JustiaGate: Keep Scrubbing, Stanley…You Missed a Few Spots.

[UPDATED: Nov. 18, 2011 9:28 A.M. See new RULES for posting comments.]

[UPDATED: Nov. 6, 2011 11:53 AMSee New RULES on posting comments.]

Justia.com published corrupted versions of 25 US Supreme Court opinions pertaining to the issue of POTUS eligibility.  (See previous JustiaGate reports here, here, here and here.)  Admitting that many Supreme Court cases had, in fact, been “mangled”, Justia CEO Tim Stanley told CNET on Oct. 24, 2011:

“When we discovered the issue, we corrected the script and the cases now render correctly.”

But it’s now apparent that Justia missed a few rather large spots cleaning up their mess.  This morning, I received a comment by prolific Constitutional researcher, Dan Goodman, who published an article entitled, “Natural (native) Born Citizen Defined“, on Aug. 22, 2009 at the Social Science Research Network.  (This post does not intend to comment upon the conclusions of Goodman’s article.)  In that report, Goodman quotes directly from the United States Supreme Court in BLAKE v. MCCLUNG, 172 U.S. 239, 256-257 (1898):

“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.” (Emphasis added.  Link to FindLaw version of case.)

Mr. Goodman’s comment (cross posted at The Real Revo) states that since his article was published, Justia sabotaged the quote:

“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)…

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…”

The current version at Justia does, in fact, strip the words “People of” from the Court’s opinion.  Here is the text as currently published at Justia (which has been documented by myself, Mr. Goodman and Cindy Simpson of American Thinker):

“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.”  (Emphasis added.)

Here is a screenshot of the current Justia page.

This is a particularly egregious example of legal sabotage in that it removes actual text from the opinion, not just a citation.  This is a textbook example illustrating how drastically a legal precedent can be altered by the simple removal of two words.  Such removal corrupts the official Supreme Court opinion by changing the meaning of this most important quote which highlights the superiority of the People over the government.  The text removed exhibits a furious contempt for we the People held by whoever is pulling Tim Stanley’s puppet strings. 

The Supreme Court in Blake v. McClung clearly states that the government was “ordained and established” for ” the People of the United States”.  But the Justia sabotage makes it appear as if the Supreme Court is declaring that the political community is the government itself and not the People.  Notice that “People” is capitalized by the US Supreme Court, while “government” is not.  No wonder this particular passage was “mangled”… and remains so as of this morning.

The power is in the People, not the government.  The government was created to serve the People, not the other way around which is what Justia is peddling with this false quote.

Dan Goodman states that the case was originally published by Justia to include the full text.  And Goodman testifies that the sabotage took place after he published his paper. I do not have access to prior versions of Blake v. McClung published by Justia since they’ve scrubbed the prior versions from the web.  Perhaps Dan Goodman saved them.  I have written to him in this regard.

While claiming that an innocent coding error was behind the mangled cases, Justia simultaneously removed all access to prior snapshots of previous Justia versions of Supreme Court cases at the Wayback Machine.

Justia must be pressured to unblock access to the Wayback Machine for every Supreme Court case published by Justia.  Researchers needs to know if the versions of cases they previously relied on at Justia were genuine or if they were infected with false data reeking of subversive propaganda.  It’s time the US Supreme Court spoke up.  It’s time the US Supreme Court heard from we the People as well.

We can see right now that Justia missed this bit of scrubbing as of this morning.  So Tim Stanley’s statement to CNET’s Declan McCullagh was not true.  We shall see whether McCullagh follows up to correct the record.

But the “errors” don’t stop there.  More scrubbing is necessary, Tim.  Happy hunting.

Leo Donofrio, Esq.


43 Responses to “JustiaGate: Keep Scrubbing, Stanley…You Missed a Few Spots.”

  1. And down and down and down it goes, into the memory hole, and where it stops, and where it stops, nobody, nobody knows…

  2. naturalborncitizen Says:

    The link wasn’t working for me earlier this morning, but Dan Goodman also posted the comment to the Liberal Whopper blog…


  3. Changing history one step at a time. The progressives have been on target since the Wilson years.

  4. Leo:

    Even if prior versions of Blake v McClung are not attainable at this time, Dan Goodman’s testimony-his article-and the written volumes of the Supreme Court Opinions is adequate evidence when comparing Justia’s scrubbing of Blake v McClung. It also corroborates what you found in the 25-cases.

    Look at the last words of Justia scubbing:

    “…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.” (Emphasis added.)

    The “by and for whom the government of the Union was ordained and established” certainly is a non-sequitur. It is illogical in every way, historical or otherwise, to assert that the government ordained the Union. The subject of “by and for whom…” can only mean We the People!!!

    To make any logic out of the removal all the words following United States should have been removed.

