JUSTIA.COM SURGICALLY REMOVED “MINOR v HAPPERSETT” FROM 25 SUPREME COURT OPINIONS IN RUN UP TO ’08 ELECTION.

[UPDATE #3 8:54 AM Oct. 24, 200 - Justia.com has suddenly placed robots over their entire cite.  So much for Justia's mission, "To advance the availability of legal resources for the benefit of society."  Here is a link to the Wayback Machine's URL search of Roe v Wade, a case which has nothing to do with POTUS eligibility.  Here is a link to the Wayback Machine's URL search for Minor v. Happersett.  Both searches return the following statment at the Wayback Machine: "We were unable to get the robots.txt document to display this page."  This activity operates as an admission by Justia.  A criminal investigation is required.]

[UPDATE #2 9:14 PM Oct. 23, 2011 - JustiaGate Is Top Headline Story at World Net Daily.

[UPDATE: 5:03 PM Oct. 20, 2011 -  Dianna  Cotter's report "JustiaGate" appears at Examiner.com]

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.

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 stated opinion.

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 Media and 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.

LURIA v. US

Let’s begin with Luria v. US, 231 U.S. 9 (1913).  This was the first case I found after Boyd and Pope which exhibited definite tampering.  The quote which drew my attention is this:

“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, 88 U. S. 165; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94, 112 U. S. 101; Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 22 U. S. 827.”

Here we have a direct citation to Minor v. Happersett as precedent by the Supreme Court… 15 years after Wong Kim Ark was decided.  Furthermore, voting is not mentioned anywhere in the opinion.  This is another important case which bears witness to Minor as authority on federal citizenship.  Last week, when I checked the current page for Luria at Justia, it contained the reference to Minor.

I then went to the Wayback Machine and plugged in the Justia URL for Luria.  It returned a calendar with nine snapshots of Luria ranging from Nov. 4, 2006 through April 13, 2010.  Mimicking the pattern for all 25 cases, the Nov. 4, 2006 snapshot is not tampered with.  All of the snapshots prior to the one for July 6, 2008 are also not scrubbed.  But the snapshot for July 6, 2008 has been tampered with.

“Minor v. Happersett” was removed along with the reference to “Osborn v. Bank of United States”, another important opinion in the lineage leading through Minor to Luria.

Compare the tampered July 6, 2008 version of the Justia snapshot for Luria with the Nov. 2006 version quoted above:

“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.”

Minor and Osborn are missing.  Furthermore, the remaining numerical citation does not indicate any of the three official citations for Minor, nor does the point stated in the quote appear at 88 U.S. 165.

The tampering persists in all Wayback Machine snapshots following July 6, 2008 through the final snapshot taken by the Wayback Machine on April 13, 2010.

To make the progression of the tampering with Luria v. U.S. easier to follow, I have prepared a collage of the relevant screenshots from 2006 to the present.  Additionally, here are full screenshots for each date discussed above as to the Luria tampering:

screenshot of LURIA v. U.S. on  Nov 4, 2006 – Minor and Osborn are there

screenshot of LURIA v. U.S.  on July 6, 2008 – Minor and Osborn are missing

screenshot of LURIA v. U.S. on April 13, 2010 – Minor and Osborn are still missing

LURIA as published at Justia today (October 19, 2011) – Minor and Osborn are back

CITY OF MOBILE v. BOLDEN

I have chosen to highlight City of Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1980) because it cites Minor as a continuing precedent on the voting rights issue 60 years after the adoption of the 19th Amendment.  This kills the argument that Minor was overruled by the 19th Amendment.  Here is the relevant passage as it appears at Justia today un-scrubbed:

“More than 100 years ago, the Court unanimously held that “the Constitution of the United States does not confer the right of suffrage upon anyone. . . .” Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 88 U. S. 178. See Lassiter v. Northampton Election Bd., 360 U.S. at 360 U. S. 50-51. It is for the States “to determine the conditions under which the right of suffrage may be exercised . . . , absent, of course, the discrimination which the Constitution condemns,” ibid.”

Notice that the citation gives a reference to one of the three official citations I discussed above, “21 Wall. 162″, followed by a citation to the exact page where the quote is found in another official US Supreme Court reporter.  Since the case has been un-scrubbed, researchers will find this reference to Minor by searching either for the Minor case name or its official citations.  However, back in 2008 when the cases were sabotaged (and through 2010 until whenever the cases were fixed), such research was likely to have failed by design of the saboteur(s).

Moreover, the favored argument of Obama supporters – that Minor is only a voting rights case which was overruled by the 19th Amendment – is not only proved false by the Supreme Court’s recognition of Minor’s citizenship precedent in Luria v. U.S., but the City of  Mobile case also exhibits that Minor is still precedent in that the Constitution does not provide anyone a right to vote.  So there is no conflict between Minor and the 19th Amendment, which protects against discrimination on the basis of sex once the right to vote is granted by the states.

The first snapshot for City of Mobile v. Bolden in the Wayback Machine is from Sept. 19 2006 and Minor is in the case.  The case remains un-scrubbed on the Wayback timeline until June 27, 2008 when “Minor v. Happersett” is first shown to have been scrubbed.  Minor remains missing from subsequent snapshots taken of the case through the final snapshot taken on Nov. 8, 2010.

It appears that the 25 scrubbed cases were un-scrubbed after I published my first report on July 1, 2011.  And Minor is now back in Justia’s current published opinion for City of Mobile v. Bolden.  Below are screenshot links for each relevant date:

screenshot – CITY OF MOBILE v. BOLDEN on  Sept. 19, 2006 - Minor is in

screenshot – CITY OF MOBILE v. BOLDEN on June 27, 2008 – Minor is missing

screenshot – CITY OF MOBILE v. BOLDEN on Nov. 8, 2010 – Minor is still missing

CITY OF MOBILE v. BOLDEN at current page at Justia – Minor is back

The Mystery of In Re Lockwood 154 U.S. 116 (1894).

A crucial US Supreme Court decision which has miraculously been absent from the national dialogue on Presidential eligibility is Ex Parte Lockwood, 154 U.S. 116 (1894), an essential case which confirms Minor v. Happersett as precedent on the definition of federal citizenship:

“In Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, this court held that the word ‘citizen’ is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation, and, in that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution as since;”  (Emphasis added.)

Lockwood directly cites Minor as precedent on the definition of federal citizenship, yet I can find no hits in Google searches which discuss this case in relation to Obama’s eligibility.  Furthermore, If you visit Cornell’s page for Lockwood, the opinion is cut off right after “Minor v”.  It never gets to Happersett and what comes after.  The Cornell page is filled with gibberish from some other case.

The Lockwood opinion is also mangled at the Wiki Source page which doesn’t mention Minor at all.  And as of Oct. 18, 2011, the version on Lexis has “Minor” mis-spelled as “Miner” in the body of the Lockwood opinion hosted there.

What about “In Re Lockwood” at Justia?  The current URL for the full Lockwood case at Justia returns no snapshots at the Waybackmachine.  This is unusual in that “In Re Lockwood” is the only case which has no Wayback Machine history for Justia’s publication of a case.  However, when you search at the Wayback Machine using the Justia URL linking to their preview of Lockwood (Justia always has one URL for the preview and one for the full case), 7 hits are returned.

It appears Justia originally published the case as “Ex Parte Lockwood” back in August 2007, and both the preview and the “Full Text”  referred to Minor at that time.

Then, in May 2008, Justia suddenly changed the name of the case from “Ex Parte Lockwood” to “In Re Lockwood” which is how it is published by Justia today.  Both titles are technically correct since the official US Supreme Court reporter states the name of the case exactly as, “Ex parte: In Re BELVA A. LOCKWOOD.”

Regardless, as you will see below, the timing of Justia’s renaming the case on its server is very suspicious.  While the August 2007 preview of the case at Justia mentions Minor, the revised May 2008 revision of the preview for Lockwood strips Minor therefrom.  Furthermore, Justia’s publication of the case as “In Re Lockwood” is the only instance where no snapshot history exists in the Wayback Machine for the full case URL.  We can see that the preview was scrubbed of Minor and that Justia changed their caption of the case from “Ex Parte Lockwood” to “In Re Lockwood” by May 2008, but we can’t see a snapshot of the full case going back to that time, so I do not count Lockwood in with the 25 cases which are proved to have been sabotaged.

Regardless, Lockwood is the holy grail of cases which stand in support of Minor on the definition of federal citizenship because the Supreme Court stated the words, “this court held” in relation to Minor’s definition of federal citizenship.  And Lockwood is the only case which appears to have been tampered with at sites other than Justia.

MORE SCRUBBED CASES

I will conclude with somewhat of a document dump.  For the remaining cases, I have provided the following:

- the case name

- a link to the current page at Justia

- a link to the first snapshot in the Wayback Machine which exhibits the tampering, and a screenshot of the same

Besides screenshots and links to Wayback Machine snapshots, I have saved the actual HTML for each relevant snapshot as well.  Evidence has been circulated, copied and stored by many others.  And the story is going to be explored until the truth is found.

Please contact your Congressional representatives and make sure they have no plausible deniability.  This is a very serious moment in our national history.  Please help document the sabotage of U.S. law.  Without truth in the law, there is no law.

Baldwin v. Fish & Game Comm’m of Montana, 436 U.S 371 (1978) 

current live page at Justia ( “v. Happersett” reinstated, but “Minor” is still missing) 

Oct. 30, 2008 – first Wayback snapshot with Minor removed – SCREENSHOT

Breedlove v. Suttles, 302 U.S. 277 (1937)

current live page at Justia

Nov. 18, 2008 – first Wayback snapshot with Minor removed – SCREENSHOT

US v. CLASSIC, 313 U.S. 299 (1941)

current live page at Justia

April 30, 2008 – first Wayback snapshot with Minor removed – SCREENSHOT

Colgate v. Harvey, 296 U.S. 404 (1935)

current live page at Justia

Nov. 18, 2008 – first Wayback snapshot with Minor (and Slaughterhouse Cases) removed – SCREENSHOT

Coyle v. Smith, 221 U.S. 559 (1911)

current live page at Justia

August 8, 2008 – first Wayback snapshot with Minor removed – SCREENSHOT

Hague v. Committee For Industrial Organization, 307 U.S. 496 (1939)

current live page at Justia

June 29, 2008 – first Wayback snapshot with Minor removed – SCREENSHOT

Hamilton v. Regents, 293 U.S. 245 (1934)

current live page at Justia

May 1, 2008 – first Wayback snapshot with Minor removed – SCREENSHOT

Harris v. Mcrae, 448 U.S. 297 (1980)

current live page at Justia

July 25, 2008 – first Wayback snapshot with Minor removed – SCREENSHOT

Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U.S 47 (1907)

current live page at Justia

Dec. 5, 2008 – first Wayback snapshot with Minor removed – SCREENSHOT

Kepner v. U.S., 195 U.S. 100 (1904)

current live page at Justia

May 7, 2008 – first Wayback snapshot with Minor removed – SCREENSHOT

Kramer v. Union Free Sch. Dist., 395 U.S. 621 (1969)

current live page at Justia

June 2, 2008 – first Wayback snapshot with Minor removed – SCREENSHOT

Lynch v. Overholser, 369 U.S. 705 (1962)

current live page at Justia

Nov. 19, 2008 – first Wayback snapshot with Minor removed – SCREENSHOT

N.Y. Ex Rel. Bryant v. Zimmerman, 278 U.S. 63 (1928)

current live page at Justia

June 3, 2008 – first Wayback snapshot with Minor removed (Slaughterhouse Cases removed as well) – SCREENSHOT

Rodriguez v. Popular Democratic Party, 457 U.S. 1 (1982)

current live page at Justia

Oct. 2, 2008 – first Wayback snapshot with Minor removed – SCREENSHOT

Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 816 (1971)

current live page at Justia

July 24, 2008 – first Wayback snapshot with Minor removed – SCREENSHOT

Schick v. U.S., 195 U.S. 65 (1904)

current live page at Justia

Oct. 13, 2008 – first Wayback snapshot with Minor removed – SCREENSHOT

Snowden v. Hughes, 321 U.S. 1 (1944)

current live page at Justia

July 24, 2008 – first Wayback snapshot with Minor removed (Slaughterhouse Cases removed as well) – SCREENSHOT

South Carolina v. US, 199 U.S. 437 (1905)

current live page at Justia

July 6, 2008 – first Wayback snapshot with Minor removed – SCREENSHOT

In Re Summers, 325 U.S. 561 (1945)

current live page at Justia

July 4, 2008 – first Wayback snapshot with Minor removed – SCREENSHOT

U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark,169 U.S. 649 (1898)

current live page at Justia

June 19, 2008 – first Wayback snapshot with Minor removed -SCREENSHOT 1, SCREENSHOT 2, SCREENSHOT 3

Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (1968)

current live page at Justia ( “v. Happersett” reinstated, but “Minor” still missing)

July 25, 2008 – first Wayback snapshot with Minor removed – SCREENSHOT

by Leo Donofrio, Esq.

Oct. 20, 2011

103 Responses to “JUSTIA.COM SURGICALLY REMOVED “MINOR v HAPPERSETT” FROM 25 SUPREME COURT OPINIONS IN RUN UP TO ’08 ELECTION.”

  1. borderraven Says:

    Leo,

    Well done!

    All the more reasons why we need people like you, in the USA.
    :/
    Gerry

  2. Is there any question that our nation has been hijacked? Obama is fomenting violence in New York. Lock and load my friends.

    ed. I do not believe in violence. – Leo

  3. Leo,

    Isn’t this about the same time that a paper came out about doing away with the natural born citizen clause?

  4. So now we know that any legal website that links to Justia is equally un-reliable and party to this deception. Last time I looked into this Cornell law linked to Justia. Maybe they don’t care about their reputation.

    Great Work !

  5. oldsalt79 Says:

    The question now is How many of the SCOTUS agree with the JUSTIA. BS. I would think that at least the LAST TWO installed by Soetoro.

  6. oldsalt79 Says:

    My question now is “How many of the SCOTUS Justices agree with the PROPAGANDA written by JUSTIA.COM.”? My guess is only the last two installed by Soetoro.

  7. That was an amazing piece of work Leo. The Way Back Machine may be like a drive copy relative to represented files. What would cause someone to be concerned with the validity of a online library and to study the library for changes in text relative to some files? What i am saying is the diligence put forward in locating this information on a hunch that changes will be made, Or maybe realized changes were made in one instance that was relative to the case they were going to present, and it grew from there. I know the amount of pressure that was applied to me while i was reading this. I can only assume the pressure Leo was experiencing when it came to case after case of scrubbing of Minor v. Happersett on Justia.com. Outstanding work, Leo Donofrio . I expect Tim Stanley will be the fall guy for the precedent of having a border trespasser as an American President assisted by the democrat party and John McCain. Meaning when this gets the recognition it deserves and heads are rolling Pelosi may say i didn’t see any problem Justia didn’t indicate any wrong doing. Oboma belongs in chains as does every person who helped him to our Whitehouse seat. Illinois had to know Oboma was a usurper. Truth does matter Leo and Diana. Thank you.

  8. Leo,

    This is really great work. You’ve done good at this, and I’m also glad that you had others involved because this is so serious.

  9. Boy did you give them the rope to hang themselves. Not only did they hang themselves but they kicked out the stool they were standing on. What happened to you with the courts would certainly explain a whole lot. You were close and they knew it. They knew it would be you who would figure it out. Great work Leo, congratulations.
    Chris

  10. Kelly L. Goodridge Says:

    Leo, you are amazing!

    As ever, you’ve presented a compelling body of evidence. Thanks much for your exhaustive study, daring to raise questions and also, your illumination of glaring inconsistencies, blackouts, and outright fabrications regarding Obama and his lack of eligibility to hold the office of president. Who would have guessed that what many feel is an iron-clad roadblock by our country’s framers in the Constitution would be so easily abused?

    As evidence of more corruption, collusion and crony socialism unfolds daily under Obama and We the People witness a well-oiled machine – it’s hard not to feel discouraged. Your findings and post today has given me a much needed lift. It’s heartening to know that there are others out there that also care that fraud is being perpetrated by the highest level of politics in the country.

    All the best, and God Bless, Leo.

    Kelly

  11. Laurel Platter Says:

    I’ve been following your work for a couple years and have only commented a long time ago. Data put into electronic format appears to be much easier to manipulate then an original document. Think about how much data is converted to computer format from history books, legal docutments, and birth certicates. Ease of use and access has propelled us forward, and now I am realizing that ease of deception is also made easier and perhaps with greater consequence then ever before. I am not a lawyer, not even close. I’m sitting here in total shock. Just to make sure I understand all of this, I have a couple questions. For so long I kept reading the Constitution and the Supreme Court never spelled out the definition of “Natural Born Citizen”. Are you really saying that the Supreme Court has spelled it out? There is a legal defintion? And that our current president is not constitutionally eligible, based on existing law? How much of a flub-up for our country is this?
    LCP

    ed yes…- leo

  12. naturalborncitizen Says:

    http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/10/19/2462473/birthers-ask-is-marco-rubio-eligible.html

    amazing timing of this article today at Miami Herald. Rubio’s comment:

    “Rubio, whose national ascent has been propelled by a tea party that demands absolute fealty to the Constitution, shrugged off the issue.

    ‘The price of our freedom and our liberty is that people can go out and spend a lot of time on stuff like this,” he said. ‘For us, the more important thing is to focus on our job.’ ”

    very typical politispeech… then again they didn’t print the question so we really don’t know what Rubi was speaking about do we… hopefully he will step up and help restore the Constitution. He can always go to the Court himself and ask for declaratory judgment. I would love to see this guy step up for the Constitution and admit we have a big problem here with A2 S1…

    UPDATED comment at 7:02: Why did the writer add the on point quote by Rubio on the second page???… Here is what Rubio said in response to the eligibility question:

    “Asked if he thought he was eligible to be president, Rubio demurred. ‘I’m not going to answer that because I’m not thinking about it. All I care about is my qualifications to serve in the Senate.’ ”

    OK, that’s a fair play… let him dig into the law and figure it out. Fair enough. At least he’s not saying he is eligible. Good for him. He may be genuinely confused. Rubio would be a good guy to get today’s sabotage evidence to. – Leo

  13. I have been following Natural Born Citizen since it began. I have faithfully returned on several occasions to see the last entry still staring me in the face. Even at times the site was said to be gone. I would always continue my search and smile when the site would return. I have always believed that Leo brought forth the truth. The Truth will prevail. Justice unfortunately is tarnished by the human element.

  14. Rubio and Jindal are walking narrow lines. The fact that neither ran for the main office and thus far have not openly entertained the 2nd slot is interesting. But even if either or both know they can not and should not run it is doubtful they will ever specifically say – “I am not eligible.” It would launch them into a fight and debate that would be a distraction to both of them.

  15. Lamecherry states that because Cuba was a US Protectorate like Puerto Rico before the Batista Coup, when Rubio’s parents were born there, that they were US Citizens . There is a law pertaining to Puerto Ricans/US Citizens that their citizenship cannot be taken away unless they voluntarily revoke it. Then Rubio was born in Miami. LC argues he’s therefore a NBC. Do you agree?

    By the way, I was just looking up MvH and found your article, you did meticulous, preemptive, encompassing work on this. I knew the scumbags would try to remove this absolute ruling on NBC. Just like they keep scrubbing Bingham, SR511, etc. from Wikipedia (Wikimedia gets Obama funds and Snopes is funded by Soros, all the usual bla bla).

    Kindle and others is just the ticket to rewrite history, as commies always do.

    ed. please link to the article… if Rubio’s parents were US citizens when he was born, and he was born in the US, then he is eligible… but since his parents naturalized after he was born, I don’t see how they could have been citizens when he was born. – Leo

  16. http://lamecherry.blogspot.com/2011/05/why-marco-rubio-is-natural-born-citizen.html

    I think Rubio’s parents might’ve been massively confused. After the Batista Coup followed by Castro’s Revolution, then having to escape to Miami, maybe they didn’t know what they were any more, maybe they naturalized to try to be Pollyanna legal about it all?

    ed. If Cuban’s were given passports as citizens without naturalizing then that would be one thing, but I don’t think that was the case. I think they were required to naturalize. If I am wrong and such persons were recognized as US citizens without having to naturalize then Rubio would be nbc… but I do not think that is correct, although I haven’t researched the issue. I will look into it… Im sure the answer to that question is knowable and I will research it. – Leo

  17. My, my. Tsk, tsk.

    How deep, how deep, how deep, how deep, how deep does this rabbit-hole go?

  18. Joss Brown Says:

    lamecherry is surely wrong on Rubio’s parents. (He even got the citizenship status at birth of McCain wrong.)

    Here’s a piece on Cuba’s status in that time, which should be confirmed by other sources. I quote: “On April 20, 1898, Congress resolved ‘that the people of Cuba are, and of right ought to be, free and independent.’”

    That would already be sufficient, but I quote further: “The Cubans are not, of course, citizens of the United States, nor are they technically our subjects, though if they can be said to owe allegiance to any political head it is to the government we have set over them.”

    In: Randolph CF. 1900. “Some observations on the status of Cuba”. Yale Law Journal (reprint)

    http://www.archive.org/stream/someobservations00rand#page/6/mode/2up

    Furthermore, Cuba was never incorporated territory of the US, most probably not even US territory. How would Cuban natives born in a US protectorate be US citizens?

  19. Leo, I’m a Cuban-American (naturalized U.S. citizen), a South Floridian, and I’ve followed your work extensively since 2008 when you exposed Obama and McCain’s eligibility status. This is unbelievable coincidence that I ended up on your blog today after I heard the buzz in the cuban-american news radio and local media about Rubio’s eligibility. It hit me right away and went online for more information about the subject.

    First, I found the “lamecherry” blog that’s referenced by Cedartree above, and I wonder if there is any validity to the blogger’s statement about Cuban natives born in a US protectorate. Just the thought that my grandmother, who was born in Cuba during the years of U.S. establishment in Cuba, is by statue a U.S. citizen, is just insane to me. Why would the U.S. Government required naturalization to Cuban born citizens during that time period then?

    Then i went to this blog because I hadn’t in while and read your Justia research (amazing attention to detail Leo) which led me to this comment….

    I think Marco Rubio is an exceptional human being, bound by true American values of this country, and he seems to be a bright guy. However, if indeed his parents were naturalized after he was born, he is just not an NBC, period.

    I know this is a low blow to the cuban american community in the U.S. as we are very proud of Rubio’s success in american politics. There are people in this community that absolutely love him and wish that he becomes President in the future. But what’s right is right, and we cannot “hide the sun with a thumb” (famous cuban expression). So, I hope that the cuban community understands this concept, as we in general are seekers of the truth and admirers of the U.S. Constitution.

  20. BTW,

    Did you notice how the Miami Herald (pretty much main stream media) is actually mentioning Minor v. Happersett and Natural born citizen in the same sentence? This type of context was rare in a well known public article in the case of Obama and still is today…It reads…

    “Birthers rely on various passages to back up their argument. One of them is the treatise The Law of Nations by Swiss philosopher Emer de Vattel, which they say influenced the founding fathers. ‘The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens,’ Vattel wrote.

    They also cite the U.S. Supreme Court, which in the 1875 case Minor v. Happersett, used the term ‘natural born citizen’ in reference to people who were born in the United States, of U.S.-citizen parents. ”

    Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/10/19/2462473/birthers-ask-is-marco-rubio-eligible.html#ixzz1bOI3mD3N

    Also, the opossing arguments of the birthers in the Miami Herald article are given by two law professors, which both of their inputs are simply limited and nonsense:

    “’The arguments aren’t crazy,’ said Georgetown law professor Lawrence Solum, an expert in constitutional theory. But, he added, “the much stronger argument suggests that if you were born on American soil that you would be considered a natural born citizen.”

    Solum said that became clearer with the 14th Amendment, which conferred citizenship on former slaves born in the U.S. (now a contentious issue involving the children of illegal immigrants.) Birthers say the amendment fortifies their case because it does not use “natural” born.

    “It’s a little confusing but most scholars think it’s a pretty unusual position for anyone to think the natural born citizen clause would exclude someone born in the U.S.,” said Polly Price, a law professor at Emory University in Atlanta who specializes in immigration and citizenship.

    Price said natural born was likely drawn from the concept that anyone born in what was once a colony was considered a subject and parental status was not a factor.

    Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/10/19/2462473_p2/birthers-ask-is-marco-rubio-eligible.html#ixzz1bOJB0x89

    I wonder what answer would the two professors give us if we ask them why the U.S. Supreme Court referenced NBC=two U.S. citizen parents?

    Leo, with the Justia findings and Marco Rubio’s eligibility in question, I can see the Obama “smoke screen” fading away.

  21. If requested by Marco Rubio, could the US Supreme Court issue a declaratory judgment with regard to his Constitutional eligibility to serve as President or VP?

    ed. I believe so… – Leo

  22. Patriotny Says:

    Ahh Leo… when you tried to say you were done with all this business earlier this year I disagreed with you on that and I posted a movie quote for you. Here it is again and by the way its good to see you still in there throwing punches. Quote: “Just when I thought I was out… they pull me back in.”

  23. corrupt 1stcirc exec & court staff imputed->US & Circ Judges house jud committee reviewing http://www.scribd.com/doc/68924379 DEMAND Action
    The electronic filing system allows any corrupt court clerk to play judge–stop this now and demand that the senate house judiciary committees act. The circuit executive office covers for the corrupt court staff and corrupt attorneys this is a racketeering enterprise that steers money to corrupt attorneys. The circuit executive office of the first circuit is alleged to have imputed constitutional violations to US District Judges in three states and the circuit judges by posting a falsified order stating that the panel listed actually reviewed the first alleged forged order regarding judicial misconduct. The circuit executive office is covering themselves with this alleged false panel decision because they know they could be prosecuted for obstructing justice. DEMAND THAT OUR GOVERNMENT PUBLIC OFFICIALS WHO LIVE OFF THE TAX PAYER DO THEIR JOB AND THAT THE CORRUPT BE PROSECUTED!! CALL FOR GRAND JURY HEARINGS NOW!!

    USCA1 cash disabled litigants’ money order, block from Judge & manipulate docket 8 days after DENIED http://www.scribd.com/doc/57692690

    “Crimes and Coverups Massachusetts Federal Court System an…” on Scribd http://www.scribd.com/doc/68086679

  24. Joss Brown Says:

    Rubio #2… another quote on the status of Cuba:

    “They are islands inhabited by millions of uncivilized people unfit for American citizenship.”

    [ed. Teichmuller ounds like a cruel man... just sayin'. I know you quote to show the law and don't agree with this ugly quote. - Leo]

    Teichmueller H. 1899. “Expansion and the constitution”. American Law Review 33: 202 sqq. Reprinted in: Hans Teichmueller. Biographical sketch, addresses and letters to his family (La Grange 1908), 39 sqq.

    http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth29783/m1/48/

    If the natives of Cuba had become US citizens under the protectorate, Teichmueller would have mentioned it in his article, surely in a pungent way, because he held them in such low regard.

  25. Joss Brown Says:

    Rubio #3… on naturalization of Spanish subjects etc.

    “Persons may be naturalized either individually under the naturalization acts, or ‘collectively’, as the court explained, ‘by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired’ (112 U. S. 102). Inhabitants of Porto Rico and the Philippines not being naturalized, and the pending treaty not providing for the naturalization of either natives or Spanish subjects, it follows that they can only become citizens by a specific act of Congress. The pending bill for Hawaii contains such naturalization provisions.”

    Gardiner CA. 1899. Our right to acquire and hold foreign territory (speech). New York. 43 sq.

    http://www.archive.org/stream/ourrighttoacqui00gardgoog#page/n49/mode/2up

    Reading this (and assuming the same lack of a treaty for Cuba) it is logical that Rubio’s parents had to naturalize in the US. They were surely not US citizens before coming to the States.

  26. If Cubans were US Citizens because of “protected status”, then Rubio’s father would not have had to naturalize. Being that there is historical fact and data that he did have to naturalize blows that theory out of the water.

    I am guessing that his parents traveled to Cuba in between on a Cuban passport, Yes, No?

  27. Leo – your persistence at finding the truth is astonishing. As a natural born citizen of the United States, you will have my lifelong gratitude for exposing this.

    Interesting is how many people’s comments are deflecting away from the constitutional crisis we are in to focus on Rubio. This research and the findings you lay out are about the corruption at the very core of our government in all three branches.

  28. Leo keep up the good work . We The People need more people like you that don’t lesson to the lame stream media and investigate for themselves by doing the leg work like Dr. Corsi . You are a true American Patriot Leo. Thank You Charles

  29. Leo,

    Thank you Leo, for your great contribution to the preservation of the integrity of our Constitution.I’ve been attempting to make this go viral on the web…sent link to Fox News and have been rejected by “yourcomments” and “Hannity” but not “Megyn Kelly” who is a lawyer. Also linked to important C4P, pro-Sarah Palin. Will continue to link to your brilliant research on the criminal scrubbing of Justia.com on behalf of the usurper liar in chief. God bless you with His Wisdom, Peace and His Love.

  30. Katie, i am by no means contributing to deflect the issue at hand. I believe the comments for Rubio adds value to the fundamental issue of being born to non american parents whereas in the case of Obama the media always added the birth certificate into the mix.

  31. Lock and load my friends.

    ed. I do not believe in violence. – Leo
    ———————————

    The economy is dicey. We have growing social unrest in numerous American cities. It looks like the European Union is going to collapse. Bank of America is at the brink of default and is experiencing runs coincident with the OWS demonstrations which could easily precipitate bank runs nationally.

    I’m not advocating violence, Leo, only prudent defense.

  32. This is so very serious. I’ve been trying to make it go viral also. There’s some interesting things on WTPOTUS.

    http://wtpotus.wordpress.com/2011/10/21/justia-caught-sabotaging-supreme-ct-rulings/

    I’ve noticed that FR is discussing this, and it has a couple of places discussing it.

    I’m sure that this is what could have made the difference with Leo’s case at the SCOTUS. Especially what was just posted in a comment at WTPOTUS by Bridgette.

  33. Bridgette Says:

    Rubio’s naturalization papers were published.

    National Archives: It’s Official – Marco Rubio is NOT a Natural Born Citizen – Certified Record Obtained
    Wednesday, August 24, 2011

    It’s Official – Marco Rubio is NOT a Natural Born Citizen – Pixel Patriot

    Naturalization Petition for Mario Rubio issued by the National Archives

    Marco Rubio is not now and never can be a Natural Born Citizen because his parents were not citizens at the time he was born precluding him from eligibility for President or Vice-President of the United States as set forth in the U.S. Constitution: Article II Section I Clause V

    http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/08/national-archives-its-official-marco.html

    Thanks Pixel for obtaining a certified copy.

  34. Bridgette Says:

    Way to go Leo! What a patriot to have uncovered this astrocity

    It appears that information was removed from Justia between 2006 – 2008. I checked the Congressional Memo and it was written on April 3, 2009. So when the attorneys might have been using Justia for information to write their memo, they found no information cited. (I am giving them the benefit of the doubt.). Note the wording on page 4 of the Congressional Memo “nor has the Supreme Court ever needed to rule specifically on the terms.” Apparently they did rule!

    April 3, 2009

    MEMORANDUM
    Subject: Qualifications for the Office of President of the United States and Legal Challenges to the Eligibility of a Candidate.

    Page Four (Emphasis is Mine)

    Legal Analysis of Natural Born Citizenship Requirements
    Background/Summary

    Because the term “natural born Citizen” is not defined within the Constitution, nor has the Supreme Court ever needed to rule specifically on the terms in this clause, there have been questions raised from time to time as to the precise meaning of the qualifications clause.

    http://wtpotus.wordpress.com/2010/11/07/obamas-eligibility-congresss-memo-revealed/.

  35. natural born citizen party Says:

    re: Strunk v NYSBOE
    Judge Schack scheduled an OSC hearing next Tuesday regarding the Article 78 issues of NYS-BOE declining to correctly specifiy nbc Natural Born Citizen — the BOE website uses the term “born citizen”

  36. A Crazy Old Coot Says:

    Leo, I cannot express how amazed I am at the amount and quality of work you do for America.

