The US Supreme Court Center at Justia.com is the leading resource on the internet which publishes United States Supreme Court decisions.  They have been caught red handed in an Orwellian attempt to revise US Supreme Court cases which mention Minor v. Happersett as precedent on the issue of citizenship, as opposed to the other issue decided in Minor, voting rights.

I have documented two incredible examples where Justia.com has been caught in the act of taking a hatchet job to US Supreme Court decisions by removing, not just the case name, “Minor v. Happersett”, but whole passages related to Chief Justice Waite’s statements on the citizenship issue which were cited favorably in BOYD V. NEBRASKA EX REL. THAYER, 143 U. S. 135 (1892), and POPE V. WILLIAMS, 193 U. S. 621 (1904).

I have published my complete investigation into this fraud perpetrated by Justia.com – including snapshots and evidence collected from the Way Back Machine at the Internet Archive – in the comments section of my previous report, THE EXPRESS LANE TO NATURAL BORN CLARITY.  My investigation was triggered by a reader’s comment regarding Boyd.  The comment was on a separate issue.  But I then noticed that the Boyd case, as currently published by Justia.com, made reference to Minor v. Happersett without properly naming the case.

Last evening, I had come across a similar situation in the Pope case.  I was curious, but it wasn’t until I saw the same pattern in the Boyd case that it became clear Justia.com was altering these cases to remove references to Minor v. Happersett when Minor was recognized on the issue of citizenship.  But where Minor is cited on the issue of voting rights, no hatchet was taken to the references in later US Supreme Court cases.

For posterity, due to the incredibly important nature of this information, I have decided to keep the investigative report exactly where I first published it, in the comments section of my previous report.

This is beyond shocking.  Somebody, back in 2008, just prior to the election, ordered these revisions and saw to their execution.  This is direct tampering with United States law. And it is evidence that Minor v. Happersett was known to be a huge stumbling block to POTUS eligibility.

It confirms that Minor v. Happersett was seen as a dangerous US Supreme Court precedent which construed the natural-born citizen clause of Article 2 Section 1 to make only those persons born in the US to citizen parents (plural)… eligible to be President.

According to binding US Supreme Court precedent, Obama is not eligible to be President.  And we are obviously very late coming to this legal truth.  Somebody at Justia.com tried to control and alter our awareness by hiding important Supreme Court references to Minor dating back to 2008.  This is smoking gun proof of tampering.  Please read my full report here.

There needs to be an investigation.

Leo Donofrio, Esq.



  1. da verg Says:

    better have a back up copy/document control situation

    obots have been known to hack and take down complete and whole


  2. Pat 1789 Says:

    I plugged WKA into the Wayback, Justia started scrubbing Minor ( from the decent opinion anyway) in 2006. Orwellian indeed.

    BTW, my comment on Boyd was not meant to muddy the waters, I am with you on Minor. I am trying to rap my arms around the whole citizen by Treaty / annexation issue.
    Your research and legal opinion is much appreciated! Thanks

  3. paraleaglenm Says:

    Jill Pryor (Yale Law Review) and Kathy Herlihy (Kent State and Obama administration) proposed that the traditional definition of natural born citizenship was ‘stupid.’ As Dick Durban commented yesterday, illegal aliens were potential presidents under the Dream Act.

    When you cite Vattel, John Jay, Wm H. Seward, James Wilson, Sen. John Bingham, the 1866 Civil Rights Act, Minor v Happersett, the original intent of the law was jus sanguinis.

    It is obvious why the original colonies followed jus soli; they were isolated, limited jurisdictions under the larger British empire. In fact, early case law of the original 13 states recognized English statute adn precedent, but only so far as it did not conflict with legislated act (Cf. Naturalization Act), and the statutes had no power of law unless formally listed by state supreme courts as law.

    Compare the Case of Mr. Smith to the 1790 Uniform Naturalization Act passed only a couple months later, and then Shanks vs DuPont; and it is clear that a child of an alien ONLY became a U.S. citizen upon the naturalization of the alien father (or upon his premature death) . . . and that obviously was inclusive of his children born on U.S. soil.

    Jus Soli was followed as a traditional, if not feudal English law for a century of American history, but the 1790 Act suprerseded it. Yet, formally educated lawyers worshipped English common law . . . it was their bible, so jus soli as a doctrine was hard to put aside.

    Oh . . . and your are welcome, Leo, for giving you the idea to Shepardize Minor vs Happersett. LexisNexis won’t allow me to Shepardize any more, so I just did a ‘word’ search for ‘happersett’ in LexisOne free case law.

  4. Joe The Blogger Says:

    Hi Leo,
    I think the following describes what has been going on over the last few years.

    A coup d’état – also known as a coup, putsch, and overthrow—is the sudden, extrajudicial deposition of a government, usually by a small group of the existing state establishment—typically the military—to replace the deposed government with another body; either civil or military. A coup d’état succeeds if the usurpers establish their dominance when the incumbent government fails to prevent or successfully resist their consolidation of power. If the coup neither fully fails nor achieves overall success, the attempted coup d’etat is likely to lead to a civil war.
    Typically, a coup d’état uses the extant government’s power to assume political control of the country. In Coup d’État: A Practical Handbook, military historian Edward Luttwak says, “A coup consists of the infiltration of a small, but critical, segment of the state apparatus, which is then used to displace the government from its control of the remainder”, thus, armed force (either military or paramilitary) is not a defining feature of a coup d’état.


  5. Thalightguy Says:


    Oh my God they did it in Rogers vs Bellei.

    Rogers vs Bellei:

    Thus in Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 167 (1875), the Court said: “Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. . . . [N]ew citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.”

  6. Thalightguy Says:

    I was the Bellei case yesterday on Justia and it quoted Minor.

  7. Thalightguy Says:


    From the Univesity of Pittsburgh School of Law:

    Tim Stanley is the CEO of Justia, Inc., a legal media and technology company providing Internet-based legal information and resources. A graduate of Stanford University with a J. D. from the University of Michigan, he is also the co-founder and former CEO of FindLaw.

  8. Keep digging, Leo! You are blessed for particular curiosity, patience
    and persistence for this vital issue. It’s for a reason ……

    Have they altered the essence/weight of Minor v Happersett here?


  9. Thalightguy Says:


    linkedin Profile of Tim Stanely CEO of Justia Inc

    Groups and Associations:

    Obama for America


  10. Thalightguy Says:

    Tim Stanley show’s his support for Obama


    Harvard Law Blog


  11. I sent this article to Lawrence Sellin at Canada Free Press, who has been following this closely, http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/38004 and wrote an article myself http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGJdN2KPf0g&feature=player_embedded
    hope this is okay.

    I would assume that Tim Stanley and Stacey Stern are not going to be to happy about this.
    Obama’s team also has ways of getting into the wayback machine.
    Once I tried to pull up his fightthesmears site and found that they altered that too.

    Excellent work.

    Please watch your back..

    ed. Thank you, Sellin did write it up which is very important. Good job. – Leo

  12. My God, Leo, you dig up the most astonishing items. This is the greatest example of fraud in the legal reference system ever attempted. They’re trying to change our constitution by tearing off the sections they don’t like. Make sure Breitbart becomes aware of this.

  13. sorry, this is the article I wrote on your findings http://hubpages.com/hub/Major-Fraud-At-JustiaCom

    ed. Good article except I never voted for Obama or McCain. Ron Paul was my guy in ’08. – Leo

  14. Thalightguy Says:

    more scrubbing…?

    Is John McCain a citizen of the 14th Amendment?

    We all know the Wong Kim Ark opinion got the definition of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” wrong but did Justice Gray completely construe the 14th Amendment out of context?

    Consider the following:

    All “persons born” (A)

    or “naturalized in the United States” (B)

    and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” (C)

    are “citizens” (D)

    D = (A or B) AND C

    This logic gives the two classes of citizenship as described in Minor vs Happersat and would allow John McCain to be a citizen of the 14th Amendment. For this to be true subject of the jurisdiction would have to be defined as not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty.

    Just a thought…

  15. I’ve got to warn you, Leo, that when you stomp on people, as you did by dismissing us Birthers, they might dismiss even your valuable findings, such as this one. I just saw it happen, on a very popular blog that might normally be behind you.

    Remember, we don’t all have to believe that Obama was born in Hawaii to support the natural born citizenship angle. We’re all on the same page here. We just happen to believe that Harrison is fighting tooth-and-nail to hide his Hawaiian records for a *reason*.

    I suggest you rebuild some bridges. And the Fourth of July weekend would be a most apropos time for that – bite the bullet for your country! That’s what you’ve been trying to do all along, right?

    We’re more powerful together than we are apart.

  16. LEO
    Everyone should read this……. It is very very serious …
    Then take a look at previous research on Sarah Herlihy
    And her Law Review Article As discussed below


    ……..”FRIDAY, DECEMBER 12, 2008

    Why Was Sarah Herlihy Worrying About Article II?
    Contrairimairi has forwarded a post from Insight Analytical concerning Sarah Herlihy’s article that was also discussed in the blog Count us Out. Someone had forwarded Herlihy’s article to me and I blogged it on November 29. Herlihy works for the law firm of Kirkland and Ellis out of their Chicago office. The kicker is that Herlihy’s article was published in the Kent Law review in 2006 and, notes Count us Out Blogger Creative Ogre: ………”

  17. borderraven Says:


    I’m see more Google alerts about you.

    Take advantage of the eyes on your site.

  18. I notified Lawrence Sellin at Canada Free Press. Here is his article

    ed. Thank you so much. – Leo

  19. Today, Worldnetdaily is reporting—

    “After his election, Gallups points out, Obama held a secret meeting with eight of the nine justices of the U.S. Supreme Court – from which no public information was released. The meeting was held even though there were legal challenges in which Obama was a defendant pending before the Supreme Court at the time. The attorneys for the plaintiffs never were told of the meeting or invited to participate in what critics have described as extrajudicial contact between the court and a defendant. ”

    The plot thickens!

    “What did Congress know about ‘natural-born citizen’?
    8 tries at eliminating requirement suggests organized strategy in place”


  20. LadyPatriotNaturalBornCitizen Says:

    I am sending this comment to you that I read about Justia.com. Perhaps you can look into if Justia.com is a biased & liberal commercial web site, that does not represent an official USA government web site that would publish the complete publication of our laws or court cases, or not:

    “110 Philo-Publius
    July 1, 2011 at 8:26 pm

    FYI: jbjd explained to me at CW, that Justia.com is a commercial web site and not an official publication of our laws or court cases. Leo D did not mention that fact and since I’m not an attorney, I was unaware.”

    ed. If it’s not “.gov” it’s obviously not run by the Government… but it is the leading site for SCOTUS searches, like Google is the leading search engine. Just as Google controls the way people discover general web history in many ways, Justia controls the way people discover SCOTUS history. Somebody was involved in damage control. – leo

  21. LadyPatriotNaturalBornCitizen Says:

    I read this comment about Justia.com at:


    “jbjd | July 1, 2011 at 10:45 pm |

    Philo-Publius | July 1, 2011 at 10:23 pm |

    Thank you jbjd.

    I get it now thanks to your explanation. Reading Leo’s posting I thought Justia.com was an official publication of our laws and that is what really ticked me off. I agree Leo should have made the point this was a commercial site…not everyone who reads his cite is an attorney and would know this.

    P-P, you are welcome. (Now that you know Justia is just a commercial web site that compiles other public information; and that, as a commercial enterprise, its decision to manipulate its web site in whatever way it sees fit, is completely commonplace; let me ask you. What do you suppose is the purpose of posting such alarmist warnings as, ‘Archive the web page because they are trying to hide this “dangerous” ruling’?)”

  22. bob strauss Says:

    Leo, jbjd seems to disagree with your opinion of Minor v Happersett, could you clear up any differences and set the record straight.

    UPDATE: Please read my Comment below, containing an excerpt from the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Slaughterhouse Cases, which emphasizes this point with relation to the 14th Amendment’s language on citizens. In short, if the 14th Amendment can be said to be conferring citizenship rather than merely codifying those definitions already understood in law and practice then, it does so only by establishing the distinction between the rights accruing to citizens as citizens of the U.S.A. which rights are now uniform; versus the rights of citizens as citizens of the states (in which they reside), which vary according to the state.

    © 2011 jbjd

    No legally binding definition exists of the phrase “natural born citizen” as written in Article II, section 1 of the U.S. Constitution; and no such definition will be forthcoming until a federal appeals court, including the U.S. Supreme Court, rules, this is the definition, in the holding of a case or controversy directly on point, that is, one which requires the court to formulate such definition so as to reach resolution of the matter properly before the court.

    I have said this a ‘million’ times, with only slight variation, since I began blogging in 2008. And, as I have also indicated, for a couple of reasons, at this point, that is, now that President Obama has been elected; I couldn’t care less whether he is a NBC; and I have been saying this for a long time, too. What difference does it make whether he is a NBC when we enacted no laws that required our state Electors to elect only a President who is Constitutionally eligible for the job! (This would explain my insistence that present calls for Impeachment cannot be predicated only on his Constitutional ineligibility for office.) And, regardless of the absence of documentary evidence available in the public record that, he is even a C, which status certainly was well defined and accepted by the aforementioned legal authorities even before this definition was codified in the 14th Amendment for the purpose of qualifying who is entitled to “privileges and immunities”; it appears true that, millions of my fellow citizens who voted for (Electors for) the man, could not have cared less whether he is a NBC, either, even before his election. Read more.

    ed. She’s wrong, again. Obviously, Obama’s minions are out there scrubbing SCOTUS cases online from before the election because they saw it before we did. But stay tuned for more legal analysis on this issue. – Leo

  23. Lisa C. Says:

    The Chicago Machine is starting to panic just a bit in case BOZObama is finally made to swear that he’s a natural born citizen and be held legally accountable for that statement:

    “Of the military deaths in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, 54 percent have been incurred by our brave soldiers between the ages of 18 and 24 years old; 76 percent by those between the ages of 18 and 29; and 90 percent by those between the ages of 18 and 34. These fully adult men and women fought and died on behalf of a system of governance that denied most of them the right even to be considered worthy of sitting at the table where monumental decisions about war are made….John Seery, political scientist at Princeton University & Pomona College, author of the new book “Too Young to Run? A Proposal for an Age Amendment to the U.S. Constitution”

    They also ought to get rid of the requirement that the president be a ‘natural born citizen.’ ”


    Speaking of the Chicago machine, I see that the IMF’s Christine Lagarde was part of it when head of the Chicago law firm with interestingly ties to BHO. Will the Int’l. Monetary Fund now also weigh in on the U.S. Constitution’s “silly” nbc requirement too?

    Thanks, Mayors Dailey I and II and the whole filthy machine.

  24. Tim Stanley also supports Obama. THis is his Havard website, complete with Videos showing his lack of support for McCain and Palin:


    This is dirty.

  25. Relying on digital copies is dangerous because “editing” is too easy. If all ink and paper versions are ever lost or destroyed, nothing will be left that can be trusted.

  26. Thalightguy Says:



    Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS – Oral Argument

    Tuesday, January 9, 2001

    “Well, that assumes the person is not an alien simply because Congress says the person shall be retroactively deemed a citizen. But for constitutional purposes, it seems to me, as opposed to statutory purposes, whether the person is an alien or not should depend upon whether the person is a natural born citizen of the United States or whether citizenship must be conferred by Congress.” – Justice Scalia:

    At least Scalia agrees with us on this.

  27. Thalightguy Says:

    See my comment above –

    It took Congress for Obama to be defined as a citizen.

    If it were not for Congress, Stanley would have taken her husband’s citizenship and Obama never would have been born a citizen of the United States, This was natural law.

  28. Leo,

    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.

    I have downloaded that memo from scribd in PDF form, then run Optical Character Recognition (OCR) on them, and then uploaded it here:

    41131059-CRS-Congressional-Internal-Memo-What-to-Tell-Your-Constituents-Regarding-Obama-Eligibility-Questions (with OCR)

    I think it’s worth noting that the Congressional Research Service memo mentioned you twice, Wong Kim Ark nine times, and Minor v Happersett ZERO TIMES.

    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).

  29. J. Robert Says:

    The left. Always lying.

  30. Right Tim Stanley, the CEO, and Stacey Stern, President, of Justia have been at Justia some years (Tim 2003-pres and Stern 2005-pres)
    Both are Harvard law graduates.

  31. Lou Giefer Says:

    Your problem is that, no matter how YOU interpret Minor vs. Happerstatt, there are MANY more relevant cases that cancel it out.

    You know, persistence is NOT a sign of good judgment. You might as well just go up Pennsylvania Avenue to the White House, pound on the gate, and demand at the top of your lungs that President Obama get the hell out.

    I think I can promise you a response.

    ed. Nothing cancels out the US Supreme Court except the US Supreme Court or an Amendment. Neither have changed the holding of Minor on the definition of nbc. It stands as law. – Leo

  32. Dan Reidy Says:

    BFD…so what are the jerk-offs in the robes gonna do about it …not a GOTDAMN thing! They are SCUMBAGS! Honor disappeared long ago…we are on an express train to Obama half-breed HELL!!!

  33. Kevin J Says:

    This is beyond massive. The citations are now re-appearing on Justia.com…why? Obviously they (whoever ‘they’ are!) are following your blog VERY closely…why? Because you have found irrefutable precedent from the SCOTUS that Obama does not meet the POTUS/VPOTUS eligibility requirement. He is NOT a natural born citizen!!

    But how many people/Congress people have looked at Justia in the last 30+ months for such citations and been thwarted in their search for the truth as a result of this coverup? Their coverup may just have worked.

    Can a FOIA request be made to find out who has been making these Justia.com case law edits?

    ed. Not FOIA, not a .gov site. But the corrections are not changing the Google cache which has been saved as well. See this right now, the current Google cache for Boyd


    – Leo

  34. Leo, thanks for your keen insight and research into the NBC subject. I’m glad to say that I’ve used it several times with success.

    Don’t know if you’ve heard this yet or not. The Balanced Budget Act they are trying to pass could radically change the constitution and America..
    Please help get this out. The people have no idea what it could mean for them. It will completely alter the constitution giving the president the power to for the budget and control taxing. It could set the stage for radical change in America. Please read and see if you can do something with it.


  35. E Glenn harcsar Says:

    With age comes wisdom. Probably better to amend the Definition of natural born citizen as defined by precedent in minor v happersett to make a truly more progressive work. Check out Leo Donofrio’s analysis at natural born citizen.com

    I left this comment at Zorn’s article linked above, hope it helps ( except I forgot word press in the URL!)

  36. Here is info on who owns justia.com including a phone #:

    Stanley, Timothy
    1380 Pear Ave #2B
    Mountain View, CA 94043

    Domain Name: JUSTIA.COM

    Administrative Contact, Technical Contact:
    Stanley, Timothy
    1380 Pear Ave #2B
    Mountain View, CA 94043

    Record expires on 22-Sep-2020.
    Record created on 22-Sep-2002.
    Database last updated on 4-Aug-2011 01:52:19 EDT.

    Domain servers in listed order:


  37. Do you really mean to imply 8 USC 1401 is not a valid law because a prior Supreme Court case which chose not to expand its ruling to further define natural born citizenship set a precedent by omission?

    ed. that statute says nothing about “natural-born citizens”… what’s your point? – Leo

  38. Bob Davies Says:


    Are you OK?

  39. Jeff Shaw Says:

    The official cite for the case you refer to is Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874). It’s in a hard copy book. I doubt if SCOTUS is going to cite to Justia dot com. Just a reminder that you shouldn’t believe everything you read on the internet.

    ed. Yeah, but 99.9999 % of the people are not going to look any further than Justia.com… and that’s why this was done. – Leo

  40. Egharcsar Says:

    Thinking of you Leo. Beach film music chess poker, where have you been.

  41. “ed. Nothing cancels out the US Supreme Court except the US Supreme Court or an Amendment. ”

    I take minor exception to that, Leo. The States can cancel out a SCOTUS decision if it’s unconstitutional via the 10th Amendment. Given that MANY of their decisions have been unconstitutional, it’s a shame the States haven’t used this power FAR more often!

  42. lightyourcandle12 Says:

    Please read this article, it is awful how lawyers are interpreting law. http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfreedman/2011/04/12/romney-to-trump-obama-doesnt-need-a-birth-certificate/

  43. John Manuola Says:

    Sir, I was just reading the FEC ruling regarding some person of foreign birth wanting to raise money for a presidential run. The FEC gave him the green light, despite the fact that even he admitted to not being a natural born citizen. I was wondering if this ruling by the FEC might be a back door way of getting the Supreme Court to rule on the Natural Born Citizen clause.


  44. “Nothing cancels out the US Supreme Court except the US Supreme Court or an Amendment. Neither have changed the holding of Minor on the definition of nbc. It stands as law.” – Leo

    I will offer my opinion, then bow to more experienced legal minds.

    IMHO, Chief Justice Waite’s definition of nbC in Minor v. Happersett is Obiter Dictum. It is not the subject of the case, but only a statement in passing about a related topic. As such, it is not binding, it is not law, it has not been legislated, and it is not being presented now to the court for interpretation or a decision.

    ed. see my latest for historical evidence otherwise. – Leo

    Likewise for Justice Gray’s Tory attempt in WKA to return the errant colonies to the control of Mother England. Dicta are just so much legal chit-chat and much ado about nothing, accomplishing little, settling even less, and availing naught.

  45. Where are you Leo? You have a whole lot of supporters out here hoping all is well.

  46. borderraven Says:


    It seems wise to study England and Early- Rome, or the latter years of the Roman Empire. The Roman Empire reached to Umbria, and many Romanic concepts took root in England.

    The “pure Roman” enjoyed privileges of higher office and voting rights.

  47. This is Fascinating, and, extremely Important, I think. Any Student of the Law, should find it so. If Our Law means what it means..then it means what it means. If it needs Amendment, then it needs Amendment.. I’d like to read some more of your research, Leo!!!

  48. Hmmm, wonder if elena kagan is involved….she’s involved in so many other cases protecting Soetoro’s eligibility.

  49. “… on a hunch some folks performed a search on Snopes to look into the dockets of the newest Supreme Court Justice, Elena Kagan, an Obama appointee. According to Snopes the online email about this topic was false and no such dockets existed. So they Googled the Supreme Court website, typed in Obama-Kagan, and voila, Snopes matter-of-factly lied. Each of the dockets had been posted and made readily available.

    Many people discovered several years ago that the Snopes couple always tended to side with the leftwing, but this was simply an outright lie and they’ve had their hand called on it online.

    So this group decided to dig a little deeper and confirmed some additional information that may rock you back in your chair.

    1) Kagan has been representing Obama in every petition attempting to prove his citizenship.

    2) She may have an opportunity rule on them in the near future — not exactly ethical in the eyes of the general public. It’s now becoming clear about the reason Obama nominated Elana Kagan for the Supreme Court in the first place to protect his murky background.

    It gets better; Kagan was also the Solicitor General for every suit against him filed with the Supreme Court to show proof of natural born citizenship. He owed her and the nomination was the payback that just happened to work fine since at the time the Democrats controlled the House and Senate. As you might have assumed, all of the Supreme Court requests regarding his citizenship were denied, not a one of them has been heard — what a surprise.

    Check out any of these websites for the Supreme Court Docket to search for some of these hearings and surprise, surprise, Elana Kagan was the attorney representing Obama.

  50. davidfarrar Says:


    The more I get into this, the more I am convinced: Wong is full of dicta.

    ex animo

  51. Leo,

    An attorney friend of mine strongly suggested I read — or more precisely — re-read the first paragraph of the Minor decision. “The Court says there is only one question to be answered – does the Constitution grant voting rights to citizens. Nothing Leo or Mario say’s changes that. There is no issue about citizenship so it is all dicta and nonbinding.”


    ex animo

    ed. In Re Lockwood, from 1894 followed Minor… “this Court held” tell your friend to read the article… The case has been cited numerous times by the US Supreme Court and historically for its definition of federal citizenship. Whether Minor was a citizen was part of the question presented. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has stated that not only is precendent limited to the question presented, precedent is also made by any independent grounds relied upon in answering the question. Your friend needs to get some new Kool Aid. And from now on post your own questions, not those of others. This is a rule of the forum. If you have a question, ask it. But don’t ask it for someone else. I am sick of that tactic. I won’t honor a comment that is framed that way again. Ask your question. And try not to be so gullible. People are lying because their man is not eligible and they are running scared.- Leo

  52. Leo,

    Thanks, I will certainly pass this on, and I will give you the link. My friend, Jim Cook, whom “I believe” is an attorney, is nonetheless a widely read internet presence at Irregular Times (http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2011/05/06/waiting-for-dr-orly-taitz-esquire-to-start-investigating-rick-santorum/comment-page-1/#comment-765883).

    This whole discussion about dicta and precedent, which, I believe, is the method the “unbelievers” will use to attack Minor, is unknown to me until just recently. But from what I have seen of it — sure there are guidelines, but, in the end, it is whatever nine justices see as dicta or precedent that matters: am I right?

    Therefor, the key is the recognition but other US Supreme Courts that actually determines what is dicta and what is precedent, and on that count, and largely through your good work, we have them where Nixon suggested we should hold all our “unbelieving friends” …”grab them by their ‘dictum’, their hearts and minds will follow.”

    ex animo

  53. Leo,

    Sorry…about posting the link. It took me sometime to read the rest of your post…AND you don’t have an “Edit” button.

    ex animo

    [ed. It’s OK to post links… I just want people to formulate their own questions and ask them… ie “Here is my question”… that works for me. All good. – Leo]

  54. Ernest Frank Says:

    Didn’t the parties concede plaintiff’s citizenship in Minor so that it was not an issue? If so, how does Minor advance the jurisprudence on “citizenship”?

    [ed. Virginia Minor didn’t accept the lower Courts’ assertion that she was a full citizen. She argued that she was being treated as a halfway citizen. Read my prior article on this issue here. All you need to do is read In re Lockwood decided 20 years after Minor, where the Supreme Court stated:

    “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;”

    “This Court held” = precedent. Done and dusted. Slam dunk. And this was the one case that was sabotaged at other sites besides Justia for that very reason, it’s on point, direct and in your face that Minor was a citizenship precedent case. – Leo]

  55. naturalborncitizen Says:

    We are having a good discussion about Minor v Happersett on Jonathan Turley’s blog right now.


  56. Ernest Frank Says:

    I disagree with your response and analysis.

    But doesn’t Wong Kim Ark make it clear that citizenship wasn’t decided in Minor, only that what plaintiff argued was one of the incidents of citizenship — the right to vote — was not guaranteed?

    [ed. No. You have it wrong. 20 years after Minor, the US Supreme Court decided In Re Lockwood, 154 US 116 (1894). The Court in Lockwood was not deciding anything to do with voting rights. The word “vote” does not even appear in that case. Here is the precedent from Minor cited by Lockwood

    ““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;”

    Like I said, Lockwood is nothing to do with voting. The word “vote” does not appear in the case. Lockwood is a citizenship case. Same for Luria v US which also cited Minor as precedent. And there are more cases as well. Those cases cite Minor as precedent on citizenship, not voting rights. Other cases, like City of Mobile v Bolden cite Minor for citizenship. – Leo]

    I don’t think Minor holds anything relating to NBC status.

    [ed. You are ignoring the following words from Minor v Happersett:

    “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.” – Leo]

    I think Wong Kim Ark is clearly controlling.

    [Ed. Nope. Wong Kim Ark cited Minor as precedent. Wong Kim Ark actually follows and agrees with Minor. Furthermore, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what each case decided. Minor defined citizenship under Article 2 Section 1, the nbc clause. It’s holding was that Virginia Minor was a natural-born citizen and therefore did not need the 14th Amendment to establish her citizenship. In Minor the Court noted that persons who were not nbc, may or may not be citizens and left their fate to another time. That time came in Wong Kim Ark where the Court held that WKA was a citizen under the 14th Amendment, not A2 S1. Minor is precedent on A2 S1 citizenship. WKA is precedent on 14th Amendment citizenship. The two cases compliment each other in that way. Furthermore, the Court in Minor also held that the 14th Amendment did not add any new privileges. Therefore, if one was not POTUS eligible before the 14th Amendment, that Amendment did not make any new persons POTUS eligible. This is perhaps the most important point with regard to the difference between Minor and WKA arguments pertaining to nbc status.- Leo]

    And I see nothing evil in a free site not hyperlinking accurately at a time when no one was researching this stuff except you.

    What’s the big deal?

    [ed. Not hyperlinking is not the crime in question. You have it backwards. Technically, the Justia hyperlinks worked, in that the links go to Minor. What they did do that was evil was cut the name of the case “Minor v Happersett” – the very words – right out of the text… in 25 cases. And they ALSO printed false legal citations, AND in some cases they removed statements of the Court. So, if one were to search for cases which had the name “Minor v Happersett” in them, one would not find such cases. And if one were to search the true citations, ie – “88 US 162” – one would not find the case that way either. Research was therefore thwarted. The hyperlinks worked fine. That’s a non-issue. It’s not that people couldn’t find Minor v Happersett at Justia, it’s that people couldn’t find cases which cited to Minor at Justia and at Google as well. Google powers Justia’s search engine and also feeds off Justia’s database. Furthermore, Justia did this BEFORE I was searching for anything. I didn’t begin my research until October 2008, but Justia started scrubbing in early 2008 before anybody was discussing this. Therefore, somebody at Justia was aware that Minor was a problem on POTUS eligibility and they took steps to handle the problem by sabotaging 25 cases. – Leo]

  57. Thank you. May you be richly blessed and the wind be always at your back.

    May your work be saved on so many computers far and wide that it will be impossible for it to be lost.

  58. Leo,

    “citizen parents”… “citizen parents”…”citizen parents” … that could mean mother and her mother citizens; couldn’t it…?

    ex animo

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: