[Update: Donofrio has corrected my text as follows -- "25 cases that cited Minor, but not Minor itself...as far as I recall. They have now removed access to the wayback machine...- Leo"]
Remember the CRS memo on eligibility of the President, which was circulated to members of Congress? Remember how those congressmen used the memo to fawn off constituents' queries about Obama's eligibility for the presidency based on his dual citizenship and questions about Obama's birth certificate?Attorney Leo Donofrio now argues that the content of the memo might have been influenced by the top-tier legal web service called Justia, which is relied upon heavily by attorneys and legal researchers. This concern is under further investigation.
Most importantly, Donofrio has discovered, and painstakingly preserved, proof that someone made alterations to 25 Supreme Court cases on Justia, specifically Minor v. Happersett and a few other cases, and that all the alterations changed or hid Supreme Court findings which specifically construed the meaning of the term "natural born citizen". Those findings proved that Barack Obama does not qualify as President because of his dual citizenship.
To summarize, Donofrio claims:
Folks, you have the evidence you need to protect the Constitution. And the stakes are as high as they come. It's really up to you out on Main Street. If you are lazy with this, the Constitution may never recover. Mark my words. A full investigation needs to take place.
The Congress was complicit in not vetting the candidates. But Justia has given them an out of epic proportions in that Justia's bogus cases changed the national dialogue. If Congress was fooled by Justia (and perhaps this plays into that CRS memo on eligibility which is being looked into more carefully now), they have another chance to make it right.To those who believe that "real lawyers" would never rely upon Justia as a citation resource, think again. Barack Obama is represented by one of the most distinguished law firms in America, Perkins Coie, and that firm has cited Justia as a resource.
Protest is in the air. The movement on the streets is supposed to be about ending secrecy and forcing the powers that be to come clean. Tim Stanley made $37 million creating databases from our national body of case law. Then his company took criminal liberties with that body of law, sabotaged the living hell out of it, and probably changed national history in the process too. You want to talk about the 1% vs the 99? Here's a textbook example, kids. Right on! Power to the people. Occupy Justia.
That being said, I can only imagine what kind of pressure Tim Stanley is under right now. He almost certainly did not undertake this sabotage on his own initiation. Tim Stanley is now in the very scary position of holding the evidence capable of putting Obama's administration in true jeopardy. If Stanley was asked, forced or paid to sabotage the cases and/or to maintain them that way after Obama became President, then high crimes were committed. Therefore, Quo Warranto is not the only possible option on the table any longer.
Impeachment is now in play.
Donofrio proves his case in Look Who Cited To Justia For Supreme Court Holding. Donofrio then quotes at length an interview with Justia's CEO, Tim Stanley, about the algorithms which control Justia's searchable databases.
Finally, Donofrio debunks Stanley's arguments that Minor v. Happersett and related cases were altered due to a Regex error. For the shocking story,
READ MORE, THEN CONTACT YOUR CONGRESSMEN . . .
wrong again. and again and again.....my goodness how many loses will it take. Minor v Happersett actually says in the opinion that the case specifically does not solve the question of someone born in the U.S of foreign parents......FAIL.....Happersett has already been cited in 7 cases to the SCOTUS....they laughed them all off .
ReplyDeleteYour remarks are too vague. Cite the 7 cases. Were each of the lawsuits actually heard by the Supreme Court and adjudicated, or were each of them turned away without hearing due to issues of standing?
ReplyDeleteThe court construed the following in Minor v. Happersett:
“[T]he Constitution…provides that ‘no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President’…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 [88 U.S. 162, 168] 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 words ‘all children’ are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as ‘all persons,’ and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.”