JustiaGate: CEO Tim Stanley Admits Publishing “Mangled” Supreme Court Opinions – The Oyez Connection – SCOTUS Response.

On Oct. 24, 2011, in an interview with CNET, Justia CEO Tim Stanley finally spoke publicly to address JustiaGate.  This was four days after the release of my report concerning 25 US Supreme Court cases scrubbed by Justia at their “Supreme Court Center”.  Stanley admitted that the cases identified in that report had, in fact, been published in a corrupted manner.  The CNET report also indicates that the corruption of data was more widespread than we knew:

“Tim Stanley, told CNET today that some citations were mangled because of a programmer’s error…’The issue was not limited to the cases these folks are focused on.’ “

[See Dianna Cotter’s investigative report released earlier today, “JustiaGate: The Cover-Up Continues“, which dismantles Stanley’s regex defense.]

Prior to the CNET interview, the public was able to witness firsthand the progression of changes made to the 25 cases which cited Minor v. Happersett.  However, concurrently with the release of Tim Stanley’s only public comments on the matter, Justia also placed “robots.txt” code over their entire Supreme Court Center domain.  This drastic response withdrew from the Wayback Machine all previous snapshots of every Supreme Court opinion ever published by Justia, not just the 25 exposed here.

When asked about this cover up by CNET’s Senior Political Correspondent, Declan McCullagh, Stanley stated that the cases were removed,  “because they have errors in them, not to cover up this issue.”  But removal does, in fact, cover up the issue to the detriment of the public at large, and more specifically to the detriment of those who relied upon the false data.

In a separate report concerning Justia’s great influence over the online legal community (it’s impossible to hyper-link paid services such as Lexis and Westlaw) [UPDATED: Nov. 2, 2011Lexis does actually provide a free database for SCOTUS cases, but that service does NOT provide hyper-linked cases and Lexis versions of those cases do NOT appear in Google searches], a 21 minute audio interview with Stanley from Jan. 2007 emerged, wherein he made the following comments illustrating who the primary users of Justia are:

“The primary users of it tend to be lawyers or attorneys looking for legal information or looking for case-law, or looking for information from some of the legal blogs that are online. And the other sort of major group of users tends to be law students or other students in the college environment or high schools that are looking for information on the US Government and sort of how the court system works.

Obviously, the legal system does not work if cases are “mangled”.  Instead of hiding the corrupted data, Justia must publicly document the damage to each case so that those who visited Justia between 2008-2011 may know the falsehoods they relied upon.

Justia’s stated mission is, “To advance the availability of legal resources for the benefit of society“.  Hiding the evidence does not benefit anyone but Justia (and Obama).  It bears repeating that those cases remained altered for approximately three years.  And now that Stanley has removed previous versions of the cases from the Wayback Machine, there is no telling how many corrupted cases were fed to the public by Justia servers thereby affecting the national dialogue on POTUS eligibility and perhaps other important issues as well.

Justia must comprehensively inform the country as to the exact damage done to our national body of Supreme Court case law.

Because of the dire implications of this legal tragedy, Tim Stanley has a duty to reveal exactly how much false data was published disguised as genuine opinions of the United States Supreme Court.  Otherwise, for those who were misled, directly or indirectly (via news, blogs, comments, etc.), Justia’s versions usurped the law which therefore became subservient to Justia’s corruption. 

Not only attorneys were affected, students were too.  And students don’t have access to expensive paid services such as Lexis and Westlaw.  Justia would have been the last stop for those students.  They had no reason to question the authenticity of the corrupted cases.  Those who relied upon Justia’s “mangled” opinions are entitled to know the depth of the deception.  Only a complete documentation will enable those affected to change their documents and/or their minds according to the genuine opinions of the US Supreme Court rather than remaining in a state of educational subservience to Justia’s failures.

Instead, Stanley has taken the opposite approach and has covered his mistakes up by removing access to them from the Wayback Machine.  This deprives affected persons from knowing if their research at Justia was accomplished by using corrupted opinions.  The entire academic community, legal or otherwise, should demand a forthright revelation from Justia.


If Tim Stanley does not thoroughly document and release all of the “mangled” information, the US Supreme Court should firmly insist that he do so.  And not simply because the Court must be vigilant that its rulings be respected, but also because Justia gives the false appearance of being endorsed by the US Supreme Court.  Justia has created this false appearance by including the following header with every published US Supreme Court opinion, “US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez”  (click image to enlarge):

Justia is one of the prime benefactors of the Oyez Project:

“The Oyez Project at Chicago-Kent is a multimedia archive devoted to the Supreme Court of the United States and its work. It aims to be a complete and authoritative source for all audio recorded in the Court since the installation of a recording system in October 1955. “

While Oyez is listed at the US Supreme Court’s website as a source of Supreme Court information, Justia is not.

However, Justia has used its status as a prime benefactor of Oyez to piggy-back upon Oyez thereby giving the false impression that the US Supreme Court endorses Justia while it does not.

Justia’s ruse here is a sad attempt at buying a second-hand SCOTUS endorsement, and it’s another creepy example of the non-existent ethics emanating from Justia’s subversive servers.  Furthermore, Justia’s headers have implicated Oyez in the scandal, since the header implies both Justia and Oyez are responsible for having published the mangled cases.

Oyez does not publish a phone number at their site.  I left a message at the Oyez.org feedback box under the listed category of “erroneous information” which included the following query:

“Since every case published by Justia has a header which states, “US SUPREME COURT CASES BY JUSTIA & OYEZ”, Oyez is now implicated in the scandal.  I would appreciate a comment addressing both the scandal, and the header at Justia.” 

I will report back if the query is answered.


I initially received a candid and pointed response concerning the alleged subversive activity by Justia from a staffer at the US Supreme Court’s Public Information Office.  But, at this time, Patricia McCabe Estrada, Deputy Public Information Officer, has asked me not to print the original response, requesting that I print “no comment” instead.  Out of respect for the Court, I have refrained from publishing the initial comment.  I have faith the US Supreme Court will request that Justia bring the hidden information documenting the full extent of the mangled cases to the attention of the public so those who erroneously relied upon Justia’s corrupted versions of US Supreme Court rulings may know the truth of the law.

If the US Supreme Court does nothing more to address this scandal, I will publish the initial comment along with all of my correspondence between myself and the Deputy Public Information Officer since that correspondence acknowledges the prior comment, and bears witness to our email discussions concerning it.

Leo Donofrio, Esq.


28 Responses to “JustiaGate: CEO Tim Stanley Admits Publishing “Mangled” Supreme Court Opinions – The Oyez Connection – SCOTUS Response.”

  1. Good one, Leo!

  2. The damage this man has done to the Constitution and our country is incalculable. I hope they (find him guilty and) put him in prison for a very long time.

  3. borderraven Says:


  4. Leo,

    I have a question. The CRS memo, that’s the correct name of it, right? Is it still being investigated to see if Justia affected it?

    [ed. i think so. – Leo]

  5. KSFO Radio: Rubio; Obama; JustiaGate; Natural Born Citizen Scrubbed; Supreme Court Responds


  6. The “mangled” citations by Justia of SCOTUS Opinions is reminiscent of the “mangled” passage published by the DHS/USCIS in the “Citizens Almanac” M-76;

    ” Right to run for elected office.

    U.S. citizenship is required for many elected offices in this country.
    Naturalized U.S. citizens can run for any elected office they choose with the exception of President and Vice President of the United States, which require candidates to be native-born citizens.

    (emphasis added)

    In spite of repeated requests and appeals seeking info as to who and by what authority the term of words “native-born citizen” was used as if representative of the needs of the Constitution all replies stated that there is no info responsive to the FOIA requests.

    In this instance there is an identifiable individual who bares the ‘responsibility and accountability” and the harmed “parties” are not found only in the public at large but is also laid upon an Independent Branch of the Federal Guv’mnt, the Judiciary, and SCOTUS, specifically.

    The 1st and primary principle of our Constitutional Republic is the “accountability” of our Representatives and that accountability was not intended to be limited to the Ballot Box.

    The 2nd principle is that those who would be its Citizens are accountable to support, protect and defend the Institutions of Guv’mnt.

    The example I cited is witness to the breach of the 1st principle while the controversy you have uncovered shows a clear breach of the 2nd principle.

    It will be interesting to see if the SCOTUS steps up to ‘support,protect and defend’ its-self or decide that since it involves Minor v. it’s a ‘political question’ and invokes the Separation of Powers Doctrine by letting the “No Comment” statement to stand.

  7. You go Leo! But, as I said before, this is getting really hairy now. Please protect yourself and your info in a way that makes the snakes think twice about striking at your heel but compels them to slither back into their holes in order to hide from lawful retribution.

  8. Well what do you know.

    [Major support: National Science Foundation; Google Research; Sidley Austin, LLP; Jones Day, LLP; Justia]


  9. I find it very interesting that the SC Pat Estrada took the trouble to not only to respond to your phone call but also to be aware that someone else responded in a way that was uncomfortable for the court. That tells me they are watching. They are paying attention. And then you have to ask why. Why would they take any time at all to either answer a question from you,without a active case, (I’ll explain) and go as far as correcting a previous statement?

    Your case, according to the SC, was unimportant. They did not feel what you presented was worthy of a ruling. Why would they care if Minor v Happersett was missing from another website? Yet they felt it important enough to correct a statement from a staffer.

    I don’t like what I see going on with people in the US. Whatever happened to honesty? If someone with a website can surgically remove things that might hurt his candidate, where is this going to take us? Why doesn’t the SC make their rulings available to the public without taking a risk that someone with political motives might change their rulings. The SC needs to take a serious look at this and not worry so much about staffer statements.

    Unfortunately, the Justices are unreachable. It would be very difficult for anyone to inform the Justices of this matter.

  10. Tony Stark Says:

    Thank you, Leo, for pursuing this like a pit bull. Keep holding Stanley’s feet to the fire, and hopefully, he will eventually crack and reveal why he allowed this to happen.

  11. Attention Attorneys,
    If you have used Justia to research trial cases during the last three years, you should file civil suit against Justia and Stanley ASAP! The case would not have to involve Minor v Happersett at all. Stanley has just admitted liability because he claims that all of his cases were affected. Your case would need to get into discovery.

    Especially if your case did not involve Minor, you should sue. His only defense would be to claim that the mangled cases were only those involving Minor, plus a few others. Therefore, no harm, no foul – your case was not affected.

    Such a defense becomes an admission that they deliberately altered cases involving Minor.

    Can any attorney who has relied upon Justia for research file in state or federal court for a court order to prevent Justia from destruction of evidence? Are there other legal manuevers that might be utilized to put pressure on Justia?

    Would the use of the robots.txt file constitute criminal descruction of evidence, especially if they knew that usage of that file would cause the archive system to delete the historical files?

    Could a subpoena be issued to the archive company to find out if the files were really deleted or merely taken offline?

  12. TwinkleToes Says:


    I read today’s Examiner article and agree with everything the professor said. One other thing I’d point out also is this. They provided a code screenshot in the original CNET article which contained programmer comments that suggested that this “bug” only affected Supreme Court cases. This immediatly causes a logical dilemma for them though. First, if this regex filter is applied to all cases there is no reason the “bug” would only effect Supreme Court references and cases. And if this particular regex filter was only used on Supreme Court cases the programmers would have no need to mention in the comments that it only effected Supreme Court cases…that would be obvious from the fact that it’s ONLY USED on Supreme Court cases…lol.

    So either the bug is selective of high profile cases dealing with specific issues, or the code screenshot was created for the article and the comments added for the benefit of the reader and not the programmers who comments are intended for.

  13. charlotte Says:

    No-one could/will EVER trust Justia as a legal source anymore because of the way they redacted and fiddled with online cases. They have soiled their own nest and proved to be dishonest and sly. I think people will rely on Lexus etc via friends, colleagues, family from now on. Certainly no lawyer/legal will use Justia as a source now.They have screwed their own business up. If they were hoping to help Obama in a natural born citizen case, they have also screwed up, since another issue has now come forward/been revealed.

  14. Leo,
    Justia CEO Tim Stanley has admitted to a “mistake”, a “human error”, but we know differently.

    If Tim Stanley ever admits to this being done for a purpose, for what purpose and at whose urging? Of those orbiting around Tim Stanley’s world, who would have the most to gain?

    ex animo


  16. Leo, Help me out with expressing the ‘legal’ ramifications of the Minor decision as it relates to the ‘transient political aspects’ of natural born Citizen as it relates to a POTUS and or POTUS candidate.

    Minor sought the right of suffrage in her State for both local and National Elections in challenge to her States Laws.

    In order to determine if the 14th provided for the right of suffrage the Court determined it was 1st necessary to determine Minor’s Citizenship status and how that status was derived.

    Through investigation and deduction it was determined that Minor was a Citizen by operation of the terms of the Original Text of the Constitution and specifically of the nature of Citizen contemplated by the Preamble and A2S1C5, that being a natural born Citizen.

    My question relates to the fact that in spite of Minor not seeking any ‘political office’ it was necessary for the Court to determine her Citizenship status in order to determine what Citizenship” benefits she may or may not be entitled to.

    Therefore, does that establish the FACT that the subject of ‘natural born Citizen” is a matter of “Citizenship” in the 1st instant with any ‘transient political aspects’ being secondary and ONLY of import after the determination has been made regarding any particular individual….?

    How would that be best expressed, in legal jargon, for the purpose of asserting as a proposition of law….?

    [ed. I am preparing a blog post on this very issue. Stay tuned… – Leo]

  17. Leo,
    Please don’t post this if you wish. As I will understand entirely. It’s just that the more that I think about this, and then what could have happened with other law students or other cases, it surely does tick me off, and that’s putting it nicely.

    I have read so much into this from FR in talking about computer programming errors, as well from the Examiner article. I don’t see in any way whatsoever that this could have been a simple “error.” No, it was a deliberate act, and it’s serious. Maybe Justia doesn’t realize how serious it is, but there needs to be a serious investigation done. And I see Obots making light of this, yet they don’t really understand what they’re saying.

    So, what do you think will happen in regards to this? The least thing that could happen is Justia losing their reputation. I don’t know how many attorneys or law students will trust them after this. No joke! I wouldn’t, but it needs to be brought to light.

    Kind regards & thanks for your work on this,


  18. Leo,

    You can print it if you wish. I’m so p*ssed off about the law students that have probably used Justia’s resources and how they may have messed-up studies now and understandings of their cases. How could this affect them? Nothing worse than trying to learn something, and then you think you’re getting the truth, then later that’s it’s false.

  19. borderraven Says:


    I’ve used and trusted FindLaw as a source of Minor and Elg.

    Are you aware of any reliability issues with regards to FindLaw?

  20. Voco Indubium Says:

    RE: TS-80 –

    “KSFO Radio: Rubio; Obama; JustiaGate; Natural Born Citizen Scrubbed; Supreme Court Responds

    Difficult to believe that the good Rabi has not heard about this. He said months ago that he is aware of the eligibility-movement, but he does not believe that it is possible and practical to correct the 2008-election results. (Paraphrased.)

    It is more likely that he is not allowed to talk about this subject, forbidden by management of KSFO. KSFO is a conservative radio station, priding itself protecting the constitution, but not a single host speaks about the eligibility issue, currently.

    Michael Savage was a host there also. He interviewed Berg or Andy Martin (not sure which) and Orly also, years ago. Michael is no longer with KSFO. Left a year ago, or so, and went to less known station.

  21. Dan Goodman Says:

    I would like to add the following:

    In my work entitled “Natural (Native) Born Citizen Defined” (online), which was done in the year 2009, I have in Footnote 5 and Footnote 6 the following:

    (Text) A citizen of the United States is no longer a citizen of the Union; that is, the United States of America, but now is a citizen of the United States (Fourteenth Amendment), that is a citizen of the territories and possessions of the United States, including the District of Columbia as well as federal enclaves (Footnote 4), (Footnote 5), whereas a citizen of the several States is a citizen of the Union; that is, the United States of America. (Footnote 6) The proper question to be asked is if a citizen of the United States, after the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, can be considered a native born citizen (natural born citizen) eligible to be President of the United States of America?

    (fn 5) “To determine, then, who were citizens of the United States before the adoption of the [14th] amendment it is necessary to ascertain what persons originally associated themselves together to form the nation, and what were afterwards admitted to membership. Looking at the Constitution itself we find that it was ordained and established by ‘THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES,’ and then going further back, we find that these were the people of the several States that had before dissolved the political bands which connected them with Great Britain, and assumed a separate and equal station among the powers of the earth, and that had by Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, in which they took the name of ‘the United States of America,’ entered in to a firm league of friendship with each other for their common defence, the security of their liberties and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other against all force offered to or attack made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretence whatever.

    Whoever, then, was one of the people of either of these States when the Constitution of the United States was adopted, became ipso facto a citizen – a member of the nation created by its adoption. He was one the persons associating together to form the nation, and was, consequently, one of its original citizens. As to this there has never been a doubt. Disputes have arisen as to whether or not certain persons or certain classes of persons were part of the people at the time, but never as to their citizenship if they were.” Minor v. Happersett: 88 U.S. 162, 167 (1874).

    (fn 6) “Beyond question, a state may, through judicial proceedings take possession of the assets of an insolvent foreign corporation within its limits, and distribute such assets or their proceeds among creditors according to their respective rights. But may it exclude citizens of other states from such distribution until the claims of its own citizens shall have been first satisfied? In the administration of the property of an insolvent foreign corporation by the courts of the state in which it is doing business, will the Constitution of the United States permit discrimination against individual creditors of such corporations because of their being citizens of other states, and not citizens of the state in which such administration occurs? . . . .
    We hold such discrimination against citizens of other states to be repugnant to the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution of the United States, although, generally speaking, the state has the power to prescribe the conditions upon which foreign corporations may enter its territory for purposes of business. Such a power cannot be exerted with the effect of defeating or impairing rights secured to citizens of the several states by the supreme law of the land. Indeed, all the powers possessed by a state must be exercised consistently with the privileges and immunities granted or protected by the Constitution of the United States. . . . .

    We must not be understood as saying that a citizen of one state is entitled to enjoy in another state every privilege that may be given in the latter to its own citizens. There are privileges that may be accorded by a state to its own people in which citizens of other states may not participate except in conformity to such reasonable regulations as may be established by the state. For instance, a state cannot forbid citizens of other states from suing in its courts, that right being enjoyed by its own people; but it may require a nonresident, although a citizen of another state, to give bond for costs, although such bond be not required of a resident. Such a regulation of the internal affairs of a state cannot reasonably be characterized as hostile to the fundamental rights of citizens of other states. So, a state may, by rule uniform in its operation as to citizens of the several states, require residence within its limits for a given time before a citizen of another state who becomes a resident thereof shall exercise the right of suffrage or become eligible to office. It has never been supposed that regulations of that character materially interfered with the enjoyment by citizens of each state of the privileges and immunities secured by the Constitution to citizens of the several states. The Constitution forbids only such legislation affecting citizens of the respective states as will substantially or practically put a citizen of one state in a condition of alienage when he is within or when he removes to another state, or when asserting in another state the rights that commonly appertain to those who are part of the political community known as THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES, by and for whom the government of the Union was ordained and established. Blake v. McClung: 172 US. 239, 247-248, 254-255, 256-257 (1898).

    After I placed this article online, the case of Blake v. McClung, was altered on the Justia.com website. Before, it read as it does in the bounded volumes of the United States Reports (of the Supreme Court of the United States). However, after (and now) it reads as follows:

    “. . . So a state may, by rule uniform in its operation as to citizens of the several states, require residence within its limits for a given time before a citizen of another state, who becomes a resident thereof, shall exercise the right of suffrage or become eligible to office. It has never been supposed that regulations of that character materially interfered with the enjoyment by citizens of each State of the privileges and immunities secured by the Constitution to citizens of the several states. The Constitution forbids only such legislation affecting citizens of the respective states as will substantially or practically put a citizen of one state in a condition of alienage when he is within or when he removes to another state, or when asserting in another state the rights that commonly appertain to those who are part of the political community known as THE THE UNITED STATES, by and for whom the government of the Union was ordained and established.”

    The words “PEOPLE OF” have been removed.

    I am of the opinion that this was done intentionally. A primary source such as Justia should be considered a reliable service in providing accurate documentation relating to the opinions issued by the Supreme Court of the United States. Its representations of the opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States should be the same as the opinions appear in the standard; that is, the bounded volumes (with the exception of recent decisions, which being bench opinions, then slip opinions, should be replaced with the official and final versions later).

  22. Kittycat said, “I have a question. The CRS memo, that’s the correct name of it, right? Is it still being investigated to see if Justia affected it?” to which you replied:
    [ed. i think so. – Leo]

    FYI, I am researching this, and have filed a FOIA request. I won’t detail the request here yet. However, I’ll post updates if and when I have something definitive to tell you.

  23. Thanks, Erica, and I appreciate your response.

  24. Clark Hamblin Says:

    Leo, Sir, I fear you misunderstood my request for help. I do not wish you to represent me in my forthcoming action. This will not be an action in federal court as this is a state superior court challenge by state statute, wholly and singularly pursuant to ARS 16-351(B) “Any elector may challenge a candidate for any reason relating to qualifications for the office sought as prescribed by law, including age, residency or professional requirements, if applicable.”.

    Here are my first questions for you.

    1. Am I wrong in the presumption that this shall be a state case rather than a federal case being that the Supreme Court of the U.S. has already confirmed the original intent of the phrase “natural born citizen” in the series of historical cases which you have laid out here in this blog, therefore not a constitutional question but rather a question of established law, and that the action to challenge is under state statute and wherein the question is not for a determination of the meaning of “nbc”, but rather whether “O” meets the “qualifications for the office sought as prescribed by law” (ARS 16-351(B) above) pursuant to the Article II, Sec. 1 clause 5 provision of the U.S. Constitution. Particularly since the Az. Constitution states at Article 2, section 3, “The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land. “, and at Az. Constitution, Article 2, section 32, “The provisions of this Constitution are mandatory, unless by express words they are declared to be otherwise. “?

    [ed. Yes, it’s a state case which can be appealed, after going to the highest court in Arizona, to the SCOTUS. – Leo]

    2. Is my realization that my timing was off by referring to the fraud I accused in 2009 perpetrated by “O” on the 2008 required ARS 16-242 (Qualifications for ballot; nomination paper) was not allowed under state statute due to ARS 16-242(C), ” Section 16-351 does not apply to a nomination paper filed pursuant to this section.” and being that we in Az. do not have a “primary” (a state election) for Presidential Candidate nomination but rather a “Presidential Preference Election” ( a political party election, a Republican can not vote on a Democrat ballot ) which is then, by state statute, an ARS Title 16, Chapter 3, Article 5 “Nomination Other Than by Primary”?

    3. Would it be correct then, in light of the foregoing, if true, that ARS 16-301 – Nomination of candidates for printing on official ballot of general or special election, applies as stated,
    “At a primary election, each political party entitled and intending to make nominations for the ensuing general or special election shall, if it desires to have the names of its candidates printed on the official ballot at such general or special election, nominate its candidates for all elective, senatorial, congressional, state, judicial, county and precinct offices to be filled at such election except as provided in section 16-344.” and thus

    16-344 – Office of presidential elector; appointment by state committee chairman
    “A. The chairman of the state committee of a political party which is qualified for representation on an official party ballot at the primary election and accorded a column on the general election ballot shall appoint candidates for the office of presidential elector equal to the number of United States senators and representatives in Congress from this state and shall file for each candidate with the secretary of state, not less than ninety days or more than one hundred twenty days before the primary election, by 5:00 p.m. on the last day for filing:”?

    4. Would it be correct then, in light of the foregoing, if true, that ARS 16-804 – Continued representation on basis of votes cast at last preceding general election or registered electors –
    “A. A political organization that at the last preceding general election cast for governor or presidential electors [ voted for on Primary election ballot] or for county attorney or for mayor, whichever applies, not less than five per cent of the total votes cast for governor or presidential electors, in the state or in such county, city or town, is entitled to representation as a political party on the official ballot for state officers or for officers of such county or local subdivision.’, would apply?

    5. I requested of the SOS an explanation of how a candidate moves from presentation on a ballot in the “Presidential Preference Election’ to presentation on the “General Election” ballot in the State of Arizona. I was sent a pdf file titled “Edward”. It was a page that bore the seal of the state an was headed “Jan Brewer, Secretary of State, State of Arizona” , titled “Party Nomination – President and Vice President” under that it cited ARS 16-344 and stated “the filing period for presidential electors begins May 5, 2008 and ends June 4, 2008 at 5:00p.m. Each 10 electors appointed by the state committee chairman must file a nomination paper.”.

    THE IMPORTANT PART of that paper was in bold type at the bottom and reads as follows:

    “Arizona law does not prescribe a deadline for filing of notification of party nominations for the presidential election. Therefore, the Secretary of State’s office has established an administrative deadline for appropriate paperwork to be filed with this office for the 2008 presidential election.

    As soon as possible after the national convention, we need to have an official notification from the party providing the names of the President and Vice-President nominees. For administrative purposes, the filing deadline is September 9, 2008.”.

    A second pdf was sent to me that was the Democratic National Committee “Official Certification Of Nomination” nominating Obama and Biden. Contrary to reports, this paper sent to me by the Az. SOS does not state that they are Constitutionally eligible. It is signed by Nancy Pelosi and Alice Germond.

    6. In review of all of the foregoing, am I wrong that the timing has to be after the filing of the party “Official Certification Of Nomination” filed with the SOS and pursuant to ARS 16-351(A), “Any elector filing any court action challenging the nomination of a candidate as provided for in this chapter shall do so no later than 5:00 p.m. of the tenth day, excluding Saturday, Sunday and other legal holidays, after the last day for filing nomination papers and petitions. [ the following being not applicable to the intended action] The elector shall specify in the action the petition number, line number and basis for the challenge for each signature being challenged. Failure to specify this information shall result in the dismissal of the court action. Within ten days after the filing of the action, the superior court shall hear and render a decision on the matter. Such decision shall be appealable only to the supreme court, and notice of appeal shall be filed within five days after the decision of the superior court in the action. The supreme court shall hear and render a decision on the appeal promptly. ”

    I will check back and have further questions to be addressed after the issue of standing has been reviewed by you as presented above.

    As always, respectfully and in the service of my Lord, Jesus.
    Clark (abba’s obedient mule) Hamblin

    [ed. -why do you keep referring back to the ’08 election? I am confused. What is your strategy going forward. please explain. – Leo]

  25. Well, for what it’s worth, I filed my challenge today against Barack Hussein Obama ll with the SOS of Georgia.

    It may not go far considering I am a registered Republican and. therefore, not an elector of Barack Obama in the primary. But I’ll send it again later on after the DNC convention; I guess.

    I already have the AC telling me he can’t tell me when the two week period starts or finishes.

    I’ll keep everybody updates.

    Below in my letter:

    address removed

    Nov. 9, 2011

    The Honorable Brian P. Kemp
    Georgia Secretary of State
    Elections Division
    214 State Capital
    Atlanta, Georgia 30334

    RE: Complaint Challenging the Qualifications of Barack Hussein Obama II for Re-election to the Office of the Presidency of the United States

    Dear Secretary Kemp,

    My name is David Farrar. I live at XXXX XXXXX, Georgia xxxxx. The aforementioned address is my personal residence, and I am a registered voter and elector at that address in XXXX County, Georgia.

    Pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5, I hereby challenge the qualifications of Barack Hussein Obama II to be placed on the Democratic Presidential Preference Primary Ballot of March 6, 2012, and/or on the November 6, 2012 general election ballot for said office.  This challenge is proper and ripe under O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5, as Barack Obama is a candidate for federal office who has been certified by the state executive committee of the Democratic Party of Georgia in their letter of November 1, 2011, and as the deadline for notifying the Secretary of State of candidacy for the Presidential Primary ballot is on November 1, 2011, as set in O.C.G.A. § 21-2-193.

    On information and belief, and in support of this challenge to Mr. Obama’s qualifications, I respectfully show as follows:

    (1) The official state certified birth certificate proffered by Barack Obama contains a factual inconsistency and other anomalies that calls into question the veracity of the rest of the information contained within said document.

    (2) Barack Obama has not adequately proven that he was born a natural born citizen of the United States.

    (3) Barack Obama’s father, Barack Obama Sr., was never a citizen of the United States and, at the time of his son’s birth, was not a permanent resident of the United States. Consequently, Barack Obama was born to only one parent who was a U.S. citizen or U.S. permanent resident.

    (4) By his own admission, and under the British Nationality Act of 1948, Barack Obama was born a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, and from 1963 until at least 1984 was also a citizen of the Republic of Kenya.

    (5) Due to his dual citizenship with the United Kingdom and with Kenya, Barack Obama was born with dual allegiances to foreign nations other than the United States of America.

    (6) Such additional evidence as may be shown at the hearing of this case.

    It therefore appears that Barack Obama does not meet the Constitutional requirements for seeking and holding the office of President of the United States because:

    (a) Mr. Obama is not a natural born citizen, as required by Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution.

    Accordingly, I challenge Mr. Obama’s qualifications to seek and hold the office of President of the United States on these grounds. I respectfully request that you notify Mr. Obama of this challenge and that you are requesting a hearing before a judge of the Office of State Administrative Hearings.

    Ex animo,

    David Farrar

    1. Original: Overnight delivery
    2. 1st copy Faxed
    3. 2nd copy emailed

    [ed. it’s a well written letter and an act of patriotism in putting yourself out there for what you believe. – Leo]

  26. Thanks, Leo; that means a lot to me. But an Atlanta attorney helped out a whole lot.

    ex animo

  27. Leo is this relevant? http://www.citizens4freedom.com/Articles/tabid/1387/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/6247/US-Supreme-Court-Has-Ruled-on-Obamas-Eligibility.aspx#.TsFlULtTwuc.facebook

    Isn’t it just a matter of having settled law upheld?

    [ed. see my next article on MInor… coming soon. – Leo]

    Rob from Guam

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: