© Miri WTPOTUS October 28, 2011
Attorney Leo Donofrio has exposed Justia, an Internet-based law library, for apparently scrubbing crucial information from Supreme Court rulings just prior to the 2008 election, possibly to protect Barack Hussein Obama II’s candidacy.
The scrubbed information included any reference to a Supreme Court ruling, Minor v. Happersett, that defined the phrase natural born citizen.
Had the general public known about the SCOTUS ruling that defined natural born citizen, 2008 would have seen a very different election. Many more Americans would have known that Barack Hussein Obama II was, and remains, ineligible for the presidency under the Constitution.
Natural born citizenship is a REQUIREMENT under the Constitution for the presidency–a requirement even more important than age, because it touches upon sole ALLEGIANCE and undivided LOYALTY to the United States of America. Any thinking and honest person must agree that it’s critical for a president, who commands the armed forces, to have unquestioned, undivided loyalty and sole allegiance to the United States. This was so important to the Founders that they wrote this requirement into the Constitution. The requirement cannot be changed by any law or resolution passed by Congress. The only way to modify the qualifications for the presidency is through a Constitutional amendment.
After the ruling containing this SCOTUS definition was scrubbed from that particular online legal resource, “obots” (robot-like Obama supporters) posted comments ad nauseum on blogs, and published articles on their own and mainstream media blogs, promoting the LIE that the Supreme Court has NEVER defined the phrase natural born citizen.
Quite possibly the obots felt confident about spreading the lie because they knew that the database most likely to be checked by a curious public had been conveniently “cauterized of embarrassing information,” a situation we’ve seen before with this administration. The explanation put forward by Justia, after the scrubbing came to light, alleges a “coding error” made by inept programmers. More about that in a moment.
The SCOTUS did, in the Minor case, define 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.
Since Obama’s father was never even a permanent resident of the United States, much less a U.S. citizen, Obama is not a natural born citizen. Obama was born a British subject, which he admits. He later became a Kenyan citizen, which he admits. Even later, he became an Indonesian citizen, according to his Indonesian public school records.
The man was BORN with divided allegiance. A “foreigner”, per the SCOTUS definition. Therefore, he is not a natural born citizen. While he is at present a citizen of the USA (one would hope), he is not a natural born citizen, as required by the Constitution. At best, he is a naturalized citizen. Like Arnold Schwarzenegger, who similarly is ineligible for the presidency.
Another ruling by the SCOTUS, also obfuscated by Justia, touched upon the meaning of subject to its jurisdiction, meaning that a person was born into and subject to the jurisdiction of the USA. As explained by Donofrio, emphasis added:
The Slaughter-House Cases citations were tampered [with] along with Minor in Snowden v. Hughes, and this is very important. [Justia CEO] Tim Stanley’s claim that this was all an innocent code error is further strained considering that 8 of the 9 justices from Minor v. Happersett decided the Slaughter-House Cases where the Court stated:
“The phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”
So, again: Obama is not eligible because he is the child of a foreign citizen/subject ( whether or not he was born in Hawaii). As such, he was not born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States of America. Instead, he was born a British subject. He is a natural born British subject.
After Donofrio noted and wrote about the cauterization, the website Justia suspiciously added code to their webpages to prevent anyone from viewing certain prior versions of their site on the Internet Archive (The WayBack Machine). They have now apparently blocked from view prior permutations of all of their webpages. Wikipedia explains how it’s done:
If a site owner wishes to give instructions to web robots they must place a text file called robots.txt in the root of the web site hierarchy … A robots.txt file on a website will function as a request that specified robots ignore specified files or directories in their search. This might be, for example, out of a preference for privacy from search engine results, or the belief that the content of the selected directories might be misleading or irrelevant to the categorization of the site as a whole, or out of a desire that an application only operate on certain data.
(Or out of a desire to hide evidence!) This act alone suggests that someone became aware of having been found out and is now trying to hide the evidence. In my humble opinion.
After the story hit World Net Daily and many other websites, Tim Stanley, CEO of Justia, spoke to a reporter from CNET (an affiliate of CBS) and claimed that there was no politically oriented scrubbing going on, but instead it was a simple software coding error. Donofrio proved otherwise by posting screen shots from the Internet Archive. Since those archived pages are now no longer available to the public, nobody can go see for themselves in order to decide who’s telling the truth (but we know it’s Leo Donofrio).
It’s important to note that not only citations but also text from decisions was changed, so obviously something was up that cannot be explained by a simple coding error. The game is afoot!
Considering that there may be legal implications for this legal website, despite the disclaimer posted on their site stating that they’re not liable for “errors and omissions,” the owners of the site may still find themselves in legal jeopardy.
The CRS Memo
Certainly Congress should investigate, given that Congress relied upon a memo, prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), which MAY HAVE relied upon Justia for their research. We simply don’t know how the CRS compiled their version of case law.
They relied on Justia,
OR they, too, deliberately “scrubbed” the Minor v. Happersett case from view,
OR they’re simply very, very bad legal researchers.
If the latter is the case, then Congress needs to clean house and hire some competent legal researchers before they ever again rely on CRS advice for something this critical to the entire country: Whether or not the person in the White House is LEGALLY there.
The CRS memo was prepared specifically to advise Congress how to respond to constituents who asked WHY their representatives did nothing about Obama’s ineligibility for the presidency. The CRS memo did not mention the Minor V. Happersett decision, and it also falsely claimed that the SCOTUS had NEVER defined natural born citizen. From the memo:
Because the term “natural born Citizen” is not defined within the Constitution, nor has the Supreme Court ever needed to rule specifically on the terms in this clause, there have been questions raised from time-to-time as to the precise meaning of the qualifications clause.
How cleverly they parse. A red flag. The memo made the conclusion that Obama would be eligible (if born in Hawaii–a fact NOT in evidence).
The constitutional history and relevant case law thus indicate that one born “in” the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, that is, when one’s parents are not official diplomatic personnel representing a foreign nation in the U.S., would be considered a U.S. citizen “at birth” or “by birth,” and thus a “natural born Citizen” of the United States, regardless of the citizenship status of that individual’s parents.
As you can see, this opinion, upon which YOUR representatives relied, misinterpreted (or deliberately obfuscated) what the SCOTUS said. In the Snowden v. Hughes case, the SCOTUS clearly excluded the children of foreign citizens or subjects, in addition to the children of diplomats.
Because of that erroneous conclusion, our representatives and senators DID NOTHING as a blatant violation of the Constitution was allowed to stand. Oddly enough, these very arguments were posted by obots on many blogs before the CRS memo was ever written. Which begs the question: What relationship, if any, does the Justia website have with the politically active and connected, lawyer-heavy, Obama-supporting web forum Politijab?
It’s of note that at least one writer who wanted to believe that Justia was innocent by way of a programming error has changed his mind and printed a retraction:
Justia has been deleting politically inconvenient facts from its online Supreme Court record, which as Leo points out is actually a criminal offense: misrepresenting state documents.
It’s good to see intellectual honesty from the left, for a change.
The Players
Now let’s look at this from another angle. Let’s examine some of the players in this political game of Draw Poker (or perhaps, in Justia’s case, it’s Russian Roulette).
From the Justia website:
Tim Stanley [a.k.a. Timothy James Stanley]
Chief Executive Officer
Tim is a computer programmer, lawyer and CEO of Justia. Prior to starting Justia, he co-founded FindLaw and served as FindLaw’s CEO and Chairman. He is on the Board of Directors of Nolo and American Legal Net, and is on the Board of Trustees of Public.Resource.org. He is a member of the State Bar of California and was previously on the Executive Committee of the State Bar’s Law Practice Management and Technology Section. He is also a member of the American Association for Justice, American Bar Association, American Civil Liberties Union, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility [CPSR] and the Electronic Frontier Foundation [EFF]. Tim has a BS & MS from Stanford University and a JD from the University of Michigan Law School.
Tim Stanley attended Harvard Law School at the same time as Barack Hussein Obama II. Although that’s not mentioned in his company profile, above, he began law school at Harvard and finished in Michigan. His LinkedIn profile lists his educational background:
Harvard Law School 1991 – 1992
University of Michigan Law School JD 1992
Stanford University MS 1989
Stanford University BS 1986
Ann Arbor Huron High School 1982
It’s of note that Obama’s brother Mark Ndesandjo Obama attended Stanford at the same time as Tim Stanley, according to Obama’s fictional memoirs. Tim Stanley graduated in 1986, so he likely started at Stanford in 1981, around the same time that Barack Obama was at Occidental college, also in California. (Our O Timeline provides some background for events and persons in Obama’s life.) The secretive Mark Ndesandjo Obama runs a company in China called World Nexus, which sets up webpages. He wrote about GPS systems while at Emory. Thus, he shares interests with Tim Stanley, which may have put them together in the same classes at Stanford.
Tim Stanley’s Justia resume reprises the tidbit that he himself is a computer programmer:
Member, Board of Trustees, Public.Resource.Org 2009-Current
Board Member, American LegalNet Inc. 2008-Current
CEO, Justia, Inc. 2003-Current
Editor, Stanford Copyright & Fair Use Center at Stanford University 1996-Current
Board Member, Nolo 2007-2011
CEO, CTO, VP Products, FindLaw 1995-2003
Programmer, Social Science Research Network 1994-1995
INTERESTING!
We here at WTPOTUS previously wondered if Mark Ndesandjo Obama belonged to one of the first chapters of CPSR, in Palo Alto, CA. See our thread where we picked apart the CPSR, a GLOBAL organization, and its connections to many other global entities, NGO’s, “social justice” groups, and (you guessed it!) George Soros, through a very tangled web. The EFF is also supported by Soros, through his Open Society Institute and related entities such as the Tides Foundation and the Sunlight Foundation.
Now we come to Stacy Lynn Stern. From Justia:
Stacy Stern
President
Stacy Stern is President of Justia. She oversees all revenue and client operations, as well as marketing and partnerships. She provides leadership on Justia’s legal portal’s legal content and community features. Previously, she co-founded FindLaw in 1995 and was the President of that company until its acquisition by West Publishing in 2001. She is a member of the State Bar of California, Legal Marketing Association, and the American Bar Association. Stacy graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Stanford University with an AB in communication. She received her JD from Harvard Law School, where she served as an editor for the Harvard Environmental Law Review.
Coincidentally (or not), Obama graduated from Harvard Law in 1991. Stacy Stern was at Harvard in 1990 and 1991, according to her LinkedIn profile. As an editor of the Harvard Environmental Law Review, might she have personally known Obama, who (we’re told) was editor of the Harvard Law Review?
Stacy Stern attended Stanford, graduating in 1990, so she also may have known Mark Ndesandjo Obama. If she graduated in 1990, then she likely started in 1986, the same time that Mark was there. What another coincidence!
On the other hand, she might have met Mark Ndesandjo Obama through her husband. Who’s her husband?
Why, it’s Timothy Stanley! Her husband and co-founder of legal websites. It’s passing strange that so many articles about Stanley and Stern don’t mention their relationship. This is from an old article about Stern, from when she was still at FindLaw, in 2004:
Stacy Stern ’93 isn’t as famous as the Pets.com sock puppet. She never raised billions from venture capitalists or played foosball in the office during the height of the Internet boom. Yet in the annals of Silicon Valley, Stern can boast of a more impressive distinction: success.
FindLaw.com, the legal Web portal she co-founded with her husband, Tim Stanley, eight years ago, is still alive and growing. Some 3.9 million visitors log onto their Internet portal each month while once well-funded competitors like Americounsel.com are nothing more than broken links. … She arrived at Harvard Law School neither a technophile nor a savvy businesswoman. Sure, she took some classes in corporations and accounting. She even logged onto the Internet for the first time before most at Harvard Law, back in 1992. But that was more the doing of her husband, who earned engineering degrees before attending law school at the University of Michigan and Harvard. Her attention was focused more on the Environmental Law Review. … Her next Web site was a bit more practical: the Cyberspace Law Center, designed to make legal resources widely available to the public. It morphed into FindLaw, a site offering everything from free access to a century of Supreme Court decisions to continuing legal education. …
In the early years, she did all the sales, marketing and customer relations herself while Stanley focused on the technology. … The site’s focus has shifted toward marketing for law firms, providing directory listings and hosting Web sites. Last year, Stanley left FindLaw, but Stern remains as vice president. Eventually, she would like to do other things in the Internet business, but she isn’t yet sure what. “One of the neat things about the Internet is it’s constantly evolving,” she said. …”
That line about Findlaw’s competitors being “nothing more than broken links” is rather ironic, all things considered. This flattering portrait was written by another Stern, Seth Stern, a 2001 Harvard Law School graduate.
SETH STERN is a legal affairs reporter at Congressional Quarterly and has covered four Supreme Court confirmations. Seth’s articles and reviews about the court have also appeared in Slate and the Washington Post. He has been quoted about the dynamics among justices by the New York Times and Newsweek and has appeared on Fox News Channel, MSNBC and NPR.
Seth is a graduate of Harvard Law School, the Harvard Kennedy School of Government, and Cornell University’s School of Industrial and Labor Relations. He lives in Chevy Chase, Maryland.
He also wrote for Christian Science Monitor in Boston and Newsday. Oddly enough (or not) he wrote about one of Tim Stanley’s interests: copyright and fair use. For CQ Weekly, he wrote about the potential for “chaos” in the 2008 election and illegal immigration.
Seth Stern co-authored a book about “liberal champion” SCOTUS Justice Brennan and also wrote about Elena Kagan’s nomination, complaining that “ideology goes too far” in the confirmation process. Oh, lookee here! Seth Stern wrote an article that we’ve looked at many times. An article lauding Obama for his history-making life!
It was as a law student that Obama first made history—and national headlines—when he was elected the first black president of the Harvard Law Review in the spring of 1990.
And as a law student, Obama met many professors and classmates who would prove helpful in his meteoric political rise from state senator to president of the United States in five years.
Each seems to have a story about how much Obama stood out.
Helpful indeed! Quite possibly very helpful indeed. If each has a story about Obama, very few of them are talking. [Update: Another article by Seth Stern quotes several class of ’91 students who knew Obama personally.]
Whether Seth Stern is any relation to Stacy Stern is not known. Yet.
Whether Seth Stern’s work for Congressional Quarterly places him in the same milieu as the CRS employees who researched the memo that misled Congress is also not known. At present.
Certainly Stern is a common name. There’s another Stern connected to Obama–Andy Stern, former SDS student radical, Teamster, and head of SEIU.
How amazingly coincidental that these Justia muckety-mucks crossed paths so many times with Barack Hussein Obama II and his half-brother Mark. To paraphrase Robert Graves,
Let all of the poisons that lurk in the MUCK, hatch out!
This article contains a very apt quote, which puts my reference into context. In Graves’s historical novel I Claudius, Roman Emperor Claudius says,
I have decided Nero should follow me so that one day the empire will revert back to the Republic, that is to some form of representative government. … I will give Rome Nero and when he is done with Rome, Rome will be done with emperors altogether. It will be bad, exceedingly bad…worse even than Caligula but they have to have the whole terrible truth about just how bad it can be before they come to their senses. Let all of the poisons that lurk in the mud, hatch out.
Is this how the REPUBLICANS were thinking, back in 2008? If so, then it is We the People who have had to pay for their idiocy.
See here for another thread on our blog, where we discussed the CRS memo, which was written by Jack Maskell, head of the American Law section of the Knowledge Services Group, within the CRS. As always, our comments are brilliant and on point! Be sure to read them all, but especially beginning here, because the following commentary demonstrates that even the Maskell CRS memo omitted text (with no ellipsis) that was critical to the understanding of the decision it cites.
I wonder if the names of employees of CRS are available or could be made available under the FOIA. I further wonder if CRS “outsources” some of their work. For more background, Paul Hollrah wrote a very good piece about that memo and its implications, even without mentioning the Minor v. Happersett case.
As always, a BIG hat tip to our fellow authors and our commenters and researchers, who helped behind the scenes. Renee’s begun to research various Stern families on our research blog. Go there if you wish to help her brainstorm.
Leo Donofrio wrote a new post, giving more background on Tim Stanley and how this “error” supposedly happened and why it probably did NOT happen.
UPDATE: 11/13/2011
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. …
[Y]ou 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.
That’s a quote from Leo Donofrio’s latest post, wherein he documents that Justia wasn’t the only website involved in scrubbing references to Minor v. Happersett. In fact, the Cornell law website was scrubbed, too. With help from Carl Malamud, who’s connected to Tim Stanley and also to John Podesta.
My sincere apologies to our crack researcher, for not getting this information into a post that made sense, before Leo published his post, which is far better than I could ever had made it, since he has access to Lexis/Nexis and understands the case law (and is smarter than I, to boot). This was the update that I promised, all about Carl Malamud. See this link for just a sample of the vast network of people and entities connected to this issue.
Bridgette
itooktheredpill
Miri
newssleuth
We the People of the United States 
I would like to add the following:
In my work entitled “Natural (Native) Born Citizen Defined” (online), which was done in the year 2009, I have in Footnote 5 and Footnote 6 the following:
(Text) A citizen of the United States is no longer a citizen of the Union; that is, the United States of America, but now is a citizen of the United States (Fourteenth Amendment), that is a citizen of the territories and possessions of the United States, including the District of Columbia as well as federal enclaves (Footnote 4), (Footnote 5), whereas a citizen of the several States is a citizen of the Union; that is, the United States of America. (Footnote 6) The proper question to be asked is if a citizen of the United States, after the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, can be considered a native born citizen (natural born citizen) eligible to be President of the United States of America?
(fn 5) “To determine, then, who were citizens of the United States before the adoption of the [14th] amendment it is necessary to ascertain what persons originally associated themselves together to form the nation, and what were afterwards admitted to membership. Looking at the Constitution itself we find that it was ordained and established by ‘THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES,’ and then going further back, we find that these were the people of the several States that had before dissolved the political bands which connected them with Great Britain, and assumed a separate and equal station among the powers of the earth, and that had by Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, in which they took the name of ‘the United States of America,’ entered in to a firm league of friendship with each other for their common defence, the security of their liberties and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other against all force offered to or attack made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretence whatever.
Whoever, then, was one of the people of either of these States when the Constitution of the United States was adopted, became ipso facto a citizen – a member of the nation created by its adoption. He was one the persons associating together to form the nation, and was, consequently, one of its original citizens. As to this there has never been a doubt. Disputes have arisen as to whether or not certain persons or certain classes of persons were part of the people at the time, but never as to their citizenship if they were.” Minor v. Happersett: 88 U.S. 162, 167 (1874).
(fn 6) “Beyond question, a state may, through judicial proceedings take possession of the assets of an insolvent foreign corporation within its limits, and distribute such assets or their proceeds among creditors according to their respective rights. But may it exclude citizens of other states from such distribution until the claims of its own citizens shall have been first satisfied? In the administration of the property of an insolvent foreign corporation by the courts of the state in which it is doing business, will the Constitution of the United States permit discrimination against individual creditors of such corporations because of their being citizens of other states, and not citizens of the state in which such administration occurs? . . . .
We hold such discrimination against citizens of other states to be repugnant to the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution of the United States, although, generally speaking, the state has the power to prescribe the conditions upon which foreign corporations may enter its territory for purposes of business. Such a power cannot be exerted with the effect of defeating or impairing rights secured to citizens of the several states by the supreme law of the land. Indeed, all the powers possessed by a state must be exercised consistently with the privileges and immunities granted or protected by the Constitution of the United States. . . . .
We must not be understood as saying that a citizen of one state is entitled to enjoy in another state every privilege that may be given in the latter to its own citizens. There are privileges that may be accorded by a state to its own people in which citizens of other states may not participate except in conformity to such reasonable regulations as may be established by the state. For instance, a state cannot forbid citizens of other states from suing in its courts, that right being enjoyed by its own people; but it may require a nonresident, although a citizen of another state, to give bond for costs, although such bond be not required of a resident. Such a regulation of the internal affairs of a state cannot reasonably be characterized as hostile to the fundamental rights of citizens of other states. So, a state may, by rule uniform in its operation as to citizens of the several states, require residence within its limits for a given time before a citizen of another state who becomes a resident thereof shall exercise the right of suffrage or become eligible to office. It has never been supposed that regulations of that character materially interfered with the enjoyment by citizens of each state of the privileges and immunities secured by the Constitution to citizens of the several states. The Constitution forbids only such legislation affecting citizens of the respective states as will substantially or practically put a citizen of one state in a condition of alienage when he is within or when he removes to another state, or when asserting in another state the rights that commonly appertain to those who are part of the political community known as THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES, by and for whom the government of the Union was ordained and established. Blake v. McClung: 172 US. 239, 247-248, 254-255, 256-257 (1898).
After I placed this article online, the case of Blake v. McClung, was altered on the Justia.com website. Before, it read as it does in the bounded volumes of the United States Reports (of the Supreme Court of the United States). However, after (and now) it reads as follows:
“. . . So a state may, by rule uniform in its operation as to citizens of the several states, require residence within its limits for a given time before a citizen of another state, who becomes a resident thereof, shall exercise the right of suffrage or become eligible to office. It has never been supposed that regulations of that character materially interfered with the enjoyment by citizens of each State of the privileges and immunities secured by the Constitution to citizens of the several states. The Constitution forbids only such legislation affecting citizens of the respective states as will substantially or practically put a citizen of one state in a condition of alienage when he is within or when he removes to another state, or when asserting in another state the rights that commonly appertain to those who are part of the political community known as THE THE UNITED STATES, by and for whom the government of the Union was ordained and established.”
The words “PEOPLE OF” have been removed.
I am of the opinion that this was done intentionally. A primary source such as Justia should be considered a reliable service in providing accurate documentation relating to the opinions issued by the Supreme Court of the United States. Its representations of the opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States should be the same as the opinions appear in the standard; that is, the bounded volumes (with the exception of recent decisions, which being bench opinions, then slip opinions, should be replaced with the official and final versions later).
That’s interesting, Dan. Welcome to our blog, btw. Can you expound upon how this omission might relate to the issue of Obama’s ineligibility? For what reason might Justia remove the words “people of”?
Leo Donofrio answered my questions in his latest post.
Hi Dan and welcome here. We are always in need of new thoughts and brainstormers. Glad to have you and you make an excellent point.
http://phelpsstokes.org/PAFE/History
Though Phelps Stokes always financially supported African students studying at American universities, these scholarship programs became increasingly important after WWII. Under the leadership of Education Director Dr. Channing Tobias(1946-1953) the Fund concentrated efforts on providing Africans with scholarships to the US and teacher exchange programs. In 1977 USAID asked Phelps Stokes to run a scholarship program which allowed hundreds of refugee southern Africans to study at American universities. This program was established in part to address the education needs of Black South Africans under Apartheid. Phelps Stokes had been involved in improving race relations in South Africa since the 1920s. This program ended with Apartheid, but elements of it continue in the International Exchange Program.
The anti-Apartheid disinvestment campaign on campuses began on the West coast in 1977 at Stanford University
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinvestment_from_South_Africa#cite_note-4
Renee | November 1, 2011 at 11:47 am | Reply
Judge Oman Weston Ketchem
That’s where All the names came from and all the ties to
Anne
Ketch, Ryan and Timothy Stanley with the Common Cents Solar
Alli — co-op hall of famer ?
And……..
“Susan KETCHUM Stokes”. ..
KETCHUM**
Again from comment above.
ummm…Miri, I think we have something here………
The Butcher, The Baker, The Candlestick Maker | Wtpotus Research Blog Renee | November 6, 2011 at 1:53 pm | Reply
Joseph Washington Frazer was a 20th-century American automobile company executive employed in succession by Chrysler, Willys-Overland, Graham-Paige and Kaiser-Frazer Corporation. He was a cousin of George Washington
Renee | November 6, 2011 at 1:55 pm | Reply
Frazer graduated from the Hotchkiss School and attended Yale’s Sheffield Scientific School.
[edit] ChryslerWhile at Chrysler, Frazer offered his opinion to Walter Chrysler about Chrysler’s new low-entry automobile. “Well, boss,” replied Frazer, “why not call it Plymouth? That’s a good old American name. Ever hear of Plymouth Binder Twine?”[1] According to Frazer, Chrysler (himself once a farmer) replied, “Every farmer in America knows about Plymouth Binder Twine.” Sources: “Kaiser- Frazer:The Last Onslaught On Detroit”, by Richard M. Langworth; Collectible Automobile, April, 1988
[edit] Willys-OverlandFrazer was elected president of Willys-Overland in 1939. He is notable as having been the chief executive of Willys when that company won the US government contract for design of the Jeep military utility vehicle.
[edit] Graham-Paige MotorsFrazer assumed control of Graham-Paige Motors Corporation in August 1944. He and some associates had purchased 265,000 shares of Graham-Paige Motors Corporation from one of its founders, Joseph B. Graham, for $2 per share earlier in 1944. Frazer then announced Graham-Paige would return to car manufacturing after the end of World War II with an entirely new model named the Frazer. In his search for financial funding he met Henry J. Kaiser, a California industrialist. Kaiser was also considering marketing a new car and they decided to join forces. The car, the “Frazer”, was named in honor of Joseph Washington Frazer, while he was the president of the Graham-Paige Motors Company.[2]
[edit] Kaiser-FrazerThe Frazer car was made in partnership with Henry J. Kaiser.[3] The company also began production of farm equipment under the Rototiller name.[4] Frazer resigned from Kaiser-Frazer on January 14, 1954.
[edit] Real EstateIn the early 1960s Graham-Paige dropped the “Motors” from its name and turned to real estate business, buying up such properties as the Madison Square Gardens. In 1962 the firm officially changed its name to the Madison Square Garden Corporation.[5]
[edit] FamilyJoseph Washington Frazer (March 4, 1892 in Nashville, Tennessee – August 7, 1971 in Newport, Rhode Island) was the son of James Stokes Frazer (October 7, 1852 in Lebanon, Tennessee – April 17, 1892 in Nashville, Tennnessee.) and Mary Washington (October 25, 1855 in Robertson County, Tennessee – January 16, 1928 in Nashville, Tennessee.). They were married on May 8, 1878. Joseph married Lucille Frost (January 3, 1896 in Chicago, Illinois – ?) on November 18, 1914. Joseph and Lucille had one daughter Aerielle (August 23, 1917 – February 7, 2006 in Newport, Rhode Island). Joseph Frazer died of cancer at his home in Newport
NOTE**STOKES***
The Butcher, The Baker, The Candlestick Maker | Wtpotus Research Blog Renee | November 6, 2011 at 2:17 pm | Reply
William Earl Dodge Stokes – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
William Earle Dodge Stokes (1852 – May 18 1926) was an American multimillionaire responsible for developing much of New York’s Upper West Side. …
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Earl_Dodge_Stokes
Obama was part of that anti-apartheid campaign at Occidental, or so the story goes.
hummmmm….
h/t kitty
http://jeffersonsrebels.blogspot.com/2011/11/justiagate-how-constitution-was.html
The more places that we can put this info and send it to, the better off. They are trying to spread it now. In my opinion, it’s serious.
More missing cases at Justia..that had to do with Leo’s original case in NJ.
JustiaGate: ‘Natural Born’ Supreme Court Citations Disappear!
December 14, 2010
By Dianna C. Cotter with L. Donofrio Esq.
Did 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])
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/12/m-justiagate_natural_born_supreme_court_citations_disappear.html
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.
Leo had a post about that last week. See his blog for further info. They picked it up on Free Republic and American Thinker, as you found. It does indeed speak volumes, although they always had that weasely disclaimer on their entire site.
JustiaGate: Tim Stanley Adds Disclaimer Regarding The Accuracy Of US Supreme Court Cases Published By Justia.
Dec. 8, 2011
so perhaps we should flood the internet with the fact that Justia has a disclaimer and so therefore is can not claim any legitimate foundation for research in the law arena. so everytime anyone decides to use Justia they’ll get thirty or fifty hits that they are not the real deal. The fact that Tim Stanlely does it, we can help him substantiate this fact.