    Certainly, “The text removed exhibits a furious contempt for we the People held by whoever is pulling Tim Stanley’s puppet strings.”

    This is diabolical to core! It not only implies desire to destroy the Republic iself, but also the People of the Republic.

  5. How, exactly, did “as the the United States” alter the holding (corporation not covered by the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or of the comity clause of Article IV)?

    How, exactly, is Blake v. McClung related to Minor v. Happersett?

    [ed. In this case, Goodman’s article about the definition of natural born citizen cited the SCOTUS in Blake. So it appears now that the erasure of text was not just limited to Minor but reaches more broadly across the POTUS eligibility spectrum. The clipping diverts from the truth that we the People rule the government, that it is there for us, that we control it and we can crack the whip over it anytime we so choose to take such power. But hey, why don’t you ask the people who are responsible for it being clipped. Im sure you’ll get a candid forthright answer. Please report back when you have done so. Much appreciated. – Leo]

  6. TwinkleToes Says:


    Have you presented your research to Sheriff Joe Arpaio? As I’m sure you know he’s undertaking an investigation on Obama’s eligibility ranging from SSN concerns to the BC to the definition of A2S1 NBC. I know you aren’t concerned with the former, but you have the best evidence available concerning the latter.


  7. Chicago Jesuit Loyola Unitversity, Sidley Austin Law Firm, Commercial Club of Chicago and Catholic sinecures in the Federal judiciary what else does anyone need to know to properly use light polls!

  8. Mike Novak Says:

    Leo, I loved your last line,

    “But the “errors” don’t stop there. More scrubbing is necessary, Tim. Happy hunting.”

    I’ll bet Tim Stanley has his folks working overtime to cover up what you seem to already know. This whole investigation just reeks of brilliance! Excellent work.

  9. Leo:

    I need to add a follow-up:

    Every word written in a Supreme Court Opinion is there for a good reason, and the Justices want it that way!

    I have argued with a blogger who says that Wong Kim Ark was a natural born Citizen, but the case says nothing to that effect and exactly the opposite.

  10. Need I tell anyone here that justia is a liberal or socialist organization bent on destroying the US Constitution and implementing one world government .

  11. Leo,

    Previously I suggested that a guest editorial by you in Investor’s Business Daily might be a good idea, and you replied you would consider writing one if IBD invited you to do so.

    Last night I sent a generic query to the IBD editors asking if they would consider publishing an unsolicited editorial. They replied moments ago saying “We will consider an op-ed.”

    No one understands this historic sabotage better than you. You are the brains behind this discovery. If anyone other than you attempts to submit an op-ed to IBD about Justia, there is a risk that the facts might get mangled and the importance of the message lost. Therefore, I hope you will reconsider, and follow through while the issue is still hot. IBD’s contact information is below.

    Online contact form:

    [ed. I wrote to them, haven’t heard anything back. – Leo]

  12. cedartree Says:

    To hell with kindle, which will facilitate massive amounts of rewording of history.

  13. If ‘Minor’ is supposed to be binding precedent, how come 20 years later the jurists or lawyers in ‘Wong KIm’ never even mentioned that case to support any of their arguments. And wouldn’t ‘Wong Kim”, since it was adjudicated well after ‘Minor’, be considered the authoritative order? Thanks for clearing this up.

    [ed. You must read the case more carefully… Minor is cited by the majority in Wong Kim Ark, and whereas Justice gray’s opinion in Wong Kim Ark goes to great detail discussing that a certain statement in the Slaughterhouse Cases (where the Court said persons born of alien parents were not citizens) is dicta, he makes no such allegation as to Minor which he cites to approvingly. Furthermore, while Wong Kim Ark is the authority on the definition of 14th Amendment citizenship, Minor is authority on the definition of Article 2 section 1 and federal citizenship before the 14th Amendment. Both cases stand for different precedents. Both cases stand for different routes to citizenship. They work together. Minor has NEVER been overruled for either the citizenship precedent or its voting rights precedent and has been cited approvingly for both ever since. Neither case contradicts the other. Furthermore, the SCOTUS in In re Lockwood stated that Minor was precedent on citizenship and Justice Gray was on the Court at the time In re Lockwood was decided. – Leo]

  14. OK Leo you’ve done a fine job so far. It’s time to organize some teams to search Stanley’s archives and compare them with other similar services and look for more changes to SCOTUS opinions. There are several softwares available to compare documents for differences. Heck, even a word count would do the trick. Anyone have any more suggestions so that we can string this guy up on his own petard? This guy ought to at least lose his Computer Professional for Social Responsibility membership.

  15. naturalborncitizen Says:

    Based upon Pixel Patriot’s latest on the NY State BOE scandal, wherein he lays out a case for the Internet Archive being complicit, I don’t think we can trust any pending removal of robots.txt by Justia… not that any such removal is pending as far as I can tell. The strategy seems to be keep quiet and hope it goes away.

    Kevin (pixel patriot) has discovered that the NYS Board of Elections changed the listed POTUS qualifications at the .gov site to “born a citizen” thereby overruling the US Constitution for ballot access in NY.

    While Pixel Patriot’s article implicates the Internet Archive, his DoS problem indicates to me that a hack of the Internet Archive may also have been possible. Either way, Kevin has proved that something happened not according to normal Internet Archive policy. Everyone should brush up on his work as it may become very relevant in the days ahead….


  16. The the united states at first struck me as a eye-over, but when I checked the screenshot it appears the same. Lazy scrubber gets rid of people but not the definite article. Viola, l ,ordre du jour.

  17. You must understand why the words “The People” are so dangerous to our current form of Government. We no longer live in a Constitutional Republic, we live in a Plutarchy. This case renders Chapter 11 of all FTAs, unconstitutional. People looking for reasons to dissuade Mr. Obama from signing the current three FTAs with Panama, South Korea and Columbia could have argued that he was signing away US Sovereign Immunity Shields yet again. Every FTA signed, regardless of administration, has willingly signed away national sovereignty and has given superior rights and privileges to Global/Multinational investors over American citizens and US investors. With each new FTA, we have been shifted from a Constitutional Republic with full Sovereign rights and protections, to a subset of a Global Plutarchy. The US Supreme Court is rendered superfluous by NAFTA Chapter 11, as well as all the other FTAs. An FTA tribunal will decide all issues that were formally reserved for domestic state and federal courts when it comes to global investor superior rights and the ability to sue for ‘regulatory takings’ that will affect THEORETICAL not actual profits.

    It would seem that these changes are being done with specific calculation.

    Global investors with no allegiance to the US have been given greater rights than American citizens and we have been stripped of our rights to due process and equal protection under the law. Start watching the TransCanada Keystone Pipeline v Nebraska activities. That will be active confirmation that your rights and guarantees under the US Constitution have been abridged in favor of NAFTA.

    Mr. Obama will be the one to sign the go ahead to abridge environmental protections and due process in favor of TransCanada under Chapter 11 and the threat of lawsuit brought outside of US Courts.


    The past few years have been a disaster for our Constitutional Republic with regard to finding redress. Some have noted that the mechanisms by which we field candidates for presidential office is without accountable parties. Mr. Donofrio held that his Secretary of State should not place on a ballot those that were obviously ineligible and others that had severe reservation. The FEC of recent held that the Congress was the officiating party, “Arguments concerning qualifications or lack thereof can be laid before the voting public before the election and, once the election is over, can be raised as objections as the electoral votes are counted in Congress. The members of the Senate and the House of Representatives are well qualified to adjudicate any objections to ballots for allegedly unqualified candidates.” And recently the Liberty Legal Foundation aims to hold the DNC accountable for the certification of their candidate on the primacy of the MvH’s binding legal precedent irrespective of any birth certificate.

    The revelation of Mr. Donofrio’s research is noted in my reply to an article at American Thinker; “The reality of Justiagate is twofold. The first is a matter of the present proof that prior to the election that sharp legal minds of the liberal left were aware of the relevance of MvH and were willing to undermine the Constitution for political gain. In that same vein, it is reprehensible those same persons ridiculed and mocked the so called “birfers” that had doubts who did not yet have the clarity of the binding legal precedence found in the court’s decision. The second matter is obvious vindication of the “birfers” that valid doubt in the question even existed and was not merely a distraction of proof of birth in the US or subtleties of John Jay and Vattel. Mr. Donofrio et al are due a significant debt of gratitude for bringing this all to light.” Perhaps my analysis is flawed, but I think it particularly true in most regards.

    We are a nation of laws and courts. In the case of presidential eligibility the law states that presidents and vice-presidents are to be natural born citizens. The MvH court specified in no uncertain terms what it considered the eligibility phrase to mean. In the past 140 years, no court has changed that interpretation. Mr. Donofrio eloquently speaks for us all in our expectation that the respective state secretaries, national convention committees, and our congress uphold such until rescinded. Thanks very much, Leo.

    Peace and love.

  19. Are you saying Justia intentionally removed “people of” from Blake because Goodman cited that case in a footnote in his article on natural-born citizenship, which concluded birth in the United States is sufficient for natural-born citizenship?

    [ed. Im saying that the words were removed, and that is a fact… whether they were removed before or after Goodman’s article, I cannot say because Justia has blocked access to the Wayback Machine. That act of removing public access to previous versions is not reversible in that whatever may be revealed in the future if the robots.txt blocking subsides might reflect hacked or edited versions of prior snapshots which may be going on since the information has been blocked (see Pixel Patriot’s latest)… so, while Mr. Goodman indicates that the words “People of” were removed after he published, I have no way of verifying the timing of such removal. I am grateful that he pointed this removal out to us, and I have no reason to doubt that his version of the timeline of the removal is accurate. Had Justia not blocked access, we would be able to see the timing with our own eyes. – Leo]

  20. With the discovery of excisions of text in two different issues, one can assume that several opinions have been tampered with. look further.

  21. A Crazy Old Coot Says:

    In my opinion, this means that nothing Justia documents can be trusted to be truthful.

    I’m not smart enough to be able to say what should be done, but I put them on the same level as snopes. Nothing can be trusted.

  22. I think leo has a talent that goes beyond being a simple legal researcher. A lot of people who track this blog closely seem to have strong political interests. I think that detracts from his genius….even though my political leanings align with many here.

    the political wrapper of this issue is preventing it from achieving it’s proper destination.

    i could be wrong but that is my current opinion. proponents of this issue need to find non-political ways of expressing the importance of it.

    can we take it up a notch here? also, you lazy…[ed. snip… no insults B – Leo]… get off your asses and calmly, rationally bring this issue to light.

    ok, i apologize, that was a bit dogmatic of a post. but f you if you don’t agree with me. ah, just j/k.

  23. Clark Hamblin Says:

    I plead with you Leo, call me, I have established standing. It is all a matter of timing and I have found the timing! I will not be deceived again. Obama must go. Sir, I wish you to help me save this great nation , I will not be enslaved, I will live free or die trying to. You know me, we have talked before. My case in 2009 was in the District Court of Arizona (CV 09-00410-PHX-ROS) and I did not bring a case other than the fact that Obama was a DUAL NATIONAL and thus not eligible to POTUS. Please sir, I need you.
    Clark Hamblin, Qualified Elector of the State of Arizona pursuant to ARS 16- 121(A).

    [ed. Clark, I cannot represent you in Arizona as I am not admitted there, nor do I ever intend on placing one foot in a federal court room again if I have any say in the matter. Submit your question here and I will try to answer. – leo]

  24. lightyourcandle12 Says:

    Leo, Did you depend on Justia for your research in your lawsuits? If you did, can’t you file a lawsuit against Justia for damages. This may be the way to get at the NBC issue again or at least sue Justia for damages, cause you were damaged in your case. Go for punitive damages.. All the best to you. I know you won’t willingly go back into Federal court. But this may be a money maker for you…

    [ed. I did use Justia, but I am an attorney and I would therefore not blame Justia for anything I filed in court. Still, many influential lawyers and reporters have cited Justia in their web posts since Justia can be hyper-linked whereas the paid cites for Lexis and Westlaw cannot. I did rely on Justia for many blog posts and comments. Their activity corrupted the national debate which is far more crucial than my single law suit. – Leo]

  25. lightyourcandle12 Says:

    Oh Leo, I forgot to ask, did you use Minor vs Happersett in your lawsuits? I know I could go back into the past of you site and read, but you know and could let us know. Thanks.

    [ed. I only had one law suit, and it was based upon state law and the duty of the Secretary of State in NJ to verify the Constitutional eligibility of the candidates on NJ ballots. I was informed by her office that she did no such investigation. My law suit was trying to compel her to do that investigation, my law suit was not originally directed at proving Obama was or was not eligible, only that questions existed as to his eligibility (and McCain’s) and that it was her job – not mine – to investigate. How she did such an investigation would have been up to her or to the Court commanding her. My law suit was, therefore, based on state law, not on the definition of nbc. At that point in time, I simply raised the issue – that there was an issue – which needed to be investigated. I pointed out that Obama admitted to having his birth status governed by the UK and I believed it was the duty of the SOS in NJ to investigate whether that made him ineligible. The person who was third in command at the SOS election division admitted no such investigation had been done.

    Therefore, had SCOTUS sought full briefing on the issue, and granted full cert, they would have either directed the SOS to do such an investigation, and/or they might have requested that I submit a full brief on the issue, but they did neither… the case was referred to the full Court by Justice Thomas, after it had been subjected to interference by the stay clerk when first submitted to Justice Souter (who was implicated in the clerk’s ruse by way of a signed document, and who resigned from the Court a few months later.) As such, I did not cite Minor v. Happersett, I locked on state law which is what gave me the right to bring the SOS to court. Federal law provided no standing, state law did. And my case was never said to be without standing, although the sabotage by the NJ App. Division Judge was truly a disgusting insult to the rule of law and I will be revisiting that fiasco/tragedy in good order. I stated my opinion that I did not think either candidate was eligible, but I did not believe the stay application was intended to litigate that issue properly, only to ask for emergency/temporary relief until the SOS could be compelled to do her duty, or until the SCOTUS might require full briefing and oral argument. – Leo]

  26. Joe The Blogger Says:

    Hi Leo,

    This scrubbing is a smoking gun. The classic conspiracy question, “what did you know and when did you know it?” is answered by the material that was scrubbed and when it was scrubbed.