    A heartfelt thank you!!

  37. God Bless You, Leo!!!!

    jb

  38. Oh, Leo, I have to read this, and then reread it again. This is so serious and is such a crime. The more that I read all of this, it’s extremely huge and is just flat criminal!

    In the meantime, I’ve sent this to Gov. Perry, then to Herman Cain. I’m at a loss who to send it to. I guess I’ll be back again, then wondering who else that needs to know this. It kind of looks like the DOJ doesn’t really care. So they’re not on my list of sending anything.

    I again sent this to the Veteran Defender place that is marching on Veterans Day in Nov. It looks like their other group called the Patriots Of America, whatever, are running this too and helping.

    http://patriotsforamerica.ning.com/forum/topics/justia-com-surgically-removed-minor-v-happersett-from-25-supreme?xg_source=activity

    This information must just get out to so many.

  39. Had Obama been able to read the unadulterated Supreme Court opinion he might have withdrawn in 2008.

  40. Someone needs to go to jail over this!

  41. R – I – C – O.

    Their guilty knowledge is self-evident.

    They knew.

    And arising from their conspiracy has followed a resulting theft of Trillions from the US Treasury by fiat of politically-favored racketeering conducted by a cartelized political party acting in concert with foreign banking interests and alien person corporations to enrich sycophants and syndicate interests who conspired to commit this fraud upon the electoral process.

    Do we not find guilty knowledge?

    Do we not find theft?

    Do we not find cartelization?

    Do we not find material breach of trustee duty?

    Do we not find alien person corporations, for profit and not, enmeshed in the electoral and legislative process as if they were voting human persons?

    Given the the Electoral College framing, how does any corporate entity usurp or lawfully conspire to conduct a national popular election of the POTUS?

    And are not the billions so raised also raised under fraudulent and misleading purposes?

    Who gave these political party corporations “the franchise” and de facto license to usurp, sabotage and reduce the Electoral College to a ceremonial fraud?

    Is this also not the height of Sedition?

  42. naturalborncitizen Says:

    Dana Milbank of the Washington Post is really trying to marginalize the Constitution and the Supreme Court on the holding of Minor v Happersett. Seen the write up on the nbc issue as to Rubio the WAPO just published? Milbank claims that those who believe you need two citizen parents are racists… because Jindal Rubio and Obama all had foreign parents. Well, we don’t believe Chester Arthur was eligible either. Nor was my own father who was born in the US six years before his father naturalized. I am a natural born citizen, but my father is not. He is a citizen, not natural born. I guess Im a racist against my own race.

    “Each man, the birthers say, is ineligible to be president because he runs afoul of the constitutional requirement that a president must be a “natural born citizen” of the United States. Rubio’s parents were Cuban nationals at the time of his birth, and Jindal’s parents were citizens of India.

    The good news for the birthers is that this suggests they were going after Obama, whose father was a Kenyan national, not because of the president’s political party. The bad news is that this supports the suspicion that they were going after Obama because of his race.”

    Trust me, folks, the established fascists and their media stooges are not happy that the natives are rattling loudly from their cages. They are losing control of the minds they must control. Truth is coming fast and furious. And they don’t know what to do about it. Expect that violence will be their final choice as lying to people and race bating is not going to cut it when the US Supreme Court has printed the definition of natural born citizen as one who is born in the US to parents who are citizens. I guess the unanimous Supreme Court who wrote that were racist too according to MIlbank. What a fool this person is.

    I am not mentioned in the article but Mario Apuzzo, Orly Taitz and Charles Kerchner are.

    http://mobile.washingtonpost.com/rss.jsp?rssid=609&item=http%3a%2f%2fwww.washingtonpost.com%2fopinions%2fthe-birthers-eat-their-own%2f2011%2f10%2f21%2fgIQA6Xc43L_mobile.mobile&cid=961405

  43. Leo,

    Suggestion: The Secret Service lists all visitors to the White House. Is the list public information and can anyone read it? If so, I suggest that a look see for Justia CEO Tim Stanley’s visits, dates and times, and then compare those dates and times to that of the scrubbing and restoring cases and numbers. There may be some very “coincidental” matches that will be very “embarrassing” to the liar in chief.

    On a another weird note: I put this post on “My Favorites” but when I looked for it only your icon pic was there but no description of what the link was. When I tried to change the name and put in a description of your post, it remained blank except for your icon. That is the first time it has happened. Can you give me a clue as to what is wrong? Thank you.

    [ed. No idea what is wrong... - Leo]

  44. Minor vs Happersett is very clear about NBC, it’s right on everyone’s face. We need to send this Supreme Court verbiage to every single Rep and every single Senator out there.

  45. Leo:

    Thank you for your hard work! I certainly understand why the liberal media abhors what you are saying.

    I don’t understand Mark Levin’s position considering that he is a lawyer who has studied the Constitution for years, yet he holds Rubio up as eligible to the Office of President. Mr. Levin, what about the writings of John Bingham? Mr. Levin, what about the writings of David Ramsay, and all the other Founders and Framers? Mr. Levin, do you think Minor v Happersett is only about voting?

    Unless America turns back to God, and our Declaration of Independence and Constitution we can “Expect that violence will be their final choice as lying to people and race bating is not going to cut it when the US Supreme Court has printed the definition of natural born citizen as one who is born in the US to parents who are citizens.”

    But regardless whether we turn or not, the established fascists final option is violence. History has repeatedly proven this.

  46. Joss Brown Says:

    And they don’t know what to do about it. Expect that violence will be their final choice as lying to people and race bating is not going to cut it

    We can’t really blame them for (falsely!) assuming that we, who mention and substantiate Obama’s ineligibility, do it for racist reasons. Black Americans have an open wound from institutionalized, societal and individual racism against them, and it seems that there’s a reflex triggered with every birther story aimed against Obama. See e.g. Goldie Taylor in the video below. While her arguments and personal experiences about the history of anti-black racism in the US are surely factual, her opinion about the birthers is a classic cum hoc ergo propter hoc. With regard to no President’s eligibility ever having been questioned before, her allegation is simply false. When I discussed her comments with a couple of African Americans, who referenced the video, I was verbally abused and put down for proving Taylor’s interpretation to be false, simply by noting Chester Arthur’s case (and McCain’s, for that matter). Guess I lost a couple of friends that evening. But it seems that the birthers’ critics badly want this all to be motivated by racism. It’s so much easier to denigrate. Anyway, verbal abuse might be the first step on the way to real violence as the final choice.

  47. Was the Minor text changed on Westlaw? LexisNexis? Findlaw? Cornell’s site? All the bound books?

    ed. Except for the Lockwood case, this is exclusive to Justia. – Leo

  48. Leo,

    Someone at WND Forums posted this, but I don’t buy it, so I ask what you say about it since you’re an attorney:

    “Government lawyers would never, ever use Justia as a primary source of legal research. Perhaps a secondary or tertiary (even that is doubtful), but Westlaw or Lexis would be the primary sources. ”

    I ask, why even have Justia if no one’s going to use it? That doesn’t make sense to me at all. If they are supposed to put forth truth in documents, then others should be expected to expect truth in them.

    Thanks for your input. I don’t know why Justia is there if no one is expected to use their documents.

    [ed. Please do not post questions in this manner again. If you read something and have a question, ask the question and do not refer to someone else's question... I dont like it. You read something and you had a question, just ask the question on your own. It's OK.

    No lawyer would ever rely on Justia without Shepardizing the case in Lexis or Westlaw. They might do an initial search in Justia though. Lawyers have expensive services that their clients pay for... Lexis and Westlaw. And they also can go to a law library. The average internet user does not have such access and will never look further than the internet. Justia's stated goal is to fill the gap by providing case law to the people for free online. 99.9 percent of blog readers will use Google to search a case... this is what shapes national dialogue and Justia is usually the first hit when a person searches online for a case. The issue isnt about lawyers, it's about non-lawyers which is most people. Justia is the Lexis and Westlaw of the average person... - Leo]

  49. Leo,

    I don’t buy that attorneys don’t use Justia, just so you know. This is just flat-out stupid to begin with. Why even have Justia if attorneys aren’t going to use it? I mean, this is just common sense. If you have a place that says it’s into truthful documents being put forth, then why not use that place?

    But now we know that they put forth false documentation in the way that they tamper with “certain” references.

    Oh, my, this is just so sick. The more that I think about it, the worse that I feel about it.

  50. Leo,

    I humbly do apologize because I was not meaning anything about what I asked. My thought is that if someone really says that they’re putting forth truth documents (of any kind whatsoever) then that is what it should be. No questions asked!

    So if I offended you in any way, please do forgive me.

    ed. No worries here, I just have to repeat the rules now and again. I want people to read the web carefully… then if somebody writes something which raises a question, I want you to put that question into your own words even if it is the same argument made by someone else. If YOU have a question, ask it. Don’t tell me about somebody else’s question. Just ask your own. Those are the rules of the forum…Along with do not insult me or my readers. And do not say the same thing over and again trying to out post me. You may ask the question one time and make your argument. When you respond next, you respond to my argument, don’t just repeat the same thing. This is called dialogue. Im not gonna argue with people. If you don’t like these rules, go somewhere else. I won’t tax you for being an ex-patriot. – Leo

  51. Leo,

    Why are we arguing about Justia, even though they’re putting forth false documents, if you don’t use them, or do you?

    That’s my question, okay? Is there a reason to gripe about them if it doesn’t matter anyway?

    [ed. Of course it matters. Justia is the Lexis/Westlaw of the average blog reader. Justia's influence over the population is exponentially larger than Lexis and Westlaw, which are VERY expensive services. Just searching properly on one issue could cost hundreds of dollars... Lawyers charge their clients for that... Joe blog reader can't afford it so he uses a Justia instead. And Justia shapes the national dialogue, it shapes public awareness. And it shapes it according fraud.- Leo]

    My reasoning is, is that it does matter to me. I use the legal language many times in my work. I have to have the truth. And I guess that I look at this from a different aspect altogether. I look at it from the scriptural view. If it’s not the truth, it’s not the truth.

    So why are you not concerned about Justia? Because I am!

    [ed. Is this a serious question? Don't answer that. I think that saying I am concerned is an understatement. - Leo]

  52. Thank you for finding the truth, you know it can make us free and proceeding wisely can rerstore the Republic and opportunity can be found in the deeds traitors and fools.

  53. I’m concerned for our country. At this time next year I can see riots in the streets, violence by the left (because thats what they do best) against anyone who disagrees with them. Turmoil, anti-American protests… possible martial law, and if there is an election and if Obama loses maybe even civil war. Between 10 to 15 months from now America may see its greatest internal threat since 1861.

  54. Leo, I admire your work. Considering all the cards left in the shoe, what are the chances that this perfidy at Justia was done at the direct request of Obama?

  55. cedartree Says:

    Sparing the details but having called many media outlets, radio shows, Congresspersons, Senators, about the SCOTUS ruling about Obama…well not surprisingly the response is lies along the same notes then when cornered with logic and truth, vicious abuse.

    The media is far worse than Pravda, government officials are guilty of misprison of treason, and they consider the American people their enemy.

    I just wanted to remind folks to not hold out ANY hope of conventional redress.

    Government officials are complicit all and feel protected by their collective guilt and the media and public ignorance, but the latter is now all but gone. It’s time to turn on the media and vote out the entire criminal gang in Washington…at the very least. The Constitution is already dead and matters are left to our own devices.

  56. Leo,

    Now that you have brilliantly exposed Justia.com’s criminal tampering with USSC opinions, who or what agency has the authority to step out and enforce the law, 18 USC 1018, and bring them to justice? I don’t think obama’s DOJ hacks will….just as they dropped the panthers’ intimidation of voters 2008.

    [ed. It would take a DOJ prosecutor in my opinion. Maybe the next President might order an investigation... But Obama ought to investigate. We don't know who did it, we just know it was done. And since the CEO of Justia was part of Obama For America 2008, it doesn't look good. - Leo]

  57. Who, exactly, was using Justia in 2008 to see what cases cited Minor?

  58. cedartree Says:

    of course I mean Minor v. Happersett, which is directly “about” Obama…

  59. Leo, Stephen Johnson Field was one of the unanimous Justices concurring with the decision in Minor. He was also in the Fuller court during the Ex Parte Lockwood decision. I cannot find a dissent from him in Lockwood. Surely he would have noted if the Fuller court was in err on a decision(Minor) that he had taken part in.

    ed. Good point. – Leo

  60. I think the bigger concern here is that certainly laypeople use justia, but some lawyers use it as a “first glance” service too… which means fabricating/obfuscating on justia deflects/distracts folks who mighth have otherwise “found the scent”, and peeled back the onion in a more active, timely, and public way. The timing of it (when momentum was building against the “it doesn’t matter” narrative) is even more scary.

    That being said, I wonder if you’d comment (Leo) about to what extent you think it might have truly effected the research and activities of folks (including yourself?) that would have otherwise been able to build momentum. In other words, do you think it “worked”?

    [ed. I'll just say thing, until I published this story, not one single hit regarding POTUS eligibility came up when searching the Lockwood case and obama together in Google, not one. But the same search using Minor will show at least 35000 hits prior to my publishing this story. Where the hell did Lockwood come from? - Leo ]

  61. naturalborncitizen Says:

    JustiaGate is top story at WND heading into tomorrow morning…

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=358645

  62. Leo,
    I just wanted to say a huge thanks to you for all the work you put out on our behalf. There are about 100 million people that are most grateful, or will be if someone can get hold of this and run with this info. We all owe you far more than we know.

  63. Skeptical Says:

    Or maybe more to the point, “where the hell did Lockwood ‘disappear’ to”???

    As I’ve dived into the real legal issues here over the past 3 years, I’ve gotten a sense that you (and others) have been unraveling this as quickly as you can. And along the way you’ve been “discovering” and doing some detective work… (ie: the whole Chester Arthur thing)… and for the most part I’ve tried to give the benefit of the doubt to the “other side”, by sorta maintaining in my mind that this issue is muddy, and they manipulated “useful idiots” to distract them and ensure they kept their eyes off the prize… which of course did occur…

    But I’ve tried to assume “the other side” is simply caught up in a “muddy” issue, that is a little hard to follow (especially with the level of civics and general critical thought that most are capable of these days) and lackign a moral compass, have simply been blinded by ideology and have largely avoided the issue — largely willfully ignorant, but often just ignorant. So there is no conspiracy, but just “lazy ideologues that don’t really care what the principle is, as the ends justify the means, and the hypertechnical legal mumbo-jumbo is really just stupid anyway”…

    Now, it becomes very difficult to avoid acknowledging the reality that while many might be “useful idiots”, there are a sizable number of enablers and co-conspirators here… this really rocks my world….

    [ed. Your comment is very important, relevant and true. I have thought the same way many times since I, like you, can sympathize with those who do not understand the law as the law is technical and verbose. But this revelation vindicates the efforts in that the other side saw this and took steps to prevent fair and balanced true dialogue. Minor scared the hell out of somebody and that somebody wanted the case to be marginalized. It's always the cover up that brings truth to light. - Leo]

  64. It’s drifted into lawblogdom. Justia is the focus, and that is good.

    The rest of the issue will speak for itself. The irony is the Justia sabotage may be just the scandal to liberate the eligibility issues from the brilliantly conducted “birther” meme that has blinded the public and dictated the narrative until now.

    The depth of premeditation in Justia’s sabotage is overshadowed only by the deviousness, focus and unique combination of legal and web expertise needed to conduct what appears to be a meticulously conducted campaign of what appears to be fraud and subterfuge.

    Instapundit is a major blog now linking to the Justia story. Also, Newsalert, a Chicago corruption news site has done the same:

    http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/130226/

    http://nalert.blogspot.com/2011/10/justiagate.html

    No doubt there will be more. As the depth of premeditation and expertise required for Justia’s subject sabotage of the SCOTUS record becomes more appreciated, this story will get bigger still.

    But watch what Farah does at WND. Watch and see if he uses the voices of WND to conflate the “birther” meme to the Justia scandal.

    The syndicate interests who have run the birther cognitive dissonance campaign will do everything in their power to tie “birtherism” and Justiagate together rescue the obfuscatory birther meme that has been so effective in hiding the real issue from the public.

    Justiagate has a better than even chance to redefine the underlying scandal and cause a broad variety of educated and intelligent persons to contemplate how they have been played for fools on both sides of the isle.

    [ed. I have to say that WND did a very good job in their front page report today... They chose the right quotes and even put screenshots up. It's one of the longest pieces I've seen published there. There's no way that Justia will not be brought in with the birther thing, but at least the main stream media was forced recently to acknowledge that it's not just about Obama, but also Rubio and Jindal. When the media finally acknowledges Chester Arthur's fraud and ineligibility, then we will have some real truth traction going on. I Didn't know Instapundit had linked to Justia. Thanks for the other link as well. - Leo]

  65. You can now add Williams v Rhodes (1968) to the number of cases that have not been returned to their original text by Justia.com. Furthermore, when I try to put the URL through the Wayback Machine, it tells me the case doesn’t exist. Williams v Rhodes is particularly significant in that it is concerned with the dominance of the two major parties and their strangle hold on information. It reaffirms that the State Secretary of States and other Elections Officers absolutely have the duty to determine the qualifications of the candidates with respect to Constitutional criteria, including Natural Born Citizenship.

    [ed. thanks for the update. I know there are a few more out there but we had to go to press with what we had as the story was gonna break... I will update the number of cases when I know more. - Leo]

  66. Looks as if Justia.com has shut down all searches with respect to WaybackMachine.com. Pretty solid admission of guilt.

    [ed. Wow. Justia.com has placed robots on their entire cite. So much for freedom of information, eh Timmy. Yeah, that's an admission indeed. I will update. - Leo]

  67. Alec Rawls Says:

    Leo: Given how far this story has gotten, I decided to write a post on my discovery of what actually happened:

    “Justia did NOT expunge references to key natural-born case, they just changed citations to modern format”

    http://errortheory.blogspot.com/2011/10/justia-did-not-expunge-references-to.html

    My email is alec@rawls.org

    [ed. Perhaps if it happened one time, your theory might be plausible in some way. But it happened 25 times... the case name was removed, the citations were changed and in some cases whole sentences of text were removed. Regardless, I have been out in front of your argument and have planned for it accordingly.

    As to the specifics of your theory, you claim that when Justia updated the cases to include hyperlinks, somebody screwed them up - in all three ways, case name and citation... 25 times...which you claim was totally due to human error... and you also infer that the removal of full sentences directly on point as to POTUS eligibility was also due to human error... Even without the evidence I (and others) are in possession of, evidence which I have not published yet... your theory is ridiculously naive at best and intentionally fraudulent at worst. I don't know you and I won't guess which side of that curve you fall on. But you have made an argument that by removing the case name, "Minor v Happersett", this somehow made the case easier to find. That is truly one of the classics of Seussian hooplah and it goes in the hall of fame.

    Regardless, since I anticipated your EXACT theory... I protected the story by documenting the following evidence... as well as the evidence I have previously reported on. Having dealt with this kind of subterfuge before, I utilized a few skills I learned from my poker and chess fanaticism... it's called thinking ahead and planning ahead... moves and moves ahead... The evidence I haven't published yet only became relevant after the other side played two moves in this game. The first move that was required was for Justia to place robot.txt blocking over their entire domain. That happened today. Second, someone had to come along espousing the theory you have stated. Both of those moves have been made, so now it is my turn to move. Now I will discuss the evidence which I have not previously discussed.

    Your theory is that when the cases were updated to include hyperlinks, the citations were "modernized". Here is what you wrote at your blog:

    "Much todo about nothing, as it turns out. Minor was NOT suppressed, and the proof is in Leo Donofrio's own screen-shots...The obvious explanation is that Justia must have been going through its postings and adding active links. Whoever was doing it just got overzealous and replaced the Court's actual citation with a modern format citation (not required in order to add a link)...Well, that is what happens when human beings are tasked with robotic functions. Ask someone to replace a whole slew of existing citations with new cut-and-paste citations and they will occasionally select more text to replace than they intended, select less text to past in than they intended, etcetera."

    But you skipped a step Errol. You skipped a very big step.

    It is correct that many of the first snapshots from 2006 did not have hyperlinks at Justia... but then at various points between 2006 and early 2008 all of the cases were changed to add hyperlinks.
    All 25 of the cases were just fine after they were hyperlinked and not sabotaged in any way. The citations were perfect including the official reporter citation, ie 88 US 162 or 88 Wall. 162... as well as a secondary citation to the actual page in question. Beautiful. The benevolent update from non-hyper linked cases... to complete hyper-linked cases... was accomplished at Justia PRIOR to any of the sabotage. This is proved by the timeline of Wayback Machine snapshots.

    I have those snapshots saved because I was waiting for this argument.

    So, the pattern is as follows:

    1) In 2006, all 25 cases are published by Justia in full with their original text but most hyperlinks are missing.

    2) Then, at various times between 2006 and early 2008, all 25 cases were changed to include hyperlinks and none of the cases were sabotaged upon those benevolent updates. Hyperlinks are perfect, case name is there, citations and opinions are perfect.

    3) Then in 2008, all 25 cases are sabotaged to remove the case name, screw up the citations and in some cases remove whole sentences of text.

    It was the second revision which exhibits the sabotage, not the first. The first revision was accomplished by Justia PERFECTLY with no human error leaving no reason for the second revision other than sabotage. The cases had already been updated, or "modernized" as you put it... This was accomplished perfectly to include the case name, full citation to official reporter, secondary citation to page number, and no text was removed. There was no human error. Then, the cases were revised again. Benevolently? Uh... not so much. How about not at all.

    The Wayback Machine snapshots tell the story, but I guess Justia thought that by removing their entire site from the scrutiny of the Wayback Machine (so much for freedom of information for the benefit of society) they might be protected by the fatal flawed theory you have forwarded.

    I am preparing a follow up on this no later than tomorrow with screenshots from the Wayback Machine.

    Foresight. It's a wonderful concept. - Leo]

  68. Slow down … not so fast on the rush to judgment.

    Perhaps the Wayback Machine just isn’t working properly for [b][i]any[/i][/b] lookup at http://supreme.justia.com .

    Try the Google Cache instead: no problem there.

    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Uv0yyPkR4CAJ:supreme.justia.com/us/410/113/case.html
    for [u]Roe v. Wade[/u], and

    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Zk4pR9x854sJ:supreme.justia.com/us/88/162/case.html
    for [u]Minor v. Happersett[/u].

    “Never ascribe to malice that which can adequately be explained by incompetence.”
    - Napoleon Bonaparte

    [ed. ... all of their cases ate blocked at the Wayback machine. Google cache helps show that the pages I linked to were there to begin with... but that has nothing to do with Justia blocking the Wayback Machine going forward now. We can't search any other cases or find anymore evidence that hasn't already been collected. - Leo]

  69. Leo,

    WoW! The obamabots are freakin out trying to defuse your explosive expose of justia! Just went to instapundit and checked their post on justia’s criminal tampering. The obamabots are out in force trying very hard to obfuscate, manipulate, repudiate, lie and doing everything they can to send up a smokescreen to cover for obama’s usurpation of the presidency as per Minor v Happersett. Here is a comment from one of the hacks:

    “Justia did NOT expunge references to key natural-born case, they just changed citations to modern format”

    YaH! “…just changed citations to modern format”….and then restoring back to the “old format” to more than 25 cases….and still counting!!!!

    Leo, you have dropped a megabomb on the national discussion of obama’s ineligibility! In effect you are a true patriot who has made, and continue to make history! Our beloved nation owes you a great debt of gratitude for your untiring efforts and sacrifices to preserve the Constitution and the foundations of our Founding Fathers. Thank you and God’s blessings upon you always.

  70. Leo,

    Don’t know how it happened but I posted comment before I read your very precise surgical dissection of Alec Rawls theory , Oct. 24, 9:58. He was the “hack” I quoted as commet on Instapundit. Way to go Leo!

    [ed. Alec is one of the few people I have seen who had the temerity to correct himself after coming on very strong against the story. He obviously believed in what he was writing and was zealous about it. Then when he dug a bit deeper he published a full retraction. That's not common these days. It shows true integrity. - Leo]

  71. WOW! Thank you for your foresight and perseverence.

  72. This showed up over at Instapundit this morning.
    Through the followikng link.
    http://claytonecramer.blogspot.com/2011/10/very-odd-rapidly-changing-history.html
    I’ve emailed Glenn about
    your post.

  73. Alec Rawls Says:

    Leo: If Justia really did what you say–if their first revision left their pages as they are now, with the original citation intact but adding a modern-format citation with a hyperlink, and only afterwards did they go back and delete the original-format citations–then THAT is the evidence that they were trying to hide Minor v.Happersett. But that is not what you published, and what you did publish–at least the examples from Luria and Wonk Kim Ark that were promoted by WND and the Examiner–do NOT evidence suppression. Why would you do that? Why would you publish an account that doesn’t include the REAL evidence of wrongdoing?

    [ed. The evidence we published proved the case firmly. That's why it's gone viral as is. Your theory made absolutely no sense. Seriously. Mistakes are not made systematically 25 times... and over three criteria. Not to mention that as you published, you failed to state that Justia had blocked access to the Wayback Machine this morning. And your theory - that clipping the actual case name made searching the case easier - was total bunk. Arguing that changing the official citation made it easier to find the case is also bunk. Hyperlinking didn't make it easier to search for references to Minor in other cases, that's also bunk. Hyperlinking made it easier to ACCESS the case once you've found a reference to it. But if the cases name is clipped when one is searching for the case name, one is not going to find the case. Same for bogus citations. Nobody is searching for 88 US 448 or even 88 US 171... they are searching for 88 US 162 or 88 Wall. 162... the hyperlink doesnt help them find the reference, it only makes it easier to access the case once the reference is found. That doesn't help one find something which isn't showing up in a search. If they find the reference because the case is cited properly, then they are certain to find the case even if no hyperlink exists. Not so if one searched for the case name and it's been clipped.

    The rest of the evidence was kept in reserve to smash this bogus theory. I'll grant you the benefit of the doubt and assume your intentions were well... but really, I am not impressed. I saw this coming and planned for it. The story was proved on the evidence presented. 25 cases, 25 sabotaged cases is not human error. Furthermore, your report was very arrogant stating conclusions you had no ability to even research as access to the Wayback Machine was shut down by Justia.

    Before you put your name behind something, maybe you would consider checking the evidence at the Wayback Machine first. And if all access was blocked, maybe you would put that mind of yours to work trying to find out why it was blocked. After all, why does Justia have to block access to US Supreme Court cases that are in the Public Domain if they don't have something to hide? They're entire mission statement has been to champion freedom of information across the web. Why aren't you calling them out for hiding the goods.

    So don't give me slack for playing better chess. I published the goods. Now I'll publish the back up plan. Word.- Leo]

    Frankly, that makes no sense. It is not chess. It is not thinking ahead on your part. It is failure to think ahead. Once people see that your initial report got the story wrong, how many people are going to give you a second chance? If the evidence actually is as you now say, that is an important story, but you have made it harder to get that story out, to say nothing of wasting a significant chunk of my time. Why should I need to spend all night exposing your proclaimed evidence of wrongdoing as non-evidence before you are willing to be forthcoming with the real evidence? Don’t expect WND and the Examiner to be too happy either.

    [ed. You haven't exposed anything but a serious lack of credibility and a failure to see the truth in front of your own eyes. And nobody is happy about this fraud by Justia. There's nothing to be happy about. It's a damn shame. Dianna Cotter at the Examiner is very pleased with the story and everything I've written in this comment to you and my previous comment. Maybe you should try asking her what she thinks before you assume. Try that sometime, Sherlock. That benefit of the doubt is fading fast. -Leo]

    If the truth is that you just made a mistake and did not realize that “88 U.S. 165″ was an alternate citation for “Minor v.Happersett, 21 Wall. 162,” well mistakes happen, and nobody will hold it against you.

    [ed. It's not an alternate citation. It's a citation to a page in Minor which is not an official citation. Big difference. Nobody is searching for 88 US 165... they are searching for references to the case, which is 88 US 162. And since it's not there, they won't find it... be design of Justia. - Leo]

    It’s a little embarrassing, but no harm done. On the other hand, intentionally withholding your real evidence of wrongdoing until after your first proclaimed-evidence is exposed as non-evidence, that would be a kind of bad behavior that WND, the Examiner, myself, and a lot of your readers would all justifiably be a bit annoyed at.

    [ed. Just speak for yourself, and not for people who you haven't interviewed. You had the ability to look for the evidence before you published your wack theory. The other evidence of wrongdoing which I did not publish was available to the public at the time this story went to press. Therefore, I didn't hold anything from the public that wasn't available to the public. If Justia didn't remove the evidence a few days later, the evidence would still be available to the public. So, when I published the story, anyone could have found the evidence by doing a Wayback Machine search. I'm not the one who hid the evidence that was available to the public at the time I published. The situation has now changed. Justia has removed the evidence and it is no longer available to the public. Therefore, I will fill the gap they created. Why don't you go get the info from Tim Stanley, bastion of freedom of information? Why do you need to get it from Leo Donofrio? I will supply it, but the need for me to supply is caused by Justia removing it. You had a few days to see it before they hid it. But that doesn't bother you. Benefit of doubt... caput. - Leo]

    If there IS real evidence of suppression, I’ll be glad to help expose it, but you don’t really seem like the bad-behaving type, and the only evidence I have seen so far is evidence of error on your part, so at this point, that is what I am thinking is the real story here. If it is, you would by far be best to admit it.

    [ed. You should already have the evidence in your possession. Don't blame me because you don't have it. It was freely available since I first published back in July all the way through this morning. Maybe you do have it, which must be considered since you mentioned something about staying up all night writing this blog of yours...and Justia didn't block access to their entire domain until this morning. And the fact that you haven't mentioned Justia's removal of evidence is kind of telling.

    The bottom line is this... the evidence which disproves your theory was available to the public when I published the story... not just this story, but the one on July 1 as well. Justia hid the evidence by blocking Pope and Boyd at the Wayback Machine back in July. And now they've blocked their entire domain. Had they not blocked it, you would have had access to it right now as everyone did for the last few days. Now that Justia has hid the evidence, I will present what they have hidden. But it was their act of hiding it which makes the evidence so relevant now. Your theory was a fantasy I foresaw might come to pass... but only if Justia hid the evidence. Before they hid the evidence, your theory could not have existed because you, like the rest of the free world, would have seen in the Wayback Machine that there were two revisions, not one. It was the removal by Justia of that evidence which gave rise to your mis-guided theory.

    I am out for the night. I will post more comments tomorrow. I couldn't moderate comments other than Alec's posts which needed special attention more than the numerous messages of praise and various points in favor of the story. I will get to the rest of your comments tomorrow.- Leo]

  74. This is again around the time that an associate of the Coie law office (that represents Obama) put out a paper in attempt to persuade people into thinking the NBC clause was out-of-date. Seems like a connection to me.

    Also, on the blog A Terrible Truth, there is reference to Boston. I’d say that the illegal aunt and uncle being in Boston is another connection.

    Perhaps these are obvious. I have great admiration for you, Leo, and all the others doing more than I am — sitting at a keyboard in front of monitor just spouting out ideas — or anonymous researching .

    You have my undying gratitude!

  75. So Justia has been blocking the Wayback Machine for months? A year? Three years?

    [ed. Justia blocked only the two cases I reported on when this story first broke in July. Then a few days after I did this follow up, Justia blocked all access to all Supreme Court cases. - Leo]

    Does that concurrent coincidence in any way demonstrate causation?

    [ed. It shows that an effort is under way to limit access to the evidence portraying the systematic alterations of the cases. The pattern indicates clear intentionality. Blocking access to the pattern here also blocks access to any investigation into whether there are more patterns of obfuscation. The cases are all in the public domain and Justia has no property right in them... and Justia has lobbied for freedom of this information relentlessly. - Leo]

    Doe it prove that Justia installed its robots.txt files specifically to keep the _Minor v. Happersett_ file, and any references to it, away from the Wayback Machine, even at the cost of hiding the entire Justia site from unrelated researchers using the Wayback Machine?

    [ed. They have installed the robots.txt only since the story broke. They are hiding evidence and they should let the info flow. If they have nothing to hide, then don't hide it. - Leo]

    Maybe Justia did, maybe they didn’t. Determining motive is the province of God, and imperfectly the responsibility of a jury of twelve imperfect humans, each carried about by his own motives, which also are unknown, except that they too are imperfect . . . so who knows?

    Multiple archives, such as Google cache and others, make blocking the Wayback Machine an imperfect coverup, if it could even be called a coverup at all. But how does including robots.txt files at Justia.com today affect searching the historical record of the Justia.com website stored on the servers at an archive site like the Wayback Machine?

    [ed. It removes those pages from the Wayback Machine so that nobody can see them. If they remain in Google cache for a short time, it doesn't help us do more searches of Justia. - Leo]

  76. Leo, please protect yourself and if necessary find some folks you can really trust to spread your sleuthing around. The stuff you and others are uncovering is becoming scary and as we have recently seen in Yemen, American citizens are being taken out per unpublished executive order. Constitutional restraints and standards no longer exist, from what I read on the net and even in my local papers we are in dire times.

  77. Fennerb@gmail.com Says:

    I’m not sure if I follow you as to the “crime” part of this, i.e. how 18 U.S.C. 1018 applied to Justicia.com. The statute only criminalized conduct committed by public offcers or “other person authorized by any law of the United States to make or give a certificate or other writing.”

    The idea that the federal public domain laws make Justicia.com liable under this statute is a stretch, at best. Under that idea every person and entity is subject to the law because we all have the ability to republish materials in the public domain. This universal liability was clearly not intended by the statute, which is supposed to be narrowed to a much smaller class of people. I’m sure you’d find it virtually impossible to enforce this against Justicia.

    [ed. Every person is subject to the law if they pass off - as official and correct - government papers which have been tampered with. It's a very simple statute which makes this a crime. - Leo]

  78. Leo,

    Someone just emailed a link to me that is tangentially related to your investigation, but after reading the article, my head is spinning due to the technical explanations.

    Pixel Patriot claims the Internet Archive is implicated in a NYS BOE cover-up which is related to NBC. Below is an excerpt, and the link. I don’t know if PP has contacted you directly, but he does at least cite your work.

    Does this add to your concerns?

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~
    http://pixelpatriot.blogspot.com/2011/10/internet-archive-nys-boe-cover-up.html

    On October 5th, 2011, I published a report detailing how the New York State Board of Elections had embedded computer source code into their website in an ongoing effort to block anyone from seeing previous versions listing the Constitutional eligibility requirements for President of the United States to be a Natural Born Citizen.

    My report also documented how The Internet Archive was violating their own policy governing the accessibility for BLOCKED webpages using the Wayback Machine originating from a government website.

    Just 3 days after my report was published, The Internet Archive changed their own source code to give cover for the NYS BOE deceptive practice.

    With irrefutable facts exposing this complicit action by The Internet Archive, this can only be seen as a widening of the conspiracy to defraud the voters of the State of New York.

    As the New York State Board of Elections is currently a defendant in the case
    Strunk v. BOE, et al; (with a preliminary hearing for the NYS BOE order to show cause to change the website to NBC to be heard Tuesday 10-25-11 at 2:15 PM before the Honorable Arthur M. Schack, J.S.C. and the Supreme Court of the State of New York; I was asked by Mr. Strunk to document the facts of this sequence of events in the form of an Affidavit for the court.

    What follows is a summary of my Affidavit including a detailed analysis of how I discovered the change in source code for the website of The Internet Archive, a 501c3 organization; and then how I verified it from multiple subject matter experts. The Affidavit can be read in its entirety here.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~
    [snip]
    By changing their own source code, The Internet Archive is concealing an “Excluded Error” message and in effect hiding the fact that they are violating their own Exclusion Policy. This message would likely lead a user of the Wayback Machine to find out how and why a webpage could or would be excluded; and in doing so they would then learn that there is a distinction between a webpage being Excluded and Blocked and that the NYS BOE is simultaneously Blocking access to webpages as well.

    The Internet Archive Exclusion Policy is also guided by the
    The American Library Association’s Library Bill of Rights:

    “Materials should not be proscribed or removed because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval.”

    Blocking previous versions of a government website that previously stated the requirements to be President of the United States require a candidate to be a Natural Born Citizen when the current occupant of the White House is not a Natural Born Citizen and therefore a Usurper to that office would assuredly constitute a “partisan” action.

    The conspiracy to subvert the Natural Born Citizen requirement set forth by the Founders in Article 2 of the Constitution as evidenced in this new revelation implicating an institution with such vast reach and influence should shock the collective conscience of our nation. The full breadth and depth of this Constitutional Crisis is unknown for it is still unfolding even as we find ourselves ripe in another election cycle for the 2012 elections. Likewise, “Justiagate” recently uncovered by Attorney Leo Donofrio exposing the sabotaging of 25 Supreme Court Opinions in order to remove references to “Minor v. Happersett”, the only US Supreme Court decision to directly construe the natural-born citizen clause in relation to a citizenship issue; should be viewed as egregious disloyalty to the fidelity of the Republic no less considering Justia CEO Tim Stanley was associated with “Obama For America 2008.” According to Donofrio, “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.”
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~

    [ed.Pixel Patriot is doing hard work. It does add to my concern. I know Kevin took his time with that story to dig in and really understand the code. I am not a programmer, but I know Kevin was determined to be certain before he published. - Leo]

  79. Billy Bowlegs Says:

    The two CRS Memos (Lies) by Maskell in March 2009 and April 2010, based on this post, will qualify as a planned conspiracy to seat obama long before the election.
    I have review the Happersett, Wong, and Alabama cases and can readily see that a group of like minded individuals should colaborate to lace the two documents at:
    http://citizensfcg.com/page1/page1.html
    Citizens for Constitutional Goverenance by Debrajoe Beatty
    I demanded my Representative provide these to me. Got the first and the 2nd was allready out – no comment that the second existed. Part of the Conspiracy.
    If we were to insert into the document: Reference to Vattel and what the law of nations reads; the John Jay to George Washington letters (both ways) discussing “the need for Natural Born Citizen as the Commander in Chief. NOT THERE.
    And, of course, there are both missing references, and mis-leading references skewed through the documents.
    If you read this post, then read the Maskell Documents you may get through the end of the first page before you make a decision of the bull crap published by CRS.
    I have already extracted a MS Word document from the PDF file and am inserting notes to myself where to address the omissions and diversionary statements.

    We also need a legal opinion on how to impact government.

    File a Conspiracy Charge on House, Senate and Whitehouse?
    Other way?
    BBowlegs@comcast.net

  80. Leo,

    Thanks for responding to me. I didn’t mean to sound so upset, but truthfully, I am very, very upset. I’m upset when someone someplace removes truth for a document. We have lost so much in the last few years of things just turning up lost or being scrubbed, etc.

    Also, here’s the thing: if Justia wasn’t so popular as some are saying, then why go to this trouble of removing all of this?

    Well, the truth is, it is popular and it is replied upon by many other people throughout the US.

    Thanks for finding this out. I’m just extremely disgusted, as well as many other people are totally disgusted.

  81. http://lawweb.usc.edu/library/research/location/citations.cfm

    This is the website for the Guide to Legal Abbreviations and Citations, it shows several examples of the proper way to cite court cases. NO WHERE does it say it is acceptable to abridge a case name. Particularly when it is a Supreme Court case and the person doing the citing did not author the ruling. The alterations of the cases archived on Justia.com is particularly insidious since its relationship with Google makes it the first to pop up in a search. Google may want to distance itself from a site that has now been shown to conduct fraud with very little concern for the public and ethics. As someone who is interested in the law in this particular political case, I will Never recommend Justia.com as a source of information, nor will I use it to view SCOTUS cases from here on out.

    [ed. good work. thanks for pointing that our. - Leo]

  82. Leo,
    I’ve said this before and I repeat. In my family, your name belongs among the giants: Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, Adams, Donofrio. Once again, Thank you, Leo!

    While reading Diana Cotter’s JustiaGate article, I find this reference: “First, the altered pages were returned to their original versions at Justia within an hour or so of Donofrio’s publication.”

    Leo, this means they kept copies of the original articles. They could never have made corrections to restore the documents to their original condition within an hour. They had to just copy/replace the scrubbed document with the original.

  83. I’m very glad you exposed this but the lies and deceit go much farther than one individual “citizen” named Barack Obama . The entire idea of citizenship is based on fraud. The idea if allegiance to a legal construct is a non-starter at common law. There is no State , there are no citizens.

    Look up Calvins Case aka Case of the Postnati decided by Lord Coke. It has the entire common law history of allegiance contained in it.

    There is one phrase from that case that is scrubbed from internet searches.

    EX FIDE NON FICTA
    Remember…
    The US is a body politic.

    “A body politique (being invisible) can as a body politique neither make nor take homage: Vide 33 Hen. 8. tit. Fealty, Brook. 5. In fide, in faith or ligeance nothing ought to be feigned, but ought to be ex fide non ficta.”

    Allegiance can only be between individual men and women. You can not have an allegiance to a corporation.

    Look at how many crazy things the state and national government do based upon this “sovereignty” aka the doctrine of parens patrae.

    The entire thing is a fantasy with real world effects.

  84. In response to the cNet report: Computer programming languages are deterministic unless they’re using AI (Artificial Intelligence ) which in this case they are not. So, by answering that “they do not know how many cases got affected” is questionable because programmers can determine exactly what type of references where affected besides Minor v Happersett, or at least what the pattern is. Leo, are there more than 25 cases that references Minor besides the ones that got affected? I’m just trying to make sense of all this. I have a good programming background.

    [ed. I am not a programmer but Pixel Patriot and Dianna Cotter are doing work on Stanley's comments. I have seen many comments by people who purport to be programmers indicating that Stanley's excuse is total bunk. Regardless, common sense too makes it bunk. The probability that Minor and other POTUS eligibility cases could have been so surgically mangled by innocent error is not plausible at all. - Leo]

  85. Leo,
    You have really made me smile tonight reading your replies to Alec…it brings me back to my childhood when we played Scrabble with my father and never could beat him because he always anticipated our next moves and blocked the best and highest scoring positions on the board.
    This research is phenomenal and I am doing my part in spreading it far and wide.
    You continue to be in my prayers.

  86. Alec Rawls Says:

    Hi Leo:

    I updated my post to credit your solid evidence of suppressive tampering by Justia:

    http://errortheory.blogspot.com/2011/10/justia-did-not-expunge-references-to.html

    Too bad Unruh and Cotter did not lead with this. I hope that oversight didn’t cost you a window of opportunity to reach a broader audience.

    [ed. Let me first say, Alec, that you have my respect for correcting your allegations, and for being open and honest in doing so. You have set a good example here. Thank you.

    I still take issue with the following sentiment:

    "I'll just end here with the damning screenshots that SHOULD have been front and center in the WND and Examiner exposes."

    Neither WND nor Dianna Cotter at Examiner.com nor myself had reason to include evidence of the first revision/modernization in contrast to the second sabotaged revision since... at the time I published my latest report, ALL snapshots from 2006-2011 of Justia's SCOTUS opinions were available to the public (other than Pope v. Williams and Boyd v. Nebraska). Since all of the snapshots were available at the Wayback Machine (on the day I published and a few days after), the theory that the cases were mangled by human coding error when Justia modernized via hyperlinks was not feasible. The Wayback Machine clearly told the story... that there were two revisions, one circa 2007 when the cases were successfully hyperlinked and another in 2008 when the perfectly hyper-linked cases were sabotaged. Then came the third revision when Justia fixed the sabotage after I published on Pope and Boyd.

    I hoped Justia would not remove the evidence after I published the last report and that they would come clean (naive, yes... impossible, no). But until they did block access for all of the cases, we had no reason to report as if they had done something which they did not do. Furthermore, as you noted, in July I published a screenshot showing the first benevolent revision in the Boyd case. That evidence has been there since July. Why should we have to address it again in the second story if all evidence of the first revision was available to everyone at the time I published? We are responsible for reporting on things which have happened...and that's what we did. I found 23 more cases which exhibited tampering and I published the screenshots for the first date upon which the tampering was evident on the Wayback Machine. I contrasted this to the current versions at Justia. This showed that the cases had been drastically changed.

    Since, in all 25 cases, the publicly available evidence (at the time I went to press) was witness to two revisions via multiple snapshots of each revision, the first being pristine and the second mangled, the theory you first alleged was not feasible at all... not to any reporter/blogger/citizen who was properly following the evidence. I know both Dianna Cotter and Bob Unruh did do just that. I assume that you tried to do that as well, but when you did, access was blocked. Not having access to the Wayback Machine caused you to assume that there was only one revision. Blame Justia, not me, WND or Examiner.com

    Moreover, if you had crossed your T's and dotted your I's before your first report, you would have found the screenshot I published in July which kills the theory... BEFORE you drew your conclusions. It's important to check facts carefully and research issues with total focus. You could have contacted me before publishing as well.

    We were not reporting on a possible future deceit which might not happen... We were reporting on something that did happen. AFTER WND put this on their front page, Justia blocked every case.

    I held back on what I thought might happen because to attack Justia and accuse them of something which they might do in the future would have been attacked as paranoia and it would have been unfair to Justia. They were given the chance to NOT hide the evidence. I simply saved the evidence in case they did hide it. It's called archiving and it's the right thing to do with electronic information one feels may become important down the road.

    - Leo]

  87. Leo:

    Obviously, 25-cases of tampering is not just a mistake or two, but something more gravely diabolical, sinister and serious. My take on it is that Jusita has at least two files for every tampered case. One is the original untampered version, and the second would be the tampered verison. They could change them at will without discovery except for the Wayback Machine and great detective work. Also, a place like Justia would probably have protocols to just create a case file and certainly to protect the integrity of case files. Their case files would perhaps represent “their inventory of rights to publish case files which represent intellectual property.” This means to me that at least middle management would know about this plot up to the top man and other executives. It is a certain case of collusive fraud that involved planning just to keep up with the case load.

  88. comancheshaman Says:

    Leo, there is absolute standing this time, it is in the Arizona Revised Statutes, for any elector, which I am one, to challenge any candidate “as to qualifications for the office sought as prescribed by law” come the 2012 general election. A.R.S. Section 16-351(B). Your an Esquire, you know who I am, you know where to find my phone number, please call me.

  89. Private

    I’m sure you’ve already thought about it but justia may go back to selective archival blocking via robots.txt make sure you get a few key (unpublished so they don’t know which ones you’re using) screengrabs/sources of cases not involved.

  90. TwinkleToes Says:

    Leo,

    First off, I apologize if you have already addressed this question…I looked but didn’t see a response. In referencing the altered citations you quote a passage from Luria v. US as follows:

    “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.”

    To the layperson (ie. me) this seems to be suggesting that native citizens share the same Presidential eligility as natural-born citizens. Am I misunderstanding this quote or is it in disagreement with Minor…and therefore superceded by Minor?

    Thanks

    [ed. In Minor and other cases which came before it, the term "native" and "natural-born citizen" were used synonymously and both were described as those born in the US to parents who were citizens. "Native" was also stated as "native citizen" in Minor... and "native-born" was also used in Minor to describe the place of birth, but not the citizenship class. The term "native-born citizen" came later and has been confused and entangled with "native-citizen" and "native". I am preparing an in depth analysis of the etymology of these terms as they have appeared in the lineage of SCOTUS citizenship cases. The bottom line is that "native-born", according to Minor simply means place of birth, whereas in that same case "native" and "native citizen" were used synonymously with the term "natural-born citizen" to describe a "class" of persons who derived their citizenship from Article 2 Section 1. Much more to come on this in a future report. Nice comment, thanks.- Leo]

  91. naturalborncitizen Says:

    OK, I will get to all the comments which are backed up after I finish my new report. I have skipped over to Alec’s comment again because this area of discussion is of vital importance now that the Wayback Machine has been blocked by Justia for all SCOTUS case snapshots. People really need to focus on that. The evidence is being suppressed by Justia. That’s not justice. That’s wrong.

    I will address the CNET report/interview with Time Stanley in my next blog post. But I did NOT receive an email or any form of communication from Declan McCullagh or anyone at CNET. He reported, “Donofrio did not respond to an e-mail query from CNET.” I would LOVE to have a chat on the record with CNET or any other reporter. Contact me at this blog via comments, Mr. McCullagh. Leave your office number and you will hear from me.

    Declan labeled me a conservative which is a joke. I am more liberal than Obama on many social issues… and Im more conservative than Rush Limbaugh on Constitutional and fiscal issues… I am closer to Libertarian than any other party… but am a true independent. I think for myself and have made enemies on both sides of the aisle big time.

    CNET also got the date of my SCOTUS case on eligibility wrong. It was in 2008 before the election that I filed at SCOTUS against the eligibility of McCain, Obama and Calero,… not in 2009 after Obama won. Nice fact checking there, Declan, old chap. Facts. God knows they don’t mean anything anymore. Yet, the truth will out. It always does.

  92. Leo,

    I “connect the dots” like this…

    By altering the historical record at Justia, it became possible to feed deceptive information to members of Congress.

    As I mentioned in a comment on July 3, the Congressional Research Service memo mentioned you by name twice, Wong Kim Ark nine times, and Minor v Happersett ZERO TIMES.

    It appears that the game plan was to bury Minor vs. Happersett, elevate Wong Kim Ark, and claim that being born a citizen under the 14th Amenment was sufficient for Obama to be considered a “natural born citizen”.

    Remember that Obama’s own “Fight the Smears” campaign web site initially claimed his Presidential eligibility was based on the 14th Amendment (“Obama became a citizen at birth under the first section of the 14th Amendment”), but that was later scrubbed.

    [ed. Scrub a dub dub... Nice post. - Leo]

  93. Leo,
    Excellent work! 1St for being sharp enough to catch it and 2nd for being dogged enough to get through the whole pie and compiling complete documentation of the deception.
    Please let me add some clarification regarding your comment “Justia.com has suddenly placed robots over their entire cite.” You likely have a fair understanding of search bots but the other readers may not. In this case the robots (what programers typically call bots, exist on the search engine site or in this case on the wayback machine. Justia.com has added bot instructions on all there pages such that when a bot reads them it stops looking and does not maintain a record of the page.AND will no longer let you look at the records it already has stored. Search bots typically respect the wishes of the site developer but they don’t have to respect the bot code. Of course if they don’t people fuss, point fingers, call names and block IPs.
    There’s a point here, please hang with me. In the case of the wayback machine it walked through the sites various pages and recorded the content and hashes of each page. The next month (or year) that it hit the site again, if the hash for a page remained the same it simply notes no change and thus there is no reason to keep another record of the page. If the hash changed then it would keep a new record of the page. This process helps minimize the amount of storage required by wayback. This is not terribly complex and most any programmer can setup their own bot to keep track of a site’s changes over time. If they want they can choose to ignore the “don’t look at me” bot instructions. Given the unethical behavior of Justia.com this might be in order. Lastly, Justia’s excuse that this was caused by a simple little programming error is slap dab false. There is no way for the /* error to selectively mod words within a record and more specifically only those records you called to their attention earlier were fixed without fixing the other 23 cases. I’m not buying Justia’s excuses. Pressure needs to be applied for them to remove the bot blocking instructions from their entire site and come clean with a real explanation.
    Also your answer above to “Alec Rawls Says: October 24, 2011 at 9:58 AM” nailed the scope of the deception!

    Again, Thanks for the excellent work.

  94. Mr. Donofrio, thank you for your relentless efforts to uncover the awful truth.

    http://www.dakotavoice.com/2011/10/rewriting-history-to-elect-a-dubious-future/

    [ed. I look forward to reading your article later today. - Leo]

  95. “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.”

    Leo,

    In the above quote, would the words “save that” kind of mean “except.”

    I.e., a person who comes from another country and becomes a US citizen has the same rights and privileges as a person who is an NBC….EXCEPT to become a president?

    Thanks

    [ed. that is how "save" is used there. "Except" is a correct synonym. - Leo]

  96. Would WKA’s ruling have to be specifically overturned to change the definition of NBC from born in-country of citizen parents to anything else?

    CRA1866 (see below) is still law on the books, thus by its wording there is no such thing as a dual citizen in the USA, and anchor babies are not US Citizens, they are tiny Mexicans (mainly). And Obama being born British would have to naturalize.

    Do the media get death threats over speaking about this? Michael Medved, for example, censors this wildly, I know first-hand. Do they get told they’ll be wearing cement shoes, get busted kneecaps? Or are they closet commies?

    Since Kagan as Clerk and Solicitor General apparently removed ALL (eight I think?) eligibility cases and stands to judge perhaps future ones, this is all toast .

    1866 Civil Rights Act
    14 Stat. 27-30, April 9, 1866 A.D.
    CHAP. XXXI.
    An Act to protect all Persons in the United States in their Civil Rights, and furnish the Means of their Vindication.
    “Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding.”

    Mexican Nationality Law
    MEXICANS BY BIRTH ARE:
    · “Those that are born in the territory of the Republic, whatever the nationality of their parents.”
    · “Those born outside Mexican territory of one or both parents that were born in Mexico. “
    · “Anyone born outside of Mexico of one or both parents that are naturalized Mexicans”
    · “Those born on board Mexican ships or aircraft.”

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: