Posted on 07/01/2011 4:01:29 PM PDT by SatinDoll
The US Supreme Court Center at Justia.com is the leading resource on the internet which publishes United States Supreme Court decisions. They have been caught red handed in an Orwellian attempt to revise US Supreme Court cases which mention Minor v. Happersett as precedent on the issue of citizenship, as opposed to the other issue decided in Minor, voting rights.
I have documented two incredible examples where Justia.com has been caught in the act of taking a hatchet job to US Supreme Court decisions by removing, not just the case name, “Minor v. Happersett”, but whole passages related to Chief Justice Waite’s statements on the citizenship issue which were cited favorably in BOYD V. NEBRASKA EX REL. THAYER, 143 U. S. 135 (1892), and POPE V. WILLIAMS, 193 U. S. 621 (1904).
I have published my complete investigation into this fraud perpetrated by Justia.com – including snapshots and evidence collected from the Way Back Machine at the Internet Archive – in the comments section of my previous report, THE EXPRESS LANE TO NATURAL BORN CLARITY. My investigation was triggered by a reader’s comment regarding Boyd. The comment was on a separate issue. But I then noticed that the Boyd case, as currently published by Justia.com, made reference to Minor v. Happersett without properly naming the case.
***************************************************
This is beyond shocking. Somebody, back in 2008, just prior to the election, ordered these revisions and saw to their execution. This is direct tampering with United States law. And it is evidence that Minor v. Happersett was known to be a huge stumbling block to POTUS eligibility.
It confirms that Minor v. Happersett was seen as a dangerous US Supreme Court precedent which construed the natural-born citizen clause of Article 2 Section 1 to make only those persons born in the US to citizen parents (plural)… eligible to be President.
According to binding US Supreme Court precedent, Obama is not eligible to be President. And we are obviously very late coming to this legal truth. Somebody at Justia.com tried to control and alter our awareness by hiding important Supreme Court references to Minor dating back to 2008. This is smoking gun proof of tampering. Please read my full report here.
There needs to be an investigation.
I can’t check anything out because Way Back Machine doesn’t have any listings using the search term you’ve got in your screenshot. I have no way of knowing that’s even the Justia site that’s being shown on the screenshot.
If it’s really there and just won’t show on my computer you’ll have to tell your buds at Homeland Security that they need to stop messing with my computer. lol. But of course, that is too conspiratorial to be true, so the site just must not exist and you forged that “screenshot”. Right? ;)
Here's a direct link to the page I took the screen shot from.
Before you get too carried away, ask yourself this: if someone deliberately changed that page to remove the reference to Minor, why did they leave the link for “88 U. S. 167”—which leads directly to the text of Minor? Doesn’t that suggest that maybe this wasn’t an attempt to hide something?
The “reason” you utilize depends on Leo forging a screenshot. You ridicule others as having tin foil hats because you claim that Leo is committing a conspiracy. lol.
butterdezillion, you make a valid point, but here's the problem with it, from my point of view.
Speaking personally, I have yet to see one single thing from Donofrio that's valid.
Now I will be the first to admit that I certainly haven't read his whole blog. I've only read in the region of 4 or 5 different articles by him.
But every single one of them has been bad. And by bad, I mean that the logic is flawed or twisted, or perhaps the information itself is flawed. It's like fail, fail, fail, fail - and so far, through several instances, Leo has proven 100% "reliable."
And his 100% reliability of posting stuff that is mistaken - at best - means that I don't trust one single word of what Donofrio tells me. And you would be wise to look for yourself into others' criticisms of his writings, and prove for yourself whether or not what he says is actually true. Don't take my word for it.
Earlier, I posted a thread in which Leo himself stated that a few years ago he had put forth a major treatise on the internet in which he claimed that the drummer from his favorite rock band was the Messiah, and Leo was the Paraclete (this is a Christian term meaning "helper," and usually refers to the Holy Spirit of God).
Why would you, whom I take to be a reasonable person, want to put your faith in someone who is known, by his own admission, to have widely and publicly claimed, "So-and-so rock drummer is the Christ, and I'm the Holy Spirit"?
And why would you choose to throw your allegiance to that person, and take sides against a fellow FReeper who has been here since 2007, and whose postings, as far as I can see, are universally conservative.
freedomwarrior is neither a troll, nor a rambling lunatic.
Unforunately, the thread with Leo's description of himself - sourced from his own blog, so it's 100% authentic - no longer exists. This happened because of the huge brouhaha that arose after I posted it. No one denied that the thread was factual, but several people chose to mount massive personal attacks on the messenger.
The original is here.
Given Leo's track record, I think the burden of proof falls on those putting forth his claims as if they were fact.
It's like it's telling you exactly what was changed.
That is just what was put into the search box.
I agree with you that bullying is not an effective way to win people to your point of view.
I was personally attacked, by my count, 63 times in 5 days (yes, I ended up counting), after trying to make rational arguments in regard to some of this stuff. Okay, I realize I was kind of raining on the parade of quite a few people who want to believe all of what Donofrio and the other birther guys write. And I probably should’ve just ignored accusations of being an obot and a troll, instead of responding to a lot of them. Still, as far as I see, the vast majority of such attacks and conflicts - I certainly don’t say all, but most - seem to be started by birthers against fellow freepers who are trying to make rational arguments and rational analysis to honestly say whether there’s really anything there or not.
So what happens if we find that none of the birther arguments make sense? At some point, we’ll have to move on. I’m not arguing that we have to do that now. We’ve still got a good deal of time before election season heats up to talk more about this.
I just hope we can do so in a civil manner.
butter FYI Jeff Winston is a BS’er and Whiner.
His thread on Minor v Happersett was pulled.
“This thread has been pulled.
Pulled on 06/29/2011 5:46:22 AM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
Too much bs and whining by the poster”
That’s quite the imaginative interpretation of our discussion.
For those interested, start here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2740270/posts?page=84#84
Doesn’t the ridicule just drip from that post?
“No one denied that the thread was factual”
Liar. The Mod determined there was to much BS’ing and Whining by the poster. The poster was Jeff Winston.
First of all, you’re incorrect as to what thread it was. It was, as I stated, my thread referencing Leo Donofrio’s description of himself.
I have a copy of the thread saved, so if butterdezillion wants a copy, I should be able to find a way to get it to her.
Everything I posted was factual to my knowledge at the time of posting. I did make a couple of errors in the heat of the moment that I later - MYSELF - corrected.
Do I personally find it kind of unfair that after having been attacked 63 times in 5 days, the thread was pulled and I was the one labeled as posting “bs and whining?” Well, yes, but I’m not going to let it bother me.
Liar. The Mod determined there was to much BS’ing and Whining by the poster. The poster was Jeff Winston.
First vicious and untrue personal attack on me in this thread.
You may have made a misinterpretation. When I said, "No one denied that the thread was factual," I am referring to the original content, Donofrio's statements about himself.
That content, again, is here.
Sorry, bdz. I’m trying to keep you pinged to this stuff. See 91.
And also you, fireman, so you can see the typical reaction to a factual statement.
You have ZERO credibility on this forum.
The mods have deemed you full of bs and a whiner. That future zot is not good.
“Amazon alone has truckloads. Too many to buy them all. I’ll start with the two I bought and see what they say.”
And then you couldn’t find a link to even one textbook that might have been used in a Civics Class during the time a middle aged Freeper went to school, could you? “Truckloads”? “Too many to buy them all”? Not one, not even one link to a book relevant to our discussion.
I guess it was your tag team buddy Vickery that said, “There’s a simple explanation for why they can’t do that. The Obama Administration clearly destroyed all the incriminating civics textbooks more than fifty years old. And then they used their time machine to go back and change the definition of Natural Born Citizen in all civics curriculums for all Americans who are younger than fifty.”
Well, all I can do is post factually and fairly. I’m probably not going to directly respond to any more of the personal attacks, except maybe to note that they’ve occurred.
The fact that you have to post a personal attack in the first place shows that you can’t win on the basis of the facts.
Let me make this clearer...the mods deemed you a bs’r and a whiner.
This makes us wonder why are you still here posting. You have been shunned.
I am still here because I love FreeRepublic. I also like almost all of its inhabitants. The sole exception would be those who flame me for posting the truth, and even some of those I’m willing to admit are merely misguided.
“I certainly don’t say all, but most - seem to be started by birthers against fellow freepers who are trying to make rational arguments and rational analysis to honestly say whether there’s really anything there or not.”
My perception of this comes to the opposite conclusion. All of these threads immediately attract a dedicated group of Obama appologists who post a bunch of Alinsky type ridicule followed by the same disproven talking points along with irrelevant links that do nothing but waste other people’s time. I find the term “birther” offensive and a transperant attempt to lump all persons who question Obama’s fraudulant personal narrative together. This small group of Obama appologists tend to make arguments as rational as the celebrated hosts from Comedy Central or the MSM.
Well, it's very interesting to hear your perception. And I don't question that your statement of that perception is sincere.
And I'm sure you're right about some resorting to ridicule.
And I agree with you about the term "birther." I usually try to avoid using it, but slipped there.
That being the case, I can certainly forgive you for having lumped all those you disagree with into the category of "Obama apologists." :-)
I'll do my best to refrain from personal attack and ridicule, and hope that those who share your point of view will do the same as well.
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.