Orwell Meets Supreme Court Precedent

Down the Memory Hole…

Leo Donofrio has made a discovery of truly Orwellian activity…

JUSTIA.COM CAUGHT RED HANDED HIDING REFERENCES TO MINOR v. HAPPERSETT IN PUBLISHED US SUPREME COURT OPINIONS.

The US Supreme Court Center at Justia.com is the leading resource on the internet which publishes United States Supreme Court decisions. They have been caught red handed in an Orwellian attempt to revise US Supreme Court cases which mention Minor v. Happersett as precedent on the issue of citizenship, as opposed to the other issue decided in Minor, voting rights.

I have documented two incredible examples where Justia.com has been caught in the act of taking a hatchet job to US Supreme Court decisions by removing, not just the case name, “Minor v. Happersett”, but whole passages related to Chief Justice Waite’s statements on the citizenship issue which were cited favorably in BOYD V. NEBRASKA EX REL. THAYER, 143 U. S. 135 (1892), and POPE V. WILLIAMS, 193 U. S. 621 (1904).

I have published my complete investigation into this fraud perpetrated by Justia.com – including snapshots and evidence collected from the Way Back Machine at the Internet Archive

About these ads
This entry was posted in Presidential Eligibility, Transparency. Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to Orwell Meets Supreme Court Precedent

  1. TooMuchTime says:

    As I recall, Obama met, in camera, with 8 of the 9 SCOTUS justices (Alito was missing) in 2008, before the elections. No transcript is available. I’m betting it wasn’t a beer summit over lunch.

    What did they talk about? Minor v. Happersett?

    Conspiracy theory? We are talking about socialist politics here.

  2. Dude!!! Where were you at today???

  3. TooMuchTime,
    Thank you for your comment.

    The Obama-SCOTUS meeting was January 14, 2009, less than a week before the inauguration, and with two cases regarding Obama’s eligibility actively on the Supreme Court docket:

    Philip J. Berg, Petitioner v. Barack Obama, et al.
    Dec 23 2008 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 16, 2009.

    Gail Lightfoot, et al., Applicants v. Debra Bowen, California Secretary of State
    Jan 7 2009 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 23, 2009.

    “Alito was missing”
    Yes, indeed, he was. http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jan/15/nation/na-obama-roberts15
    I remember reading somewhere that while Alito had been present in the building hearing arguments that morning, he was physically ill and in a bathroom when it came time to meet with Obama. Perhaps Alito was the only one who both a) understood, and b) felt strongly enough about it, to not be able to withstand meeting with the usurper-elect.

    We are not a “Democracy”. We are a “Republic”. It matters not that Obama received a majority of the electoral college votes because he is Constitutionally ineligible and unqualified to hold the office of President. A Republic respects the rule of Law, not the rule of the majority.

    I doubt that the SCOTUS discussed Minor v. Happersett with Obama, but I suspect that Minor v. Happersett was on Alito’s mind. We don’t really know for sure, but that is what I think.

  4. waltzingmtilda,

    Sorry I missed you. I was busy with family.

  5. DANCEMONKEYDANCE says:

    snooooooooore.

  6. BOB says:

    Hi,

    There is a “Rubio for President” thread going on at Michelle Malkin’s blog. I threw cold water on the idea by mentioning Rubio is ineligible, and have now been called a troll, a helper of the liberal Democrats, a know-it-all…., and Leo Donofrio, whom I referenced, has been called a wingnut.

    And MM’s website is ostensibly “conservative”?

    “We have found the enemy, and he is us”.

    Seems appropriate, I was wondering if you might like to check out the Rubio for president discussion?

  7. http://michellemalkin.com/2011/07/17/marco-rubio-on-face-the-nation/comment-page-2/#comment-1141423

    Natural born citizen is a subset of born citizen, which is a subset of citizen.

    ( ( (natural) born) citizen)

    The Supreme Court in Minor set the precedent by echoing Vattel’s words and saying that that was the founder’s understanding of the Article II Section 1 term “natural born citizen”.

    The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.

    The Court in Minor acknowledged two different classes within the group “born citizens”.

    The Court in Minor acknowledged that Minor was a “natural born citizen”.

    The Court in Wong Kim Ark acknowledged that Wong Kim Ark was a “born citizen”, but never said he was a “natural born citizen”.

    You presumably acknowledge the boundary between the group “born citizen” and “citizen”… You presumably acknowledge that “citizen” is a superset that includes both “born citizen” and “naturalized citizen”.

    You fail to acknowledge the boundary between the group “natural born citizen” and “born citizen”… You fail to acknowledge that “born citizen” is a superset that includes both “natural born citizen” and “14th Amendment born citizen”.

    If you are right and I am wrong, please show me where the Court called Wong Kim Ark a “natural born citizen”.

  8. bob68 says:

    Thanks, as I said I may not be able to post at Malkin’s blog again until she has another open registration due to my screw up…..I can’t sign in.

    I did go there and read your excellent, easy to understand post.

    If you go to the thread, “Fast and Furious update: More guns more Stonewall”. There is a discussion of Obama’s eligibility which I was also participating in until I logged out and could not get back in.

    Some of the post there are unbelievable. Some posters are saying, for example, Rubio and Jindal are OK cause they don’t have any allegiance to any other country…as if the Constitution allows one to pick and choose. I am sure there are 34 year old people who would do a better job as president than some 35 year old people…but, so what…you can’t pick and choose.

    This is the most frustrating thing I have encountered in my 68 years.

    What is wrong with people that makes them refuse to see, or at least to acknowledge, what is going on??

    BOB

  9. Bob,

    Malkin’s blog… I did go there and read your excellent, easy to understand post.

    Thank you. For those who don’t follow Michelle Malkin’s blog, I guess I should repeat that comment here. If the comment below isn’t the one to which you’re referring, then please let me know. Thanks!

    On September 13th, 2011 at 11:45 am, ITookTheRedPill said:

    Of all of the people living in this country…
    … a subset of those are here legally…
    … a subset of those are citizens…
    … a subset of those are born citizens…
    … a subset of those are natural born citizens.

    The U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of Minor vs. Happersett, directly construed the Article II Section 1 phrase “natural born citizen” as persons born in the United States to parents who were citizens.

    The U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of US v. Wong Kim Ark, directly construed the 14th Amendment and included those born on U.S. soil, to permanently-domiciled non-citizen parents, as born citizens, but it did not call them natural born citizens (in fact, it diferentiated between them and natural born citizens by saying that the first is every bit as much a CITIZEN as the second) and the Wong Kim Ark ruling did not alter the ruling in Minor.

    A natural born citizen is a person born in the country to parents (plural) who are citizens.

    Both Jindal and Rubio were born on U.S. soil to non-U.S.citizen parents.

    Both Jindal and Rubio were born U.S. citizens, but they are not natural born citizens.

    Neither is eligible to hold the office of President or Vice-President.

  10. BOB says:

    Is this another important discovery?

    Check out this article.

    The legal opinion used by the Senate to find that McCain was a natural born citizen excludes Obama, which explains why he refused to be investigated at that time, 2008:

    I had never seen the actual opinion before.

    Check out this new article at http://www.thepostemail.com by J.B. Williams.

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/10/02/debate-over-not-natural-born-period/

    Mr. Williams does good work!!

  11. A seventh case was docketed:

    No. 12A25
    Title: David Farrar, et al., Applicants v. Barack Obama
    Docketed: July 9, 2012

    And now an eigth case gets docketed:

    No. 12A606
    Title: Edward Noonan, et al., Applicants v. Deborah Bowen, California Secretary of State
    Docketed: December 13, 2012

    I pray that this time the Court actually hears the arguments.

  12. In the case of Minor v. Happersett, the Supreme Court of the United States acknowledged, but did not resolve, doubts about whether or not someone born on U.S. soil, to parents who were not both U.S. citizens themselves, could be considered a “natural born citizen”. But they did make it clear that a natural born citizen of the United States does not need the 14th Amendment in order to be considered a U.S. citizen.

    Nine times the Supreme Court of the United States has had an opportunity to resolve the doubts about natural born citizenship that the Court itself acknowledged exist in the case of a person born on U.S. soil to parents who were not both U.S. citizens themselves.

    And nine times the Supreme Court has remained silent…

    1) 08-570 Philip J. Berg, Petitioner v. Barack Obama, et al. Docketed: October 31, 2008

    2) 08a407 Leo C. Donofrio, Applicant v. Nina Mitchell Wells, New Jersey Secretary of State Application for stay submitted November 3, 2008

    3) 08a469 Cort Wrotnowski, Applicant v. Susan Bysiewicz, Connecticut Secretary of State Application for stay and/or injunction submitted November 25, 2008

    4) 08a524 Gail Lightfoot, et al., Applicants v. Debra Bowen, California Secretary of State Application for a stay pending the filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted December 12, 2008

    5) 10-446 Charles Kerchner, Jr., et al., Petitioners v. Barack H. Obama, President of the United States, et al. Docketed: October 4, 2010

    6) 10-1351 Alan Keyes, et al., Petitioners v. Debra Bowen, California Secretary of State, et al. Docketed: May 4, 2011

    7) 12A25 David Farrar, et al., Applicants v. Barack Obama Docketed: July 9, 2012

    8) 12A606 Edward Noonan, et al., Applicants v. Deborah Bowen, California Secretary of State Docketed: December 13, 2012

    9) 12-736 Montgomery Blair Sibley, Petitioner v. Barak H. Obama, President of the United States, et al. Docketed: December 14, 2012

  13. A tenth case docketed and distributed for conference:

    No. 13-875
    Title: Robert C. Laity, Petitioner v. New York
    Docketed: January 23, 2014
    Lower Ct: Appellate Division, Supreme Court of New York, Third Judicial Department
    Case Nos.: (516176)
    Decision Date: April 11, 2013
    Discretionary Court
    Decision Date: November 19, 2013

    ~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Jan 20 2014 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due February 24, 2014)
    Mar 12 2014 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 28, 2014.
    Mar 31 2014 Petition DENIED.

  14. An eleventh…

    No. 13-1076
    Title: H. Brooke Paige, Petitioner v. Vermont, et al.
    Docketed: March 10, 2014
    Lower Ct: Supreme Court of Vermont
    Case Nos.: (2012-439)
    Decision Date: October 18, 2013
    Rehearing Denied: December 6, 2013

    ~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Mar 6 2014 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due April 9, 2014)
    Mar 26 2014 Waiver of right of respondents Vermont, et al. to respond filed.
    Apr 29 2014 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 15, 2014.
    May 19 2014 Petition DENIED.

    ~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~Phone~~~
    Attorneys for Petitioner:
    Mario Apuzzo 185 Gatzmer Avenue (732)-521-1900
    Jamesburg, NJ 08831
    apuzzo@erols.com
    Party name: H. Brooke Paige
    Attorneys for Respondents:
    Todd W Daloz Vermont Attorney General’s Office (802) 828-3176
    Counsel of Record 109 State St.
    Montpelier, VT 05609
    tdaloz@atg.state.vt.us
    Party name: Vermont, et al.

    ==============================================================================================

    A twelfth…

    No. 13-1158
    Title: Douglas Vogt, Petitioner v. United States District Court for the Western District of Washington
    Docketed: March 24, 2014
    Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
    Case Nos.: (13-74137)
    Decision Date: January 14, 2014

    ~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Mar 24 2014 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due April 23, 2014)
    Mar 24 2014 Motion to expedite consideration of the petition for a writ of certiorari and for leave to file an affidavit under seal filed by petitioner.
    Mar 26 2014 Motion DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 18, 2014.
    Apr 7 2014 Request for recusal received from petitioner.
    Apr 21 2014 Motion to expedite consideration of the petition for a writ of certiorari and for leave to file an affidavit under seal DENIED.
    Apr 23 2014 Waiver of right of respondent United States District Court for the Western District of Washington to respond filed.
    Apr 29 2014 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 15, 2014.

    May 19 2014 Petition DENIED.

    ~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~Phone~~~
    Attorneys for Petitioner:
    Douglas Vogt 12819 S.E. 38th Street (425) 643-1131
    Suite 115
    Bellevue, WA 98006
    Party name: Douglas Vogt
    Attorneys for Respondent:
    Donald B. Verrilli Jr. Solicitor General (202) 514-2217
    Counsel of Record United States Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
    Washington, DC 20530-0001
    SupremeCtBriefs@USDOJ.gov
    Party name: United States District Court for the Western District of Washington

    Stories:
    http://www.birtherreport.com/2014/03/compelling-evidence-of-forgery-of.html
    http://www.birtherreport.com/2014/05/evade-supreme-court-denies-two-more.html

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s