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

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

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

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

Stay tuned…

Leo Donofrio, Esq.

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

  1. In a society corrupt, the righteous suffer most.

  2. borderraven Says:

    ping

  3. $128k Spank for what? Pointing out the Lawlessness and destructive nature of Justia.com. God Bless you Leo…

    [ed. JustiaGate hadn’t happened yet… but I think it was kinda sorta meant to shut me up generally. – Leo]

  4. Until US Constitutional law is enforced this country’s security is threaten . To talk about an election while we have an Illegal administration sitting in office is insane . How can you have a legal election when the current administration is an illegal one ? Answer You Can’t .

    [ed. Obama is the POTUS unless removed by a Constitutional means utilizing separation of powers. Like it or not, he is POTUS until so deemed otherwise. – Leo]

  5. Leo,
    Good work. Please keep it up.

    ( One note. You have developed what I call a “suburbanism” evidenced by the use (twice) “Steve and I”…..in the sentence used, it should be Steve and me. )
    (Sorry, it just drives me nuts)

  6. “Steve and I” should be “Steve and me”

  7. Moonlight Says:

    Actually Leo, thanks to your hard work, we are all sure that we don’t know if OBAMA is the POTUS. As the USGA would say in questions of rule, “[it is a matter of fact whether the ball rests out of bounds, though the ball may not have been found]”. So, we can’t presume that Mr. OBAMA is the POTUS though we can all agree he wields the power of that office. We can also not presume that he is not the POTUS. With whom does the burden of proof rest? Lt. Col. Lakin can tell us how that works.

  8. Moonlight Says:

    I prefer to refer to him as the “President-alleged”.

  9. Results in Ohio suggest that ACORN OFFSHOOTS, SEIU, MOVE ON,org and big labor’s turning out government employee unions can create a big hole in Democracy’s capacity to govern itself. The Obama campaign to create straw organizations and corporations to transform legal public grants into private and public subversive activity is the overt threat to ending the reign of the Democrat Party and the man “from no man’s land”.

    Where is the Supreme Court’s public response Justia’s creation of judicial myth, while destroying access to valid origninal documents?
    When the FCC’s “net neutrality and backdoor amnesty for illegals is fully implemented, the election of 2012 may even be beyond reach.

    Jack Grogan, Kingston NY

  10. For some offensive ammo, here are several options you might want to consider the following (taken from my own Grand Jury access action that I took up to the Third short-Circuit Court).

    AUTHORITY FOR COURT TO GRANT REQUESTS

    Request I: For Plaintiff to appear and present evidence of Federal crimes to the
    Grand Jury:
    Title 18 U.S.C. § 1504 – Influencing juror by writing:

    Whoever attempts to influence the action or decision of any grand or petit juror of any court of the United States upon any issue or matter pending before such juror, or before the jury of which he is a member, or pertaining to his duties, by writing or sending to him any written communication, in relation to such issue or matter, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.
    Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the communication of a request to appear before the grand jury (emphasis added).

    Request II: For the District Judge to impanel a special Grand Jury for the specific purpose to investigate alleged organized criminal activity and/or Federal crimes by law enforcement and judicial officials with the State of New Jersey:
    Title 18 U.S.C. § 3332(b): Districts Courts Authority to empanel Special Grand Jury:

    District courts are authorized to impanel additional special grand juries when the special grand juries already impaneled have more business than they can properly handle. When impaneling additional special grand juries, a court should make a finding as to the need; and a court should always make it clear that the special grand jury is being impaneled under 18 U.S.C. § 3331 (and is therefore not subject to the limitations of a regular grand jury). See Wax v. Motley, 510 F.2d 318 (2d Cir. 1975).

    The special grand jury has a duty under 18 U.S.C. § 3332(a) “to inquire into offenses against the criminal laws of the United States alleged to have been committed within that district.” Such alleged offenses may be brought to the jury’s attention by the court [emphasis added] or by any attorney appearing for the United States to present evidence to the jury.

    Request III: That the a new Special Grand Jury be requested by the United States Attorney to specifically investigate the allegations against the accused:

    Title 18 § 3331 – Summoning and term

    a) In addition to such other grand juries as shall be called from time to time, each district court which is located in a judicial district containing more than four million inhabitants or in which the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, the Associate Attorney General, or any designated Assistant Attorney General, certifies in writing to the chief judge of the district that in his judgment a special grand jury is necessary because of criminal activity in the district shall order a special grand jury to be summoned at least once in each period of eighteen months unless another special grand jury is then serving.

    Request IV: That the Plaintiff’s request and information be forwarded to the attention of the sitting Grand Jury by the United States Attorney:
    Title 18 § 3332(a):
    It shall be the duty of each grand Jury impaneled within any Judicial district to inquire into offenses against the Criminal Laws of the United States alleged to have been committed within in the district. Any such attorney receiving information concerning such an alleged offense from another person shall, if requested by such other person , inform the Grand Jury of such alleged offense (Emphasis added).

    [ed. send me an email, please. – Leo]

  11. Leo –

    Why are you acknowledging the current individual’s status as President as legitimate? Is the legitimacy based on his having won the election, in your perception?

    If the Constitution is, indeed, the Supreme Law of the land, and Obama has violated it, the populous’ opinion, even if expressed through an election, is irrelevant until they have voted to change the rendered definition of “Natural Born Citizen”.

    If Obama is in violation of the tenants of the Constitution, how can anyone upholding the law seriously consider him to be an actual President?

    [ed. Constitutional law is not as cut and dried and you seem to make it. There are rational arguments in favor of his eligibility. They fail, in my opinion, to the arguments against his eligibility, particularly the decision in Minor v Happersett. That being said, he is entitled to “believe” he is eligible regardless. However, his signing documents bf the election swearing he was, “in fact” eligible is very dicey since he knew beyond a shadow of a doubt, being a Con law teacher at a major law school, that his eligibility was questionable at best. That, in my opinion, was a violation. He cannot know Minor and swear he is eligible. That was wrong and against the law. If you swear to something then you have to know it’s true… he might believe he is eligible, but since he knew he might not be eligible… therefore his affirmation of certain eligibility was a lie. That Justia was out there scrubbing Minor tells you that Minor was a known problem.

    If a sheriff wants to investigate a crime in the county where he swore to being eligible, then that would be a proper investigation. You have a Con law expert, who taught Constitutional election law, swearing that he’s eligible despite a SCOTUS opinion which calls his eligibility into question, and that’s putting it mildly. For him to swear under penalty of perjury that he “is” eligible… is not right. Obama should have sought a declaratory judgment on this bf the election. That’s what a true statesman would do… put the country before his own personal desires. Didn’t happen.

    But other than in the state’s which required him to make that affirmation, his running broke no laws and nobody successfully challenged him. Whether the SCOTUS would agree Minor is precedent against his eligibility is yet to be seen. But the SCOTUS can make things fit the way they like whether there is precedent or not…. happens all the time that they overrule cases, both explicitly and subversively. Since he was (maybe) sworn in…( I didn’t see him take the full oath, did you?) We can assume the SCOTUS respects him as POTUS as do the other branches and the nation at large. If he were to be removed through unconstitutional violation of separation of powers… say a military coup, etc. the nation would suffer worse than by seeing him finish his term. If the nation re-elects him again after knowing him for four years, then that will also be a factor, at least in the mind of the court (although it should not affect them when facing litigation)… Like it or not, he is the POTUS… and whether his administration is eventually voided is up to SCOTUS… or the people in the next election. Until change should happen by either of those means, or perhaps impeachment, he’s the Pres. That’s my best legal opinion.

    Now, if he should push to suspend the Constitution, or the elections, or declare martial law… then his eligibility is almost certainly going to reach SCOTUS…. but they dont really want this. And some of those justices are probably ready with their ways of distinguishing it as we speak. But Minor is the law of the land and it should be respected, and at the very least… his eligibility, bf the next election deserves to be reviewed in light of Minor and the cases which cite to it as precedent on the two parent citizen rule and its classification of nbc being those born in country of parents who are citizens. The national dialogue was thwarted for three years by Justia… now that the blogosphere of the US has knowledge of these cases more readily known… awareness is coming to this issue which is clearly taking over from the BC. The issue needs to be resolved in Court. Whether it will be, in my opinion, is wholly dependent on what Obama tries to do with Executive power.-Leo]

  12. “suspend the Constitution, or the elections”??? That would reveal the true colors of everyone in positions of authority since there is no constitutional authority to suspend the Constitution or elections, -which are a State matter. Even discussing suspension of the Constitution would be treason against the Constitution which is the one and only thing elected leaders are forced to swear to support, protect and defend. The very idea seems like something out of a comic book, not something any thinking person can rationally contemplate. It would be akin to banning all religion. Unthinkable. Absurd. Ridiculous.

    [ed. except when you read all of the Executive Order, the Patriot Act and and other emergency acts… all of this stuff you say is form a comic book is provided for, even concentration camps. – Leo]

  13. Just when you thought you were out they pulled you back in.

    Like it or not, you just might have to rescue this Republic from the tyranny that awaits us.

    Be safe.

  14. Leo :

    I, and many others, am more of an absolutist on this. The Constitution is the standard. Obama does not meet it, substantiated and reaffirmed by “Minor.” He can believe whatever he wants, as well as those currently serving on the Supreme Court. Their beliefs do not change what the Constitution says.

    It is ironic when those in charge of upholding and defending the Constitution violate it themselves, and quite puzzling as well since “Minor” seems to leave no gray areas or room for loopholes.
    “Parents” with an “s” is what it says, and what I believe what was originally intended, anyway.

    Acknowledging the Constitution as an absolute standard is essential for all of those who have agreed to be citizens under it,
    and just “believing” or holding an opinion, educated or not, which is in opposition to it, does not change the standard.

    If a law enforcement officer decides to let a person off after catching him with narcotics, it is true that the offender is free.
    The officer, then, has broken the law. The fact that this type of thing happens a lot (and in many other scenarios) does not negate the fact that narcotics are illegal. If the officer was caught engaging in this behavior, he could and should be removed as an officer and pay the penalty for breaking the law. The position and authority of a law enforcement officer is never greater than the law he swears to uphold.

    The same is true for Obama. “Minor” has concretely reaffirmed that he has no Constitutional authority to be claiming the position he is in, and whether or not anyone acknowledges or believes this is irrelevant with respect to his actual status.

    It is what is actually Constitutionally true, that matters, not what one merely perceives is true. When the Supreme Court, whose function it is to resolve any discrepancies, deviates from the solid foundation
    of the document they should be defending, then it becomes obvious that something unusual and nefarious is happening behind the scenes.

    What’s so significant about your uncovering of the activities at Justia is that it makes it even more obvious that there are those who know Obama is absolutely unqualified, and are willing to stealthily attempt the removal of documentation which confirms this.

  15. Leo, I bow to your vast knowledge, but the only way that any rational argument can be made for Obama’s eligibility is if the Jurisdictional phrase of 14A is mangled– which it currently is. The allowance of dual citizenship and “birthright citizenship” to children of aliens that has resulted, makes the citizenship requirement of 14A illogical when read in light of the CR 1866, Elk v. Wilkins, and 14A Congressional debates, and even the naturalization oath, which pledges singular allegiance to America. If “subject to the jurisdiction” just means “subject to the laws”, then the phrase is inoperable, and we know what Marbury v. Madison says about that! “Within the jurisdiction”, used in the 14A , means subject to the laws, but certainly “subject to” and “within” mean different things.

    In regard to “eligibility oaths” in certain states, Florida has just this year made it clear by statute (when it wasn’t before) that the POTUS and VP candidates do not have to take Florida’s Federal candidate eligibility oath (Fla. SS 99.021 (2)). This is despite the fact that Fla. law is clear that the SOS has no authority to determine the veracity of that oath (Cherry v. Stone (265 So. 2d 56,58)), and that the SOS ministerial duty is done with performance of the oath. I believe this was done specifically so that Obama (the Con Law expert) doesn’t have to lie.

    [ed. nice find… – Leo]

  16. borderraven Says:

    Leo,

    Obama, is a de facto president, but not de jure.

    He is a nominated, elected, and sitting president, but not a constitutional president, since he fails eligibility to run for the office.

  17. Leo,
    I’m sorry that someone like you has a fine to pay because the Justice system in the country is totally malfunctioned because of politics. You need to put up donate for your fine button, unless it’s already covered. Good men suffer the injustices of the evil when they confront them. I am sorry for your fine for doing the right thing.

    [ed. I had the donate button up at one point because of this very issue… I collected about $1300 very quickly then donated all of it to Operation Smile… and will never have a donate button again. It’s not my thing to ask for money to support this blog. It’s free. Thank you to all of you who donated, you know who you are and the money went to a very good cause. Op Smile sent me a hand written thank you note which I should publish as it’s really all of you who deserve the credit. – Leo]

  18. Leo:

    Thank you for the timely link to Cindy Simpson’s article.

    If Dale Baranoski’s note can offer any viable relief to you and Steve Pidgeon and your clients, please go for it. If is it true that ” this draconian intimidation is literally unprecedented in the entire history of American Jurisprudence”, and I do not doubt it all, then additional response as to what the judge did is appropriate. I do understand your reluctance (and Steve’s) no never enter a Federal Courthouse willingly. But this a true injustice.

  19. thanks Leo for your continuing efforts on this cause.. you are relentless and courageous. I have been following this since 2008 and frustrated that nothing seemed to be done about it. I having been posting videos and blogging etc.. trying to spread the word along with you. Do you happen to have a PDF or scans of the Minor v. Happersett USSC case documents. I need content for a video about BHO, Perkins, Justia, and the NBC-gate issue. Thanks again.

    [ed. sorry, I dont have pdfs of those…thanks for posting videos, feel free to post your links here. – leo]

  20. i prefer to refer to him as the *resident … in deference to the success of his bid to “occupy the white house,” while honoring my own difficulty in spitting out/typing the whole word.

    on a side note (but maybe not): mitt romney’s father was born in mexico, although his mother was born in the u.s. this was not in any way associated with the military, a military base, the diplomatic corp or any function of the u.s. state department. under the natural born requirement, it appears romney is also not eligible for candidacy for this office.

    [ed. No, it matters not where your folks were born at all… read Perkins v Elg… what matters is that they became citizens bf the candidate was born. Romney was the child of two citizen parents, therefore he is eligible. His father was not eligible. – Leo]

    while he does have supporters, the various straw polls do not indicate he is the front runner the msm purports him to be. a look at his donor list, however, indicates his largest donors are investing almost equally large amounts in both the romney and obama campaigns.

    other than that romney is the most liberal of the rino candidates, is the bid for his candidacy also a maneuver to somehow legitimize obama’s illegitimacy and to make that illegitimacy a non-issue in the courts?

  21. Hi, Leo,

    Do you think that Obama knew about Minor? Probably so, right? Well, that might be a stupid question because I don’t really know what he knew or not. We would think he would know about it. At least Justia did.

    [ed. Well, he taught Constitutional election law… what do you think? – Leo]

  22. Leo :

    I, and many others, am more of an absolutist on this. The Constitution is the standard. Obama does not meet it, substantiated and reaffirmed by “Minor.” He can believe whatever he wants, as well as those currently serving on the Supreme Court. Their beliefs do not change what the Constitution says.

    It is ironic when those in charge of upholding and defending the Constitution violate it themselves, and quite puzzling as well since “Minor” seems to leave no gray areas or room for loopholes.
    “Parents” with an “s” is what it says, and what I believe what was originally intended, anyway.

    Acknowledging the Constitution as an absolute standard is essential for all of those who have agreed to be citizens under it,
    and just “believing” or holding an opinion, educated or not, which is in opposition to it, does not change the standard.

    If a law enforcement officer decides to let a person off after catching him with narcotics, it is true that the offender is free.
    The officer, then, has broken the law. The fact that this type of thing happens a lot (and in many other scenarios) does not negate the fact that narcotics are illegal. If the officer was caught engaging in this behavior, he could and should be removed as an officer and pay the penalty for breaking the law. The position and authority of a law enforcement officer is never greater than the law he swears to uphold.

    The same is true for Obama. “Minor” has concretely reaffirmed that he has no Constitutional authority to be claiming the position he is in, and whether or not anyone acknowledges or believes this is irrelevant with respect to his actual status.

    It is what is actually Constitutionally true, that matters, not what one merely perceives is true. When the Supreme Court, whose function it is to resolve any discrepancies, deviates from the solid foundation
    of the document they should be defending, then it becomes obvious that something unusual and nefarious is happening behind the scenes.

    What’s so significant about your uncovering of the activities at Justia is that it makes it even more obvious that there are those who know Obama is absolutely unqualified, and are willing to stealthily attempt the removal of documentation which confirms this.

    (2nd attempt at posting this….Am I being scrubbed?)

    [ed. I have not seen this post before… I have 600 hundred comments backlogged and every-time I post 30 comments there’s 30 or more new ones waiting on top of the backlog. People who post in older threads may risk their comment not being seen. I tend to go for the comments that are attached to the latest post first since if I dont then it may appear that the new posts don’t have interest. I do the best I can. Posts make it out when I have time to get to them… furthermore, my comments section is like a letter to the editor section… if your post goes up, great, if it doesn’t there may be many reasons for that. If you are sensitive, don’;t comment. Also, not posting your comment is not being scrubbed… scrubbed is what happens when something is published and then it’s changed to indicate something that wasn’t there before or it is removed entirely. Not posting somebody’s comment is an editorial right of mine as owner of this blog. You have no idea the shit I have to wade through that comes in here. Use your imagination. I don’t appreciate your snarky crap… but Im posting it to illustrate my policy for comments. I don’t charge for content and I dont sell advertising and there’s no donate button… if you don’t like it here, leave. I work my ass off writing this blog. I don’t ask for anything other than that people be vigilant of their government and its operatives.

    As to the nature of your comment, you and the rest of the country are just as responsible for Obama being in the White House as those who installed him there. Collectively, we are all to blame. We didn’t do enough to stop both him and McCain from being on the ballots…(and trust me, my next report on the nature of nbc and the law through history is going to smash any semblance of eligibility for McCain who had a much weaker case for eligibility than Obama). We ARE responsible. They fought a better fight and now Obama is POTUS, like it or not. The only way to remove him is by using the Constitution or the voting process. Anything else will signal the end of the Republic and that may be just what the enemy wants.- Leo]

  23. Leo,
    I apologize with an explanation. I just now saw your “Zero Tolerance” (I LOVE the pun!! Intended??) [ed. no pun intended at all. – Leo] post of Nov. 6 and realize I violated the policy in several respects in my prior posts which are currently awaiting moderation. So, now that you are reading this, you have moderated them and snipped. Anyway, I will abide your rules. Your blog, your rules, Sir!

    You are not wrong, you are right. The martial law is coming. We’ll have our election, much good it will do us. I believe the video excerpt at the link (X-Files?) is correct in predicting that the timing will be during a holiday. I predict Christmas, 2012, which occurs after the general election and before the inauguration, right after the Significant Date of 12/21/2012 and right around the time of the electoral college election. There is going to be a global EMP natural disaster with the loss of satellites, the electrical grid, and all electronics, including planes, trains and automobiles due to the GIC of a massive X-Class CME solar flare. There will also be a false flag nuclear EMP attack coordinated with the natural disaster, almost certainly on Washington, D.C., which will make any transition of government impossible. Luckily for them, Team Obama will be largely intact, safe in Chicago. Holiday party.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: