Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

JustiaGate
The Examiner ^ | 10-20-2011 | Dianna Cotter

Posted on 10/20/2011 1:12:42 PM PDT by Danae

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.

(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...


TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: barrydunham; birthcertificate; certifigate; elections; fraud; happersett; illegal; ineligible; justia; justiagate; minor; minorvhappersett; naturalborncitizen; obama; romancinghistory; scotus; soetoro; srnotacitizen
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-289 next last
The date on this article SHOULD read 10-20-2011. I should know. I wrote it.
1 posted on 10/20/2011 1:12:46 PM PDT by Danae
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Danae

My word, that “Examiner” sure is full of advertisements and pop-ups
and malware and spyware and viruses isn’t it? Scary place.

I’d never advise anyone to visit there.


2 posted on 10/20/2011 1:16:35 PM PDT by humblegunner (The kinder, gentler version...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Las Vegas Ron; little jeremiah; MestaMachine; STARWISE; rxsid; butterdezillion; Fred Nerks; ...

Ping


3 posted on 10/20/2011 1:18:08 PM PDT by Danae (Anailnathrach ortha bhais beatha do cheal deanaimha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: humblegunner
I publish there. Advertisements is how they make the money to operate.
4 posted on 10/20/2011 1:19:39 PM PDT by Danae (Anailnathrach ortha bhais beatha do cheal deanaimha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Danae

Fantastic!


5 posted on 10/20/2011 1:20:03 PM PDT by TruthShallSetYouFree ("Nanny Care State" is not a Division 3 football powerhouse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Danae

Just Wow!


6 posted on 10/20/2011 1:22:24 PM PDT by AmericaUnite (Jesus bent down and began to write on the ground with his finger. John Ch 8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #7 Removed by Moderator

To: Danae

How interesting. Interesting indeed. One of my favorite books is “1984”, and here it is in real life!


8 posted on 10/20/2011 1:22:44 PM PDT by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: humblegunner
Get a real browser, like Firefox.

Then, install the AdBlock plugin. You'll never see the ads.

9 posted on 10/20/2011 1:23:18 PM PDT by justlurking (The only remedy for a bad guy with a gun is a good WOMAN (Sgt. Kimberly Munley) with a gun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: humblegunner

You sound crabby.


10 posted on 10/20/2011 1:24:58 PM PDT by mills044 (Don't Tread on Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: humblegunner; Danae

Thanks for the warning.

For Danae, since it is your column, and given the warning, why not post it here in full?


11 posted on 10/20/2011 1:25:40 PM PDT by Jacquerie (Think outside the pizza box.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: humblegunner

No, sorry. You have to interview to “blog” there. And provide a w-2.

I am promoting a NEWS story. Now, either comment on the news story or take your whining elsewhere. Discuss the issue.

If I were in this for money, I would have been publishing there and posting it here in the last year. I have not. I am NOT in this for money. In fact, I am risking a LOT by doing this, something you might notice upon READING THE ARTICLE.

Now Humble, I LIKE you, but you are really out of line here.


12 posted on 10/20/2011 1:26:00 PM PDT by Danae (Anailnathrach ortha bhais beatha do cheal deanaimha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Danae

Question for you, how does this apply to John McCain? As I understand it, he was born in a US territory, on a US Armed Forces base, in a US Armed Forces hospital.


13 posted on 10/20/2011 1:27:14 PM PDT by MS from the OC (Obama foreign policy"If you're an enemy we're sorry; if you're a friend, you're sorry" Abe Greenwald)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MS from the OC
As I understand it, he was born in a US territory, on a US Armed Forces base, in a US Armed Forces hospital.

No. As I understand it he was born in another hospital in Panama City -- not the military hospital. That was the whole problem.

14 posted on 10/20/2011 1:31:47 PM PDT by afraidfortherepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Danae; humblegunner
It makes my brain hurt reading the facts of this issue. Your article (and it associated links) could stand alone as a brief to the SCOTUS. And not one jurist on the planet could dissent with all those facts and case law precedents.

The cover-up is meticulous and unbelievable. Unfortunately, the media has ridiculed the issue from top to bottom, and most people have moved on. I have been following Donofrio since before the 2008 elections -- the poor bastard just doesn't have a chance even though he is standing on firm legal ground.

Nicely written, but painful to ponder. Thanks for posting it here.

...and ignore humblegunner -- he hasn't learned how to install ad blockers on his browser yet. Maybe some day.

15 posted on 10/20/2011 1:32:00 PM PDT by Semper911 (When you want to rob Peter to pay Paul, you'll always have the support of Paul.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie
I has to do with Examiner's agreement with Free Republic. I just respect it. There are screenshots at the site, but they are at Donofrio's site as well, and that is linked in here. Here it is in full:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 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 version of the cases for the actual Supreme Court opinions and then pawned them off as if the tampered cases 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 editing our legal history and passing it off as genuine. 

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:

"Citizenship is membership in a political society, and implies a duty of allegiance on the part of the member and a duty of protection on the part of the society. These are reciprocal obligations, one being a compensation for the other. Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects, save that of eligibility to the Presidency. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 165, 22 L. ed. 627; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, 101, 28 S. L. ed. 643, 645, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 41; Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 827, 6 L. ed. 204, 225."

The July 6, 2008 Waybackmachine snapshot of Luria v. US is the first snapshot that shows the tampering:

"Citizenship is membership in a political society, and implies a duty of allegiance on the part of the member and a duty of protection on the part of the society.  These are reciprocal obligations, one being a compensation for the other.  Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency.   88 U. S. 165; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94, 112 U. S. 101; 22 U. S. 827."

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.

16 posted on 10/20/2011 1:34:59 PM PDT by Danae (Anailnathrach ortha bhais beatha do cheal deanaimha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: MS from the OC
Question for you, how does this apply to John McCain? As I understand it, he was born in a US territory, on a US Armed Forces base, in a US Armed Forces hospital.

He was not. McCain was born in a Panamanian hospital: civilian, not military.

While I'm not aware of the Supreme Court ruling on this specific issue, at least one of the commonly cited sources for terms in the Constitution (Vattel's Law of Nations, and Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England) says that one exception to the natural-borne citizen requirement is a child born abroad to citizen parents in the service of the country.

Since McCain's father was a Navy officer stationed in Panama at the time, he would meet that exemption.

17 posted on 10/20/2011 1:35:22 PM PDT by justlurking (The only remedy for a bad guy with a gun is a good WOMAN (Sgt. Kimberly Munley) with a gun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: MS from the OC

McCain was born in Colon Panama, a city in Panama. It wasn’t the military base. He wasn’t born in U.S. Territory. He got a free pass from Congress, which Obama co-authored I believe (going from memory here). but that doesn’t make it LAW. SCOTUS wrote that in 1875, and it is why McCain didn’t bust Obama on this, he had the same problem.


18 posted on 10/20/2011 1:38:02 PM PDT by Danae (Anailnathrach ortha bhais beatha do cheal deanaimha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: justlurking

The Specific Supreme Court Ruling is Minor v. Happersett.

That is the point on my article.

The RELEVANCE of this SCOTUS case got ERASED.

Literally, that is why it wasn’t discussed. It got scrubbed weeks before anyone was even discussing Minor v Happersett.

This ruling is STILL in effect. Blackstone and Vattell are BOTH irrelevant to the discussion. What IS relevant is Minor v. Blackstone.


19 posted on 10/20/2011 1:41:05 PM PDT by Danae (Anailnathrach ortha bhais beatha do cheal deanaimha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Danae
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.

Great stuff, Danae. I've been stating this for awhile ever since another FReeper made me go research the whole "natural born" stuff. The Founders borrowed the concept of "natural born" from the British "natural" law. Under "natural law", the majority citizenship is passed from the status of the father. If the father is a natural born citizen, the majority of the child's citizenship comes from the father, with the remainder coming from the mother's citizenship. As with Obama, we know the rest and his citizenship status (as is his eligibility to be POTUS) is non-existant.

However, I do have to pick a nit with you over McCain's citizenship. McCain was born in Panama (IIRC) on an American military base. Military bases on foreign soil, like American embassies, are considered American soil. Since McCain's father and mother were natural born citizens of the US, McCain's American citizenship is assured.

20 posted on 10/20/2011 1:41:32 PM PDT by DustyMoment (Congress - Another name for white collar criminals!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MS from the OC

This entire issue is bunk.


21 posted on 10/20/2011 1:43:09 PM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Danae
it is why McCain didn’t bust Obama on this, he had the same problem.

Yup, Donofrio was saying that in the summer of '08. Well, their problems were different, but that neither of them were eligible.

22 posted on 10/20/2011 1:44:10 PM PDT by Semper911 (When you want to rob Peter to pay Paul, you'll always have the support of Paul.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: justlurking
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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.

Sorry, guys, the Court did not here rule on the issue. It said that Group A had always been considered NBC, with doubts about whether Group B was NBC.

This does not constitute a ruling as to whether those with these doubts are correct. The Court only notes that such doubts exist.

23 posted on 10/20/2011 1:45:12 PM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: DustyMoment

He was born in Colon, Panama. That isn’t the base. Not even close. If I recall they tried to use the “canal zone” to strech the defination, but either way, it is the reason McCain didn’t bring it up. He didn’t want Minor discussed any more than Obama did. Obama of course had a LOT more reason to want minor repressed. A WHOLE LOT MORE.


24 posted on 10/20/2011 1:45:24 PM PDT by Danae (Anailnathrach ortha bhais beatha do cheal deanaimha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Danae

I am thoroughly incensed. So, what can we do about it?

FTA: 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.

Who did it, and who is going to be prosecuted?

BTW, I read the entire article at The Examiner and did not get one single pop up. Thanks for posting.


25 posted on 10/20/2011 1:45:48 PM PDT by afraidfortherepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Danae

How are we, the American people, going to get a case before the SCOTUS when they continue to claim no one has standing?


26 posted on 10/20/2011 1:46:00 PM PDT by Semper911 (When you want to rob Peter to pay Paul, you'll always have the support of Paul.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: justlurking
Correct.

I do not like McCain, but saying that he is not a “natural born” U.S. citizen is the height of tin foil hat conspiracy theory nuttiness.

27 posted on 10/20/2011 1:46:38 PM PDT by fireforeffect (A kind word and a 2x4, gets you more than just a kind word.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Danae; justlurking

Oops, Minor v. Happersett!!!! Not Minor v. Blackstone! (D’oh)


28 posted on 10/20/2011 1:46:38 PM PDT by Danae (Anailnathrach ortha bhais beatha do cheal deanaimha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Danae
"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"

Correct. But the Supreme Court did not limit the definition to that.

"At common-law ... 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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts."
-- MINOR v. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S. 162 (1874)

29 posted on 10/20/2011 1:47:51 PM PDT by misterwhite
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Danae
This case does NOT resolve the issue. From the case:

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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.

Whether "natural born citizens" includes children born within the borders without reference to the parents is in doubt but not resolved for purposes of this case.

30 posted on 10/20/2011 1:49:26 PM PDT by Armando Guerra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fireforeffect
LOL

Thats what all the Obots said in 08.

It is however, accurate. McCain has the same problem Obama does regarding his citizenship standing. McCain got a resolution from the Senate, and that does say something. However, being born outside U.S. Territory according to Minor v Happersett means that McCain is not a Natural Born Citizen in the eyes of the law. I would LOVE for him to bring his case to SCOTUS, maybe THEN we can get another legal Opinion on the matter, in modern times.

That being said, Minor is still the Precedent, and the law.

31 posted on 10/20/2011 1:51:00 PM PDT by Danae (Anailnathrach ortha bhais beatha do cheal deanaimha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Danae
This is the part I like:

Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects, save that of eligibility to the Presidency. Minor v. Happersett...

Game, set, match.

32 posted on 10/20/2011 1:51:41 PM PDT by Semper911 (When you want to rob Peter to pay Paul, you'll always have the support of Paul.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Danae
In fact, I am risking a LOT by doing this, something you might notice upon READING THE ARTICLE.

Fine. So POST THE ARTICLE. Why must one go to Exami-AIDS to see it?

You wrote it, you can post it.

33 posted on 10/20/2011 1:56:39 PM PDT by humblegunner (The kinder, gentler version...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: humblegunner

Ummmmm... I DID. Post 16...


34 posted on 10/20/2011 1:59:19 PM PDT by Danae (Anailnathrach ortha bhais beatha do cheal deanaimha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: humblegunner

Ha ha!

(Posting with out reading the thread since 2001)

Is that your tagline?

Heh...


35 posted on 10/20/2011 2:00:15 PM PDT by Syncro (Sarah Palin, the unofficial Tea Party candidate for president--Virtual Jerusalem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Semper911

EXACTLY!!!

And it got erased off the internet before people even knew about minor v Happersett, by someone(s) who DID know what it meant to Obama.


36 posted on 10/20/2011 2:00:32 PM PDT by Danae (Anailnathrach ortha bhais beatha do cheal deanaimha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: humblegunner

I might also add, that it takes me a few minutes to fiddle with HTML. I am NOT a coder.


37 posted on 10/20/2011 2:01:09 PM PDT by Danae (Anailnathrach ortha bhais beatha do cheal deanaimha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: jurroppi1; Danae

BTTT.

Danae, I believe the term Robots is a misnomer, there is a robots.txt file, or a simple code snippet used to tell a web crawler (google cache, archive.org, etc...) to not crawl a given url or domain. I can look into the proper term(s) further if you like.


38 posted on 10/20/2011 2:03:41 PM PDT by jurroppi1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: jurroppi1

That is pretty much exactly what Leo found. As far as I know, it is an accurate description. If Justia goes to remove itself off of InternetArchive.org, that would be an admission of guilt. And believe me, we are watching the archive to see if Justia puts up mor of them on the pages we have published today, and the ones Donofrio has published at his site: http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/10/20/justia-com-surgically-removed-minor-v-happersett-from-25-supreme-court-opinions-in-run-up-to-08-election/


39 posted on 10/20/2011 2:06:44 PM PDT by Danae (Anailnathrach ortha bhais beatha do cheal deanaimha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Eric in the Ozarks

Agree. I suppose every faction has its loonies.


40 posted on 10/20/2011 2:09:46 PM PDT by Jacquerie (Think outside the pizza box.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Danae

placemarker bump


41 posted on 10/20/2011 2:09:57 PM PDT by Liberty Valance (Keep a simple manner for a happy life :o)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Danae

M’Lady, you have nailed these bastards good and proper. They are a criminal enterprise.


42 posted on 10/20/2011 2:12:20 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Some, believing they can't be deceived, it's nigh impossible to convince them when they're deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Danae
EXACTLY!

So what can be done? Fact is fact, but we seem to be powerless in this country.

Got any other media pals who would be willing to run with this?

43 posted on 10/20/2011 2:12:51 PM PDT by Semper911 (When you want to rob Peter to pay Paul, you'll always have the support of Paul.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie
What are they doing here ?
I think DU covers the delusional/space alien beat.
44 posted on 10/20/2011 2:14:35 PM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Danae
“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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”

Minor v Happersett says no such thing. As quoted above.

Upon advice of council, McCain is a natural born U.S. Citizen. Beyond a reasonable doubt.

Obama’s status is reasonably doubtable. And in my personal opinion, he is not a natural born U.S. Citizen.

45 posted on 10/20/2011 2:15:03 PM PDT by fireforeffect (A kind word and a 2x4, gets you more than just a kind word.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Danae
Ummmmm... I DID. Post 16...

You might have done that at the start.

46 posted on 10/20/2011 2:15:39 PM PDT by humblegunner (The kinder, gentler version...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Semper911

“Yup, Donofrio was saying that in the summer of ‘08.”

No he wasn’t. Donofrio didn’t say or do anything until late-October 2008. He tried filing a lawsuit a few days before the election, and I think he started blogging after the election.


47 posted on 10/20/2011 2:18:17 PM PDT by Vickery2010
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Syncro

Cleaning the hardware preparatory to this weekend.

Why is the flash suppressor on the AK loose?

Dang Romanians.


48 posted on 10/20/2011 2:18:45 PM PDT by humblegunner (The kinder, gentler version...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: fireforeffect
It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”

Citizen, yes. Natural Born Citizen, not so much.

49 posted on 10/20/2011 2:21:45 PM PDT by Semper911 (When you want to rob Peter to pay Paul, you'll always have the support of Paul.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Semper911
This is the part I like:

Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects, save that of eligibility to the Presidency.

Yes, naturalized citizens are on equal legal footing with native citizens, except naturalized citizens aren't eligible for President and native citizens are.

But I get the feeling you're trying to read something different into that.

50 posted on 10/20/2011 2:22:06 PM PDT by Vickery2010
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-289 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson