The Dred Scott Decision Is Evil, Racist, And Off Limits.

Posted in Uncategorized on December 12, 2011 by naturalborncitizen

I am preparing a comprehensive treatise on the natural-born citizen clause.  And I want everyone to know my position as to the Dred Scott decision well before I publish.

Scott v. Sandford is the most horrific piece of racist garbage our federal judicial system has ever doled out.  My arguments will not rely upon that case or its holding.  I will only discuss the case in relation to Justice Horace Gray’s reference to it, since he discussed it in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark.  And I will not refer to Scott v. Sandford outside of examining Justice Gray’s own opinion of that case, since I cannot properly analyze Wong Kim Ark without discussing the precedents cited therein.

The Dred Scott decision is a damned blight upon this nation.  The reasoning of the majority (if a majority can even be said to have existed) is in direct contradiction to the Declaration of Independence and to any true notion of liberty.

My treatise will discuss in great detail why Obama, John McCain, and even Marco Rubio are not eligible to be POTUS.  But the arguments will stand alone as if the Dred Scott case did not exist.  That it does exist remains the most significant stigma upon the virtue of our nation’s highest court.

Leo Donofrio, Esq.

[See commenting rules here.]

JustiaGate: Tim Stanley Adds Disclaimer Regarding The Accuracy Of US Supreme Court Cases Published By Justia.

Posted in Uncategorized on December 8, 2011 by naturalborncitizen

 

In a prior report, I suggested that Justia operatives were potentially facing prison sentences for multiple violations of the False Writings Statute, 18 U.S.C. 1018, since Justia’s versions of US Supreme Court cases contain a direct affirmation that one is viewing the “Full Text of Case”.  Therefore, if Justia intentionally scrubbed information from these cases, the affirmation would be intentionally fraudulent.

Today, I was informed by Dan Goodman that Justia recently added a disclaimer to their versions of US Supreme Court cases.  For example, go to Justia’s version of Minor v. Happersett and scroll to the bottom of the page, where it now states:

“Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.”

Justia continues to block all access to the Wayback Machine so that a full analysis of changes made to US Supreme Court cases previously published by Justia is impossible.  Furthermore, Justia’s allegation that the scrubbing was due to an unintentional coding error has been scientifically debunked.

 

Leo Donofrio, Esq.

[See commenting rules here.]

Martial Law: The Fix Is In

Posted in Uncategorized on December 5, 2011 by naturalborncitizen

UPDATED: Dec. 6, 2012 3:27 PM  – Judge Napolitano on Fox covers sb 1867.

The new Martial Law Bill which affirms the detention of American citizens indefinitely without due process of law passed the Senate 93-7.

Habeas corpus just got knifed in full daylight, left to bleed in the cracks of the Capitol commingling with the blood of patriots who died for this country.  The blood drawn like butter by Senate vampires drooling and gurgling with delight, appetites satiated… for now.  Their ecstasy whisps through depraved neurons as their spit foams upon the very name of freedom.

And while there are hints Obama may veto it, my opinion is that the bill has been set up with the sole purpose of having him do just that. 

This bill is a gift to Obama in that it will allow him to look like a true man of the people after he does veto it.  But the bill is simply reflective of alleged powers already granted.  So the veto won’t change anything.  It will only make him look more Presidential for when he finally does use the already existing draconian measures to detain or kill anyone he wants.

Please see Empire Burlesque’s article on this, and all of the links:

“We’ve been mourning the death of the American Republic here (and at other venues) for many years now, since Congress surrendered its Constitutional responsibilities  with the “Enabling Act” it passed on September 14, 2001, giving Bush a blank check for “all necessary and appropriate force” against any organization or individual that he alone declared was somehow connected to the Sept. 11 attacks. Three days later, Bush then declared that he had the right to kill anyone on earth anytime he felt like it and there wasn’t a damn thing anyone could do about it.”

I see a lot of bitching and whining now, but how many of you were doing the same routine when Bush was President?

MARCO RUBIO’S SLANTED POSITION ON SB 1867.

Rubio erroneously claims that the bill does not deny habeas corpus to US citizens:

“In particular, some folks are concerned about the language in Section 1031 that says that this includes “any person committing a belligerent act or directly supported such hostilities of such enemy forces.”  This language clearly and unequivocally refers back to Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or its affiliates.  Thus, not only would any person in question need to be involved with Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or its surrogates, but that person must also engage in a deliberate and substantial act that directly supports their efforts against us in the war on terror in order to be detained under this provision.  There is nothing in this bill that could be construed in any way that would allow any branch of the military to detain a law-abiding American citizen if you go to the local gun store or grocery store.”

Bunk!  Notice Rubio’s qualifier “to detain a law-abiding American citizen”.  What about citizens who break the laws protesting?  What about peaceful demonstrations of civil disobedience?  What if citizens dispute that the conduct even breaks the law?  This guy should never get near the White House (and he’s not eligible).  His statement above is so blatantly misleading, I can only wonder if he anticipates being drunk with power should the country continue its ignorance of the natural-born citizen clause and one day elect him.

Acts of Congress are interpreted by the courts directly pertaining to the words used in the act itself, and not by the speeches of big brother doublespeak cheerleaders such as Rubio.  Mr. Rubio is an attorney who knows better.  His statements above are not naive, nor are they stupid.  They are carefully crafted doublespeak from a rising star in the political scene who knows how to skillfully crap from both sides of his mouth.

Let us examine the relevant provisions:

SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.

    (a) In General- Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.

First note the title, “Affirmation of Authority”.  This bill is simply elucidating the powers already held by the President.  It “affirms” his authority, but such an affirmation is not necessary if he already has the authority.  So whether this bill passes or not, the President still has the authority to carry out the things mentioned in this bill.  Therefore, this is simply a dog and pony show, and if Obama does veto it, he still has the power to do anything the bill states.

If Obama were truly a man of the people, besides vetoing this bill, he would push through a bill which renounces all of the power that this ugly bill “affirms”.  Until such a law is enacted, his veto, like this bill, changes no law already in effect.

You can see this more clearly in Sec. 1301(e):

(e) Authorities- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

Now let’s turn to Sec. 1032(b)(1):

(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

That sounds re-assuring, doesn’t it?  Except for one thing, folks.  It only applies to “this section”.  The protection against military detention pertains only to section 1032.  It does not apply to Section 1031 which lists various forms of restraint.  If the military detention prohibition for US citizens from Section 1032 applied also to Section 1031, there would be no need for both sections to contain separate provisions for “covered persons”.  But 1031 and 1032 are independent sections and the prohibition against detention of US citizens does NOT apply to those citizens detained under 1031, which provides:

    (1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.”

While “military detention” is the specific form mentioned in 1032Section 1031 affirms the authority of detention generallyThis includes non-military detention.  Such detention could be potentially in a FEMA or DOD concentration camp.  Those are civilian divisions and detention therein is not military detention.  However, Section 1031(c)(1) provides for indefinite detention of anyone including US citizens, and this section does not include the prohibition against military detention in 1032.  Therefore, 1031 provides for both military and non-military detention of US citizens.

Rubio knows this and his comments are parsed carefully in this regard.  It’s so very creepy how these bastards cast their legislative spells.  Rubio didn’t lie.  He simply used a language most citizens don’t understand or even know exists – federal doublespeak, or fedspeak.  This is how they stand there with a straight face.  It’s not a lie, but it acts just like one.  When Bill Clinton said, “It depends on what the meaning of is is…”, he was talkin’ fedspeak.

As you will see from his insidious delicate parsing, Rubio knows all too well that the two sections work independently.  First he referred specifically to 1031(b)(2):

“(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.”

Covered persons under this act include a “person who… supported al-Queda, the Taliban, or associated forces…including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities…”  If the statute used the word “and” here, instead of “or“, then Rubio might have a point on this issue.  But the word “or” clearly indicates that a person is guilty of violating the act even if that person has not “directly supported” the hostilities of al-Qaeda, the Taliban etc.  The statute only requires a belligerent act, it does not require the person to be a part of al-Qaeda or to directly support al-Qaeda.  Indirect support is enough according to the statute.

Words matter.  The definition of  “belligerent” includes:  “a warlike or aggressively hostile nature, condition, or attitude.”

Therefore, if you are a person who has publicly expressed a spirited dis-belief in the official 911 story, it can be argued that you have exhibited a hostile attitude about the official story.  If you don’t believe al-Qaeda was ultimately responsible for the towers falling, and that the government has covered up truth – ie, that the towers fell as a result of a controlled demolition – the government might assert that you have supported al-Qaeda.

If you doubt al-Qaeda’s ability to have pulled this atrocity off, then the government might argue that you are defending al-Qaeda.  Your statement/blog may qualify as a belligerent act even though you have never expressed any direct support of al-Qaeda.  Under this construction, you could truly hate al-Qaeda, but if the belligerent act appears to support al-Qaeda in any way, that may be enough to trigger the statute.

But this statue isn’t limited to al-Qaeda or the Taliban.  It also covers anyone who substantially supported “associated forces” engaged in “hostilities” against the US or its coalition partners.

The normal definition of “hostilities” includes, “opposition or resistance to an idea, plan, project“.  Therefore, speech is a form of hostility under this statute.  But so is thought.  As the statute is written, even singular mental opposition to an idea, plan, or project qualifies as hostilities.  Nebulous terms are chosen by these legislative vampires to be purposely evasive and universally inclusive.

I don’t really give a crap what the statute was meant to cover, Mr. Rubio.  I care what it does, in fact, cover.  One thing we have learned as a nation is that judges are more than capable of fitting meaning into statutes which lay persons could never imagine in their wildest dreams.  Moreover, the rule of statutory construction in our courts looks first to the meaning of the words used in the statute, and there is a presumption that the words mean what they say.  I have given you a clear example of how the words in this statue could be used against those expressing doubt in the official 911 story.  But that’s only one example.  We don’t know who “associated forces” covers as well.  And the bill includes no statutory definition of “hostilities” either.

And finally, this statute is so poorly written that one possible construction of it could include any belligerent act not tied to al-Qaeda or the Taliban at all.  The words, “including any person who has committed a belligerent act”… may refer back to subsection (b), and not to the first part of subsection (2).  By this I mean that covered persons referred to in (b) are listed in (2), and these include those involved with al-Qaeda and the Taliban, but perhaps also any person who committed a belligerent act.  It’s not hard to imagine some court crafting just that meaning if they wanted a person bad enough and this was the only way to ensnare him.

The wording of this statute sucks.  And Marco Rubio’s cheerleading for it also sucks.  I do not trust this guy at all because of his statements on this issue.  He’s learned the DC doublespeak well, has this one.  The forked tongue force be strong with him.  Watch him parse without abandon as he carefully works his magic concerning Section 1032:

“Section 1032 of this bill concerns a smaller group of people who Congress feels are required to be detained by the US military because people who fit within this criteria are a more serious threat to our national security.  Any person detained under Section 1032 must be a member of, or part of, Al-Qaeda or its associates AND they must have participated in the planning or execution of an attack against the US or our coalition partners.  Simply put, the application of this detention requirement is limited to Al-Qaeda members that have tried to attack the US or its allies.  However, this detention requirement is clearly limited by a clause that states that the requirement to detain does not extend to US citizens or lawful permanent residents.”

He’s very careful here to limit his discussion in this paragraph to Sec. 1032, while 1031 is avoided.  This is because 1031 is the section which truly guts habeas corpus, not 1032.  These gargoyles in DC speak a language designed to accomplish mis-direction with the eloquence of Houdini.

Habeas corpus is at the heart of the nation.  It literally means, “You may have the body”.   And it’s got 93 daggers stuck in it today.

This Martial Law affirmation comes on the heels of the Congressional Research propaganda I wrote about in my last report.  Two alarms have gone off.  Be warned, America… martial law is coming.

Obama will probably veto the bill, but like I said above, the bill is only an affirmation of existing powers.  His veto will not change those pre-existing laws.  The veto will make him look like a good guy, so that when Obama does reach for these horrific powers, those who support him will point back to this veto to show that he was always against suspension of habeas corpus, etc.  But the excuse will then surface that, “an emergency we simply did not foresee has come to pass and the President must now use all of his powers to defeat the enemy”.

This is a dog and pony show.  Nothing happens without these federal freaks knowing about it first.  Martial law is coming and they are setting up the script now.

I do pray that reams of tin foil are my inheritance for posting this alarming missive.  Please, oh Lord, let me wear the blessed tin foil hat of shame and take this burden from our nation.  Let me live in ridiculous splendor accepting with glee the blogosphere’s tomatoes launched at my head forevermore.

Unfortunately, my read on this hand of poker… is that my prayer is not going to be answered.

Leo Donofrio, Esq.

[See commenting rules here.]

Debunking The New Natural Born Citizen Congressional Research Propaganda.

Posted in Uncategorized on December 1, 2011 by naturalborncitizen

 

Yesterday, attorney Jack Maskell issued yet another version of his ever changing Congressional Research Memo on POTUS eligibility and the natural-born citizen clause.  The CRS memo is actually a blessing for me in that I’ve been putting a comprehensive report together on this issue for about a month now.  But not having an official source standing behind the entire body of propaganda made my job more difficult.

The complete refutation will be available soon, but for now I will highlight one particularly deceptive example which illustrates blatant intellectual dishonesty.  On pg. 48, Maskell states:

In one case concerning the identity of a petitioner, the Supreme Court of the United States explained that “[i]t is not disputed that if petitioner is the son” of two Chinese national citizens who were physically in the United States when petitioner was born, then he is “a natural born American citizen ….”221

221 Kwok Jan Fat v. White, 253 U.S. 454, 457 (1920). The Supreme Court also noted there: “It is better that many Chinese immigrants should be improperly admitted than that one natural born citizen of the United States should be permanently excluded from his country.” 253 U.S. at 464.

Reading this yesterday, I had a fleeting moment of self-doubt.  Could I have missed this case?  Did the Supreme Court really state that the son of two aliens was a natural-born citizen?  The Twilight Zone theme suddenly chimed in.  I then clicked over to the actual case, and of course, the Supreme Court said no such thing.

The petitioner was born in California to parents who were both US citizens.  His father was born in the United States and was a citizen by virtue of the holding in US v. Wong Kim Ark.  His mother’ place of birth was not mentioned.  Regardless, she was covered by the derivative citizenship statute, and was, therefore, a US citizen when the child was born.

It was alleged that the petitioner had obtained a false identity and that the citizen parents were not his real parents.  But the Supreme Court rejected the State’s secret evidence on this point and conducted their citizenship analysis based upon an assumption these were petitioner’s real parents.

Having been born in the US of parents who were citizens, petitioner was indeed a natural-born citizen.  But Maskell’s frightening quotation surgery makes it appear as if the petitioner was born of alien parents.  The Supreme Court rejected that contention.  And Maskell’s ruse highlights the depravity of lies being shoved down the nation’s throat on this issue.  I can imagine Mini-Me sitting on his lap while this was being prepared.

When you look carefully at Maskell’s creative use of quotation marks, you’ll see that the statement is NOT a quote from the case, but rather a Frankenstein inspired patchwork.  He starts the reversed vivisection off with the following:

“[i]t is not disputed that if petitioner is the son…”

These are the first few words of a genuine quote from the Court’s opinion.  Then Maskell goes way out of context for the next two body parts.  The first is not in quotation marks:

of two Chinese national citizens who were physically in the United States when petitioner was born, then he is

And finally, an unrelated quote from elsewhere in the Court’s opinion:

“a natural born American citizen ….”

Put it all together and you get the following monstrosity:

…the Supreme Court of the United States explained that “[i]t is not disputed that if petitioner is the son” of two Chinese national citizens who were physically in the United States when petitioner was born, then he is “a natural born American citizen ….”

But the Supreme Court never said that.  Here’s what they actually said:

“It is not disputed that if petitioner is the son of Kwock Tuck Lee and his wife, Tom Ying Shee, he was born to them when they were permanently domiciled in the United States, is a citizen thereof, and is entitled to admission to the country. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 , 18 Sup. Ct. 456.”  Kwok Jan Fat v. White, 253 U.S. 454, 457 (1920).

This real quote – when liberated from Maskell’s embalming fluid – does not resemble the propaganda at all.

Maskell avoids the inconvenient truth that the Court took direct notice of the authorities having established that the petitioner’s father was born in the US and that he was a voter:

“…the father of the boy was native born and was a voter in that community.”  Id. at 460.

Maskell never mentions that the father and mother were US citizens at the time of petitioner’s birth in California.

This deceitful exercise alone strips the entire memo of all credibility.

Had Maskell simply offered his arguments fairly, using real quotes instead of Frankensteining this crap, I would not have attacked him personally.  But such deceptive behavior deserves no respect whatsoever.  The memo is pure propaganda, and it’s not even shy about it.

LOOMING CONSTITUTIONAL DISASTERS

The timing of the memo’s appearance is alarming.  I have been saying for quite awhile now that Obama doesn’t really have to worry about the natural-born issue coming back to haunt him in court unless he attempts to suspend the Constitution.  I know that sounds paranoid.  And nothing would please me more than to be wrong on that prophecy.  If my fears don’t come to pass, I will gladly wear the tin foil hat of shame.  But the appearance of the updated CRS memo at this particular moment portends a Constitutional disaster.

If Obama attempts to suspend the US Constitution and/or declare martial law and/or suspend the 2012 election… chances of the natural-born citizen issue finding its way to the Supreme Court on the merits increase exponentially.

Leo Donofrio, Esq.

[See commenting rules here.]

In The Spirit of Truth.

Posted in Uncategorized on November 18, 2011 by naturalborncitizen

My name is Leo Donofrio.  I have a J.D. from St. John’s University.  I’ve passed three bar exams; New York, New Jersey and the Multi-State.  I’ve been licensed to practice law in New   Jersey and the Federal Courts for the last twenty years.  

NEW COMMENTING POLICY

I put my name and professional reputation on everything I post at this blog.  From now on, if you want to post here, you must be licensed to practice law.  State your real name and the jurisdiction(s) you are licensed in.  NO EXCEPTIONS.

The national dialogue on the legal issues discussed here has often become juvenile at best and intentionally misleading at worst.  If you tried to argue on a bar examination – or law school final – that the US Supreme Court in Ex Parte Lockwood did not acknowledge Minor v. Happersett as a precedent on the definition of federal citizenship, you would fail.  Yet, all over the blogosphere anonymous propaganda pushing blatant falsehoods is rampant.  “NOT UP IN HERE!”

Feel free to use the comment box for submitting letters to the editor.  I am always happy to hear from you and will investigate tips and links alike, but only legal peers will see their commentary published.  And such commentary by fellow members of the bar will be printed in full.  My responses will follow in a separate comment.

Law school is hard.  Bar examinations are VERY difficult.  And attorneys are also required to take continuing legal education for years after admission to the bar.

While I appreciate the love and faith people have shown me in their comments, I cannot print them any longer.  The analysis must stand upon its own merit as filtered through the counter-analysis of other attorneys who are willing to stake their professional reputations upon such dialogue.

Attorneys may not intentionally mis-represent the law.  That is a violation of professional rules of conduct.  Anonymous commenters and bloggers do not have the weight of that responsibility over them, nor are they subject to the same penalties for breaking the rules.

WE ARE THE INQUISITORS.

I am currently working on a project called OCCUPY GRAND JURY.  Rather than begging the government to police itself – which is futile – why not take the power of the People back from the three branches who have usurped it from us?  The Constitution provides the means by which the People are empowered to do just that.  It grants those sworn in as federal grand jurors the power to institute investigations independent of the US Attorney or the Court.

So, if you wish to see elected officials held up to the truth of the law, the nation must re-educate from the ground up.  That means taking back the power of “presentment”, a power granted to the People of the United States – by the People of the United States – directly in the 5th Amendment.  While an insidious note was included in the 1944 revision of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure which labels this power as “obsolete”, the power does still exist.  “Obsolete” simply means out-dated, it does not mean illegal.

THE PRESENTMENT POWER DOES NOT ENABLE CITIZENS TO FORM THEIR OWN GRAND JURIES.

Rather, the power is directly related to, and works in conjunction with, the other branches of government.  That the legislative branch performed a coup d’etat over this power via the 1944 note is evident.  Lower courts of the Judicial Branch have been complicit recently in upholding the usurpation along with the Executive.

But the US Supreme Court has consistently held that the power of the Grand Jury remains with the people:

“The Fifth Amendment guarantees that no civilian may be brought to trial for an infamous crime “unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.” This constitutional guarantee presupposes an investigative body “acting independently of either prosecuting attorney or judge,” Stirone v. United States, 361 U. S. 212, 361 U. S. 218, whose mission is to clear the innocent, no less than to bring to trial those who may be guilty.”  United States v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1 (1973).

In United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36 (1992), the Supreme Court stated:

“Because the grand jury is an institution separate from the courts, over whose functioning the courts do not preside, we think it clear that, as a general matter, at least, no such “supervisory” judicial authority exists…,the grand jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the branches described in the first three Articles. It “`is a constitutional fixture in its own right.’” United States v. Chanen, 549 F.2d 1306, 1312 (CA9 1977) …In fact, the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional Government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people. See Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212, 218 (1960); Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 61  (1906); G. Edwards, The Grand Jury 28-32 (1906).”

While recent opinions in the lower courts have reinforced the Legislature’s usurpation, the Supreme Court’s decisions in the precedents cited above are paramount having been issued decades after the 1944 note.  The most comprehensive discussion of presentment and the independent power of the grand jury can be found in United States v. Smyth, 104 F. Supp. 283 (1952):

“The authority to initiate independent investigations cannot be taken away without erasing the word ‘presentment’ from the fundamental law of the land.”

Justice James Alger Fee is responsible for that vital quote.  In the full opinion, he chronicles the true glory of the power of the People over the grand jury.  This case was decided eight years after the cancer of the 1944 Note.  It is a must read for every American citizen.

It’s time that our schools added classes on the responsibility and power of citizens to serve as grand jurors.  The national curriculum for high school and up should be required to include classes on the grand jury.  This is the only way our nation will survive.  The Constitution is a miracle of democracy.  But it only works if the People exercise their Power as the fourth branch of government.  That power has been usurped by the other branches.  Like a table missing one leg, we cannot stand without taking this power back.

This does not mean that you may form your own grand jury lynch mobs.  The Supreme Court has made clear that the power of the grand jury is in conjunction with the other branches.  The Judicial branch swears the grand jury in and may end their session at will.  Still, the Executive branch needs the grand jury to prosecute crime.  Therefore, they must swear you in.  When one is sworn in, one becomes an independent inquisitor with full power to investigate.  That power must be exercised.

I am preparing a free treatise on the power of the People inherent in the Grand Jury.  You may follow the progress of this movement at – http://occupygrandjury.com .

Follow me on Twitter @ParacleteEsq

MAKE A STAND!

Leo Donofrio, Esq.

JustiaGate: Say It Aint So, Carl Malamud.

Posted in Uncategorized on November 11, 2011 by naturalborncitizen

Justia CEO Tim Stanley has a doppelgänger named Carl Malamud.  Back in 2007, Stanley blogged about Malamud as follows:

“Our friend & hero Carl Malamud stopped by the “Justia offices” to talk about his new public interest public information project…. making the case law and codes of the United States of America (state and federal) freely accessible in a public domain archive…This archived data can then be used and worked on by the folks at Cornell, Google, Stanford…. and everyone!

And Malamud made good on that promise.  Whereas, Justia is a private enterprise offering free legal research with all the modern bells and whistles of hyper-linking and Google analytics,  Public.Resource.org is a barebones public domain which associates all of its case URL’s with “courts.gov”.  Malamud’s use of “courts.gov” is truly misleading in that it gives the appearance his site has a true governmental “seal of approval“, but it doesn’t.  Despite such icky behavior, Malamud has charmed a lot of people.

LawSites had this to say about him:

“I can barely keep up with the efforts of Carl Malamud and his public.resource.org to “liberate” government documents. (See 1.8M Pages of Federal Case Law to Go Public and More Government Docs to Go on Web.) The latest project: Recycle Your Used Pacer Documents!.”

The New York Times published a story entitled, “Score One For The Web’s Don Quixote“, about Malamud’s quixotic attempts to bring every US legal document public for free.  And Wired Magazine did a profile on Malamud which included this interesting bit of data:

” ‘West makes billions of dollars selling stuff we want to give away for free,’ Stanley boasts…

His company purchased and digitized all the Supreme Court decisions, put up the first free search engine for them, and donated them to PublicResource.org.  Now Justia’s working with Cornell University to throw some Web 2.0 tools into the mix, including wiki pages for decisions…”

(Keep that reference to Justia working with Cornell on your desktop, we’ll come back to it shortly.)  Tim Stanley is one of five on the Board of Directors of Malamud’s Public.Resource.Org.  And Justia is listed as top benefactor as well.

Together, it cannot be denied, the pair are the Robin Hood and Friar Tuck of the free government document movement.  Malamud was also very instrumental in helping Justia defeat Oregon’s copyright claim litigation.  His “Ten Rules For Radicals include:

“This is thus my second rule for radicals, and that is when the authorities finally fire that starting gun—and do something like send you tapes—run as fast as you can, so when they get that queasy feeling in their stomach and have second thoughts,  it is too late to stop.”

We shall see whether this alleged passion for open information and preservation is extended to a review of Malamus’ publication of public domain cases.  We do know that his sidekick, Tim Stanley, doesn’t believe such freedom of information principles should apply to Justia since he’s removed all prior versions of Justia’s entire body of US Supreme Court case-law from the Wayback Machine.  And in doing so, Stanley is guilty of the very thing Malamud warns about in his Rule #2 above.

I should also mention that Malamud was the Chief Technology Officer of the Center For American Progress, where he was also a fellow.  CFAP received $3 million from George Soros, and is run by John Podesta:

“Citing Podesta’s influence in the formation of the Obama Administration, a November 2008 article in Time stated that “not since the Heritage Foundation helped guide Ronald Reagan’s transition in 1981 has a single outside group held so much sway.”[4]

RECAP JUSTIAGATE

My second report on JustiaGate exposed the surgical scrubbing of Minor v. Happersett from 25 cases – at Justia’s Supreme Court Center – which cited the vital Supreme Court decision which classifies those born in the country to parents who are citizens as “natural-born citizens”, such classification excluding Obama from eligibility:

“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.”  Minor v. Happersett, 154 U.S. 116, 167 (1874).

Because Minor v. Happersett directly implies that Obama is not eligible – even assuming he was born in the US – the case has been the subject of an intense disinformation campaign across the web.  And until JustiaGate’s revelations, Obama supporters were more able to levy false attacks upon Minor, claiming it was a voting rights precedent, not a citizenship precedent, and that Minor was “disgraced” and overruled by the 19th Amendment.  But none of that was even remotely true.

The whole time, the Supreme Court opinions which directly cite Minor as precedent on the definition of federal citizenship – and as a continuing precedent on voting rights despite the adoption of the 19th Amendment – were “mangled” at Justia (apparently Stanley’s choice of words via his admission in the CNET interview) – the favored legal research engine by Google.

And the war against Minor’s relevance was somewhat successful.  But all the while, hidden below the surface of fragged Google analytics and Justia subterfuge was a complete body of case-law spanning 100 years… all of which bears out the respect given to Minor v Happersett by many subsequent Supreme Court opinions.

ENTER THE DRAGON – EX PARTE LOCKWOOD, 154 US 116 (1894).

Ex Parte Lockwood, 154 U.S. 116 (1894) (aka In Re Lockwood at Justia), is essentially the holy grail of support for Minor v. Happersett, as it states:

“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.)

“This court held” is damning proof that 20 years after Minor v. Happersett, the Supreme Court was citing Minor as precedent for the definition of federal citizenship, such definition relying upon a construction of Article 2 Section 1 – the “natural born Citizen” clause -  which implies that Obama is not eligible to be POTUS.  Furthermore, the Lockwood court included Justice Horace Gray who wrote the infamous opinion in U.S. v Wong Kim Ark (which also cites the natural-born citizen passage of Minor as precedent – 169 U.S. 649, 680 (1898)) – albeit not in such a direct manner as Lockwood).  And Lockwood had nothing at all to do with voting rights.

In one fast swoop, upon the discovery of Lockwood, the war against Minor’s relevance had been won.  Minor is, beyond question, precedent on the definition of federal citizenship.  And it has never been overruled as in 1982 it was cited by the Supreme Court – in City of Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1980) – another decision fragged by Justia – as continuing precedent for its holding on voting rights as well.

Incredibly, despite the raging three-year debate over the relevance of Minor to Obama’s eligibility, not one single hit is returned – prior toOctober 20, 2011 – by a Google search including Obama, “Minor v. Happersett”, and “Ex Parte Lockwood” (or “In re Lockwood”).

This is because the sabotage of the Lockwood decision was done in much greater detail than the other cases.  Somebody out there knew that Lockwood and Minor interlock as binding law.  And the construction by the Supreme Court – in Minor  v. Happersett – of the natural-born citizen clause could – had it been known to the nation at large prior to the ’08 election – have deprived Obama of access to the ballots should the several Secretaries of State been up to speed on the true history of this crucial Supreme Court precedent, a precedent which was completely ignored prior to the ’08 election.

Justia’s activity is by now very well-known, but I have also pointed out that Lockwood was completely mangled at Wiki Source as well.  And Minor is mis-spelled in Lockwood as Lexis/Nexis, but most cryptically, at Cornell’s Legal Information Institute the opinion is cut right after “Minor v.”, with neither “Happersett” nor the specific holding to be found thereafter.  Houdini couldn’t have done better.

So yesterday, after receiving a tip from the mysterious “B” (of TheEEstory.com) concerning Tim Stanley’s involvement with Malamud’s petition to establish “Law.gov” (as well as Stanley’s big up to the CRS – remember the 2009 CRS memo on Obama’s eligibility – which fails to mention Minor?), I dug a little deeper into the Malamud/Stanley connection… which revealed that Stanley was not only a co-convenor of the Law.gov project, but that Stanley was also on the board at public.resource.org.

I then went looking for the Lockwood decision at public.resource.org and was completely rocked by what I found.  But before we go there, let’s go back to Stanley’s comments to Wired, quoted above, wherein he stated, “Now Justia’s working with Cornell University to throw some Web 2.0 tools into the mix, including wiki pages for decision…”  Now take a look at this screenshot of the mangled version of Ex Parte Lockwood currently viewable at Cornell:

Notice that the case stops before it gets to “Happersett”.  Then it picks up well after the precedent of Minor has come and gone, leaving you off at the last paragraph of the opinion.  Then, the next case in the Supreme Court reporter, 154 U.S. 118, starts after the last two words of the Lockwood decision, “Leave denied.”

No other case at Cornell behaves this way.  The Haytian case deserves its own page as it is a completely separate opinion.  This is a hack job which causes anyone searching the web – for cases which cite Minor v. Happersett – to be thwarted.  It’s just a complete mess.  What’s missing from the Lockwood opinion at Cornell is the following block of text:

“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; but that the right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, and that amendment did not add to these privileges and immunities. Hence, that a provision in a state constitution which confined the right of voting to male citizons of the United States was no violation of the federal constitution. In Bradwell v. State, 16 Wall. 130, it was held that the right to practice law in the state courts was not a privilege or immunity of a citizen of the United States; that the right to control and regulate the granting of license to practice law in the courts of a state is one of those powers that was not transferred for its protection to the federal government, and its exercise is in no manner governed or controlled by citizenship of the United States in the party seeking such license. Section 3192 of the Code of Virginia, quoted in this application, is one of 12 sections constituting chapter 154 of that Code, entitled, ‘Of Attorneys-at-Law Generally.’ Section 3193 reads: ‘Every such person shall produce, before each court in which he intends to practice, satisfactory evidence”

This whole chunk is cut from the Lockwood opinion at Cornell.  Incredibly, when I went to public.resource.org, and clicked through to their ftp.resource.org index to Supreme Court reporter Volume 154, I found this exact chunk of text that was stripped from Cornell’s version of Lockwood:

On the left there is a column for the official citation, and next to that is a column for the “date” of the case.  The programmer has put the missing chunk from Cornell into the “date” column for Volume 154.  And when you click over to the actual case, you can see that the ftp.resource.org version matches the Cornell version exactly, except that the missing chunk is not missing in the ftp.resource.org version.  Even the Haytian case appears at the end of Lockwood.  Furthermore, the final conclusive evidence that ftp.resource.org is feeding the Cornell site is at the very bottom of both pages, wherein it states:

     “CC∅ | Transformed by Public.Resource.Org”

So, we now know that Public.Resource.Org, the brainchild of our dynamic duo, is also feeding Cornell’s Legal Institute versions of these Supreme Court cases.  But why is the chunk missing from Cornell?  I can tell you exactly why.  The case was entered at ftp.resource.org so that a huge chunk of the actual opinion in this case was entered into the case name field.  This is why, when you go to the actual case, it’s in big bold print all the way until the “v.” after “Minor”.

Then, it switches to non-bold italics.  This is because the missing chunk has been entered in the “date” field.  After scouring other volumes to search for similar anomalies between the ftp.resource.org versions as re-published at Cornell, I stumbled upon Volume 355:

Notice that where the date should be – for case citation, 355 U.S. 41, – appears “Pat J. Gibson, General Chairman…”  And when you click through to that case, you can see that “Pat J. Gibson…” appears where the date should appear.  Now, when you go to the Cornell page for this case, you can see that following the “v.” where the case name ends, the field for the date contains the following,  “Decided: NotFound”.

And this is exactly what appears at Cornell’s page for Lockwood, “Decided: NotFound”.  Furthermore, both Lockwood and Conley fail to include a second party to the case, so that the party names end with “v.”

Therefore, at Cornell, it appears that whenever the date field does not contain a proper date, the date renders as “Decided: NotFound”.

So, we can see that each page for each case at both ftp.resource.org, and Cornell, renders the case according to how the information is placed into the style sheets.  But, while the ftp.resource.org version will include anything written in the date field on the case page (and in the volume index) in full, Cornell redacts anything placed in the date field from its version when that information is not formatted as an actual date.

And that is why the exact missing chunk appears in the ftp.resource.org volume index – where it stands in vast contrast to every other case in every other reporter – while the chunk is missing at Cornell’s page for Lockwood.

Jut scroll through any volume of the Supreme Court reporter index at ftp.resource.org, and the cases appear listed in an orderly manner.  But when it comes to Ex Parte Lockwood, the mold is literally smashed with the missing chunk from the Cornell page.  By way of comparison, look at Lee You Fee v. Dulles,  355 U.S. 61 (1957), at ftp.resource.org.  Notice how everything is in its proper place in the style sheet and that each element, case name, date, text of opinion, renders a clean-cut vision to the reader.  Because everything is entered correctly there, the case also renders perfectly at Cornell.

So anyone searching for cases which cite Minor v. Happersett would be thwarted as to finding Ex Parte Lockwood at either site.  At Cornell, the word “Happersett” and the entire reference to the Minor precedent is stripped from the page.  While at ftp.resource.org, the fields are fragged so badly that the relevance of search returns are greatly corrupted.

JustiaGate has now most certainly widened to implicate Public.Resource.Org, Carl Malamud and Cornell’s Legal Institute. 

Tim Stanley claims that the mangling of cases which cite Minor v. Happersett was due to an innocent coding error and not as part of a conspiracy.

Considering the danger to Obama’s eligibility caused by Minor’s precedent, the mangling of so many Supreme Court opinions which follow Minor – spread across multiple legal research platforms – must be intentional, or, in the alternative, we should all get down on our knees and worship him as the universal Lord returned, since the mathematical probability of this being innocent coding error would render it a genuine miracle.

While there are snapshots available of ftp.resource.org versions of SCOTUS cases at the Wayback Machine, when one plugs in the URL for the ftp.resource.org version of Lockwood, it states, “Wayback Machine doesn’t have that page archived.”  It says the exact same thing for the URL of the Cornell version of Lockwood.  This is the same message that was at the Wayback Machine for Justia’s current version of Lockwood up until Oct. 24, 2011, when Stanley finally – in opposition to EVERYTHING he and Malamud allegedly stand for – placed “robots.txt” over the entire domain of Supreme.Justia.com, thereby removing all prior versions of Supreme Court opinions from view of the nation.  Now when you plug-in a Justia URL for any Supreme Court opinion, you get the following stuffed in your face:

Page cannot be crawled or displayed due to robots.txt.

Because of Pixel Patriot’s vital reports on the New York State Board of Elections having overruled the Constitution by changing the eligibility requirements in New York from “natural born Citizen” to “born a citizen”,  we know that the Wayback Machine itself may have been corrupted as well.

Stanley did what Malamud warned all governments do.  He took back free information after that information became damaging to him.  Good thing I used Malamud’s Rule #2 for radicals by saving the evidence of Justia’s prior versions of SCOTUS cases which scrubbed Minor before Stanley chose to have those second thoughts Malamud warns of.  Justia is suddenly looking and acting like a government entity to me.

Tim Stanley may or may not be responsible for the sabotage, but we do know he covered it up after it was exposed.  And if he was a man of his word and his convictions, there would be a HUGE neon sign at Justia.com linking to a database of every “mangled” case… and the entire domain would be open to the “eyes” of the Wayback Machine and of the nation.  And there would be a visible apology to the nation for Justia’s improper influence over this important Constitutional issue.

But there’s nothing like that at Justia.

We shall see if Carl Malamud is man enough to send sidekick Stanley one of his famous public letters complaining about the removal of US Supreme Court opinions (which are in the Public Domain anyway) from the web.  Malamud’s mantra has been “total transparency of government documents”, but his sidekick is now hiding the very government documents which he admits were “mangled”.  It’s sickening, America.

Truly despicable sickening fraudulent fascist Orwellian bullshit.

And if we allow them to cover this up, we deserve everything that comes to us as a result thereof.  Get off your ass and do something.  Because this is where the story ends if you don’t… down a deep dark endless memory hole.

You may not approve of those kids down on Wall Street, but damn it, they are doing something.  There may be some bad money behind it, but most of them are just ordinary citizens who are “Fed” up.  At least they are making a true stand.

I am NOT for redistributing anyone’s wealth.  That’s a form of slavery.  When the fruits of your labors are taken by others, that means you are their slave.  But if you got that fruit by breaking the law, you need to be punished.  So, as far as enforcing the law to stop corporate/political orgies of white-collar crime, yeah I’m down with the Occupy movement.  But if you are talking about taking something from somebody who has broken no laws, I’m not down at all.  The only form of socialism I am in favor of is called charity.  If it’s redistribution of wealth is not voluntary, it’s theft… plain and simple.

That being said, you better get off your ass, America.  Do it now.  Because your freedoms go only as far as the laws which uphold them.  When a cabal of sniveling techno-programming nerds can change our laws, and our cases – whether that be at the NY BOE, at Justia, Cornell, Wiki and beyond – and get away with impunity, then we are done, dead and dusted.

YES WE SCAN!  MALAMUD FOR HEAD OF GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE?

Tim Stanley and the New York Times began a campaign to have Carl Malamud installed as the head of the Government Printing Office in 2009.  So far, he has not been appointed.  But he did receive a lot of support.

There’s no way in hell this cat should be let anywhere near the Government Printing Office with JustiaGate hanging around his neck.  If he isn’t guilty of collusion, then he is the one who needs to bring his glorified passion for transparency of documents to bear light on JustiaGate and to hold those accountable for what they did.  Malamud must come forward now and lead the charge for a full federal investigation of JustiaGate… or he’s just another political leach sucking the blood of freedom from the body of law he claims to be the champion of.

Leo Donofrio, Esq.

 

 

JustiaGate: “The Great American Memory Hole” by Cindy Simpson at American Thinker

Posted in Uncategorized on November 9, 2011 by naturalborncitizen

The America Thinker blog published a vital report by Cindy Simpson yesterday, entitled “The Great American Memory Hole”.  It’s a comprehensive analysis of information which is disappearing via Orwellian subterfuge.  And she’s all over JustiaGate as well as the subversion of testimony by Bankruptcy Judge Gonzalez in the Chrysler dealers’ litigation brought by myself and Steve Pidgeon.

I am very impressed that this influential blog has seen fit to make JustiaGate related reports the top story of the day on more than one occasion.  There is much more to come on JustiaGate in the weeks ahead, and not just from the same blogs covering the story now.  Nuff said.

Cindy Simpson has also requested a full interview with me concerning the pending $128,000 spank put on Steve and I by the 2d Circuit, Court of Appeals for having the audacity to even petition the court to review the true record of the case, in spite of the Southern District of New York having ordered oral argument (sua sponte) twice and having issued a seven page opinion which never suggested the cause of action was frivolous.  The 2d Circuit’s attempt to silence Steve and I, and to curtail our ability to represent clients by virtue of this draconian intimidation is literally unprecedented in the entire history of American Jurisprudence.   I have granted Cindy’s request for the interview.

Stay tuned…

Leo Donofrio, Esq.