PATRIOT FRIENDS!
You cannot how deep and how wide the Conspiracy to elect Obama goes. He did not do this all by himself. The depth is breathtaking when you do the research!!
*** READ THIS****
then share the information!!
Justia.com deliberately aid Barack Obama in 2008 by helping to hide the one legal case that might prevent him from legally qualifying for the presidency?
LOOK FOLKS...
BICKERING ON LINE IS NOT GOING TO HELP US GET OUR COUNTRY BACK...
WE DO NOT HAVE THESE RESOURCES..
BUT WE HAVE THE NUMBERS TO REVOLT!
You cannot how deep and how wide the Conspiracy to elect Obama goes. He did not do this all by himself. The depth is breathtaking when you do the research!!
*** READ THIS****
then share the information!!
Justia.com deliberately aid Barack Obama in 2008 by helping to hide the one legal case that might prevent him from legally qualifying for the presidency?
On October 20, 2011, New Jersey attorney Leo Donofrio accused online legal research behemoth Justia.com of surgically redacting important information from their publication of 25 U.S. Supreme Court opinions which cite Minor v. Happersett,
an 1874 decision which arguably contains language that appears to
disqualify anyone from presidential eligibility who wasn't born in the
country to parents who were citizens. According to the decision in
Happersett:
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, 88 U.S. 162, 167 [1874])
Justia is a Google Mini-powered
website which has singled itself out as one of the most comprehensive
and easy-to-search legal sites on the internet. Other legal resources
such as Lexis can cost as much as $5,000 a month for a subscription, and
it's impossible to hyperlink to cases which include copyrighted
headnotes and analysis. This is why powerful law firms such as Perkins
Coie (where former Obama White House Counsel Bob Bauer practices law) have cited Justia's pages.
The
Wayback Machine, run by InternetArchive.Org, is the means by which the
changes made at Justia were documented over time. Among the first
responses from Justia regarding this controversy was to block its Supreme Court Server from being viewed by the Wayback Machine.
Click the following link for an image documenting the pattern of changes made to one of those 25 cases, Luria v. U.S., 231 U.S. 9 (1913). Notice that the case name "Minor v. Happersett" has been removed, minimizing the case searchability.
The cover-up simply reeks. While Justia owner Tim Stanley told CNET
that there were more cases which had also been "mangled," there is no
way to identify how much bogus law was published by Justia over the
three-year period in question. Minor v. Happersett
simply disappeared from cases which cited it, minimizing its footprint
on the internet at a critical juncture in history -- the election of
2008.
McCarthy v. Briscoe, 429 U.S. 1317 (1976)
On Nov. 3, 2008, one day before the election, Donofrio petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to stay the ballots in New Jersey from being used the next day in the case Donofrio v. Wells, claiming that the eligibility of both Obama and McCain had not been verified by the NJ secretary of State as required by law.
In his research, Donofrio had found a reference to McCarthy v. Briscoe,
429 U.S. 1317 (1976), an important precedent which allows the Supreme
Court -- or even one justice acting alone if an emergency stay is
requested -- to order a secretary of state to insert a name on the ballot. The holding of the case implies a reciprocal power to remove names from ballots for the several secretaries of State, as well as the U.S. Supreme Court.
Back in '08, Donofrio couldn't find the in chambers decision anywhere online. Forced to go old-school, he procured it from a brick-and-mortar law library. But to this day, McCarthy v. Briscoe remains elusive at Justia. If you look in their "Volume" database and click "429," all of the in chambers opinions are mysteriously absent.
In chambers opinions generally begin on pg. 1,301, but not every official volume has them. For example, Volume 428 has no in chambers opinions, but 429, 434, and 439 do. Justia's database for Volumes 434 and 439 do exhibit the in chambers opinions, but Volume 429 has them scrubbed.
If you search Justia's Cases & Opinions by Year in 1976, McCarthy v. Briscoe
is listed. There are two cases, an insignificant one-page opinion at
page 1,316, followed by the relevant decision on pg. 1,317. There are
links to the preview as well as "Full Text." However, all of the links
are broken, leading back to Justia's front page.
Additionally, Justia's publication of a following 1977 5th Circuit case, 553 F.2d 1005, includes a hyperlink back to 429 U.S. 1317, and that link is also mysteriously broken.
It
would be instructive to track the timeline of changes in the Wayback
Machine, but Justia is steadfastly preventing that transparency.
Furthermore, if Justia continues its previous pattern, the links (eg: http://supreme.justia.com/us/429/1317/) will be restored upon publication of this article. Take your screenshots now.
With numerous state-level challenges being prepared by opponents of Obama's eligibility for 2012, McCarthy v. Briscoe
will be a required citation. That it continues to be unavailable at
Justia seriously calls into question Stanley's contention that the cases
on Justia's servers were mangled by an innocent coding error.
This claim of innocent technical error was debunked by Dr. David Hansen, a Ph.D. in computer science. McCarthy v. Briscoe,
429 U.S. 1317 (1976) at Justia shows a completely different pattern of
information removal from what could be explained away by a single coding
error which erased case names.
The
removal of prior versions of cases from the Wayback Machine by Justia
amounts to nothing less than supreme hypocrisy considering Stanley's
high stature as a leading light championing transparency of legal
information for the public.
Use at your own risk
Justia
in 2008 tangled with the State of Oregon when it downloaded and
republished the State Statutes without either informing the state or
gaining its permission, in violation of copyright law. Dexter Johnson,
the head of the Office of Oregon State Legislative Counsel Committee
reported that the Committee received information that the State
Statutes were available at a website other than the state. Upon
investigation, the Committee ultimately decided not to pursue legal
action against Justia for copyright violation; instead, "the committee
decided to waive its copyright on the Oregon Revised Statutes going
forward," said Johnson in a phone interview.
It
is left to a user of Justia to verify the information to be found
within its pages, despite a disclaimer of "Full Text of Case" on its
pages. Upon inquiry with the U.S. Supreme Court, Patricia McCabe
Estrada, deputy public information officer of the U.S. Supreme Court,
responded that "the official opinions of the Supreme Court are posted on
the Court's Website and we don't generally monitor other sites."
Johnson
says Oregon also does not have a monitoring policy in place. When
asked how a person using Justia's services would know if he were
receiving accurate information or not, Johnson replied:
The
only way, it seems to me, would be to compare that with what's on the
legislature's website. In which case you might as well go directly to
the legislature's website. It's one of the reasons why we had originally
suggested that they have their website simply point in the direction of
our own.
Justia
publishes SCOTUS cases with the positive affirmation "Full Text of
Case." Clearly this was not done with regards to the specific opinions
it redacted and covered up. Whether a violation of law or not, various
non-profit agencies, students, law firms, and private researchers who
relied upon Justia's services remain in the dark, unable to determine if
their research materials were altered by Justia, as the company has
released neither what it redacted nor in what cases. Without an
effective means of verifying accuracy, Justia's transparency and
credibility are questionable.
Public.Resource.Org
It turns out that Justia received additional help
from their close counterpart in the open government information
movement, Public.Resource.Org (PRO), founded and run by Carl Malamud.
Malamud was also the chief technology officer for The Center for
American Progress, a progressive think-tank funded in part by none other
than George Soros. Tim Stanley is on the Board of Trustees at
Public.Resource.Org, and Justia is PRO's top benefactor. Stanley is
also a co-convenor of Malamud's Law.gov organization, which, despite
appearances, is not a government entity.
PRO
makes available a huge database of court cases to other organizations
such as the Cornell Legal Institute, which has now been dragged into the
Justia mess through a case that cements Minor v. Happersett as defining "Natural Born Citizen." Ex Parte: Lockwood 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.)
However,
at Cornell, the opinion is cut off right after "Minor v.". Someone
searching for "Minor v. Happersett" will be detoured from this case and
its holding in support of Minor's precedence. Cornell's version of Ex Parte: Lockwood is completely mangled. Yet Lockwood helps prove that the decision in Minor
created a legal definition of "Natural Born Citizen," something the
national narrative states that no Supreme Court Case has ever done, in
part because Minor's importance was effectively obscured.
There has been a deliberate, targeted effort to minimize if not erase the legal importance of Minor v. Happersett
in defining the term "Natural Born Citizen." Justia and PRO champion
freedom of information yet at the same time hypocritically redacted the
law to suit a political goal. Justia and Tim Stanley butchered these
cases and, when caught, removed Wayback Machine's access to Justia's
entire Supreme Court server. The only thing hidden now is the evidence
of Justia's deliberate scrubbing, as the cases are available in the
public domain.
Tim
Stanley has not returned messages asking for comment on this story at
time of publication. Sometime last week, Justia added a disclaimer at the bottom of its SCOTUS case texts:
Official
Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United
States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational
purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts
or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy,
completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or
information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.
The disclaimer speaks volumes about the credibility and accuracy of Justia.com.
LOOK FOLKS...
BICKERING ON LINE IS NOT GOING TO HELP US GET OUR COUNTRY BACK...
WE DO NOT HAVE THESE RESOURCES..
BUT WE HAVE THE NUMBERS TO REVOLT!