    Justia CEO, Tim Stanley, evidently knew before the November 2008 Presidential election that Obama was ineligible, due to the ruling in Minor v Happersett.

    Who else was in on this? Was Obama directing the scrubbing operation?

  27. naturalborncitizen Says:

    Dear Readers,

    I am receiving a number of interesting comments from advocates of Obama’s eligibility. Unfortunately, many of these comments fail to address the admission by Justia that it published more than 25 “mangled” Supreme Court cases which cite Minor v. Happersett. These questions require in depth analysis for me to properly respond. Comments which do not require in depth analysis by myself are immediately published if they do not contain insults.

    Going forward, I will prohibit all insults aimed at Obama supporters as well as insults by them.

    When you submit a question to this blog, do so unemotionally as if you were arguing before the US Supreme Court and as if I was opposing you as counsel. Or, if your comment is addressed to another reader, do the same as if they were opposing counsel in court.

    Do not embellish your argument with sarcasm, profanity, or annoyance. State your question clearly citing a law or case as required and feel free to link thereto. While I have not been vigilant enough in the past, I will now enforce these rules strictly.


    You may NOT use the terms, “Obot”, or “birther”… or anything else derogatory. You will refer to Obama as President Obama, or Barack Obama, or even Obama… nothing else.

    Unlike many who support my research, I accept that Barack Obama is President right now. And until such time as our Constitutional separation of powers may allow for a determination that he is not eligible, I will respect his authority as POTUS. To do otherwise would work irreversible harm to the Constitution.

    Enemies of the Constitution do not care how it is destroyed, only that it is destroyed. Those who would disrespect the separation of powers in order to remove the current POTUS are themselves enemies of the Constitution. It does not matter whether people believe the Constitution is being violated now by Obama holding the office of POTUS. If you violate the Constitution in trying to remedy your complaint, you are no better than anyone else who has violated the Document.

    So please act as if you are in Court and your opposition deserves respect and lack of respect will get you hit with contempt by the Judge. NO EXCEPTIONS.

    If Obama supporters do not wish to comment on the admission by Justia that my investigative work revealed “mangled” cases, then wait for coming posts which address the issue of Minor, the classification therein of “natural-born citizens”, and other precedents of the SCOTUS which are related. A comprehensive analysis of that body of law is coming to this blog very soon. Since JustiaGate was discovered, the body of case law relevant to the issue has been enlarged.

    For example, prior to October 20, 2011, Google search returns not one single hit wherein Minor v Happersett was reinforced by In re Lockwood as a precedent on the citizenship issue held by Minor. Since Lockwood was a SCOTUS case decided 20 years after Minor, and since the Court in Lockwood stated, “this court held” with regard to Minor’s decision on citizenship… one need look no further than Lockwood for direct proof of MInor’s status as a citizenship precedent. But, incredibly, prior to JustiaGate, no discussion on Lockwood with regard to Obama’s eligiblity is documented on the world wide web.

    Furthermore, the Lockwood decision had nothing to do with voting rights. Additionally, Justice Horace Gray, who wrote the opinion in Wong Kim Ark, was a member of the Court which decided Lockwood.

    Until JustiaGate’s revelations, Obama supporters were more able to levy three attacks upon Minor:

    1. Minor was a voting rights precedent, not a citizenship precedent.

    2. Minor was overruled by the 19th Amendment

    3. Minor’s identification of the “class” of persons born in the US to parents who are citizens as “natural-born citizens” was dicta, not precedent and not exclusive to only that class.

    In Re Lockwood (aka Ex Parte Lockwood) and various other cases also fragged by JustiaGate deny Obama supporters use of argument #1 which is completely out of play now that the nation is aware of Lockwood…. such awareness being current as of October 20, 2011 and going forward.

    City of Mobile v. Bolden, a SCOTUS decision from 1982 recognizes Minor as a continuing precedent on Voting rights as well. In that case, the Supreme Court recognized Minor’s authority for the rule that the Constitution provides no person a right to suffrage, while the Court in Mobile also pointed out that the 19th Amendment guarantees women cannot be discriminated against once a state grants such women the right to vote… such right coming from the state, not the Constitution. Protection against discrimination based on sex as to the state granted right of suffrage is protected by the 19th Amendment… but the right to vote itself is not granted by the Constitution to anyone, man or woman.

    That was the voting rights precedent of Minor and it is still good law.

    City of Mobile v Bolden (and other cases revealed by JustiaGate) therefore deny Obama supporters argument #2.

    As to #3, I will address that in the coming analysis which will encompass all of the aforementioned SCOTUS opinions and quite a few more. Numbers 1 and 2 above are directly related to the activity of Justia… whether Justia also “mangled” cases regarding SCOTUS opinions which discuss the difference between precedent and dicta is still being investigated, but such investigation has been hampered by the removal of Justia’s entire Supreme Court database of previous versions of the SCOTUS body of law… from the Wayback Machine.

    Furthermore, I have over 600 comments backlogged awaiting moderation. I have tried to catch up, but I am seriously treading water.

    Therefore, should you want to take issue with anything I’ve written in this particular post, or as to anything but argument #3 (regarding precedent v dicta) in this particular comment you are reading now, I will – for SUPPORTERS of Obama – skip you to the front of the line.

    If you want to argue about #3 above, specifically as to whether the classification of natural-born citizens in Minor was precedent or dicta… or any other issue touching upon that – such as a discussion of whether the breadth of Wong Kim Ark changes the nbc classification in Minor… please refrain from commenting in this thread and wait for the coming analysis of that issue when…


    That’s right… in the coming comprehensive analysis of the issue of Obama’s eligibility and the issue of what our national law is… regarding the definition of the natural-born citizen clause in Article 2 Section 1, I will NOT be accepting comments from anyone who agrees with my analysis.

    Other than the aforementioned coming report, comments will, of course, be welcome as to the rest of the blog posts, future and past.

    Furthermore, I will be offering for the national debate, the best argument I can make in favor of Obama’s eligibility.

    Having done the research, I have come to the conclusion that Obama is not eligible to be POTUS. But I have also identified some evidence which should have been used by Obama’s supporters in support of his eligibility which they have not properly utilized. In fairness to the national debate, I will make the best case available for Obama as well as against.


    There, I’ve said it. I do now anticipate that the eligibility of Obama will eventually be determined by the US Supreme Court (but should first be lodged in the DC District Court under the federal Quo Warranto statute). This is based upon my opinion that Obama will either attempt to suspend elections (either in 2012 or before 2016) or he will suspend the Constitution (or parts thereof) and/or declare martial law under some of the provisions mentioned in the following….


    That reference is not comprehensive nor do I pass any judgment upon the conclusions of its author. I simply use the link as a quick reference to various Executive orders which are relevant. The Patriot Act and the Emergency Powers Act are also relevant.

    The nation and the world are ripe for emergencies in general. The POTUS has these methods at his disposal, but they are not, in my opinion Constitutional and Quo Warranto litigation reaches not only to POTUS eligibility, but also to abuse of power. Therefore, I predict that draconian actions such as suspension of elections as well as suspension of any part of the Constitution will create fertile standing to challenge the Constitutionality of such actions as well as the Constitutional eligibility of the POTUS.

    Should elements of the Constitution (or the entire Document) be suspended, many politicians – who were afraid of the eligibility issue or simply ignorant of it or deceived as to it by the mangling of SCOTUS opinions by Justia (and also by other sources such as Cornell and WikiSource as to the Lockwood case) – will suddenly reach for the eligibility issue as if it were the last gas mask available post global nuclear fall out.


    If Obama doesn’t attempt to suspend the elections or the Constitution or declare martial law, the issue will NEVER be litigated on the merits before the SCOTUS… But if such legal trauma comes to pass, as I believe it will, then we are going to SCOTUS. I would like nothing more than to be wrong about this scenario and if Obama does not push us there, I am happy to accept all the ridicule such a wrong prediction rightfully deserves. (Please, almighty God in Heaven – hear my prayer – and let me be wrong so that the ridicule will fall on me like rain. Amen.)

    In preparation for the case going before the SCOTUS, I will prepare the nation to the best of my ability as to the best possible arguments both for and against Obama’s eligibility, and when I do… ONLY supporters of Obama being eligible will be invited to comment and to attack my findings.

    Such opposition will be printed in full
    … and my comments will appear in bold to respond. Should the commenter seek to reply to my comments, and not simply state again the same thing… I will print such reply as well. And such conversation may proceed until the commenter has nothing new to add. I will have the last word in that if you simply state the same exact thing after I have responded and you have not addressed my reply to you… then your reply to me will not be printed.

    I am looking forward to a respectful debate. When I publish your comment, expect that I will ask you questions. If you want your reply to be published, answer the questions directly before adding anything else to the argument. Then you may proceed otherwise.

    I am not the judge or jury… but this is my blog, and I am trying to educate the nation as best I can, as honestly I can and without spinning anything. I do that best by asking questions. If you are willing to ask questions here, then you must be willing to answer them, and that means answering the question I have asked, not a question I have not asked. You may supplement your answer with responsive questions, but you MUST answer my question first.

    I am ready to engage with ANYONE… even if you have been disrespectful at this blog before and been asked to leave, you may participate as long as you are respectful and follow these rules.

    Again, no comments supporting my conclusions will be printed as to the coming report. My report will stand or swim based upon its own strength as challenged by those who oppose it. I have sought the legal truth and will publish only truth, even truth which opponents of my work should have found and argued but which they have failed to unearth.

    “Not being known doesn’t stop the truth from being true.” Richard Bach.


  28. The man has posted one photo shopped forgery after another on the internet. Not a single forensic expert has come forth not saying that they are forged. HE has more lawsuits for being ineligible than ALL previous administrations combined. He has spent more money than all previous administrations combined. He blatantly supports the street union thugs rioting throughout the country, eerily similar to the 1930 brown shirts. He is running around with a social security number from a dead guy born in 1890 , from a state he never lived in. He has wasted over a billion dollars of tax payer money in bankrupt solar and “alternate” energy projects, and when Congress asks him for documentation after being legally served he thumbs his nose at them. HE is worse than Nixon ever was. He has spent more than 2 million dollars trying to hide his forged documents, yet all the press reports on are 35,000 dollars in “allegations” against another black man. Obama is guilty of at least a felony for forging fake documents, for lying on his nomination papers stating he’s a natural born citizen when by every definition and Supreme Court precedent (Minor vs Happersatt) he is not…thereby he is guilt at most as being a traitor.

    Congress will hold obama in contempt and begin impeachment.

    remember in november to CLEAN (the white) HOUSE !!

  29. Could lawyers/cases that used Justia simply re-file a case or open a new one to let judges know that their case may have been impacted by Justia? If yes, are there any cases that went to the Supreme Court that could be re-filed.

    It seems to me since it is a crime it is the duty of a lawyer to let the Judge of their case know that a crime involving their case occurred.

    [ed. A lawyer is responsible for his own papers… a case against Justia might be possible for damages in a jury trial as a form of negligence or intentional fraud perhaps… but the Judge in the underlying action is not going to let any litigant have a do over based on Justia’s actions… – Leo]

  30. concernedcitizen Says:

    Will you answer questions from people who support your positions for greater understanding of your conclusions?

    [ed. For the most part, yes… with the exception of the coming report, and that one will be marked at the bottom as to the commenting policy therefore… but all comments are welcome until and after that post… You may also comment about that closed thread in later threads which follow, but I truly want to have it out with the best and brightest the other side has to offer with no interference from those who support my views. Others may, of course submit comments to that thread in support or suggesting points of law, etc… but they will not be posted. If you think you have something which might help, feel free to direct my attention, but I will only print opposing comments for that post at that time. – Leo]

  31. Leo,
    Do you believe the plan was to obscure the obvious definition from MvH? I believe the issue was to obscure standing. The statements of power to the governed, should have granted standing for people questioning the legality of government. That is why they focused on this issue. Understanding motivation will point the way.

    [ed. Yes, the plan was to obscure MvH…Why else would one obscure it so surgically? – Leo]

  32. bob strauss Says:

    Is this true?

    The reason the courts will not do anything can be found here:

  33. I went to look up Cain’s accuser’s FaceBook page and found several pages that were created today. That seems odd to me, so I went to the way-back machine and received this notice:

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

    Co-incidence? I think not.

  34. Mr. Interested Party Says:

    Googling “justiagate” 11-8-11 at 1:20 AM yields search list results that suggest that this story has stopped evolving.

    Clicking the “News” link shows only 6 news articles, including just one in Nov.

    Is Google scrubbing the scrubbing?

  35. Dear Leo,

    I told myself that I wasn’t coming back here because it seems to me that you might be a fence-sitter.

    [ed. What are you talking about? Fence sitter? What fence? – leo]

    Regardless, the reason people are coming forth with other issues about Obama — that even you may not care for (see http://puzo1.blogspot.com/), is because of this issue alone that he’s not a natural born citizen, and that he’s spent over $2 million (taxpayer bucks??) on this, and that he’s posted a forgery for a BC, that people want to know if they have a legit president in office. Sorry, I don’t know if he is or not, therefore, I’m not calling him a president. I take the stand of the P&E.

    Well, I don’t care about this BC right now, but I do care about other things that have been done. I will not falsely accuse him at all, but BO has allowed no one to come forward to prove it one way or the other for him. It would be smart for him to prove his eligibility one way or the other for the benefit of Americans, who have hired his sorry ___ and many want answers.

    [ed. he can’t prove his eligibility… it’s a Constitutional question which needs to be answered by the SCOTUS. That being said, the greater weight of evidence, in my opinion, is against him being eligible. But to ignore that the other side has a rational argument is simply partisan. That being said, the other side for the most part is not capable of seeing the rational arguments against his eligibility. By taking that approach, they have failed to make the best argument for his eligibility. By examining their arguments carefully and by acknowledging when those arguments are reasonable, I have a better understanding of the evidence which says he isnt eligible. The issue for me now is not to prove one way or the other whether he is eligible… I am more concerned that the nation accept that his eligibility is rationally disputed and needs to be settled. If I previously indicated that this was a clear cut issue, I am now saying it isn’t. Anyone who tells you it is clear is mistaken. My opinion remains that Obama is not eligible, but Im not gonna make believe there’s an opposing view which, less often than not, is rational. The other side is full of irrational, mean spirited propagandists. Im not going to sink to their level. By presenting the best of both sides, the nation will have the truth of the law to discuss and the Courts will know better that the nation has the law available to them, whatever that may be worth, if anything. – Leo]

    BTW, they are working for us. We are Americans who have been forgotten. I know that you probably won’t post this. That is fine.

  36. thomas carlin Says:

    Great work Leo!

    I have a rather simplistic question for you.
    Why do you think “Natural Born Citizen” is not gaining any traction?
    I’ve e-mailed my state Senators, the 9 Supremes, radio talk show hosts, and absolutely no response back from any of them!
    It’s odd…
    Love to hear your thoughts…
    Aloha, Thomas

    [ed. it’s gaining a lot of traction… but the politicians are scared of the issue. However, if martial law is declared or elections suspended… they will flock to it. – Leo]

  37. Mr. Donofrio, yes, I was playing devil’s advocate (per your request)…though I had failed to note your guidance that mention of MvH or WKA was verboten. I am very much looking forward to your analysis regarding the liabilities of the two decisions. As to other venues that would “validate” Mr. Obama’s eligibility, I am unsure what is arguably pertinent. One point is perhaps the tacit fact that state secretaries and the congress offered no objection when required and as such validated his presidency.

  38. Although there is blame to be had by Justia I fail to see any evidence that they are the party directly responsible for the editing.
    Regardless if it is reasonable or not. Isn’t that just an assumption?

    [ed. They have admitted responsibility for the cases having been mangled by the very words of their CEO in the CNET interview. On the same day he admitted liability for the mangling of the cases, Justia also removed access to those prior versions at the Wayback Machine. You are mistaken. – leo]

  39. Dear Leo,

    Please forgive me. I’m just totally frustrated now. It seems that nothing works anymore in the way of “true” justice. Everywhere I look, just so many lies. It’s extremely painful.

    And I talked to others at the WTPOTUS place, and I had misread something on your blog to begin with. It’s my fault, but I have a difficult time reading the black background anyway. It messes with my eyes. It’s pretty, but when reading it, and when I look away, my eyes are kind of screwed up for a time. No joke! So I read your blog in spurts. Sometimes I miss things that I shouldn’t.

    And one person told me that they highlight it as they’re reading, which might help me too. Sorry, old eyes (me) and old person (me).

    Also, Leo, I think that we’re seeing the results of why our founding fathers said a natural born citizen for the president. It’s obvious now. They certainly had great wisdom! I think it’s a serious matter when you look at it and then read various writings by them. They really did have wisdom.

    [ed. I am not changing the blog look… in my opinion, it requires more focus to read it and that’s exactly what I want. You can highlight it, copy it and drop it in word or some other program … but the vibe is important – Leo]

  40. Leo,

    I really wasn’t being critical. It’s pretty– grant you that. I’m not the only one that has problems with a black background. I guess with some people and with older people, we have eyes that don’t work really good anymore.

  41. kittycat77, the FireFox browser allows us with old eyes to read Leo’s blog in black text on white (i.e. no style sheet). Try the following: ALT (to get to the menu), View, Page Style, No Style. There’s probably an equivalent operation in other browsers.

  42. “You are mistaken. – leo”
    I apologize for being too succinct in my previous comment.
    It sometimes leads to confusion.
    In reply, let me say that I am not mistaken, and use your newest entry so there is no confusion.
    “Tim Stanley may or may not be responsible for the sabotage …”
    That was also my point.
    We do not know who actually did the editing/sabotage. It very well could be a third party unknown by Tim/Justia.
    We don’t even know if the proffered reason given as cover/explanation was done so they could fully investigate the allegations.
    While that last sentence may be to generous to Tim/Justia, the point is we just do not know all the facts.

    So like I said: “Although there is blame to be had by Justia I fail to see any evidence that they are the party directly responsible for the editing.”

    Thanks for all the hard work you have done regarding this whole issue Leo.

    Best wishes.

    [ed. His covering the Wayback Machine is BS. His not recognizing any of this at his site is BS. His reaction is total BS. And there’s no wiggle room. – Leo]

  43. ….”and I will be revisiting that fiasco/tragedy in good order…..”
    May I ask, what are you planning and what was the original issue you are to revisit?

    [ed. you’ll know it when you see it written here. nuff said – Leo]

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: