JUSTIA.COM SURGICALLY REMOVED “MINOR v HAPPERSETT” FROM 25 SUPREME COURT OPINIONS

Natural Born Citizen ^ | 10-20-2011 | Leo Donofrio

[Danae]

New evidence conclusively establishes that 25 U.S. Supreme Court opinions were sabotaged then republished at Justia.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.

+++SNIP+++

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”.

+++SNIP+++

... 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.

[Danae]

Are you acting like a jerk? Or do you just play one on the Internet?

Maybe YOU don't consider erasing history and through that act electing an Illegal POTUS whilst conservatives consider electing ANOTHER ONE in Marco Rubio, but some of us DO.

We actually VALUE the Constitution and Supreme Court Law and Decisions which make it REAL in our society.

[Red_Devil 232]

Interesting Justia altering/scrubbing references to a Transcript of a Supreme Court case that defines a Natural Born Citizen to be two citizen parents and birth on US soil.

[Red_Devil 232]

You forgot to add include this paragraph:

"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."

[Danae]

True enough. However, this goes against Tim Stanleys personal philosophy, one that has made him TENS of millions of dollars.

Its fully documented. Its disgusting.

[NonValueAdded]

Florida TV newsrooms are covering the "birthers turn their sights on Marco Rubio" story. Perhaps in a parallel to the scrubbing of these cases, tv 9 Orlando closed with the statement (not an exact quote) "birthers say because his parents were not yet citizens, Marco is not a natural born citizen, but legal experts say Rubio is an American Citizen." A true statement but non-responsive. Note how this report, like every report I've heard or seen, leaves out the "natural born" from the ending clause. Now why is that, he asked rhetorically? Until there is a determination on exactly what "natural born": means with respect to the Constitutional qualification for the Office of POTUS, the controversy will remain. It is as simple as that.

[Danae]

Yellow Polo shirts, and you OBVIOUSLY haven’t been in touch with him lately. That was in 2008 the day before the election. Almost 3 years ago.

[Danae]

As I stated in the article, this information went to Accuracy In Media, and two different sources at the Washington Times.

One does what one can. The truth is that important.

Besides, I park the car in the garage... ;)

[trumandogz]

Are the black helicopters still flying above Leo’s house?

[Danae]

Send this article to the Station.

Rubio IS a citizen, but there is a legal distinction between Citizen and Natural Born Citizen, and it was cemented into law by the Supreme Court in 1875, Minor v. Happersett.

It is time for the truth to become public knowledge.

[Tunehead54]

You forgot to say that you're a long time listener, first time caller and that you've got an observation, a question, a comment and a rebuttal. ;-)

Apropos of nothing as my brother is want to say I'd read that only property holders were originally allowed to vote and tracking down and reading this scrubbed case there is a good summary of voting requirements after the adoption of our Constitution. So what does it say you ask? I'll post it and then hang up and listen to your response ... ;-)

---

When the Federal Constitution was adopted, all the States, with the exception of Rhode Island and Connecticut, had constitutions of their own. These two continued to act under their charters from the Crown. Upon an examination of those constitutions we find that in no State were all citizens permitted to vote. Each State determined for itself who should have that power. Thus, in New Hampshire, 'every male inhabitant of each town and parish with town privileges, and places unincorporated in the State, of twenty-one years of age and upwards, excepting paupers and persons excused from paying taxes at their own request,' were its voters; in Massachusetts 'every male inhabitant of twenty-one years of age and upwards, having a freehold estate within the commonwealth of the annual income of three pounds, or any estate of the value of sixty pounds;' in Rhode Island 'such as are admitted free of the company and society' of the colony; in Connecticut such persons as had 'maturity in years, quiet and peaceable behavior, a civil conversation, and forty shillings freehold or forty pounds personal estate,' if so certified by the selectmen; in New York 'every male inhabitant of full age who shall have personally resided within one of the counties of the State for six months immediately preceding the day of election . . . if during the time aforesaid he shall have been a freeholder, possessing a freehold of the value of twenty pounds within the county, or have rented a tenement therein of the yearly value of forty shillings, and been rated and actually paid taxes to the State;' in New Jersey 'all inhabitants . . . of full age who are worth fifty pounds, proclamation-money, clear estate in the same, and have resided in the county in which they claim a vote for twelve months immediately preceding the election;' in Pennsylvania 'every freeman of the age of twenty-one years, having resided in the State two years next before the election, and within that time paid a State or county tax which shall have been assessed at least six months before the election;' in Delaware and Virginia 'as exercised by law at present;' in Maryland 'all freemen above twenty-one years of age having a freehold of fifty acres of land in the county in which they offer to vote and residing therein, and all freemen having property in the State above the value of thirty pounds current money, and having resided in the county in which they offer to vote one whole year next preceding the election;' in North Carolina, for senators, 'all freemen of the age of twenty-one years who have been inhabitants of any one county within the State twelve months immediately preceding the day of election, and possessed of a freehold within the same county of fifty acres of land for six months next before and at the day of election,' and for members of the house of commons 'all freemen of the age of twenty-one years who have been inhabitants in any one county within the State twelve months immediately preceding the day of any election, and shall have paid public taxes;' in South Carolina 'every free white man of the age of twenty-one years, being a citizen of the State and having resided therein two years previous to the day of election, and who hath a freehold of fifty acres of land, or a town lot of which he hath been legally seized and possessed at least six months before such election, or (not having such freehold or town lot), hath been a resident within the election district in which he offers to give his vote six months before said election, and hath paid a tax the preceding year of three shillings sterling towards the support of the government;' and in Georgia such 'citizens and inhabitants of the State as shall have attained to the age of twenty-one years, and shall have paid tax for the year next preceding the election, and shall have resided six months within the county.'

---

Source: http://openjurist.org/88/us/162/minor-v-happersett

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

You forgot to add include this paragraph:

I didn't forget. I posted the law that Leo is citing, not his interpretation. Do you agree that something being in the public domain means that everyone on the Planet Earth is now "a person authorized by any law of the United States to make or give a certificate or other writing" of that thing?

[Danae]

You tell me smarta$$.

[TheOldLady]

Support Free Republic
Click Here to Donate

[Pan_Yans Wife]

And there it is.

Congratulations, Danae. :)

[trumandogz]

I have no idea if the black helicopters are still flying over Leo’s house as I have been engrossed with the pteradactyles that Joe Farah believes are flying over his head and wondering how Jerome Corsi is doing with his hunt for Bigfoot.

[Danae]

You should be seeing a doctor is what you should be doing.

[Danae]

Thanks! I can sincerely say, I need a nap.

LOL

[little jeremiah]

Thanks for the ping, Danae. I’ve been waiting to see what this was all about.

Have you freepmailed any mods??? Try JR. This should not be relegated to blogs.

And WHO got this Justia guy to scrub these references? I doubt he thought it up all by his lonesome. (I haven’t read Donofrio’s whole article yet, maybe it says.)

[Danae]

I pinged a Mod at post 2. Also I posted my own article on it in Breaking News, they took it off. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2795647/posts?page=38

Sigh.

[Publius Valerius]

Maybe YOU don't consider erasing history and through that act electing an Illegal POTUS whilst conservatives consider electing ANOTHER ONE in Marco Rubio, but some of us DO.

We just don't care about some third rate website. This isn't Lexis or West. Who cares.