JustiaGate: CEO Tim Stanley Claims Innocence After Blocking Access To Wayback Machine Snapshots Of All Supreme Court Cases Published By Justia.

Yesterday, in a stunning development, Justia CEO Tim Stanley blocked Wayback Machine access to all US Supreme Court cases published by Justia.com.  This is the epitome – the textbook definition even – of hypocrisy.  As Dianna Cotter previously reported:

“Justia founder Tim Stanley has for years prided himself and his companies on principles of ‘freedom of information’.  On June 19th, 2008, Stanley addressed the Legislative Council Committee at the Oregon State Legislature with the following…

‘In the end, we both recognize the importance of providing the public with online access to our nation’s laws because such actions promote understanding, participation in and respect for our democratic institutions and legal system.’

Furthermore, commenting on a legal dispute Justia had with the State of Oregon, Stanley stated:

“We agree that public policy demands that state laws remain in the public domain. To otherwise permit the State of Oregon or any other governmental body to restrict access to the laws that govern all of us would make a mockery of the legal doctrine that all persons have presumed knowledge of the law. “

Does Tim Stanley believe that his publication of Supreme Court cases should be held to the same open standard?  Not so much.

Stanley is blocking access to Justia’s previous publications of US Supreme Court cases which are in the Public Domain.  Nothing being blocked is owned by Justia… other than the evidence our nation needs to have an open dialogue.  Stanley’s blockage makes a mockery of his prior statements concerning free legal information.  Past versions of SCOTUS cases which were – until yesterday – open to the public, exhibit with absolute clarity the changes made by Justia to these cases between the years 2006 and 2011.

Back in July when I published my initial report about the Pope and Boyd case tampering, Justia quietly fixed the cases and blocked access to prior versions at the Wayback Machine without commenting or noting the revisions.  Justia also – knowing where the bodies were buried before the rest of us – fixed the other 23 cases on their site… but they failed to block access to the Wayback Machine for those cases.  This enabled me to look back in time and see the progression of changes made by Justia to the text of 25 cases which cited “Minor v. Happersett”.  That progression is now blocked by Justia.

JUSTIA CEO TIM STANLEY SPEAKS.

Yesterday, Tim Stanley spoke to CNET.  Declan McCullagh reported the following comment by Stanley regarding Justia’s removal of cases from the Wayback Machine:

“Making the ‘Justiagate’ story more attractive–it’s now popped up on at least scores of political blogs and was WorldNetDaily’s top story today–was that Justia decided to remove some of its Web pages from the Internet Archive.

Stanley, Justia’s chief executive, said that was ‘because they have errors in them, not to cover up this issue.‘ “

Before we address Stanley’s comment, let me clarify that all (not “some”)  web pages of previously published Supreme Court cases have been removed from the Wayback Machine by Justia.  Not just the cases I have discussed…but all US Supreme Court cases are now blocked.  If you go to Justia’s page listing all Supreme Court cases by US Supreme Court Reporter volume number and click on any volume – i.e., volume 88 – it will provide links to every case in that volume.

When you plug the URL for the volume index into the Wayback Machine, you can still access a list of prior snapshots of the index.  Here is a link to a snapshot of that page in 2008.  If you then click on volume 88  (or any other volume), you get robots.txt blocking in your face.  You can double-check by plugging the URL for any current Justia SCOTUS opinion into the Wayback Machine.  This will also place robots.txt blockage in your face.

Stanley alleges that he’s removed the evidence because the pages “have errors in them, not to cover up the issue“.  But removing the pages does cover up the issue.

Stanley also alleges:

“The issue was not limited to the cases these folks are focused on. We’ve had internal discussions on how to make sure this does not happen in the future with additional visual and parsing checks.”

McCullagh’s softball technique allowed Stanley to get away without specifying whether the other cases pertained to citizenship and/or POTUS eligibility.  (McCullagh also labeled me a “conservative attorney”.  Total bunk.  I am more liberal than Obama on various social issues and more conservative than Limbaugh on fiscal and Constitutional issues.  Declan also mis-stated that my eligibility case before the Supreme Court was brought in 2009.  Not true.  It was filed with the Court before the 2008 election.  Awesome reporting, dude.)

THE DEBUNKED CODING ERROR THEORY.

The “coding error” theory was first alleged as an innocent answer to JustiaGate by Alec Rawls at his “Error Theory” blog.  He noted that the first snapshots of the Justia cases citing Minor v. Happersett contained non-clickable text.  Alec then alleged that when Justia modernized their cite by adding hyperlinks to the cases, innocent coding errors caused the cases to contain mistakes.  He then came to a naive conclusion that all of the alleged sabotage was unintentional.

The coding error excuse was mirrored by Tim Stanley in his comments to CNET:

“Justia’s chief executive, Tim Stanley, told CNET today that some citations were mangled because of a programmer’s error, not an effort to rewrite history. ‘This has nothing to do with President Obama and it is not a conspiracy,’ Stanley said. ‘When we discovered the issue, we corrected the script and the cases now render correctly.’ “

Alec posted a comment here at my blog asking me to reply to his report.  My response is embedded with his question.  Our dialogue continued here.  And Alec finally became convinced that the innocent coding error theory was bunk when he found a screenshot I posted back in July.  Alec has updated his report with a full retraction, stating:

“Justia has been deleting politically inconvenient facts from its online Supreme Court record, which as Leo points out is actually a criminal offense: misrepresenting state documents.”

The innocent code error theory was only made possible due to Justia’s Wayback Machine flush job.  Had the full timeline of snapshots remained available to public scrutiny, everyone would have been able to see that the 25 cases which cite to Minor went through not one – not two… but three revisions.

The innocent code error theory first alleged by Rawls assumed that Justia accidentally ran into coding errors when they modernized the cases.  He claimed that sloppy mistakes made by Justia programmers were responsible for every alleged sabotage across the 25 cases.

However, the Wayback Machine chronology of Justia’s pages citing Minor exhibits that all of the cases which did not originally include hyper-linked citations between 2006-2007 became properly hyper-linked prior to the first snapshot to include tampering in 2008.  The intermediate hyper-linked versions include the case name, an official citation to the first page of the case, plus a second citation to the exact page referred to by the Court.  And no text was missing from the opinions of the court as was evident later in the tampered versions of Wong Kim Ark and Pope v. Williams.

So, in 2006-2007, the cases appear at Justia with perfect citations to Minor but no hyper-links.  Then, by early 2008, the Wayback Machine showed that all of the cases were updated to include hyper-links.  Then, by November 2008 the third revision took place and all of the cases were sabotaged by stripping the case name, and removing the official citation from every case, while some sentences were also removed in a few cases along with citations to other important Supreme Court opinions which are part of the natural-born citizen issue’s judicial lineage.  Then, after I published about the tampering in July 2011, all 25 cases were revised again to fix the tampering.

That Tim Stanley only went on the record with an official comment after scrubbing the entire history of Justia’s Supreme Court case publications is very telling.  Perhaps Stanley thought we were all so focused on the date when Justia first sabotaged the cases that we might overlook the intermediate benevolent revision accomplished perfectly devoid of errors.  But since the cases were successfully hyper-linked by 2007, and remained that way through the first snapshots showing the sabotage by Nov. 2008, there was no motive for Justia to revise the case links again.  But they were revised again to include the sabotage.  And the sabotage remained in the cases until after I published about Pope and Boyd in July.

SCREENSHOTS OF THE FIRST REVISION.

Boyd. v. Nebraska, 143 U.S. 135 (1892).

Alec Rawls retracted his report when he found a screenshot I published back in July for the last snapshot of Boyd v. Nebraska before the tampering happened.  The Feb. 19, 2008 snapshot shows it was hyper-linked to an official citation – 21 Wall. 162 – as well as a secondary citation to 88 U.S 167, the specific page  in the opinion where Justice Waite’s quotation can be found.  Then on Oct 2, 2008, the first snapshot of the tampered Boyd case in the Wayback Machine appears with the case name removed along with the official citation.  By removing this data, anyone searching for Supreme Court cases citing Minor would be led to a maze of judicial confusion.

Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971).

The final snapshot of Rogers v. Bellei which shows the pre-tampering hyper-linked correct citation to Minor is from Feb. 19, 2008.  That snapshot for this important reference which cites Minor for citizenship precedent includes the name “Minor v. Happersett”, an official citation – 21 Wall. 162 – and the specific citation to the correct page, 88 U.S 167.  Compare that to the first tampered snapshot of Rogers from July 24, 2008 which again removes the case name and the official citation.  (Here is a collage with side by side comparison.)

Below are two more examples illustrating the pattern of revisions at Justia.  The first link for each case shows the first snapshot at the Wayback Machine where the citation to Minor is not hyper-linked back in 2006.  The second screenshot shows the final snapshot of the first revision where the cases were perfectly hyper-linked.  These two screenshots have identical citations except for the revised hyper-links.  The third screenshot shows the first Wayback Machine snapshot with the sabotage.  And the fourth link is to a collage of the three side by side.

City of Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S 55 (1980)

Sept 19, 2006 – Minor citation is correct but not hyper-linked.

Feb. 21, 2008 – Minor citation is correct and hyper-linked.

June 27, 2008 – Minor citation is tampered.

Collage of the above.

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

Nov. 13, 2006 – Minor and Slaughter-House Cases citations are correct but not hyper-linked.

March 11, 2008 – Minor and Slaughter-House Cases citations are correct and hyper-linked.

July 24, 2008 – Minor and Slaughter-House Cases citations are tampered.

Collage of the above.

The Slaughter-House Cases citations were tampered along with Minor in Snowden v. Hughes, and this is very important.  Tim Stanley’s claim that this was all an innocent code error is further strained considering that 8 of the 9 justices from Minor v. Happersett decided the Slaughter-House Cases where the Court stated:

“The phrase, “subject to its jurisdiction” was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”

Stanley is peddling a response to JustiaGate which requires one to accept that all 25 cases were accidentally altered to remove the words “Minor v. Happersett” and the official citations to Minor, while various portions of relevant text pertaining to the eligibility issue were also removed from other cases along with the Slaughter-House Cases name and it’s official citation… along with further references to citizenship precedents such as Osborn v. Bank of United States and Scott v. Sandford (removed from US v. Wong Kim Ark) which features the following definition of natural-born citizen:

“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”

Sound familiar? It’s the same definition of natural-born citizen as in Minor v. Happersett.  That’s some incredibly goofy code you got there Timmy.  Your code sure seems well-educated in the POTUS eligibility cases, bro.

Come clean.  The country will appreciate and forgive you.  And you will feel better.  The truth is waiting in Mountain View, California.

by Leo Donofrio, Esq.

40 Responses to “JustiaGate: CEO Tim Stanley Claims Innocence After Blocking Access To Wayback Machine Snapshots Of All Supreme Court Cases Published By Justia.”

  1. naturalborncitizen Says:

    As promised by today… but I am not getting to comments until tomorrow. Peace to all and to all a goodnight. If you’re inclined to pray…please pray for Tim Stanley and for Obama. We all need help. “Love your enemies.” We were all innocent children… we’re all messed up now. All of us have sins to make up for. I am a dreamer and I pray that the spirit of true brotherly love will win the day for our nation and for the world. These are troubling times, but we will overcome.

  2. Skeptical Says:

    “innocence”

    [ed. Innocense: "white and lavender to pale-blue flowers grow in perfect rings of widely spaced bands around the stems forming a kind of pagoda"

    I've changed the headline to the normal spelling. - Leo]

  3. Creg Maroney Says:

    Kudos.

  4. borderraven Says:

    Leo,

    Good job, sir.
    :/
    BR

  5. The Magic M Says:

    Do you have any indication that, as you allege, only eligibility cases were affected? Do you have a sufficient number of counter-examples to prove the Justia problem was not caused by coding issues?

    [ed. Nobody has the ability to further challenge Tim Stanley's comments because he's removed all of the evidence from the web. But I have not seen any other examples of SCOTUS case alterations similar to that which happened to cases which cite Minor and the other cases I have exposed, such as The Slaughter-House Cases, Scott v. Sandford and Osborn v. Bank of United States... all of those have been subject to similar tampering as Minor and all of those are important to the issue in question. So, having seen this pattern is systematic and surgically precise as to cases which touch upon eligibility, and having not seen any such patterns with regard to other issues or case lineages, and witnessing that the evidence has been removed from public scrutiny by Justia, yes... I do have indications that this was done to intentionally scrub Minor and other cases relevant to POTUS eligibility.- Leo]

    You do realize that pointing at instances of a bigger problem does not prove the problem was deliberately caused to create those singular instances? That’s like claiming because Hurricane Katrina destroyed two kosher restaurants, the catastrophe was a deliberate attack targeted at Jewish citizens.

  6. Creg Maroney Says:

    Many people leave out very important wording in The 14TH Amendment.

    14TH Amendment U.S. Constitution: ” All persons born or naturalized in the United States [[ AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF ]], are citizens of the United States…”

    Per the U.S. Constitution, anyone born in the U.S. and NOT SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF are diffidently NOT U.S. citiizens.

    Just because one is born on U.S. soil does not make you a U.S. citizen.

    No court can over rule the U.S. Constitution they are suppose to defend and protect it.

    Perversion of the law is not law.

    LAW OF THE LAND, WE ARE A REPUBLIC.

    [[ The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for a law which violates the Constitution to be valid. This is succintly stated as follows:

    "All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void. "
    Marbury vs Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)

    "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them quot;
    Miranda vs Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491.

    "An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no right; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed."
    Norton vs Shelby County118 US 425 p.442

    "The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the name of law, in in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

    No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."
    16th American Jurisprudence 2d, Section 177
    late 2nd, Section 256 ]]

    http://www.patriotnetwork.​info/Citizens_rule_book.ht​m

  7. Great work Mr. Donofrio. You are the gift that just keeps giving.

    Thank You.

  8. Wow… I’m inclined to think that this is as close to skating on the thin ice of treasonous behavior as a data archivist can come without actually breaking a law… or did he? I leave that to greater legal minds to decide… I’m pondering the meanings of words like: conspiracy, collusion, fraud, willfull intent to mislead…

  9. Leo,

    Please write a post that expicitly addresses:

    Congressional Research Service
    MEMORANDUM April 3, 2009
    Subject: Qualifications for the Office of President of the United States and Legal Challenges to the Eligibility of a Candidate
    From: Jack Maskell
    Legislative Attorney
    American Law Division

    This memorandum was prepared to enable distribution to more than one congressional office.

    This memorandum addresses inquiries from congressional offices regarding the constitutional qualifications for the office of President of the United States, and the issue of challenges concerning specifically the questioning of President Obama’s “natural born citizenship” status.

    Most members of Congress are spread a mile wide and an inch deep. They cannot be experts in all things, and instead end up knowing just a little bit about a wide variety of things. When in-depth knowledge is required, they often turn to “experts” and accept what those “experts” tell them.

    Here we have a case where multiple members of Congress contacted (either directly or via their office staff) the Congressional Research Service with inquiries “regarding the constitutional qualifications for the office of President of the United States, and the issue of challenges concerning specifically the questioning of President Obama’s ‘natural born citizenship’ status.”

    Those members of Congress accepted what the Congressional Research Service attorney Jack Maskell told them.

    A search of Jack Maskell’s memo reveals that it contains 83 instances of “v.” (indicating 83 mentions of cases).

    There are two references to “Donofrio v. Wells (Secretary of State of New Jersey)”.

    There are nine references to “United States v. Wong Kim Ark”.

    But there are ZERO references to “Minor v. Happersett”.

    I would like to know your thoughts on Jack Maskell’s memo. And I would love to know the outcome of a discussion between you and him, if possible. Was Maskell deceived by the Justia.com cover-up of Minor v. Happersett, or was Maskell part of the deception?

    Perhaps a memo, sent to all members of both houses of Congress, alterting them to the deception (whether intentional or unintentional) present in Jack Maskell’s Congressional Research Service memorandum dated April 3, 2009, would wake up some members of Congress to realize that:

    1) A crime was committed by Justia.com when they misrepresented state documents, specifically the historical record of Supreme Court decisions.

    2) Members of Congress were deceived by a memo that purported to address inquiries regarding “natural born citizenship” status yet did not contain a single reference to Minor v. Happersett or the 25 cases which cited Minor v. Happersett.

    Given that per section 3 of the 20th amendment to the Constitution of the United States, it is the responsibility of members of Congress to ensure that President and Vice-President have “qualified”, members of Congress should take both this responsibility, and the fact that they were given a deceptive memo by the Congressional Research Service, very seriously.

    Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

  10. Chalres Wood Says:

    Is there an OFFLINE, all inclusive(volumes 1-500+,) resource for SCOTUS Reports? Preferably Free. Downloadable?
    I can’t seem to find one. Thanks

  11. naturalborncitizen Says:

    Joe Farah’s Op Ed on the nbc issue at WND.

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=360085

    “We need only ask ourselves one question: “Were both his parents U.S. citizens when he was born?” By Obama’s own admission, and also by the questionable documents he has provided the public, the answer is ‘no.’ And that settles it. Obama is not eligible to be the president.

    This is an issue few want to confront head-on. So the media have refused to ask the right question. Instead, they insist on making it a matter of faith as to whether we accept that Obama was born in the USA.

    I don’t care anymore. I suspect he’s lying about his birthplace. He may not even know himself. But it’s irrelevant as to the question of eligibility.

    Now the only question is: ‘Do we still care about what the Constitution says?’ “

    Boom. That is huge for the issue. I have had my differences with WND in the past. But they have always given me the chance to be heard on this issue even when they were concentrating mostly on the BC. When all of this first went down before the election, I was a bit belligerent about the BC in my writing since I always felt that the BC helped cloud the dual citizen issue. I saw it as a huge distraction. The BC was an incredible conspiracy theory whereas the dual citizen issue had already been decided against Obama (and McCain) by the SCOTUS in Minor.

    Apologies to Mr. Farah and anyone else I may have been unkind with as to the BC issue. It had to be investigated. I was a bit too single-minded. And Obama has made the issue remain by offering web pages rather than documents. I still believe Obama was born in Hawaii, but he really needs to prove it. If he proves it, however, there will be a mass exodus to the dual citizen issue. However, with JustiaGate coming on strong… and people like Farah putting their focus on the dual citizen issue, Obama may just release the real BC soon anyway. He may feel that the time is right and the strategy may have changed since the BC is not clouding anything anymore.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if Obama offers a genuine document instead of a bogus web page now that the momentum is clearly shifting to the dual citizen issue and Minor v. Happersett. What a mess. Unlike Mr. Farah, I do believe Obama was born in Hawaii, but he has not proved it. If he has the goods (and I believe he does), then it may be coming soon as damage control to counter JustiaGate. We shall see.

    Leo

    [Ed. A reader opened my eyes to the fact that Farah’s Op ed indicates McCain is eligible and that place of birth is irrelevant. My first take on the Op Ed was that Farah was indicating that Obama was not eligible even if born in Hawaii. Now I realize Farah was advocating that McCain was eligible and Obama was not. That is absolutely NOT true and is NOT a fair reading of Minor at all. To ignore the place of birth requirement which is in the same sentence as the citizen parents requirement is just partisan to the extreme. Below is the back and forth between the reader and I. Here is the comment by said reader:

    “WND still gets it wrong. They state that you only have to have two citizen parents and the place of birth is irrelevant.”

    Then the reader quoted Farah…

    “”Natural Born Citizen” was defined by an 1875 Supreme Court ruling (Minor v. Happersett) as children born of two U.S. citizens – regardless of the location of the birth.”

    Here is my humbled reply…

    [ed. When I read his Op ed, all I thought Farah meant by that was that Obama was not eligible even if he was born in Hawaii. Now that I have taken another look, I agree with you that the way he phrased the Op Ed, it is a complete mis-statement of Minor. Joe Farah is wrong. McCain was clearly not eligible according to Minor.

    Farah quoted Minor properly as follows:

    "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."

    So why does he ignore the first part "children born in a country" as also being in the holding? That seems partisan as hell. I will update my comment with the entire text of your comment, my response agreeing with you and a link to this comment. Thank you for pointing this out to me. Good job.- Leo]

  12. Joss Brown Says:

    As for the Justia archives formerly available at the InternetArchive via the WaybackMachine, I believe they are not deleted, but public access is only blocked. I had to scrub pages before from the InternetArchive due to copyright issues, and in their responses the Archive team only talked about “exclusion”, not “deletion”. So if there is (hopefully!) one day a criminal investigation into this matter, a prosecutor or a court would still be able to gain access to the Justia archives, even if they remain blocked for the public. (But I’m not 100% sure.)

    [ed. This from a Wayback Machine info page:

    The Internet Archive is not interested in offering access to Web sites or other Internet documents whose authors do not want their materials in the collection. To remove your site from the Wayback Machine, place a robots.txt xfile at the top level of your site (e.g. http://www.yourdomain.com/robots.txt) and then submit your site below.

    The robots.txt file will do two things:

    1. It will remove all documents from your domain from the Wayback Machine.
    2. It will tell us not to crawl your site in the future.

    I do not know if by removing the documents from the "Wayback Machine" that also means the domain/documents are simultaneously removed from the Internet Archive's servers. In other words, are those documents/pages/domains still on the servers but not accessible to the Wayback Machine? I have asked Pixel Patriot to look into that, but if anyone wants to pipe in, have at it. - Leo]

  13. Tim Stanley of Justia may be guilty as a participant in the conspiracy to elect Obama to office. Mr. Stanley would then join Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid (to name but a few) as traitors!

    I pray for the day when these people are tired and convicted for treason. Their just reward will be the gallows of hell.

  14. Just when I think Leo is going to get tripped up by a programmer’s regex argument, somehow he still bounces back and reveals that the underlying issue contains even more BS than originally conceived. Amazing.

    Leo is like a debate magician.

    Hey Leo, you gotta take up the question pointed out by the above commenter on the Congressional Research Service MEMORANDUM April 3, 2009. Holy crap, when does this series of mistakes ever end??!!!!

    I hate to believe in conspiracies! But there’s just too many friggin coincidences here. This is really weird.

    [ed. Hey B, my plate is full and then some. You should get in on this. Say hello to B everybody... The anonymous blogger of the EEstor story. Check him out. I dig his blog and have given him an interview in the past. - Leo]

  15. naturalborncitizen Says:

    Reading comments around the web of lay people… all who seem to think they are hardcore Constitutional lawyers and that having never went to law school, taken and passed a bar exam, argued before a judge or jury… they are now authorities on Constitutional law, judicial construction, stare decisis… simply be reading blogs. Some of the things Im reading out there are freakin’ hilarious. It’s very amusing, but it’s good that people are talking. I see a lot of progress for truth. It encourages me.

    The dicta v precedent issue will be addressed using cases many of you are not aware of and which simplify the issue quite a bit. I am also preparing a report on the etymology of native, native citizen, native-born, and native-born citizen. Stay tuned…

  16. borderraven Says:

    Creg Maroney’

    Regarding the 14th Amendment jurisdiction clause.
    Under COTUS Article 6, treaties are bound to the COTUS.
    A treaty establishing diplomatic relations, allows embassies and consulates to be established in both nations, and tourism, business and student travel under visa (travel permits).

    If you go to London. then you are under the jurisdiction of a US Consulate. Get hospitalized or arrested, then you contact the US consulate. Have a baby, go to the consulate, register the child as a citizen of you nation, get a passport for the child, and travel.

    President Harry S. Truman signed a Treaty with Britain, in 1951, and the treaty was in force in 1952.

    The UK, had revised their Nationality Act in 1949. Part II, Article 5(a), granted UK Citizenship, by direct descent to Barack H Obama II., when born in Hawaii. He was a dual citizen, UK/US.

    Based on the U.S. Department of State regulation on dual citizenship (7 FAM 1162), the Supreme Court of the United States has stated that dual citizenship is a “status long recognized in the law” and that “a person may have and exercise rights of nationality in two countries and be subject to the responsibilities of both. The mere fact he asserts the rights of one citizenship does not without more mean that he renounces the other,” (Kawakita v. U.S., 343 U.S. 717) (1952). In Schneider v. Rusk 377 U.S. 163 (1964), the US Supreme Court ruled that a naturalized U.S. citizen has the right to return to his native country and to resume his former citizenship, and also to remain a U.S. citizen even if he never returns to the United States. (wiki)

  17. Is Justia’s hijinks the reason why you didn’t cite Minor in what you filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in 2008?

    [ed. I would be lying if I said I could answer that with certainty. The sabotage at Justia may have contributed to my brief not mentioning Minor. I just don't know three years later what I looked at on the weekend before the election. My state level case was based upon state statutes... in that the SOS office in New Jersey admitted to me that they did not do anything to verify whether either candidate was eligible. According to a statute in NJ, the SOS is required to establish whether the names on the ballots are allowed to be on the ballots according to law. Since the SOS office admitted no such verification had taken place, I filed a complaint in lieu of prerogative writs (similar to a writ of mandamus) in order to compel the SOS to do her job and to verify the legality of the names on the ballots. Essentially, the state level case was not designed to get a ruling on whether either candidate was eligible, it was a case to compel the SOS to investigate that issue and follow the statute. I was hoping she would be forced to petition SCOTUS to make a determination. Whether they were or were not eligible was not the core issue. The core issue was that the State officer failed to make that determination which was required according to law. I pointed out in my briefs that McCain was born in Panama and that Obama was a dual citizen at birth, but I was not booked up on case law at the time.

    The NJ App Division accepted emergency status for the filing the week before the election but didn't rule until late Thursday (and a more BS ruling has never been seen - more on that some other time)... On Friday I appealed to the NJ Supreme Court who denied review within hours of the case being filed. That weekend I made a last minute decision to go to SCOTUS. I only had a very short time to research on the web (the County law library near me iss closed on weekends). I knew it was very important to file the case before the election, so that meant getting to DC and getting it filed y 4:30 PM that Monday. Furthermore, I was asking SCOTUS for an emergency stay of the election, not a full review on the merits. Under the circumstances, I thought it was enough to state the main issue, that McCain was not eligible since he was born in Panama, and that Obama was not eligible since he was a dual citizen at birth. I did NOT have the knowledge and command of the intricacies of the various SCOTUS cases like Minor at that time. Had SCOTUS granted the stay, the issue would have required more intense briefing. But, at the time I first filed the stay application, the day before the '08 election, I was NOT aware of Minor. Whether the Justia sabotage contributed, I cannot say because I do not recall what I looked at on my computer screen.

    So I cannot blame Justia for my not knowing Minor at the time.

    I was naive enough to believe that the SCOTUS would have to take the case since it seemed obvious to me on an instinctual level that neither candidate was eligible. Furthermore, Roger Calero was in slot C on the NJ ballots and he clearly was not eligible having been born in Nicaragua to alien parents, so the ballots in NJ were in fact defective and should have been destroyed and a stay should have been put in place... even if it was just to remove Calero. I honestly thought there was a good chance that New Jersey would be forced to vote at a later date, or that the election would be postponed. Ha! Naive? You bet. What an education it's been. Very good question, Bob. - Leo]

  18. WND still gets it wrong. They state that you only have to have two citizen parents and the place of birth is irrelevant.

    “”Natural Born Citizen” was defined by an 1875 Supreme Court ruling (Minor v. Happersett) as children born of two U.S. citizens – regardless of the location of the birth.”

    [ed. When I read his Op ed, all I thought Farah meant by that was that Obama was not eligible even if he was born in Hawaii. Now that I have taken another look, I agree with you that the way he phrased the Op Ed, it is a complete mis-statement of Minor. Joe Farah is wrong. McCain was clearly not eligible according to Minor.

    Farah quoted Minor properly as follows:

    "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."

    So why does he ignore the first part "children born in a country" as also being in the holding? That seems partisan as hell. I will update my comment with the entire text of your comment, my response agreeing with you and a link to this comment. Thank you for pointing this out to me. Good job. - Leo]

  19. Leo,

    Are your original state-level pleadings online anywhere? I browsed through the documents you posted at your blogtext site, and the earliest stuff I see there is Judge Sabatino’s order and what looks like a portion of your appellate division fact sheet. What else did you file before that?

    [ed. I don't know what else is online other than what is at blogtext. There are many other blogs that published stuff, too. I don't know exactly what else is out there on other blogs. Everything I filed should be on public record in the courts as well. - Leo]

  20. David Miller Says:

    Was Obama a citizen of Indonesia? I understand that US law allows dual citizenship. Does it allow triple citizenship? Is this a factor at all?

    [ed. As a child, you can't forfeit US citizenship even if your parents naturalize you in another country. That is well settled law. - leo]

  21. Leo, you continue to be my hero! You, and your faithful contributors and nudgers (Borderaven and your other peeps) have created the only place where thousands of us could have a prayer of finding any truth about the NBC legal issue. I have contributed little, in terms of comments or ideas, but have circulated the URLs to your updates to hundreds of friends online who have, finally, started reading this and finding, to their surprise, that, whoa, these are serious constitutional issue. For years they’ve been saying that Obama couldn’t possibly have pulled off this hoax. And now many of them are asking HOW in the hell it got pulled off and are determined to see the question answered one way or the other.

  22. It would appear that one of the reasons why references to the precedent in Minor were scrubbed was so that the Congressional Research Service could publish the following lie to members of Congress:

    The court thus implicitly adopted a meaning of the term “natural born Citizen” in the presidential eligibility clause which would include not only the narrow “common law” (based on apparent British common law) and the later United States constitutional designation for 14th Amendment purposes, that is, one born “in” the United States (jus soli), but also the statutory designation by Congress of one entitled to U.S. citizenship “at birth” or “by birth” transmitted from one’s parent or parents (jus sanguinis).

    [ed. People are looking into the memo now... stay tuned. - Leo]

  23. borderraven Says:

    Yes, Leo,
    Quoting Minor:
    “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 [jus soli] a country of [jus sanguinis] 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.”

    The verb “born” combined with the prepositions “in” and “of”, and the nouns “country” [land, soil, jus soli], and “parents” [paternal, maternal, bioligical, blood, jus sanguinis], with the noun “citizen” [ , liege, serf, loyal, faithful, member], are critical to the understanding of the natural born citizen.

  24. I believe SR 511 – incorrectly – stated that the immigration act of 1790 ‘defined’ natural born Citizen. The act indicated those born abroad to citizen parents (plural) would be ‘considered as’ natural born Citizens. To many, including the authors of SR 511 the words ‘considered as’ translate into ‘is’. Thus, the incorrect statement that the act ‘defined’ natural born Citizen. In fact, since the act included this passage it told us (not unlike the logic of M v H) that birth to two citizens abroad is not actually being a natural born Citizen. Hence the intent of the act was to make the offshore citizen equal to an actual natural born Citizen in the eyes of the law via codified law. – the 1790 act.

    [ed. Yes, exactly right. That was the first naturalization statute. Therefore, nobody needing it could ever "be" a natural-born citizen. Hence, the words "natural born" were repealed. - Leo]

    The fact that Congress dropped the passage in 1795 is possibly an indication the flaw was pointed and corrected. The flawing being that the 1790 act could not alter or change the intent of Article II, Section 1. Just as the 14th Amendment did not expand what constitutes a nbC as laid out in Minor.

    I believe that while the act did not ‘define’ nbC. It provides insight into which was more valuable – jus soli or jus sanguis. Clearly, it is jus sanguis.

    [ed. They are both required according toe the unanimous decision in Minor v Happersett. - Leo]

  25. A bit O/T, but this should and will be interesting very soon!
    ++++++++++++++

    Sheriff Joe predicts Obama investigation to be a ‘shock’
    ‘There are a couple of things … that could be a little bit exciting’
    ——————————————————————————–
    The posse, assembled under the authority of Arpaio’s office, consists of three former law enforcement officers and two retired attorneys with law enforcement experience. Members have been examining evidence since September concerning Obama’s eligibility to be president under Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution, which requires a president to be a natural-born citizen.

    He referenced disputes over the Social Security number attributed to the president and said, “There are a couple of things you and nobody else here knows anything about yet that could be a little bit exciting.”

    (Story continues below)
    Read more: Sheriff Joe predicts Obama investigation to be a ‘shock’ http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=360645#ixzz1bwX88KM9

  26. Breaking: Liberty Legal Foundation and Presidential Candidate John Dummett File Multiple Eligibility Lawsuit Against Barack Hussein Obama
    For Immediate Release- 10/26/11

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/10/26/breaking-liberty-legal-foundation-and-presidential-candidate-john-dummett-file-multiple-eligibility-lawsuit-against-barack-hussein-obama/

  27. Palm Beach Post Article:

    Perry says ‘no doubt’ Obama is an American citizen

    Perry says ‘no doubt’ Obama is an American citizen

    By KASIE HUNT
    The Associated Press
    Post a Comment E-mail Print Share Larger Type
    WASHINGTON — Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry said Wednesday that he has “no doubt” that President Barack Obama is an American citizen, staking out a definitive position on the matter after spending several days stoking widely debunked claims that the Democrat was born overseas.

    Perry’s comments come as he’s struggling to right his troubled campaign, and as some Republicans question whether he’s done irreparable damage to his run by dabbling in the so-called “birther” controversy in recent days.

    Some Republicans privately worry that his comments about Obama’s birth certificate may have endeared him to the party’s conservative wing that questions the legitimacy of Obama’s presidency but also may have started to marginalize the Texas governor from the larger electorate. That could put the general election at risk should Perry win the GOP nomination.

    His comments certainly irked several GOP luminaries, like former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, who in recent days have urged Republican presidential candidates to stop raising the issue. Others, like Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour and campaign rival Jon Huntsman say it’s bad for the GOP.

    “If we take our eye off the ball called debt, if we take our eye off the ball called our position in the world — continue going with you know, two wars simultaneously — of course we can lose it,” Utah’s former governor said, speaking on ABC news’ political webcast “Top Line” on Wednesday. “And if we kind of begin wasting time on the nonsensical and the silly issues like birtherism.”

    Karl Rove, George W. Bush’s political strategist, said Perry may be hurting his campaign. “You associate yourself with a nutty view like that, and you damage yourself,” Rove said on Fox News.

    Perhaps for that reason, Perry seemed to try to put the issue to rest in an interview with two Florida news organizations, Bay News 9’s “Political Connections” in Tampa and the St. Petersburg Times.

    Asked whether he had any doubt that Obama was an American citizen, Perry said: “I have no doubt about it.” But he also suggested that raising the issue is “fun” and that people should “lighten up a little bit.”

    “I don’t think I was expressing doubts,” Perry said of his comments in recent days that raised questions about Obama’s birthplace. “I was having some fun with Donald Trump,” the real estate mogul who this summer flirted with a presidential run and stoked the “birther” talk.

    Speculation about Obama’s birthplace — a way to question whether his presidency is legitimate— has swirled among conservatives for years. As Trump fanned the issue earlier this year, Obama held a news conference to release his long-form birth certificate and try to put the issue to rest.

    While other Republican presidential candidates have kept their distance on the issue, Perry deeply waded into the topic in an interview published over the weekend in Parade magazine. He was quoted as saying that he has “no reason to believe” that Obama was not born in the United States. He also said he still wasn’t sure if Obama’s birth certificate is legit.

    “I don’t have a definitive answer,” Perry said in that interview. And when it was suggested that Perry — and the world — had seen Obama’s birth certificate, Perry said: “I don’t know. Have I?”

    Then, in an interview with CNBC and The New York Times, Perry said the birth certificate question was “a good issue to keep alive.”

    “It’s fun to poke him a little bit,” Perry said.

    And by Tuesday, Perry refused in South Carolina to answer a reporter’s direct question about whether he believed Obama when he offered proof — in the form of a birth certificate — that he was born in Hawaii.

    “I’ll cut you off right there,” Perry said when asked about Obama’s birth certificate. “That is one of the biggest distractions that there is going. We need to be talking about jobs.”

    Perry also offered to release his own birth certificate, saying: “If somebody wants to see my birth certificate, I’d be happy to show it to them,” Perry said. “But the fact is that this is a distraction, and Americans really don’t care about that, if you want to know the truth of the matter.”

    ___

    October 26, 2011 09:36 PM EDT

    Copyright 2011, The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

    [ed. I have no doubt Obama is a citizen, but not a natural-born citizen. - leo]

  28. The talk about Rubio may break the dam, which is why there is no way that Rubio will be anyone’s VP at this juncture. Here is a pretty well known market watcher on Rubio.

    http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?singlepost=2762437

  29. I’d like to follow up something I said in a comment I made two days ago on the prior post:

    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 Amendment was sufficient for Obama to be considered a “natural born citizen”.

    Burying Minor v. Happersett was a prerequisite, but even the reliance upon Wong Kim Ark was a stretch, because Obama’s parental situation was not the same as Wong Kim Ark’s parental situation.

    Wong Kim Ark’s parents were both permanently domiciled in the U.S., were both “subject to the jurisdiction of” the United States, and that status of the parents played a major role in the Supreme Court ruling that Wong Kim Ark was also “subject to the jurisdiction of” the United States and that, along with birth in the U.S., made Wong Kim Ark a citizen under the 14th Amendment.

    Neither of Barack Hussein Obama’s parents was permanently domiciled in the U.S. … his father left the U.S. to reside in Kenya, and his mother left the U.S. to reside in Indonesia. Barack’s father was never a U.S. citizen, and was in fact a British subject who, by both natural law and British law (the British Nationality Act of 1948), passed British subjecthood on to his son at birth, and Barack’s own “Fight the Smears” campaign web site admitted:

    When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

    Also, while Obama’s mother was born a natural born citizen of the United States, because she was born in the country to parents who were its citizens, when she married a British subject, she, too, became a British subject. Did she lose her U.S. citizenship? I don’t think so, but I’m not 100% certain of that. She did, however, become a British subject in the eyes of the British, by way of the British Nationality Act of 1948. So, while Barack Hussein Obama II was born on U.S. soil, he was born to parents who were subject to the jurisdiction of the British crown

    Wong Kim Ark’s parents were both subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

    Barack Hussein Obama’s parents were both subject to the jurisdiction of the British crown.

    So again, while burying Minor v. Happersett was a prerequisite, even the reliance upon Wong Kim Ark was a stretch, because Obama’s parental situation was not the same as Wong Kim Ark’s parental situation.

    To the best of my knowledge, there is absolutely no Supreme Court precedent for “birthright citizenship” based on jus soli alone. There has always been consideration of jus sanguinis, and a determination of whether or not the parents were subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

    This is also highly relevant to the discussion of “anchor babies”…

  30. Leo,

    I gratefully thank God for all you are doing and pray for your protection.

    My Reply is regarding your remark, “If you’re inclined to pray…please pray for Tim Stanley and for Obama. We all need help. “Love your enemies.” We were all innocent children… we’re all messed up now. All of us have sins to make up for. I am a dreamer and I pray that the spirit of true brotherly love will win the day for our nation and for the world. These are troubling times, but we will overcome.”

    I have just now prayed (briefly) for these two evil men, enemies of all that is good, true and holy, and I do so remembering the example of Jesus Who humbly washed the feet of the chosen disciple (just before the Antichrist spirit entered him) and Who prayed from the cross, “Father, forgive them, they know not what they do.” Judas fulfilled his divine destiny to betray the Savior, then hung himself. The Chief Priests and Pharisees mocked Him and persecuted the church. I expect far worse responses from the person using the alias Barack H. Obama, II, Mr. Stanley, and their evil ilk, but each of them will make their own choices and be accountable to Jesus for themselves.

    We know by divine promise that the spirit of true brotherly love will eventually win the day for the world. It is too late for our nation which is obviously already under Divine judgment as evidenced by the presence of the current pResident of the White House, although perhaps there will be a successful Second American Revolution someday. These times are troubling, but we are about to see far worse times, the worst times that planet earth has ever had, or ever will have. Yet, I agree, that we will overcome, by the blood of the Lamb and the word of our testimony.

    May God awaken His church to the looming peril and prepare us for the Tribulation Period that we all (all of us) are soon going to go through.

  31. OSC not signed — Strunk v NYS-BOE regarding emergency injunction to correct NYS-BOE website natural born citizen v “born citizen” nbc US constitutional eligibility of candidates running for the office of POTUS 2012

    The order to show cause submitted by Mr. Strunk which Justice Schack declined to sign after extended argument this afternoon. Justice Schack’s handwritten statement is on page 4. It reads:

    “10/25/11 The Court declines to sign this OSC. This issue is not ripe until candidates file nominating petitions for public office for President of U.S. in several months. Further, the Court will [not] stop fund-raising by any candidate because candidates have a right to raise money pursuant to statute and the First Amendment. The issue of candidate qualification is subject to Court action after nominating petitions are submitted and candidates are challenged in Court.

    “_s/AS
    ” JSC”

    STAY TUNED:

    the application on Tuesday at Part 27 is where the Justice turne purple and refused to read the application, outrageously barred a stenographic transcript despite the presence of a court reporter, but instead granted the State’s oral application for a third extension of time to answer the underlying complaint despite Plaintiff’s objection; and then the Court denied Plaintiff’s oral application to file a first amended complaint to the extent that the State still has not answered six months after effect of service and even denied an opportunity to appeal until the law clerk instructed the court otherwise.

    If this were anymore ripe it would be a new life form!

    [ed. Keep on them, Chris. - Leo]

  32. throwshoesatobama Says:

    Leo,

    Is it possable that Mr. Stanley had no idea the cases were changed until you pointed it out. The ‘powers’ behind the scenes might have done it without his knowledge and if that’s the case I don’t blame him for being vague. People who blow the whistle on these ‘powers’ wind up dead. Look at the guy who broke into the passport records. Many of the witnesses to 911 anomalies have also died. With the loss of the 4th estate and congressional oversite we are now ruled by gangsters. Watch how Fast and Furious is handled.

    [ed. I'm with you on that. That's why I'm asking people to pray for Tim Stanley... I have to attack his comments to CNET, but I would not want to be him right now. Birthers/dualers are the least of his problems. - Leo]

  33. Leo,
    you got em, I am so proud of you and of even being able to read what you are accomplishing. I am soooo very glad that you made all those copies of the WayBackMachine and you had the foresight to do it in the first place. I haven’t heard from the person that I want to get the last posting to, but I will keep trying to get the info to him. Stay strong and be careful…..

  34. Excellent insights and analysis, Red Pill, as always. I want to point out that much of our theorizing and argumentation is predicated on Obama’s narrative of his parents identities, their relationship with each other, and his birth fable. We should presume this is a web of lies. We know he lied about their “loving” relationship as they never cohabitated and Stanley booked from Hawaii, pronto. I want to remind everybody that we, in fact, know NOTHING about the most basic facts of his origins, including the identity of his parent(s). Madelyn Dunham or someone else could be his mother, while Malcolm, Davis, our someone else could be his father. I know a man who believes Zero may be an alien hybrid. WE DO NOT KNOW. There is no evidence his “parents” ever married — [ed. snip... the rest of this comment was not proper and I will not warn you again. furthermore, a divorce cert is certainly evidence that there was a marriage... - Leo]

  35. borderraven Says:

    Lisa,

    This document may need an update, but it is where I tried to figure out how Obama got into the race, and through the process. It was a series of frauds, errors, ignorance, dumbed down education, etc.

  36. I was divorced (in NJ). I don’t recall any verification of my (legit) marriage entered into evidence at all. Could be mistaken, but I believe the sworn testimony of the two parties sufficed. So we have two known, vehemently anti-establishmentarians, in a “non traditional” situation contrary to multiple social conventions, both of whom with ulterior motives to represent themselves as married, neither of whom is legitimately eligible to marry there, in the brand new, chaoticly administrated geographically disparate island chain, both broke, who allegedly happen to have an unwitnessed, unphotographed civil ceremony and honeymoon on idyllic Maui, after which they part ways immediately, separated by thousands of miles of ocean, never to represent themselves as a couple, ever. Puh-leeze.

    [ed. puh leez what? you have no evidence and you act like you know something... move on from this topic. your allegations about his mother are beneath the topic of this thread. you have no proof and you use this attitude like you know something. you have an opinion and it's not supported by evidence, only conjecture. a divorce implies a marriage. the court would have had proof of the marriage to grant the divorce. take it somewhere else. - Leo]

    Does anyone else think that there is reasonable basis to believe a divorce may possibly have been sought, with one motive being to continue the deception, even if there was never any legit marriage? Could upstanding folks like these two tell a lie and swear to it? If not them, who? If not here, where? If not then, when?

  37. Leo, Tojo wants to hold a seance wih the dead Judge and dead father and mother without the aid of full faith and credit of an actual divorce decree.

    If Tojo wants to be a channeler maybe we can get him on Coast to Coast overnight?

  38. David Wayne Merryman Says:

    Amazing information!

  39. great job LD!!!

    i’m just thinking here…saw this the other day regarding holders subpoena & hearing scheduled for 12/8:

    “Republican members of Congress are already indicated that questions posed to Attorney General Holder may not be limited to Fast and Furious. According to Representative Steve King of Iowa, “I don’t want to tip my hand, but I think that it will be broadly more interesting than Fast and Furious, which is extraordinarily interesting in and of itself.”

    hmmmmm…might CONgress already be following what is being uncovered here?

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: