domain records at the Waybackmachine. If Tim Stanley were to secure Justia.com from the honest and forthright archiving of the WaybackMachine, he would be an instant pariah in the freedom of information scene of which he is a leader.
Furthermore, if Stanley were to place robots on only the 25 (or more) cases which cite Minor v. Happersett, it would be a de-facto admission of guilt.
It appears that whoever tampered with these cases went back and “fixed” all of them, including 23 Donofrio wasn’t aware of until this week when he conclusively established the sabotage by Justia. For all 25, the pattern is precisely the same. In 2006, the cases at Justia are pristine in the Waybackmachine; word for word from official Supreme Court cases. Then at various points in 2008, the cases are corrupted by removal of the case name “Minor v, Happersett” ( as well as some other case names and text.)
The cases remained corrupted, according to the snapshots of the Waybackmachine in most cases, until late 2010.
Today however, all 25 cases have been painstakingly returned to their official Supreme Court versions; all references to Minor are back, the case and page numbers have been restored, as well as all missing text and references to other cases. Still, the pattern is clearly visible to anyone who takes the time to look at the evidence made available by the Waybackmachine. The sophistication and surgical elegance used to sabotage these cases is astounding, and has been personally witnessed by this reporter.
Every case which has been found to date by Mr. Donofrio has been documented with great attention to all these details. This has been accomplished by downloading the full code of the original un-tainted pages and the corrupted revisions from the Waybackmachine’s date stamped archive, along with screenshots of the pages as they appeared in browsers such as Mozilla Firefox before and after the tampering occurred, and the restored pages.
The volume of data is significant and Mr. Donofrio is in the process of making the entire archive available to the public. The article he has published today contains what he refers to as a “document dump”. It is in reality evidence. The reader is strongly encouraged to view the images which document Justia’s actions. Upon doing so, every member of congress should be notified of the existence of this information. Such usurpation of American history and law cannot be allowed.
Screenshots and links have been sent to several specific media contacts which include the Washington Times,Accuracy In Media, and Free Republic. In the interest of putting this information in front of as many eyes as possible before publication, it has been made freely available since Friday October 18, 2011 in the form of screenshots and saved page code. Should the information presented here be altered on the internet following publication, there will be a significant number of media outlets with knowledge and proof of any further alterations to internet archives.
The penalty associated with violating the “False Writings Statute”, 18 U.S.C. 1018 is jail and a fine for each count. With at least 25 counts if not more, this could mean upwards of 25 years in prison. The manipulation of Supreme Court cases is an offense against all Americans, and the Court itself. If like Fast and Furious this scandal reaches directly to the White House, the ramifications are both dire and catastrophic.
Minor v. Happersett defined the one specific term which Barack Obama could not overcome with “Hope and Change”though he could ‘hope’ someone would ‘change’ the cases which help define the term “Natural Born Citizen,”. This case, if it had been sufficiently known to the public and media, and sufficiently documented by supporting citations, might have eliminated the possibility of Obama’s nomination and/or election. Either Obama got lucky in this regard, or the “constitutional law professor” and former editor of the Harvard Law Review had some hand in directing the efforts to erase the very citations in law which define him as a citizen, and at the same time rule him out as a constitutional candidate for President of the United States.
Just as certainly as the corruption at Justia.com has been documented and archived, more will be revealed. Stay tuned, it is expected that this information will generate some significant updates. They will be reported here as they happen.”
Source:
http://www.examiner.com/civil-rights-in-portland/justiagate
II. Citizenship Jeopardy!
Posted on American Thinker-By Cindy Simpson-On October 18, 2011:
“Trivia question: What do Anwar al-Awlaki, Yaser Esam Hamdi, and newborn twin daughters of Mexican drug lord Joaquin Guzman have in common?
You were probably ready to hit the buzzer and answer something like “What is Islamic terrorism”-until you finished reading the entire question.
The correct answer: “What is ‘presumed’ US citizenship.”
The adjective “presumed” was used by Justice Scalia to describe Hamdi’s US citizenship in the famous 2004 case ofHamdi v. Rumsfeld. Hamdi was born in Louisiana in 1980 to Saudi parents, and in 2001 he was captured by US forces in Afghanistan and held as an enemy combatant. Hamdi’s father filed the petition from Saudi Arabia, arguing that his son was a US citizen and entitled to due process.
Noted constitutional law expert Dr. John Eastman in his editorial, “Wrong Question in Hamdi,” argued that the question before the Court should have been: “Why is Hamdi being treated as a citizen at all?”
The Center for American Unity (“CAU”) and the Eagle Forum submitted amicus briefs in Hamdi that described the reasons they considered Hamdi’s claim to “birthright citizenship” (the practice of granting US citizenship to every baby born on US soil, regardless of the citizenship, domicile, or legal status of its parents) more than presumptuous.
Tom Tancredo, one of the signers of the CAU brief, is asking the same question of al-Awlaki: Was he “ever really an American citizen?”
As both briefs in Hamdi explained at length, those who insist birth on US soil mandates automatic citizenship base their views on this provision in the 14th Amendment: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
The CAU brief noted:
The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was added during Senate debate [wherein] the authors discussed in great detail their purpose and intentions in adding the requirement that a person be born, not just in the United States, but “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Sen. Howard, sponsor and author of the Citizenship Clause, when questioned about the meaning of “jurisdiction,” responded that the phrase was intended to be read as meaning “not owing allegiance to anybody else.” Sen. Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, described persons who “are not subject to our jurisdiction in the sense of owing allegiance solely to the United States.” Chairman Trumbull noted that even “partial allegiance if you please, to some other government” is sufficient to disqualify a person under the jurisdiction requirement.
Although Justice Scalia did not elaborate on his usage of “presumed” in the opening of his dissenting opinion inHamdi, the government’s Respondent brief and both amicus briefs referenced above used the same terminology. It could be argued that the entire case rested on the questionable premise of Hamdi’s US citizenship.
The Court appeared to follow just such a two-step analysis in the famous 1875 women’s suffrage case of Minor v Happersett. Justice Waite, writing the majority opinion, first addressed the claim of Virginia Minor’s citizenship, and then proceeded to discuss whether such citizenship entitled her to the right to vote. In answer to the first issue, (and thus making this part of the opinion a direct holding and not dicta), Justice Waite wrote: “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.”
It is interesting to note that the judicial precedent established in Minor is heavily relied upon by so-called “birthers” who doubt the Article 2 “natural born” presidential eligibility of Obama, born a dual citizen in the US, the son of a non-US citizen father who was here in the country legally but temporarily on a student visa with the stated intention to return to his native Kenya to work in its government.
Popular opinion, however, would contend that all four of the “presumed” citizens in my original question—Awlaki, Hamdi, and Guzman’s twin daughters, because of their made-in-the-USA birth certificates, are “natural born citizens.” If their births were also announced in the local newspaper, presumably they could all run for President of the United States.
In 2005, the year after the Hamdi decision, the House Subcommittee on Immigration convened the hearing “Dual Citizenship, Birthright Citizenship, and the Meaning of Sovereignty.” Dr. Eastman, an expert witness at the hearing,noted:
With the absurdity of Hamdi’s claim of citizenship so recently and vividly before us, it is time for the courts, and for the political branches as well, to revisit Justice Gray’s erroneous interpretation of that language [i.e., in Wong Kim Ark], restoring to the constitutional mandate what its drafters actually intended, that only a complete jurisdiction, of the kind that brings with it a total and exclusive allegiance, is sufficient to qualify for the grant of citizenship to which the people of the United States actually consented.
I wrote more about that Congressional hearing here, noting the fact that all present appeared to agree (some reluctantly) that the Constitution did not mandate the present birthright practice that creates the additional dilemma of dual citizenship. The hearing generated little media attention, however.
In the meantime, the State Department, rarely enforcing its policies discouraging dual citizenship although continuing to require rejection of past citizenships in the Oath of Naturalization, has adopted a sort of “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, described by Frances Stead Sellers in her thoughtful essays: “When Conflict Focuses on Citizenship” and “A Citizen on Paper Has No Weight.”
One can’t help but wonder if one of the secrets in the secret memo that the Obama administration has relied upon in its justification for taking out al-Awlaki is the pivotal question: Was al-Awlaki really a US citizen? A public discussion of the citizenship controversy, even more than adding heat to the “roiling boil” of the politically incorrect topic of immigration reform, may also bring to light the fact that the “birthers” contentions actually have substantial merit. A serious examination of Obama’s eligibility, when combined with his falling popularity, would likely place his re-electionprospects in further jeopardy.
Seen by some as a calculated move to re-ignite his failing campaign, last month Obama ordered the fatal drone attack on al-Awlaki. Just last December, Yale Professor Peter Schuck, in his article, “Citizen Terrorist,” presciently wrote: “In the case of a known terrorist like al-Awlaki, his citizenship status may (depending on how the courts rule on the issue) affect whether the government can kill him without legal process.” The Obama administration obviously did not wait for a ruling.
American Thinker’s Ron DeSantis writes:
If American citizenship creates a zone of protection around jihadists (as well as other malcontents) who take up arms against the United States, then America’s enemies will have an incentive to recruit individuals who can claim American citizenship but who have no actual loyalty to the country. This will provide al-Qaeda (and other enemies of the U.S.) with an unwarranted tactical advantage, an advantage not in any way mandated by the Constitution.
Stanley Renshon, author of The 50% American, has estimated that over 40 million Americans are dual citizens. The ongoing practice of granting birthright citizenship to the children of non-US citizens continues to expand that figure.
As Ms. Sellers wrote, “War is all about taking sides - unless, of course, you can’t because you belong on both sides.”
The killing of al-Awlaki should be a serious wake-up call. The continued refusal of our country’s leaders to examine the implications of dual citizenship and birthright citizenship on both the sovereignty and security of our nation places us all in jeopardy.”
Source:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/10/citizenship_jeopardy.html
III. Video: How The Internet Archive Changed Computer Source Code of NYS Board Of Elections!-Posted on YouTube.com-By pixelpatriot-On October 21, 2011:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qGY17DWMlM
IV. U.S. Presidents & Eligibility: Grandfather Clause, Natural Born Citizen Clause, or Seated by Fraud!-Posted on Scribd-By protectourliberty-On March 21, 2011:
V. Did Obama Submit Phony Ballot Petitions in 2008?-Posted on Floyd Reports-By Ben Johnson-On October 13, 2011:
http://floydreports.com/election-fraud-watch-did-obama-submit-phony-ballot-petitions-in-2008/
VI. Suspicious petitions got a stamped signature: ‘Former Gov. Kernan, 12 others come forward to say they didn’t sign!’-Posted on South Bend Tribune-By ERIN BLASKO, South Bend Tribune Staff Writer-On October 12, 2011:
Note: My following blog posts contain numerous articles and/or blog posts and videos that relate to this disturbing issue-You Decide:
Was there a conspiracy to put Obama in the White House?
http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2010/03/03/was-there-a-conspiracy-to-put-obama-in-the-white-house-2/
The Greatest Fraud Perpetrated in American History!
http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2011/06/20/the-greatest-fraud-perpetrated-in-american-history/
Congress report concedes Obama eligibility unvetted!
http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2010/11/09/congress-report-concedes-obama-eligibility-unvetted/
Could the President’s newly released COLB be a forgery?
http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2011/04/29/could-the-president’s-newly-released-colb-be-a-forgery/
DC knows that Obama is ineligible for office!
http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2010/04/27/dc-knows-that-obama-is-ineligible-for-office/
Massive Voter Fraud-Again!
http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2010/10/25/massive-voter-fraud-again/Is it important to understand the Marxist assault on the foundations of our system?
Note: If you have a problem viewing any of the listed blog posts please copy web site and paste it on your browser. Be aware that some of the articles and/or blog posts or videos listed within the contents of the above blog post(s) may have been removed by this administration because they may have considered them to be too controversial. Sure seems like any subject matter that may shed some negative light on this administration is being censored-What happened to free speech?-You Decide.
“Food For Thought”
God Bless the U.S.A.!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q65KZIqay4E&feature=related
Semper Fi!
Jake
Comments