JustiaGate: Say It Aint So, Carl Malamud.

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

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

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

LawSites had this to say about him:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

“At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”  Minor v. Happersett, 154 U.S. 116, 167 (1874).

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

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

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


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

“In Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, this court held that the word ‘citizen’ is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation, and, in that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution as since…” (Emphasis added.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, this court held that the word ‘citizen’ is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation, and, in that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution as since; but that the right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, and that amendment did not add to these privileges and immunities. Hence, that a provision in a state constitution which confined the right of voting to male citizons of the United States was no violation of the federal constitution. In Bradwell v. State, 16 Wall. 130, it was held that the right to practice law in the state courts was not a privilege or immunity of a citizen of the United States; that the right to control and regulate the granting of license to practice law in the courts of a state is one of those powers that was not transferred for its protection to the federal government, and its exercise is in no manner governed or controlled by citizenship of the United States in the party seeking such license. Section 3192 of the Code of Virginia, quoted in this application, is one of 12 sections constituting chapter 154 of that Code, entitled, ‘Of Attorneys-at-Law Generally.’ Section 3193 reads: ‘Every such person shall produce, before each court in which he intends to practice, satisfactory evidence”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But there’s nothing like that at Justia.

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

Truly despicable sickening fraudulent fascist Orwellian bullshit.

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

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

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

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


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

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

Leo Donofrio, Esq.



32 Responses to “JustiaGate: Say It Aint So, Carl Malamud.”

  1. Thanks Leo. Looks like these guys deserve to go to jail for treason.

  2. Leo,

    You need to contact Professor William Jacobson, a law professor at Cornell who runs a popular conservative blog. I’ve attempted to alert him to your article, but I’m nobody. Direct contact from you would be more effective. Other than Jacobson posting here, he has no way of contacting you. Maybe a phone call would be in order.

    Legal Insurrection

    Bio: http://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/faculty/bio.cfm?id=311

    William A. Jacobson
    Cornell Law School
    G57 Myron Taylor Hall
    Ithaca, NY 14853-4901

    [ed. snip phone number…- Leo]

  3. The truly interesting battle is now between the de jure vs. the de facto citizens of the USA. The Article 2 Section 1 interpretation of NBC, 14 years and 35 years is under attack without legal amendment to read “Born a Citizen” vs. “Natural Born Citizen (NBC)” ; as it appears the ruling elite of the Libertarian, Republican Democrat Socialist pro Tory crowd are averse to. the Republican-Democrat Revolutionary anti-Tory crowd.

    My family of Strunk were in the Revolution against the Monarchy and their offspring even when born before 1776 were NBC because the two parents are deemed citizens when under the Grandfather Clause both were loyal to the Revolution against the King and Tories.

    The math calculation of who is NBC and who is not Eligible for the office of POTUS is as important in 1788 as it is now. The controversy of Herbert Hoover not being 14 years of continuous residence after leaving England in 1919 when seeking the office of POTUS in 1928.

    The entire Justia scandal and conspiracy entered by the Commercial Club of Chicago and those Tories around Sidley Austin Law firm and the European Union’s stealth candidate for POTUS includes the 2006 efforts of the Chicago Kent Law School concern over NBC in preparation to install the usurper in 2008 – all needed to apply NBC to only the status of the Child born on US Soil notwithstanding the status of the parents.

    United States Constitution Article 2 Section 1 that mandates:

    “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

    So what does the grandfather clause imply?

    FIRST: A minor is unable to renounce US citizenship until reaching 21 years or by statute 18 years.

    SECOND : If NBC status is birth of a person on soil without regard to parents, then how does one calculate the allegiance of the person born before 1776?

    Perhaps: The person (absent parents) must have been 21 years at the time of 1776 in support of the Revolution and not a TORY.

    IF SO, the Clause would not be written in such manner without further explanation for such intended use; and therefore, the grandfather clause must be used for a person born of two citizen parents who were then aligned with the Revolution not the King – and

    THEN is properly understood when underlined by the use of 14 years of CONTINUOUS no intermittent domicile in the USA before 35 years of age to be eligible for POTUS.

    Using simple math NBC means that upon reaching 21 years at majority plus 14 years domiciled after the majority age citizen that equals 35 years for a candidate to be eligible for POTUS.

    Accordingly the only class of those able to serve as POTUS are those of the DE JURE CLASS of U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 citizens who are natural born citizens before and after the enactment of the 14th Amendment defined by law. This notion is expressed in the precedent in Minor. v. Happersett 88 U.S. 162 (1875), 21 Wall. 162, and 22 L. Ed. 627. by Justice Waite as natural born citizens (NBC) per se are so by virtue of birth on United States soil when both parents were Citizens of the United States.

    The 14th amendment DE FACTO citizen crowd including Ron Paul who like Ventura the Libertines, Ralph Nader, Country club Republicans Limo Democrats along with the one world Euro centric elite consider the child born on soil enough to be NBC notwithstanding parentage status.

    The founders were and are worried about the first five years of influence upon the child’s patterning. The mother and father’s allegiance form the child’s allegiance as is very evident with BHO who is a raving European socialist in the anti-colonial tradition of Jesuit socialism / utopianism.

    A person who reaches majority at 21 years full citizen status, when both parents are also citizens, reaches citizenship status in the patterning of the parents by age 6 years; as peer reviewed studies indicate that the influence of the parents upon the child form the allegiance of the child for the rest of the persons life.

    John Jay and George Washington are very clear in the fundamental issues of allegiance in their writings. Natural born requires two citizen parents who during the revolution embraced the Revolution NOT the King as Tories!

    The NBC Grandfather clause is much mis-understood in regard to the parents allegiance when not aligned with the Revolution are TORY traitors!!. TORIES ARE NOT NBC under the grandfather clause and may NOT be eligible for office of POTUS, NOR may the offspring be eligible either. Aaron Burr was a hero of the revolution after all is said and done leaving a real question as to the forces behind the 12th amendment that created the present party structure that is RULING the country with the 435 member aristocracy created in June 1929 when the seats in the House were capped using the 1912 formula.

    The math in Article 2 section 1 is very clear. Revolutionaries that produce children before and after 1776 when the child reaches 21 years must then spend 14 years of continuous residency in the USA to be eligible for office of POTUS at 35 years of age.

    This is important to think about in response to New York State that has adopted the 14th amendment de facto definition of NBC “Born a Citizen” that I must defeat in re:

    [ed. I do not agree that the 14 year req is 14 consecutive years…I would make a sense as a rule, but I don’t see evidence of it actually being part of A2 S1. -Leo]

  4. I met Texas state Senator Joan Huffman, an ex Judge in Houston, last month. I told her I would be sending information to her in the near future. This will be sent out to her tomorrow.

    The plot just keeps thickening.

    Thank you again, Mr. Donofrio, Sir.

  5. A limping man found an elf in the forest and began beating it around its head. The elf cried out, “Why are you beating me? What have I done to you?” Upon hearing the elf’s words, the man became angrier and snarled, “You know what you did. You hobbled my shoes and now I am feeble and frail.” The elf, even more frightened than before, pleaded with the man, “I have only done what the shoemaker needed me to do. Just as the hammer is an extension of the cobblers hand, I am an extension of his will.” Still furious and bewildered, the man stomped off into the forest after realizing that rotting flesh is only a symptom of a much deeper infection.

  6. Gary Palmer Says:

    What should we do? Should I write my Senator and congressman? I do not mean to sound condescending because I am sincerely not trying to be. I am not a lawyer just a regular guy, but what really should we do? March on Washington and demand Obama be required to leave office? I’d do it if I thought it would matter. Is it possible you would consider posting a set of bullet points with the proper legal citations (Minor V. Happerset obviously being one) that could help me (anyone) in explaining this to others, and even that could be used in a letter campaign? I realize you have done so much already, but I have no experience in something like this. Thank you so much, Mr. Donofrio for all you have/are doing about this.

    [ed. I wouldn’t consider telling people “how” to stand up for their Constitution… I’m only saying that you better do it. How you do it is up to you, your conscience, the law and your resources. I suspect the answer may be different for each person. I don’t have the answer, but I have figured out the best way I can make myself useful to the Constitution and the nation… by writing this blog. Those who read this blog are on high alert that their laws which protect their freedoms are under seige by an enemy who is more ready willing and able to carry out its plan for you knowing that much of America is content with their lives and will not be bothered to turn off the TV long enough to allow anything uncomfortable to bother them. I don’t know what to tell you as far as what you can do. Just do something and make it legal and make it count. – Leo]

  7. Leo
    These abortions and bungled surgeries being performed by the propagandists for Obama needs to be brought to the attention of SCOTUS. Has anyone there made any statement whatsoever about Justiagate? Anyone at DOJ said anything? Has Cornell said anything? How about the ABA? Surely someone in authority has taken notice of this butchery. Say it ain’t so, Leo.

    [ed. I have comments from SCOTUS… and will publish if they don’t speak for themselves which won’t happen unless people pressure them to do so… I know other journalists who are pursuing JustiaGate as well… interviews are being lined up, but every citizen has the power to be a journalist now. What’s stopping any of you from making a list of questions and hitting the phones? You gonna wait around for somebody else to do everything? You are in an information war right now… you have blogs, phones, text, twitter etc. Have at it. – Leo]

  8. Mr. Donofrio,

    What would be your guidance for the most effective method to challenge this reprehensible status quo? I’m tracking that this has criminal connotations, which federal or state authorities should it be reported?

    [ed. Pieter, that’s your call, not mine… I have my role in this and the blog is it… I need to focus on that. What each person should do is entirely up to them based upon their own personal resources and imagination. I will say this… if you’re going to do something, anything… be an artist. Make your protest or your letter a work of art. Put thought into it and calculate the results that are possible, then tailor your energy to giving your art the best chance to accomplish its goal. Be an artist. The scrubbing of cases with Minor cited from the web was a work of art. But the masterpiece of that work was the total disappearance of Ex Parte Lockwood for three years… that was the Mona Lisa of this whole thing. Bravo and fuck you to those who made it happen. I can respect the art of that endeavor while at the same time having no respect whatsoever for the artist. Word. – Leo]

  9. The passage appears in tact on FindLaw:

    On the one hand these could be the actions of rabidly loyal followers of a National political party who will do anything to help the party and their candidate out, without being ordered to, in other words an action of opportunity, or it could be the result of one of the most incompetently run websites on the internet.

    [ed. Bull. It’s much more than one web site. Justia, Public Reosurce, Cornell, Wiki Source… and none of those cats are incompetent. You seem to forget that Tim Stanley founded Findlaw and wrote the code that runs it today… where there is no problem with Findlaw. That’s because he left circa 2002 before Obama was on the scene. Nah. This is not incompetence, it’s total competence. You got it backwards on this. JustiaGate was a work of art. – Leo]

    I know that I will now never trust Justia or Cornell again for factual information. Their credibility is shot and fankly anyone still relying on either of these websites for information is a fool.
    I believe this goes much deeper, given the eventual nomination by the Republican party of Rubio for a Vice-Prez position. If that happens, I believe you can consider that a concerted effort to change the very nature of Government. There’s a word for that.

  10. “Yes, we scam” might be a more appropriate phrase.

  11. Clearly, collusion and conspiracy are written all over this chapter in election history. Marxist radical minds worked in secret to subvert the Constitution of the United States, knowing full well it was a road-block to the election of one of their own kind. Initially the concern was a legal challenge based on the SCOTUS precedence of Minor v Happersett. After securing the erasure of reference to it they then focused on convincing everyone that his eligibility was based simply on possessing American citizenship by American birth. To do that they had to subvert the true meaning of the 14th Amendment and then convince everyone that all citizens -except naturalized ones, are natural born citizens regardless of the citizenship of ones parents. That turned jus soli into a form of legal idolatry. All bow to the magical citizenship-conveying power of birth on U.S. dirt! Everyone is a natural born citizen! Everyone can be President! Ignore that exclusionary prejudiced wording of the Constitution “NO person…EXCEPT…a natural born Citizen shall be eligible…”

  12. While I suspect most have seen the lecture where Carl Malamud and Tim Stanley spar with Boalt Professor of Legal Information Bob Berring about what sources for law and case law can be trusted. The first questioner and the woman next to him seemed concerned. If the woman was Tim’s wife, indeed they should have been because they knew they had a problem which fit perfectly into Berring’s area of the law, the veracity of documents. It is highly unlikely that Professor Berring knew anything about the Stanley’s “mangled” documents, but Stanley certainly must have anticipated that he would be dealing with Berring’s aprobation some day.

    Tim did discuss methods for policiing the translation to XML (web standard) and pdf format, but, perhaps his subconscious at work, repeatedly suggested “maybe we can care less about the citations,, but the accuracy of the text should be assured.” Professor Berring suggested a mechanism which would allow the possessor of a digitized document to resubmit it to SCOTUS or whatever authority provided the original, to check whether any changes had been made from the original, not a difficult task using any of a number of numerical techniques (used today to validate the transfer of software). Having Malamud and Stanley in the room at a talk funded, indirectly as usual, by “law.gov”, Soros’ Center for American Progress, puts the sophistication of this legal corruption into context. Law.gov has been at major law school over the country, insinuating themselves, sponsoring workshops, run often by their Chief Information Officer, Carl Malamud.

    This is much bigger than Solyndra, because anyone remotely close to the energy business knew this was just another boondoggle. The punch line with Solyndra was that Obama’s bundler and Solyndra CEO, Kaiser, got a 480 million dollar loan, wrote himself a 460 million dollar golden parachute check just before the bankruptcy announcement. The stockholders, many of them probably bundlers as well, paid for union labor at two enormous buildings in Fremont which had no prayer of manufacturing anything commercially viable. Here the payoff has been billions of dollars to Obama’s cronies, crippling of our energy industry as a payoff to Middle East Oil Interests, for hiding the trail to the critical document attesting to a formerly obscure definition, the exposure of which, while we still honored the Constitution, would have prevented Obama from taking office, or forced a SCOTUS decision to honor or replace the Minor interpretation of natural born citizen.

    Brilliant work Mr. Donofrio. Be very watchful. We need your honesty and mind.

    [ed. Good work on the video analysis… – Leo]

  13. Joe The Blogger Says:

    First there was Woodward and Bernstein.

    Now there is Donofrio.

    [ed. I’ve had a lot of help on this. Dianna Cotter of the Portland Examiner is doing excellent work as is Cindy Simpson of American Thinker and Bon Unruh at World Net Daily, Kevin at Pixel Patriot… B at TheEEstory.com… I know I’m missing some people too. Apologies. – Leo]

  14. Wow, Leo!!! You have done it again! I have been following your site for almost three years, and agree, “If we don’t hang together, we hang seperately, either way we hang” This must be investigated. Period.

  15. Joe The Blogger Says:

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

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

    Hi Leo,

    You have shown the way here as to how the money trail works.

    Every American patriot must now get to work to dig out and expose all monetary payments and ‘payments in kind’ and ‘favors’ received by Tim Stanley, Carl Malamud and John Podesta and the people and organizations associated with them.

    Next, in time honored fashion – ‘follow the money’ back up the trail and see where it leads. We will then all know who took out ‘The Contract On America’ in the rigged election of 2008.

  16. Will JT ever answer the question ? Great comments, Thanks Leo


  17. naturalborncitizen Says:

    Wayback Machine snapshot of http://ftp.resource.org version of Volume 154 of US Supreme Court reports…dated June 29, 2010


    verifies this was not done recently


  18. Leo,

    I’ve added my two-cents by publishing a short article on Jefferson’s Rebels. In addition to describing the problem, my article lists and links to eight of your articles, and asks readers to follow through with various actions to alert the public. All readers are given explicit permission to republish my article in full on their websites.

    JustiaGate: How The Constitution Was Electronically Corrupted To Help Elect Barack Obama

  19. William Jacobson at Cornell is referring (http://legalinsurrection.com/2011/11/im-beginning-to-like-these-herman-cain-internet-ads/comment-page-1/#comment-289470) questioners to an article on Clayton Cramer’s Blog when they ask his opinion of JustiaGate.

    Very Odd: Rapidly Changing History?

  20. Erica,

    I have received direct word from Professor Jacobson wherein he states he does not want to be connected with Justiagate. Here is his response:

    What I think about “Justiagate” is that I’m not going to get bogged down in it. Any lawyer representing a party in litigation would use Westlaw or Lexis for legal research, not the net. I just checked Westlaw and it has a full citation history for the Minor case. So the claim is that Justia attempted to hide a case history from a public database which is not even used by practicing lawyers ? And even if we look at public databases, I don’t know what Justia did or didn’t do but obviously the case history is known because people are arguing about it. If you or others want to make a big deal about it go ahead, but don’t include me. See this discussion, http://claytonecramer.blogspot.com/2011/10/very-odd-rapidly-changing-history.html

    Another commenter posted where another lawyer did cite using Justia and Professor Jacobson replied:

    Sorry, a law firm using a link to Justia in an article doesn’t address my point that practicins lawyers when they do legal research do not rely on Justia. And I’m not going to get dragged any further into “Justiagate” so take it elsewhere.

    [ed. Obviously Prof Jacobson don’t give a shit about the ordinary person who can’t afford Lexis and Westlaw; he don’t give a shit about people corrupting the law; he doesn’t acknowledge that the free sites have total influence over the national dialogue because NOBODY CAN LINK TO PAY SITES; the Professor shows contempt for non-lawyers and seems only concerned with practicing lawyers which tells me that citizens who go to court pro se are in contempt by this prof as well; and he’s afraid of the issue because his university is sucking up to Tim Stanley and Cornell is sticking with Malamud as well even though Cornell is tainted in publishing Ex Parte Lockwood in a corrupted format despite their assurances to the public that the case law published there is accurate. The least he could do is try to get Lockwood fixed at Cornell… but I wonder why does Cornell even bother publishing the cases at all if free sites such as the Cornell Legal Institute are so insignificant in his eyes? Prof Jacobson is full of crap and Cornell is just another liberal propaganda site as long as they maintain Ex Parte Lockwood as in its form of having redacted Minor v Happersett. I bet they fix it now… but never mention it was mangled. Welcome to the Ministry of Truth at Cornell. – Leo]

  21. Mr. Donofrio,

    I was screwing around on the Justia site, mostly wondering if they had posted reply to the accusations of “mangling” the MvH, Lockhart, etc. citations…when I noted the link to the law blogs, so I checked them out and entered “natural born citizen” in the search. Well, endless pages of articles written by LAWYERS popped up all dismissing the irrelevant premise of those having doubt as to the eligibility question. Not one article supported the efficacy of the constitutional query per NbC.

    Funny, you’d think a lawyer might have heard of Minor v Happersett, a case cited numerous times afterwards on the nature of the most basic aspect of American citizenship. Not one lawyer. Odd, no?

    Again, I was on the site originally to find a contact address and stumbled upon their twitter account (two methods, I suppose, someone could challenge them on their reprehensible and despicable treatment of our heritage) but instead found a repository of clueless hypocrisy regarding what most non-lawyers would expect the lettered to know.

    [ed. Welcome to the Ministry of Truth HQ at Justia.com. – Leo]

  22. Leo,

    After reading Jacobson’s remarks on his blog, it is obvious from his answers that he hasn’t taken the time to read your articles, and is instead relying on secondary sources he’s more familiar with (Cramer), and subsequently making incorrect assumptions. You probably won’t like this thought, but it’s possible Jacobson’s lack of interest might be due to his teaching schedule. The semester is in full swing right now. Blogging is a hobby.

    If Jacobson had taken the time to review your research, he would have realized that you are arguing that Justia’s sabotage negatively influenced the court of public opinion, resulting in Obama’s election. As you pointed out, the public, journalists, and bloggers used Justia’s free database rather than Westlaw and LexisNexis. He apparently didn’t grasp that aspect of the issue.

    Jacobson’s blog is influential. Occasionally his posts get linked on HotAir.com. We may be angry that he didn’t make an effort to immediately jump into the fray, but it would benefit the mission if we could find the means to privately and tactfully pique his interest.

    [ed. my understanding from a reader I know and trust is that Jacobson was made aware of Justiagate in full… and if he wasn’t aware of it before, he is now.

    His comment reflects the 1% of lawyers and not the 99% of citizens who the 1% would prefer be kept subservient to the attorney class who are your overlords and rulers. Jacobson is speaking for the 1% and that 1% better now be aware of the fact that I am part of the 1% who is in league with the 99% and I will be giving the 99% the knowledge of the 1%’s desire to keep you all in a state of perpetual ignorance of truth in law. While I do not appreciate the OWS 1 v 99 with regard to all wealth… as to the law the analogy is all too true, and I will be exploiting it from here on in a BIG BIG way…. There has been wealth stolen from the citizens… and that as was done against the law should be returned… must be returned and on that point I stand with the OWS movement. As to redistribution of the wealth of those who have broken no law… I stand in opposition to the OWS 1 v 99 mantra. And while I believe the money which has been supporting the OCCUPY movement may be coming from sources who do not share the values of liberty and freedom… I believe the OCCUPY movement can successfully be subverted from them and to a true revolution of knowledge and true revolutionary education of citizen power. Stay f-in tuned, People (cap on P on purpose). Word – Leo]

  23. Professor Jacobson, of Cornell and Legal Insurrection fame, has provided circumstantial evidence that Westlaw and Lexis were tampered with during the same time period.


    “We can deal with accusations of John McCain’s alleged misconduct during imprisonment even though such suggestions were beyond the pale, and also questions as to whether McCain’s birth in the Panama Canal Zone disqualified him from the highest office in the land:

    “The Senate has unanimously declared John McCain a natural-born citizen, eligible to be president of the United States….
    But Sarah H. Duggin, an associate law professor at Catholic University who has studied the “natural born” issue in detail, said the question is “not so simple.” While she said McCain would probably prevail in a determined legal challenge to his eligibility to be president, she added that the matter can be fully resolved only by a constitutional amendment or a Supreme Court decision.

    “The Constitution is ambiguous,” Duggin said. “The McCain side has some really good arguments, but ultimately there has never been any real resolution of this issue. Congress cannot legislatively change the meaning of the Constitution.”

    And when we confront crank and politically motivated theories, we do so with the best evidence we have available. And if we don’t have all the evidence, we go out and get it.

    We regularly rebut and rebuke crank theories with evidence, and by pointing out the lack of evidence to support the theory. We don’t do what so many pundits are doing, and saying thing such as “oh, well even if we release the evidence, they won’t believe it.””

    It appears that when the esteemed professor tackled the article, that he linked, from the Washington Post( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/01/AR2008050103224.html ), he sought out the “best evidence that we have available.”

    Since we now know he would never stoop to use Justia and he has us believing he does not use his own, Cornell University’s, legal reference site; that leaves Westlaw and Lexis.

    From the article ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/01/AR2008050103224.html ) he is “rebuking”:

    “Article II of the Constitution states that “no person except a natural born citizen . . . shall be eligible to the office of president.” The problem is that the Founding Fathers never defined exactly what they meant by “natural born citizen,” and the matter has never been fully tested in court.”

    When he went out and got the evidence, presumably from his true legal sources (Westlaw and Lexis), it would have clearly returned a multitude of “tests” of the matter.

    I hate to think he is lazy and fell into the category of researchers he maligned then. That is tough to say, since he is maligning them now.

    From this circumstantial evidence I now believe Lexis and Westlaw were tampered with.

    [ed. In Ex Parte Lockwood at Lexis, the reference to “Minor” is spelled “Miner”…. interesting, indeed. – Leo]

  24. Kaewa Koyangi Says:

    I still have to find a lawyer who explains what the legal consequences would be if the Usurper were found to have a biological father who was a U.S. citizen.

    [ed. Why? His father was BHO, Sr. Nobody else. – Leo ]

  25. Leo,

    I do understand your frustration also because I have total frustration about all of this mess. Many people have been trying to do something, but we don’t hear about it. Why? Do you think the media is going to say anything? No. When people have reported many things to the FBI, do they listen? No. What about government officials of any kind, do they listen to us? No. I’ve reported things, and no one cares, no one listens.

    So what do you think people should do? Actually a revolution may be close to happening, possibly. People know that others are not listening. The Tea Parties go out and have had massive crowds, so where is this all over the media? You won’t see it.

    The media are totally worthless. Government is worthless; FBI, worthless; judicial system, worthless. Everyone is totally bought and paid for.

    Therefore, who do we report anything to? As you can see from an attorney that I read about above, he doesn’t give a crap, does he?

    [ed. You can be frustrated and let that stop you, or you can be motivated and let such motivation be creative. I have been frustrated too. But I am inspired by recent events. So onward we march towards legal truth.]

  26. JUSTIA is a rather strange duplication.

    Why bother? Why suffer such cost in time and trouble? Why was it necessary? Justia was not needed but for the orchestrations it made possible. This seems to be a logical product of Professor Jacobson’s apparent lesson.

    Philanthropy is beset with ruse. Even Coach Sandusky (the alleged pedophile in the Penn State scandal) had his philanthropy “for the greater good”. There are reports he converted $470K for his pocket. Somebody always profits from a non-profit.

    “So why JUSTIA?” Why this act of fancy?

    This a question we should keep asking.

    When contemplating the depravity of predators, the underlying object of the exercise tends to be the opposite of “the greater good” typically claimed as the central organizing purpose.

    To plot and commit such perversion of our public-access jurisprudence on this scale in this time and in this way is certainly predatory. This is the paradox I see looming in the JUSTIAGATE scandal: predatory perversion of the national jurisprudence.

    Does not such predation both presuppose and require that a pernicious quality of depravity preexist in those who would conspire to do so? This is about more than greed or ambition; about more than syndicate fealty or political subterfuge.

    Given the preexisting character traits of those who would plot on this grand scale to do this thing, we may also come to understand that perhaps JUSTIA was not some victimized corporate person molested in its adolescence, but instead, was a depravity in itself, conceived and funded to create the requisite subterfuge needed to successfully engage in the very perversion and the requisite scale that has been uncovered.


    Mr. Donofrio,

    No doubt you can appreciate the perspective some have regarding Justiagate in that it is not definitive proof of MvH’s import, only it’s understood threatening relevance prior to the past election. Much like some that consider the deliberate obfuscation of Mr. Obama’s birth narrative and official documents proof of criminal misconduct, Justiagate, per se, is not germane to the actual constitutional question. I feel gloriously vindicated by your exposing of the outright fraud perpetrated by political operatives of OfA at the expense of our constitutional integrity. Though I dearly hope a given statute can be applied to punish this offense, it is more likely that someone of your talent will provide a brief for others to include in their challenges. Irrelevant law is generally not hidden from the public by measures easily demonstrated as intentional and with particular purpose. Your work in this matter is evidence of persons and entities of, at the very least, “attempts” to acts that are illegal. What are your thoughts of a amicus curiae brief associated with your stunning revelations of Justia? Such a brief would clearly indicate 25 cases that used MvH as precedence dispelling the myth that is mere dicta or superseded by the 19th Amendment.

    [ed. no comment on that at this time.. – leo]

  28. kingphilip2 Says:

    Thanks for the re-cap on Justi-Gate.. still pulling together content for a video-posting on the issue. May I use some of your screen-caps in my next vid, please? Here is an old video I posted where BHO mentions his father’s nationality:

    PS- sorry for the double-post.. pick one. 🙂

    [ed. You may use anything at the blog as long as it’s credited… thanks for asking. – Leo]

  29. I’ve been on Legal Insurrection (Jacobson’s site) many times discussing Minor v. Happersett, and he basically stonewalls any discussion about nbC. When confronted w/ M v. H, lawyers generally ignore it, since they have no answer, and try to get back to the “born a Citizen equals nbC” nonsense. None of the major “law prof ” sites’ writers ( Jacobson, Althouse, Volokh) will say a word about it. and discussing the issue there will bring no support– None. They are all frauds, and possibly threatened not to speak. I did provoke 1000 response threads on Volokh Conspiracy some months back when Orin noticed my “fraud” comment to Turley and blogged about it– twice (search Volokh Fraud thread). None of them will offer an opinion now about the meaning of nbC, and no lawyers that frequent the sites as commenters will support the M v. H definition—Ever. I believe that the entire legal profession is on lockdown, they are all frauds, and participants in the treason.

  30. Leo, here is the Senate discussing the same topic 2000:


    Both in 2000 and 2004 Chester Arthur is never mentioned. If they knew he was a dual national, they would have mentioned it at these specific hearings.

    There is no doubt they know the meaning of natural born. The risk of the amendment process is they would have to clearly define natural born, to the country, to seek permission to change that definition.

    Forest McDonald’s testimony is spot on.

  31. thenationalpatriot.com » Blog Archive » U.S. Supreme Court Has Ruled on Obama’s Eligability!!

    They are saying He is Inelligible!

  32. I’m sure this is just a coincidence …


    God bless and protect you, Sir Leo, warrior for truth.

    [ed. http://jonathanturley.org/2011/10/23/holdings-dicta-and-stare-decisis/#comment-289930 – Leo]

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: