Justia Caught Sabotaging Supreme Ct. Rulings

Posted By Bridgette

 Justia.com, Erased  References  of Minor v Happersett !

  They Tampered with Twenty Five Supreme Court Cases!

The 1875  SCOTUS Case Defined 

“Natural Born Citizen”

WHO DESERVES THESE? Photo Credit: Shutterstock

Dianna Cotter, Portland Civil Rights Examiner
October 20, 2011

Someone was incredibly busy in June 2008 working on an illegal front invisible to the public; searching and altering Supreme Court Cases published at Justia.com which cite the only case in American history – Minor v. Happersett (1875) – to directly construe Article 2 Section 1’s natural-born citizen clause in determining a citizenship issue as part of its holding and precedent.  In this unanimous decision, the Supreme Court defined a “native or natural-born citizen” as a person born in the US to parents who were citizens; a definition which excludes from eligibility both Barack Obama and John McCain. 

In June 2008 no one was discussing Minor v. Happersett 88 US 162 (1875) with regard to Obama. In fact, those who were discussing the then Senator’s citizenship status had focused instead on his birth in Hawaii in a attempt to prove the future president was not born in the United States despite publication of the Senator’s short form computer generated Birth Certificate. It would not be until October of 2008 that Barack Hussein Obama’s eligibility would be questioned as to his status as a dual citizen at the time of his birth.

Meanwhile, at the “Supreme Court Center” of the influential legal research website Justia.com, efforts were underway corrupting at least 25 Supreme Court cases by erasing references to the words “Minor V. Happersett” along with references to other relevant cases on the issue along with the insertion of misleading numerical ciations.  And In two documented cases actual text was removed.

Clearly this was done in these specific cases in order to prevent their being found by internet researchers long before anyone had even begun to look for them, even before Obama would win the Democratic Nomination at the DNC Convention in Denver, Colorado in August ’08. This is premeditation and intent to deceive.

So far, 25 corrupted SCOTUS have been identified, and this number may continue to rise as the scope of the tampering becomes apparent. These cases all relied upon Minor, some specifically referencing its definition of Natural Born Citizen – a definition which makes Obama ineligible to be President as that definition is part of the holding and continuing precedent, issued from the highest court in our nation making it the law of the land, even now.

The most extreme sabotage so far discovered appears to have been done to the landmark decision United States v. Wong Kim Ark which was sabotaged to remove “Minor v. Happersett” three times, along with one reference to “Scott v Sandford”, another to the Slaughterhouse Cases  and some accompanying text relevant to the issue. These surgical alterations would alter and shape the national dialogue; leaving a persistent and  incorrect interpretation of the meaning of the ‘natural born citizen’ clause. There is no doubt whatsoever that this was the specific intent of those responsible for this illegal editing of American history and law.

As previously mentioned, the specific distinction between Citizen and Natural Born Citizen made in Minor v. Happersett is in the holding of the case, the section which creates the Law, and it is this Law which has been repeatedly cited over the decades since. In order to minimize the importance of Minor, someone at Justia deliberately decided to make these supporting citations as difficult as possible to find.

This has had the desired effect, diluting the importance of Minor v. Happersett in the national dialogue across the blogosphere’s political spectrum ever since. The end result: the one case which defines Natural Born Citizen was reduced to seeming irrelevance, and thus the conversation never got past doorkeepers already in Obama’s camp in the mainstream media.

Of course, a lawyer going into Court would never rely upon anything but an official source for Supreme Court law, but 99.9% of the population have no access to dusty law texts, or expensive legal research services such as Lexis and Westlaw. Those who committed these crimes were well aware of this, and used it to their advantage.

The manipulation at Justia.com diluted the importance of Minor by killing the citations in Supreme Court cases spanning over 100 years. Since Google most often returns Justia.com’s version of the case being searched for as the first or second hit, Justia’s version of Supreme Court opinions are most influential in the blogosphere’s forums and comments. Erasing those citations and text on the internet literally erases the importance of Minor and its precedents to millions of Americans otherwise unlikely to ever step into physical Law Library.

This is nothing short of appalling. Justia swapped their tampered versions of the cases for the actual Supreme Court opinions and then pawned them off as if the tampered versions contained the “Full Text” of the Supreme Court’s opinions. Yet Justia CEO Tim Stanley claims that making case law available to the public for free is the mission of Justia. In reality, Justia has been re-inventing our legal history and passing it off as genuine.

Attorney Donofrio’s Full report “Justia.com Surgically Removed “Minor v Happersett” from 25 Supreme Court Opinions in run up to ’08 Election”,  published today explains that exposure to criminal punishment is a direct result of not just the tampering, but more specifically, as a result of placing text on every tampered page which states, “Full text of case”:

Regardless of who you supported in 2008, or whether you agree with the assertion of Minor’s relevance, every American should be outraged that 25 Supreme Court cases were surgically sabotaged and then passed off to the public as if the tampered versions contained the “Full Text of Case”.  This is the very definition of “Orwellian” fascism.  It’s propaganda.  And there is no place for it in the United States.  The sacrifices for truth and justice which created and have sustained this nation are wantonly debased by the subversive deception emanating from Justia.com servers.

~ Leo Donofrio Esq.

Clearly, the corruption of Supreme Court Cases was systemic and surgically targeted within Justia.com, one of the largest and best known legal research sites on the internet. Justia is nothing if not efficient in driving traffic to its site; this is after all their business. Today they partner with Google and have Google Analytics within their site which does two things; it increases Justia’s visibility on Google searches, and it pushes their website to the top of those searches done on legal issues. When specific search terms are erased out of a document, naturally that document will not appear on a search. Anyone searching for the case name “Minor v. Happersett” and “citizenship” would never see the dozens of cases manipulated by Justia.com.

Justia founder Tim Stanley has for years prided himself and his companies on principles of ‘freedom of information’.  On June 19th, 2008, Stanley addressed the Legislative Council Committee at the Oregon State Legislature with the following statements:

“Our goal is to provide academic researchers, government officials, attorneys, and the public with advanced features, including full‐text search, annotations by legal professionals, and comparison tools to visualize the differences in the law between the individual states…”


“In the end, we both recognize the importance of providing the public with online access to our nation’s laws because such actions promote understanding, participation in and respect for our democratic institutions and legal system.”

To describe these comments, made at roughly the same time Supreme Court Cases were being scrubbed and deliberately altered at his site as ironic, is an understatement of gross proportions.

Only a person thoroughly educated in the law would know precisely which cases to look for in order to direct the changes to be made to those cases. Furthermore, only someone with access to Justia.com’s database could physically make these changes from inside the website. This artificially created a near empty result set and the cases which did turn up led those inexperienced in the law, nowhere.

This appears to violate every principle Tim Stanley and Justia.com have built their business upon.

The manipulations at Justia.com were initially discovered by Attorney Leo Donofrio on July 1, 2011, when he published his initial report, “Justia.com Caught Red Handed Hiding References to Minor v. Happersett In Published US Supreme Court Decisions,”. Upon publication of his original discovery documenting the sabotage of Boyd v. Nebraska, and Pope v. Williams, two Supreme Court cases which cite to Minor v. Happersett as precedent on citizenship, two things happened almost immediately:    First, the altered pages were returned to their original versions at Justia within an hour or so of Donofrio’s publication.  Second, despite Justia CEO Tim Stanley’s cries for freedom of legal information (and law suits compelling the same), robots have now been placed on the Justia URL’s for the Boyd and Pope cases at InternetArchive.org, also known as the Waybackmachine.  These robots make it impossible to see the tampering as it unfolded in mid-2008… with those cases.

So much for freedom of information.

One can, however, still see the tampering from screenshots taken by Donofrio and are attached to that original report on July 1, 2011 at his blog, Natural Born Citizen, which has been singularly focused on the issue of Presidential eligibility since late 2008.

As Donofrio documents in his article today, when he discovered a third tampered case, instead of rushing to publish it, he contacted a number of other bloggers and reporters to help document the evidence before Justia dispersed their robots to block it.  While Donofrio originally only discovered two cases of tampering, somebody at Justia knew where the bones were buried and went about reinstating “Minor v. Happersett” in the at least 25 cases which it had earlier sabotaged.  It appears that whoever knew about these additional despoiled cases, must have believed by fixing them before the corruption was exposed no one would ever suspect they too had been altered.

What tipped Donofrio off last week to the extent of Justia’s tampering was the case “Luria v. United States”. This case also firmly supports Minor on citizenship, and he double checked the text to see if it included references to Minor. It did… something he had not noticed upon previous readings of the case at Justia.com.

With his new insight into SCOTUS case tampering, he plugged the URL into the Waybackmachine to see if it had been altered in the past. Bingo. It had. Furthermore there was nothing blocking his ability to see those snapshotted pages, and how they had been altered compared to the original text. The gun wasn’t just smoking, the bullet was still flying.

A brief explanation of the how the Waybackmachine works. It takes snapshots of internet pages. It may not record the day a given webpage changed, but it documents the changes when it does hit that page. Thus a date on the Waybackmachine of April 13, 2004 means this was the date the snapshot was taken, not when the changes were necessarily made. There is no way of knowing precisely when the change occurred as the Waybackmachine does not record the precise instant the change is made, it is only sometime later when the Internet archive records it.

The evidence he discovered there, at the time of publication of this article, is still available and shows the same exact same pattern of behavior – deception – that Justia exhibited with the Boyd and Pope cases Donofrio published back in July.

If Justia hasn’t blocked access to the WaybackMachine for their publication of Luria v. US, 231 U.S. 9 (1913) by the time you read this, then it continues to be evident and accessible that on Nov. 4, 2006 the Waybackmachine recorded  Justia published the true original opinion issued by the Supreme Court with no tampering evident. Minor v. Happersett is cited on page 22 directly referencing Presidential eligibility as follows:

“Citizenship is membership in a political society, and implies a duty of allegiance on the part of the member and a duty of protection on the part of the society. These are reciprocal obligations, one being a compensation for the other. Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects, save that of eligibility to the Presidency.

Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 165, 22 L. ed. 627; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, 101, 28 S. L. ed. 643, 645, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 41; Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 827, 6 L. ed. 204, 225.”

The July 6, 2008 Waybackmachine snapshot of Luria v. US is the first snapshot that shows the tampering:

“Citizenship is membership in a political society, and implies a duty of allegiance on the part of the member and a duty of protection on the part of the society.  These are reciprocal obligations, one being a compensation for the other.  Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency.  

88 U. S. 165; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94, 112 U. S. 101; 22 U. S. 827.”

Notice that “Minor v. Happersett” has been removed along with the reference to “Osborn v. United States”, another case which causes trouble for Obama (and McCain).  All of the WaybackMachine snapshots between July 6, 2008, and April 13, 2010 for this case, show the same tampering.  The current, live Justia page for Luria v. US has been un-scrubbed and shows the original Supreme Court text. It is only with an archival resource such as the Waybackmachine that the alterations can be seen.

At publication, insertion of the URL into the Waybackmachine for this page at Justia still reveals the changes made to this page over time. Repeat this entire process with 25 Supreme Court cases and the extent of the tampering becomes evident.

This is disturbing enough, yet there was another subtle and insidious layer of deception. In every single instance of tampering, the numerical citation attached to Minor V. Happersett, has also been altered.  (See Donofrio’s blog for a complete break down of this.)  Changing these numbers is yet another layer of deception practiced at Justia.

While Donofrio documents in detail what the finer points of law in both versions mean in his article, this Examiner.com publication documents what this reporter has personally witnessed – the tampering of Supreme Court Cases online in the guise of “Full Text of Case”. This article is not the legal opinion of an attorney; it is witness to an event.

It’s important to note that the only way Justia could block all access to previous versions of their publication of cases would require .txt robots to be placed on their entire domain records at the Waybackmachine.  If Tim Stanley were to secure Justia.com from the honest and forthright archiving of the WaybackMachine, he would be an instant pariah in the freedom of information scene of which he is a leader.

Furthermore, if Stanley were to place robots on only the 25 (or more) cases which cite Minor v. Happersett, it would be a de-facto admission of guilt.

It appears that whoever tampered with these cases went back and “fixed” all of them, including 23 Donofrio wasn’t aware of until this week when he conclusively established the sabotage by Justia.  For all 25, the pattern is precisely the same. In 2006, the cases at Justia are pristine in the Waybackmachine; word for word from official Supreme Court cases. Then at various points in 2008, the cases are corrupted by removal of the case name “Minor v, Happersett” ( as well as some other case names and text.)

The cases remained corrupted, according to the snapshots of the Waybackmachine in most cases, until late 2010.

Today however, all 25 cases have been painstakingly returned to their official Supreme Court versions; all references to Minor are back, the case and page numbers have been restored, as well as all missing text and references to other cases.  Still, the pattern is clearly visible to anyone who takes the time to look at the evidence made available by the Waybackmachine.  The sophistication and surgical elegance used to sabotage these cases is astounding, and has been personally witnessed by this reporter.

Every case which has been found to date by Mr. Donofrio has been documented with great attention to all these details. This has been accomplished by downloading the full code of the original un-tainted pages and the corrupted revisions from the Waybackmachine’s date stamped archive, along with screenshots of the pages as they appeared in browsers such as Mozilla Firefox before and after the tampering occurred, and the restored pages.

The volume of data is significant and Mr. Donofrio is in the process of making the entire archive available to the public. The article he has published today contains what he refers to as a “document dump“. It is in reality evidence. The reader is strongly encouraged to view the images which document Justia’s actions. Upon doing so, every member of congress should be notified of the existence of this information. Such usurpation of American history and law cannot be allowed.

Screenshots and links have been sent to several specific media contacts which include the Washington Times, Accuracy In Media, and Free Republic. In the interest of putting this information in front of as many eyes as possible before publication, it has been made freely available since Friday October 18, 2011 in the form of screenshots and saved page code. Should the information presented here be altered on the internet following publication, there will be a significant number of media outlets with knowledge and proof of any further alterations to internet archives.

The penalty associated with violating the “False Writings Statute”, 18 U.S.C. 1018 is jail and a fine for each count. With at least 25 counts if not more, this could mean upwards of 25 years in prison. The manipulation of Supreme Court cases is an offense against all Americans, and the Court itself. If like Fast and Furious this scandal reaches directly to the White House, the ramifications are both dire and catastrophic.

Minor v. Happersett defined the one specific term which Barack Obama could not overcome with “Hope and Change” though he could ‘hope’ someone would ‘change’ the cases which help define the term “Natural Born Citizen,”.  This case, if it had been sufficiently known to the public and media, and sufficiently documented by supporting citations, might have eliminated the possibility of Obama’s nomination and/or election. Either Obama got lucky in this regard, or the “constitutional law professor” and former editor of the Harvard Law Review had some hand in directing the efforts to erase the very citations in law which define him as a citizen, and at the same time rule him out as a constitutional candidate for President of the United States.

Just as certainly as the corruption at Justia.com has been documented and archived, more will be revealed.   Stay tuned, it is expected that this information will generate some significant updates. They will be reported here as they happen.


Additional reading at Leo’s blog where he has screen shots from all of the SCOTUS cases as shown on the Wayback Machine and then again as they were  restored on Justia.com.


Leo states, “TAMPERING WITH OFFICIAL WRITINGS IS A CRIME UNDER 18 U.S.C. 1018.”    Who carried out the plot?

97 responses to “Justia Caught Sabotaging Supreme Ct. Rulings

  1. This is extremely serious. I hope this really gets out big time.

  2. Where is everyone? This needs to go viral all over the place. I’ve been trying to link to here and Leo’s and the Examiner article of JustiaGate.

    • Thanks Kitty! I am having computer problems related to major viruses from a couple weeks ago.

      Lots of people are reading, they just are not commenting yet today.

      I commend Leo for following through on this. I wonder if this removal of information by the bots affected the congressional lawyer’s research on the eligibility issue. I am referring to the Congressional memo regarding Obama’s eligibility. Might they have presented different information if that case was available to them along with all the other cases where it was cited?

      • “I am having computer problems related to major viruses from a couple weeks ago”
        DITTO!!!! I lost three machines.That is why I told MIRI the other day “something is wrong with my machine, or me or both”. I was still working on the one computer at the time.

        • Yikes!. I had 60 trojans and 9 viruses! It was a Major attack and I have no idea where or how I got them as I don’t open strange emails, but they got by my virus control and it has been one problem after another.

      • I left this comment on Leo’s blog also.

        It appears that information was removed from Justia between 2006 – 2008. I checked the Congressional Memo and it was written on April 3, 2009. So when the attorneys might have been using Justia for information to write their memo, they found no information cited. (I am giving them the benefit of the doubt.). Note the wording on page 4 of the Congressional Memo “nor has the Supreme Court ever needed to rule specifically on the terms.” Apparently they did rule!

        April 3, 2009

        Subject: Qualifications for the Office of President of the United States and Legal Challenges to the Eligibility of a Candidate.

        Page Four (Emphasis is Mine)

        Legal Analysis of Natural Born Citizenship Requirements

        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.


  3. Leo did so good. I wonder if this affected Leo’s case that was in the Supreme Court. It surely had to have affected it. And had Leo had this….well, I think that things would have turned out differently.

    Sorry you’re having computer problems.

  4. Leo did do very good Kitty. Wondering here about STANLEY….

    JustiaGate – Portland Civil Rights | Examiner.com
    The manipulation at Justia.com diluted the importance of Minor by killing the citations in Supreme Court cases spanning over 100 years. Since Google most often returns Justia.com’s version of the case being searched for as the first or second hit, Justia’s version of Supreme Court opinions are most influential in the blogosphere’s forums and comments. Erasing those citations and text on the internet literally erases the importance of Minor and its precedents to millions of Americans otherwise unlikely to ever step into physical Law Library.

    This is nothing short of appalling. Justia swapped their tampered versions of the cases for the actual Supreme Court opinions and then pawned them off as if the tampered versions contained the “Full Text” of the Supreme Court’s opinions. Yet Justia CEO Tim Stanley claims that making case law available to the public for free is the mission of Justia. In reality, Justia has been re-inventing our legal history and passing it off as genuine.

    Attorney Donofrio’s Full report “Justia.com Surgically Removed “Minor v Happersett” from 25 Supreme Court Opinions in run up to ’08 Election”, published today explains that exposure to criminal punishment is a direct result of not just the tampering, but more specifically, as a result of placing text on every tampered page which states, “Full text of case”:


  5. And the winners of last night’s Republican debate were… Rick …
    Aug 12, 2011 … Dr Tim Stanley is a research fellow in American History at Oxford University. … blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100100775/the-winners-of

    • The Tim Stanley at Justia is NOT the same person mentioned in the UK article. Research was done on the other thread previously. The UK Tim Stanley is a British historian.

      Tim Stanley

      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 and the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Tim has a BS & MS from Stanford University and a JD from the University of Michigan Law School.

      * Member, Board of Trustees at Public.Resource.Org
      * Member, Board of Directors at American LegalNet Inc.
      * CEO at Justia

      * Harvard Law School 1992 – 1992
      * University of Michigan Law School JD 1989 – 1992
      * Stanford University BS 1986 MS 1989
      [Grew up in Ann Arbor, MI]

      We developed a US Supreme Court Center, with all of the US Supreme Court decisions with Oyez.org at supreme.justia.com.

      Privately Held; 11-50 employees; Internet industry
      April 2003 – Present (8 years 4 months)

      Orwell Meets Supreme Court Precedent


  6. Give Us Liberty
    7 hours ago … However, Justia CEO Tim Stanley was associated with “Obama For America 2008″. (Dianna Cotter’s article will take a closer look at Tim Stanley.) …. The illegal presidency of Barack Obama is just a further erosion of our …


  7. Discussions on Leo’s article and the one by Diane Cotter were both being discussed at Free Republic.

    Natural Born Citizen ^ | 10-20-2011 | Leo Donofrio

    Due to the author’s comment at Free, I changed the date from Oct. 18 to Oct. 20th. She also said she worked closely on the article with Leo.

    October 20, 2011 2:12:46 PM by Danae
    The Examiner ^ | 10-20-2011 | Dianna Cotter

    The date on this article SHOULD read 10-20-2011. I should know. I wrote it.


  8. I’ll be getting this info out. It amazes me how big of an operation there is to hide info, (Gobal warming, ect). One would think that law schools around the country would be appalled at this. I’m gonna start sending this info to them and have my team send it to their college news papers,
    Maybe some trouble making, smart a@@ college kid (One that loves to buck the system) kid will expose this.

    Thanks for the info

    • Hey ya Greg..long time no see! Take it away and send it wherever you can. You might want to add the information on the Congressional Memo also. It shows how the congressional lawyers lied about the eligibility issue. This was what Congress relied upon to send to their constituents. Although if the people you send it to don’t understand the issue, they might be swayed by the Memo. (Congress was!) Those of us who are aware of the issues were able to pick it apart.

      The only lawyers that will be upset will be on the right side..although most of the attorney’s that use Justia won’t know now if they can TRUST Justia’s information when they read the information related to their own cases. Funny when it happens to someone else. It won’t be so funny when it affects them.

      Obama’s Eligibility – Congress Internal Memo Revealed – Updated 2x


      • Members of Congress likely relied on memos from the Congressional Research Service, and those memos likely relied on what was found by searching Justia.com.

        So, by altering the historical record at Justia, they were able to feed deceptive information to members of Congress.

        • This incident goes much deeper than just Justia.  Like a 
          spider web, the Strunk Case (referred to above) also shows an intentional and deliberate series of actions wherein the players control access to the Internet archives.

          “The New York State Board of Elections had embedded computersource code into their website in an ongoing effort to blockanyone from seeing previous versions listing the Constitutional eligibility requirements for President of the United States to be a Natural Born Citizen.”

          The irrefutable facts expose the complicit action by the Wayback Machine and The Internet Archive, to hide the deceptive and manipulative practices of the NYSBE.  


          “The New York State Board of Elections is currently a defendant in the case Strunk v. BOE, et al: (with a preliminary hearing for the NYS BOE order to show cause to change the website to NBC to be heard Tuesday 10-25-11 at 2:45 PM before the Honorable Arthur M. Schack, J.S.C. and the Supreme Court of the State of New York; ……”

        • Exactly. That’s what’s the most egregious aspect of this deception. Congress ought to be outraged. The people who did this should be found and at least fired. But if the Congressional staff who prepared that report used a public database that itself has a disclaimer about not being liable for errors or omissions, they’re either fools or complicit. It’s almost like malpractice. Surely Congressional staffers have access to the SCOTUS law library. I’m sure there is one. How else do they publish their opinions? It’s almost like a college student referring to Wikipedia instead of original sources. IMHO.

          • But …… Just as college students ARE using Wikipedia, attorneys and staffers ARE using the Internet………And judges are now using an undocumented footnote in a pleading as the basis of decision.

            They are advocates of “The end justifies the means” new form of justice……….. Propose your ideology and if you can’t find facts or statistics to support your position then create them… Isn’t that what fast and furious is all about? How about global warming?

            Just listen to what those young folks squatting on wall street have to say…They want it and they want it NOW.

            Disclaimers and exculpatory clauses have no meaning what-so-ever where there exists no desire to be a proponent of the truth coupled with an intent to deceive.

          • So true, AOne. I cannot fathom what the solution would be. We have college students who plagiarize and cheat and think it’s fine because everybody else does it, too. NO moral compass whatsoever.

            Last time this Justia incident was discussed, the obots claimed it was a software error. WND now has a story saying that’s their excuse this time, too:

            “Writer Declan McCullagh explained that Stanley said the multitude of references to the Minor v. Happersett case in the U.S. Supreme Court in 1875 were dropped or altered because, “Justia’s programmers typed in “.*” (which matches any character) when creating a regex. It’s now an “\s” (which matches only spaces).”

            The writer explained that “regex” is a term for “regular expression.”

            But there was no definitive comment about what operation was being pursued when the changes were made, or why programming was needed for opinions from the high court that presumably would not be subject to editing, alterations or changes.

            And Justia declined another request from WND today to respond to questions about the issue. …

            The report from C/net confirmed that Justia noted the opinions as posted were inaccurate. … Stanley, who was described by Donofrio as being associated with “Obama For America 2008,” told C/net that the changes have “nothing to do with President Obama.”

            In fact, he told C/net there have been internal discussions about how to prevent the situation from developing in the future. …

            But Donofrio suggested to WND that the programmers may have gotten involved in the files when the site was being updated – probably late in 2006 – to include hyperlinks in the documents.

            But he said he has screen views of the files showing that the update was accomplished by Justia without any evidence of issues with the Minor v. Happersett reference. He said specifically the case reference was there after the site was updated.

            He said it was months later that the site sent programmers to work again – and he’s convinced this time it was to change the Minor references.

            Then when the current story erupted, he said, Justia blocked access through the Internet’s Wayback Machine, a resource for time-dated pages from Internet sites, to U.S. Supreme Court opinions.”

          • As usual, as with the BC’s, we need EXPERTS to tell us what’s going on.

        • So, by altering the historical record at Justia, they were able to feed deceptive information to members of Congress.

          And that is it Redpill.

  9. Knowing what lawyers will soon know about Justia..how many will place their bets on the information they receive?

    Justia Offers Free Opinion Summaries
    — Slaw

    Jul 15, 2011 Justia.com is now providing free daily and weekly opinion summaries for the US Supreme Court, all US federal courts of appeal, and state supreme courts. As well, free weekly opinion summaries are available for nearly sixty areas of practice.


  10. I find this slant interesting. Attorneys representing Communist Cuban interests? Also interesting in light of Marco Rubio and the current attacks on him.

    Justia Goes to Cuba – and I Che-ify Myself
    Posted by Robert Ambrogi in General
    May 24, 2011 Snips

    Justia announced this week the launch of Justia Cuba, a website that complies most of Cuba’s legal resources. It includes Cuba’s constitution, laws, resolutions and other legal documents.

    “This project posed some unique challenges,” Justia’s Gabriel Saldana writes, “in that some of the material was hard to find, Cuban web servers were frequently down, and access to these servers were further constrained by the limited bandwidth connecting Cuba to the outside world.”

    As for me, finally I have an excuse to post the Che-ified version of me.


    Justia Cuba Provides Legal Resources on Cuban Law
    May 23, 2011 by Gabriel Saldana Snips

    The Justia Latinoamerica project seeks to provide legal research tools for persons interested in laws and legal issues throughout Latin America. Today, I want to share with you Justia Cuba, our website that compiles most of Cuba’s legal resources.


  11. JustiaGate – Comments at Free

    According to nndb: John McCain – Born 1936 in the Panama Canal Zone, to military parents [Both US citizens].

    The United States has never had sovereignty over any part of Panama, thus the 14th Amendment’s words, “born or naturalized in the United States”, do not apply.

    Congress passed a law on 4 August 1937 retroactively granting those born in the Canal Zone after 1904 US citizenship, nearly one year after McCain’s birth.
    That law (50 Stat. 558, now codified as 8 USC § 1403) states: “Any person born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.” It is thus certain the McCain is a US citizen, but his status as “natural born citizen” may be questioned.

    While the record remains muddy, based on searching a number of Internet sites, it would seem that the Congressional law passed in 1937 would trump the citizenship issue but, as the citation notes, does leave the “natural born citizen”
    issue unclear.

    8 USC Section 1403 states – ” TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III >

    Part I > § 1403 § 1403. Persons born in the Canal Zone or Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904:

    (a) Any person born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United
    States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.

    (b) Any person born in the Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States employed by the Government of the United States or by the Panama Railroad Company, or its successor in title, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.”

    68 posted on Thursday, October 20, 2011 4:18:12 PM by DustyMoment (

    Political/US Constitution muckraking flashback,. It is NON-BINDING .. it is NOT a law.
    Senators Introduce Resolution To Make Clear Senate’s Position On Candidate’s Status

    Senators: McCain Is A ‘Natural Born Citizen’


    WASHINGTON (Thursday, April 10, 2008) Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) today introduced a resolution expressing the sense of the U.S. Senate that presidential candidate and current Senator John McCain
    (R-Ariz.) is a ‚Äònatural born Citizen,’ as specified in the Constitution and eligible to run for President.

    In February, The New York Times [a well-known liberal propaganda rag] published a report calling into question the legality of McCain’s presidential run.

    McCain was born to American citizens stationed on an American Naval base in the Panama Canal Zone. He has since served in the U.S. Navy, and, since 1983, has served in the U.S. Congress.

    “Because he was born to American citizens, there is no doubt in my mind that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen,” said Leahy. “I expect that this will be a unanimous resolution of the Senate.”


    Mrs. MCCASKILL (for herself and Mr. LEAHY, Mr. OBAMA, Mr. COBURN, Mrs. CLINTON, and Mr. WEBB) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on


    Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.


    76 posted on Thursday, October 20, 2011 5:04:58 PM by STARWISE (The overlords are in place .. we are a nation under siege .. pray, go Galt & hunker down)

    Discussion from July:

    87 posted on Thursday, October 20, 2011 5:55:42 PM by El Sordo


  12. It’s hard to believe. But there it is. I tried the Wayback Machine for the Luria case that the author said was still there as of publication. It seems to not be there now. She said this would make Stanley a pariah. Guess he’d rather be a pariah than proved guilty.

    • It’s there now, but I did save the screenshot from when it wasn’t there this afternoon. Curious stuff going on.

      I remember when this issue first arose, that they tried to brush it off as a software problem. What a curious software problem. It only affects cases having a bearing on Obama’s eligibility.

      • this is why I love a good book, one that pages don’t mysteriously disappear from and then reappear at will. Better dust off my old law books. Looks like we’re gonna need em afterall.

        • Yep! If you have them, save them. We might need some pertinent quotes. Maybe you should hide them, lest Fahrentheit 451 becomes reality.

  13. http://www.therightsideoflife.com/2009/10/29/barnett-v-obama-case-dismissed-a-teachable-moment/#comment-26091

    Check out that commentary from 2009 on The Right Side of Life and see how confidently certain obots obfuscate and actually lie about what these cases mean. This was during the “scrubbed” period when a person wouldn’t know to research Happersett. Here’s the comment, in response to a jvn who cited the case AT JUSTIA:

    November 3rd, 2009 13:17
    Observer, that’s actually wrong. There are several cases on point that any court would look to for determining this question. Rhodes v. U.S., and Lynch v. Clarke are just 2 that I can think of off the top of my head.

    Then of course, you have statements from Supreme Court cases such as Luria v. United States, which clearly states “Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency.” So, Luria v. U.S. says that Native Citizen in synonymous with Natural Born Citizen. (Therefore blowing your theory that “Native Born” does not mean “Natural Born”.)

    You have Schneider v. Rusk, which again upholds that same definition.

    My personal favorite is Knauer v. United States, which states: “Citizenship obtained through naturalization is not a second-class citizenship. It has been said that citizenship carries with it all of the rights and prerogatives of citizenship obtained by birth in this country ‘save that of eligibility to the Presidency.’” So, see even Knauer considers citizenship at birth to be synonymous with Natural Born Citizenship.

    There is not one case that has ever ruled that you can be a citizen at birth, and not a Natural Born Citizen. [THERE’S THE LIE! There was a case and it remains precedent.]

    Plus, they’d also have to teach that U.S. v. Wong is not binding precedent in NBC cases, which is not likely, especially since Wong used cases such as Rhodes and Lynch to reach their decision, and quoted quite extensively from their decision.

    There’s a whole bunch of case law in this which will make any court rule that Obama is eligible, if it ever gets that far. The only people who do not seem to think so are people who are so against Obama, that if Obama said that the Sky was Blue, they’d call him a liar, and convince themselves that the sky was green just to prove themselves right.”

    Was the Wong case modified/scrubbed, too? Note the Alinsky ridicule. Repeat the lie, repeat the lie, repeat the lie.

    I wonder if their sudden focus on Rubio has something to do with this? Are they hoping to NOW enlist Republicans to take the case to the SCOTUS for a new definition, so that, after the fact, they can get Rubio AND Barry declared NBC’s? Or get Congress to unconstitutionally declare them both NBCs, as they did McCain?

    • It’s interesting that while the Happersett ruling used the phrase “these were natives or natural-born citizens”, the Luria case says only “native citizen” AND Obama’s FTS website referred to him as a “native citizen” and not as a “natural born citizen.” http://www.fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate

      It’s almost as if they had advance notice of what phrase to use so it could be obfuscated via the SCRUBBED version of the Luria case, among others.

      So this begs a question: Is there some subtle difference between “natives” and “native citizen”? There must be, but they’ve muddled the terms. If the SCOTUS considered “natives” synonymous with “natural born citizen” in the Happersett ruling, within which they MADE CLEAR a natural born citizen has two citizen parents, then simply being a “native citizen” or “native born” is not the same as being a “native”. Just as being a citizen AT BIRTH is not the same as being eligible for the presidency.

    • In all of the articles from the 1880’s that I published in an article, the terms Native Citizen appeared to be synonymous with Natural Born Citizen. It was in the context of the articles since most were talking about who was eligible to be president based on examples of specific circumstances. The articles also cited opinions of the most famous constitutionalists.

      Natural Born Citizen Discussions in the late 1800’s


  14. Excellent work Bridgette/Leo. I saw this in breaking new’s on MSNBC yesterday…ya right, sarc.

    Unbelievable the way the MSN cover’s for the communist Resident.

    Treason beyond belief is upon on the U.S.A.

    At one time in this country communist were arrested and deported.

    Sicking, beyond beyond belief.

  15. I started questioning when BO first started to run for president. Apparently it was in 2004 that it was in the plans. Here’s the link:


    “Kudos to the Politico’s Ben Smith for apparently piecing together an interesting puzzle and reporting that Barack Obama may have begun to make early moves toward a presidential campaign as early as 2004, before he was elected to the Senate.

    Smith noticed this sentence from a story that ran in the Wall Street Journal last week: “By the end of the [2004] campaign, his aides were sending workers into Iowa, the first Presidential caucus state, to begin developing contacts among Democrats there, according to Al Kindle, an Obama campaign aide at the time.'”

    There’s more to the article. I just copied the first part.

  16. The reason that I questioned it was because the tampering started in 2006, right? Well, as far as Leo can tell from what he’s done so far.

    • I don’t know how far back the WayBack Machine goes. It would also depend on when they started their website. And if it always had the same Web address. It’s sufficient to know that there’s PROOF of the tampering. If Congress doesn’t wake up, if the LAWYERS with a conscience don’t wake up, if the courts don’t wake up, I don’t know what we’ll do. But, kittycat77, did you notice THIS ridiculous comment on Leo’s blog:

      “stormywthr Says:
      October 21, 2011 at 10:57 PM
      Had Obama been able to read the unadulterated Supreme Court opinion he might have withdrawn in 2008.”

      Is this person a joker or an obot? The beginning of the defense? Barry didn’t KNOW he was ineligible (despite being a Constitutional law lecturer) because he read the SCRUBBED version? He was a victim, too! OMG.

      • I say a bot! Stormy’s argument won’t fly..to many lawsuits started and were published…and Obama hired lawyers to defend himself! He knew and always knew..based on his claim to be a citizen under the 14th…a citizen where there their claim was that there was no distinction between a plain vanilla citizen or should I say a chocolate 14th Amendment citizen and a natural born citizen. Democrat Berg’s suit started pre election and he wanted the election halted (or the electoral vote count stopped) until the issue was cleared up.

      • Miri,

        The point that I was trying to make was that if BO didn’t think about running until 2007, but then the tampering started in 2006. Also, looks like BO was planning on this way back in 2004, which it must have taken some time to plan on what to have erased, false documents, etc. I don’t know if I’m making sense, but if he did start the plans in 2004 (probably before), then he had plenty of time and lots of people must have helped him too! So the time factor works.

        • I have no doubt, after looking into this guy for over 3 years now, that he planned to run long before even 2004; but it’s logical that the DemocRAT powers that be decided he WOULD BE running for POTUS, sooner or later, when they enlisted him to give that riveting introduction to his fantasy persona back in 2004 at the convention. My guess is that it was settled for sure about the time he began to reintroduce the fictional biography. It was reissued in August, 2004.

          Of course, when first published, it was bogus, more like historical fiction; but it didn’t sell much so who cared? It contained that disclaimer about having composite characters, invented conversations, and a fungible timeline. But when they decided to run him for POTUS, and let him repeat the lies in the book on the national stage, then they were STUCK, big time, with the fictional account created by that literary genius Bill Ayers. And Dana Milbank complains that Rubio misrepresented his history, by misstating the year his parents first came to the USA. Obama misstated nearly every “fact” about his life. My gosh. It would boggle my mind to try to go back and list all the items we’ve PROVED were lies. But he gets off the hook just by having that disclaimer in the book. I still would dearly LOVE to see a first edition of that book.

        • I knew that rang a bell. I commented about a book recently, in which the writer said that when Obama went to Kenya in 2006, he was already running for POTUS. Before he declared it, of course. Gibbles and Axelrod were already on the team. Here’s the link to my comment about that book and then you can click a link to the book at Google, if you want: https://wtpotus.wordpress.com/2011/09/06/its-all-in-the-obama-family-or-as-the-boughs-break/comment-page-1/#comment-62942

          I remember being surprised that he had Gibbs and Axelrod on board already. The book talks about how they were ALREADY very conscious of what the Kenyan “relatives” might say to the media, so they kept them isolated from the media. So they knew the book was a lie and they knew the Kenyans could say where exactly the lies could be found. They sent people to Kenya AND Indonesia to find and lock away anything that would prove the lies (they missed that school record that said he was Muslim and an Indonesian citizen). Even back in 2006, that writer noted how they were so concerned about keeping the family from talking. Now, of course, Granny Sarah, if still alive, is under virtual house arrest.

  17. http://mobile.washingtonpost.com/rss.jsp;jsessionid=D5A94D67A83B3B1DBF2F22F8AA9B1D78?rssid=609&item=http%3a%2f%2fwww.washingtonpost.com%2fopinions%2fthe-birthers-eat-their-own%2f2011%2f10%2f21%2fgIQA6Xc43L_mobile.mobile&cid=961405&spf=1

    h/t the illustrious, brilliant Leo Donofrio. An article by one of the chief tools, Dana Milbank. Excerpt:

    “The absurd accusations of the birthers by themselves won’t stop Jindal or Rubio from becoming president. There are far more serious impediments in their way — most recently a devastating report by The Post’s Manuel Roig-Franzia proving false the central narrative of Rubio’s political rise: that he is the son of exiles who fled Cuba under Castro. In fact, his parents left the island, apparently for economic reasons, 2 1/2 years before Castro came to power.”

    NOW Mr. Milbank can investigate the “central narrative” of OBAMA’S political rise. How about it, Dana? Another gem:

    “But the wild new turn the birthers have taken should serve as a timely reminder to Republican leaders that they need to push back more forcefully against the angry and the unstable in their ranks. Too often, they have done the opposite. Jindal, for example, encouraged the birthers this year when he announced his support for legislation that would require candidates for federal office to show proof of their U.S. birth before being allowed on the ballot in Louisiana. It was, as many pointed out, a sad gesture for a man born Piyush Jindal.”

    Leo already cited this gem: “The good news for the birthers is that this suggests they were going after Obama, whose father was a Kenyan national, not because of the president’s political party. The bad news is that this supports the suspicion that they were going after Obama because of his race.”

    One has to wonder what in the world Milbank uses for brains. It’s a “sad gesture” for Bobby Jindal, to his credit, to expect candidates for federal office to PROVE THEIR ELIGIBILITY? I don’t see anywhere in the Constitution an exception for skin color, such as, anybody who’s brown, come right on down. If you’re black, the qualifications can’t hold you back. btw, what “race” are people from India? I would say, WHITE. Since Jindal and Rubio haven’t run for any office requiring natural born citizenship, I fail to see the relevance. IF Milbank can point to any “white” people who are similarly situated, I guarantee you that “birthers” will oppose their eligibility, too. BECAUSE the Constitution is color blind. We the People expect to hold EVERYBODY to the same standard. You’re natural born or you’re not; it doesn’t MATTER what color you are. Almost by definition, those whose eligibility comes into question based on allegiance at birth, are the children of FOREIGNERS. But it doesn’t matter what foreign country they hold allegiance to. It’s the fact that it’s not sole allegiance to the USA, no matter their country of origin.

    The thing is, we’ve already noted that Georgetown law professor Lawrence Solum said, “The arguments aren’t crazy.” He’s talking about “birther” arguments citing the case of Minor versus Happersett.

    BUT FOR the brilliant work of Leo Donofrio, we wouldn’t NOW be treated to the lamestream media suddenly citing that case.

    Is Dana Milbank prepared to call Georgetown law professor Solum “wild” or “angry” or “unstable” or imply that he’s racist simply for citing the LAW and acknowledging logic and common sense, just as “birthers” do and have always done?

    They play the race card when it’s the only card they have to play. Cretins.

  18. Rosemary Woodhouse

    Miami, Florida (CNN) — Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio is calling allegations that he embellished his family’s history of immigrating to the United States from Cuba, “outrageous.”

    “To suggest my family’s story is embellished for political gain is outrageous,” Rubio said in a statement issued by his office on Thursday. “The dates I have given regarding my family’s history have always been based on my parent’s recollections of events that occurred over 55 years ago and which were relayed to me by them more than two decades after they happened. I was not made aware of the exact dates until very recently.”

    The rising young star in the Republican Party, issued the statement after in essence being called out in a Washington Post article which points out that Rubio’s biography on his official Senate website says that his parents, “came to America following Fidel Castro’s takeover.”

    But the Post says its review of naturalization papers and other official records “reveals that Rubio’s dramatic account of his family saga embellishes the facts.”

    Those records, according to the Post story, show that Rubio’s parents came to the U.S. in 1956 but Castro did not seize power in Cuba until 1959.

    CNN tried to reach Rubio for a comment but his office said he was traveling. Rubio did not attend a Beacon Council breakfast in Miami on Friday as scheduled.

    In an opinion piece on Politico on Friday, Rubio wrote, “If The Washington Post wants to criticize me for getting a few dates wrong, I accept that. But to call into question the central and defining event of my parents’ young lives – the fact that a brutal communist dictator took control of their homeland and they were never able to return – is something I will not tolerate.”

    The Post article points out occasions when Rubio talked of his parent coming over after the Cuban revolution. The article also points to a 2006 speech Rubio gave on the eve of becoming speaker of the Florida House of Representatives in which he said in part, “in January of 1959 a thug named Fidel Castro took power in Cuba and countless Cubans were forced to flee and come here, many—most—here to America.”

    Later in the speech, Rubio says, “I will always be the son of exiles.”

    But Rubio never mentioned his parents directly in the speech.

    Miami Herald Political Editor Marc Caputo has covered Rubio for a decade. If you look up the definition of an exile in the dictionary, Caputo says, Rubio’s parents can still be considered exiles.

    Caputo said in a telephone interview Friday that if anything, Rubio is guilty of being sloppy.

    “I think it’s important that he was called out for having his official Senate biography wrong,” Caputo said. “His official Senate biography said his parents fled Castro’s Cuba and they didn’t.”

    Caputo said when and how Rubio’s parents got to the U.S. from Cuba is not the core of Rubio’s political identity. In fact, Caputo said he can’t find any reference in all of the Miami Herald’s reporting in which Rubio talks of his parents leaving after Castro took power.

    “I went through Nexus last night and looked up all my clips, all the clips in the Miami Herald to see if he ever said that they fled Castro’s Cuba. I didn’t find any,” he said.

    The Post reported that Rubio’s mother made a few short trips to Cuba after Castro took over. In his statement Rubio also said in part, “What’s important is that the essential facts of my family’s story are completely accurate. My parents are from Cuba. After arriving in the United States, they had always hoped to one day return to Cuba if things improved and traveled there several times.”

    Rubio was born in Miami in 1971. He came into the political spotlight first in 2006 when he became the first Cuban-American speaker of the Florida House. In 2009 he gained national attention when he won the Senate seat over Florida’s popular Republican Gov. Charlie Crist.

    The Republican Party wanted Rubio to run seat instead of Crist and Crist was forced to run as an independent.

    • OMG, please. ANYTHING but the Sandy Burglar defense. “He was sloppy.” “Sloppy.” “Sloppy.” “He was just sloppy.” Arghhhh!!!!

      No wonder people love Herman Cain and Sarah Palin. They are what you see. Warts and all. No phony persona.

      Rubio’s sloppiness was of the type Obama avoided. Rubio should have put a disclaimer in front of all his speeches and biographies:

      Note: Names of “characters” changed to protect their privacy. Timelines fudged. Events invented. Conversations, too. Even so, “I’m the child of a white mother from Kansas and a black immigrant from Kenya.”

      What’s good for the Ones (DemocRATS) is not good for the Other Ones (anybody but DemocRATS).

      Bill Clinton can “remember” church bombings that never were! Hillary Clinton can be named after a man who became a heroic figure for a feat that happened years after she was born!

      But Rubio MUST BE LYING when he says his parents were exiles. I suppose he’s technically correct. Even if his parents first came in ’56, it appears they went back and forth until they couldn’t go back again.

      Embellishment? Probably. A cardinal sin and a total disqualification for higher office IF you’re not a DemocRAT.

      If only he’d had the foresight to make a disclaimer.

      We’ve been saying all along that he’s probably not a NBC, but unlike with Jindal, it took a while to find out the citizenship status of Rubio’s parents in 1971. That, in itself, was a red flag. Which means, like Barry, he probably suspected all along that he’s ineligible under the Constitution. Tough, Marco. If you don’t like it, then work to AMEND the Constitution–the RIGHT WAY. The CONSTITUTIONAL way.

      It’s typical that the lamestream pretends that they “discovered” Mario Rubio’s naturalization papers when it was a “birther” who got them. Those horrible racist birthers! btw, I consider Rubio to be white, too. How is he not white? Unless he has black Cuban blood, then he’s Spanish and last time I checked, Spain was part of Europe and Spaniards believe they’re white. Used to be that Mexicans believed they were white, too, until activists like La Raza told them otherwise.

      Don’t get me wrong. Although I liked Rubio, he’s certainly gone down in my esteem lately. Especially since he’s doubling down on the denials.

  19. Rosemary Woodhouse

    Now, let’s compare 1956 to 2008 and 1959 to 2011. Any questions?

    • http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/washington-post-downplayed-obamas-big-embellishment-about-mothers-health-insurer_598411.html

      That’s another take on the story, comparing it to the far different coverage they gave Barry’s “embellishment” about Stanley Ann’s health insurance when she was on her deathbed.

      Oh, here’s a good one that follows my premise about the lamestream and their feelings towards Castro (and Che):


      “Miami Herald: WaPost “Hit” on Rubio Manipulates Facts
      by Erick Erickson 10/21/2011 616

      Manuel Roig-Franzia is a reporter for the Washington Post who once got punched by his 70 year old editor, Henry Allen, for writing “the second worst story [Allen had] seen in Style in 43 years.” That’s right, Roig-Franzia wrote a horrible piece in the Style section. His 70 year old editor did not like it. Roig-Franzia reportedly called his 70 year old editor and Marine a “c**ksucker”, and the Marine punched him.

      Manuel Roig-Franzia has a well documented history of being an apologist for the Cuban communist regime and a hater of the Catholic church. He is also now writing a book on Marco Rubio.

      We can get a sense of the book by his stunning hit job on Marco Rubio in the Washington Post. Roig-Franzia claims Rubio has embellished his “compelling version of his family’s history that had special resonance in South Florida.” Again, keep in mind that Roig-Franzia is an apologist for the Cuban communist regime.”

  20. Here’s a clue: “Those records, according to the Post story, show that Rubio’s parents came to the U.S. in 1956 but Castro did not seize power in Cuba until 1959.”

    I had a friend that I worked with that came from Cuba when she was a little girl. I don’t know the exact time frame, but the part above that sticks out at me is this: …..but Castro did not “seize power” in Cuba until 1959.

    So maybe that is when he finally took over, but this reign of terror may have been going on for many years. From working with my friend and speaking of the terror of Castro, it started way before that his taking over.

    Stuff just doesn’t happen like that from one day, then the next is Castro taking over. The process had started earlier. Today is an example of a “takeover.” Isn’t it? It’s been a little here, then some more, and now more and more until the ultimate takeover.

    • you guys Castro was tried in 1953 for an attack on a group of Batista, the Moncada or something like that. He was sentenced to 15 years ,but got out in 1955. The revolution was occurring , I’m pretty sure , as early as 1952. The actual coup was 1958 or 59. I had relatives who were Cuban. They fled once Castro declared communism and took over peoples land, 1959-1960. They had relatives that had already fled before 1959 because of the fear that prevailed. It makes no difference when they fled,they more than likely fled and weren’t just taking a sight seeing trip to the states. My relatives that left after the coup actually left running because they were aware that Castro was executing people. They were wealth land owners and they lost everything. They left with what they could carry and that was it. I still consider the ones who came to the states earlier part of the group that fled.

      • Rosemary Woodhouse

        My point, exactly.

      • One of the news articles defending Rubio said about the same thing. That Batista before Castro was as bad if not worse. Leo Donofrio said in comments on his blog that he never researched the situation of a person in Rubio’s status. His parents were permanent residents when he was born, exiles. Leo said he’d look into it.

        • That group of commentors at Leo’s weren’t aware that Rubio’s naturalization papers were published, so they didn’t know his status and that he applied for US citizenship and it was granted.

          • His father’s naturalization papers? They raised the possibility (put forth by Lame Cherry) that Cubans were considered US citizens because of Cuba being a US protectorate, like Puerto Rico (if that’s true). Leo said, “ed. If Cuban’s were given passports as citizens without naturalizing then that would be one thing, but I don’t think that was the case. I think they were required to naturalize. If I am wrong and such persons were recognized as US citizens without having to naturalize then Rubio would be nbc… but I do not think that is correct, although I haven’t researched the issue. I will look into it… Im sure the answer to that question is knowable and I will research it. – Leo”

            So there were naturalization papers for Marco’s parents, which would seem to indicate they weren’t citizens until after Marco was born. Waiting to see what Leo’s judgment is. I figured that Rubio supporters would try to say that because his parents were “stateless” and then “permanent residents of the US”, they held sole allegiance to the USA, no longer Cuba. What’s frustrating is that Republicans seem to want to do an end run around the Constitution, in the same way that DemocRATS did in 2008. And the DemocRATS encourage it, for obvious reasons.

        • Posted by John Nolte Oct 22nd 2011

          Under Fire, The Washington Post Quietly Scrubs Their Marco Rubio Hit-Piece

          Thanks to those stubborn things called facts, today it’s the Washington Post under fire, not the subject of their Thursday hit piece, Florida GOP Senator Marco Rubio.

          First, the Miami Herald came out swinging against WaPo’s embellishment of Rubio’s so-called embellishments, then the Senator himself hit back, then we learned the troubling back-story of the WaPo “reporter” who wrote the piece, and now the once-legendary newspaper has taken to quietly scrubbing the original story in order to make it look like something closer to the truth.

          Cont’s @ Link ~


          • Scrubbing? They removed one word!

            How many times over the last few years have we seen this kind of “scrubbing” take place, without any mention of the change? Too many to count. So much for journalistic integrity.

            It’s weird that they bother to take out one word–dramatic. Was that the ONLY evidence they could find of journalistic bias? How about putting “thug” in quotes when they’re describing Castro, as if it’s not common knowledge that he’s a thug (and worse)? That gives the guy away. Sympathy for Castro and his communist revolution.

            But I don’t agree with Nolte’s opinion that the WaPo was trying to “take down an attractive Hispanic Republican.” This isn’t the kind of attack that’s going to resonate with Cuban-Americans or other Hispanics. I think they see Rubio as one of them. This whole thig is fishy to me.

            I think they’re bringing Rubio’s status up as a way to innoculate Barry. They may want to enlist Republicans and Hispanics in a campaign to normalize the idea that the birthers are nuts to demand absolute “fealty” to the precise words and meaning of the Constitution. Or to enlist them in a campaign to have NBC redefined, either through an act of Congress or in the courts. I’m betting on the act of Congress.

            Since we’ve been hearing from the courts that we have no standing and that it’s a “political” question, if Congress would pass a law or resolution redefining NBC (as they tried to do BEFORE 2008, and actually did, in one sense, for McCain), it just may be that such a resolution could become “the law of the land”, without a Constitutional amendment or a ruling by the SCOTUS.

            Based on what they’ve done already, I can see the SCOTUS standing aside, even if someone challenged it, by saying it’s a political question.

            Or they might be preparing for 2012 in the off chance that somebody WILL challenge Barry’s eligibility. Sympathy for Rubio and Jindal, on the other side, could result in another end run around the law and the rules, like we saw in 2008, when they didn’t challenge Barry’s eligibility to get onto the ballot, when the DemocRAT party pulled that crap on Hillary, when the electoral votes were counted and nobody challenged, and when they pulled their shenanigans with those court cases that were filed before he took the oath.

            I don’t believe in coincidences. There’s something up with this sudden mention of Minor v. Happersett IN THE LAMESTREAM MEDIA, after all that scrubbing that was done to HIDE that case.

  21. Speaking of my friend, please allow me to tell this horrible story. My friend, which I’ll call Jane (not real name) was from Cuba, and her and her brother, mother & her escaped to the US. Her father was not allowed to come, and he told them to leave immediately. Why? He was a political prisoner because he was against socialism, communism and was locked up in prison.

    Nine times he was made to get before a firing squad to be killed. But they would never shoot him, however, I think a few times they shot the person next to him. So nine times he was prepared to die. The worst torture may have been because they killed a friend next to him instead of him, or his family member instead. Imagine what that does to your nervous system? Just mentally step into his place for a second.

    My friend Jane said that when she was little, Cuba was the most beautiful place, rich land and bountiful. When Castro and his bunch started to gain control after years, it was like a curse had hit the land. Also, the first time that she can remember seeing certain fruits and veggies was when she came off the huge ship into the US. For the first time, she saw a green apple, ever. Before this time, she had only heard about them.

    But her father was able to leave. I don’t remember how exactly and why he was released, but he joined his family in America. The last time that I talked to her, which her parents were extremely aged, her dad still had nerve problems from being put before a firing squad nine times.

    It’s a sad story, but it’s happy in many ways. She grew up here when she was young, I think 8 or 9 years old. Then she was educated, became a citizen of the US, her family back together, and she told me that every day she thanks our creator for being in the US. No, it’s not perfect, but it’s better than it was in Cuba. That we have a lot of problems, but it’s still not as bad.

    • Thanks for the perspective, kittycat77. If you think about it, the progressive media probably dislike Rubio BECAUSE his parents fled from Castro. Che, too. I mean, those guys are heroes to the left. Sean Penn and his ilk.

      Like Lech Walesa and the Polish, Cuban-Americans know the HORROR of communism, Marxism, socialism and the VALUE of FREEDOM and capitalism. So, there’s just another reason that the lamestream aren’t as sympathetic to those who fled. The lamestream act as if they LOVE Castro.

      Cubans tend to be conservative, another black mark on them, in the lamestream’s opinion. What a horrid thing for your friend’s dad to have to go through. God bless them. Let’s hope the story that has a happy ending in many ways doesn’t take a turn for the worse with the horrors of Castro’s ideology haunting them HERE in the USA.

      • And this was like 5 years ago that we talked about this. Man, can’t believe it’s that long now. Time surely does fly. More changes have taken place, and knowing the age of her parents back then, they may be deceased, or one might be. I know that they weren’t doing too well then.

        You mentioned Che, Mira, and I remember her talking about what a butcher that he was of people! Gosh, I can’t imagine people idolizing those sickos. Although it’s happening today.

    • Kitticat, that’s the same sort of stories I heard growing up.A beautiful place,beautiful people, beautiful music. What a tragedy.

    • Indeed a sad story with a great outcome!

      • it almost makes you wonder if rubio would defend the constitution before any of the others deemed NBC.

        • He had the ultimate chance on O’Reilly’s show when Bill was pushing the VP idea..and Rubio could have said, I can’t be VP because I am a NATURALIZED CITIZEN! He says he isn’t ready like Christie, he has only been in the Senate less than a year. He has lots to do in the Senate. So much for truthfulness and putting the Constitution first.

          • Judge Napolitano was on the Don & Roma Show, WLS Radio, Chicago.
            They asked if Rubio is eligible, and he said yes. ( Nobody dwells on the “natural” part.)

            • Apparently, Judge Napolitano either doesn’t know the law, lost his law books, or referred to Justia for information about the meaning of “natural born citizen.” It’s sad when We the People can READ AND UNDERSTAND, logically, but all the “intellectuals” and “elites” cannot comprehend the CLEAR WORDS OF THE CONSTITUTION AND THE SCOTUS. Napolitano, being a lawyer and a judge, should be sent NO ARGUMENTS but the SIMPLE WORDS OF THE RELEVANT RULINGS. See if he changes his tune.

          • Is he even old enough yet to be POTUS?

        • The great Bill O’Reilly declared last night that Rubio is eligible for any office to which he’s ELECTED. He also said it’s an internet rumor that Rubio’s not a natural born citizen. Complicit, every last one of them. This is a ploy by the lamestream to co-opt RINOs and innoculate Barry, via Rubio’s potential run for higher office. Trump was on Greta Van Susteran last night. I still don’t know what he’s up to. Talking about the bogus BC, of course. But he did say that we’re being run by a set of the most “STUPID” people ever. Oh, yeah. And he said he’d consider running as an Independent if the Republicans don’t pick the “right” candidate. So is he a plant put there by the Dems as a stalking horse? To split the Republican/Independent vote so Barry can win? Hard to say. I don’t see the WH reacting a LOT when Trump calls them STUPID. Not like they go after any little thing others say. So, it’s curious. Who would be the “right” candidate for Trump? One that will lose to Barry? One that has baggage that the Dems will use, once he or she is nominated?

  22. BTW, she, Jane, was a conservative because she knows that’s the only thing that works!

  23. Our church sponsored Cuban exiles in the mid sixties. Those people escaped by boat…the boat people. It was a treacherous journey across the ocean. They originally landed in Florida, and calls to help Cuban families were sent out to churches across the US. They arrived in Michigan with few belongings. They also had been wealthy and lost everything, and luckily hadn’t lost their lives. I remember horrendous stories coming out about Che the butcher, and Castro and his regime. I can still see photos in my mind of Castro when he took control of Cuba and turned it into a communist country.

    We grew up knowing the threats of communism and now it appears or appeals to the undereducated and duped as kewl! They follow at their own peril. They need to be reeducated to the greatness of our country and its rich history. Perhaps those stupid leftist activist hikers that remained in an Iranian prison might have gotten their own education about how how tyrannical countries operate. Unless they want to wear their leftist revolutionary badges of having been jailed or in prison, they might now view the US with different eyes. The US was where they wanted to be. Do you think they wanted to stay in Iran? Why not..since that is the type of life they so envision for the US. Did we ever learn their nationalities? Yes, they were Americans, but where were their families from? Why were Americans trekking along the Iranian border?

  24. On a tip from one of our regular commenters, I checked the Google “Scholar” search for legal opinions from the SCOTUS for these same cases.

    So far, I can report that the cases cited by Leo Donofrio (corrupted at Justia during the time when most people and journalists might have been researching the issue) appear to be correct NOW on the Google search.

    If they ever were corrupted, too, during that same timeframe, we’ll never know because it appears that Google declines to have those webpages archived to the WayBack Machine. (Inserts the robots.txt thingy.)

    In addition, I could find no older versions in the Google cache. So we will never know if, like Justia, for a while Google modified case records to omit references to Minor v. Happersett and then changed them back recently. It was a great thought, though!

    There was also some discussion at Leo’s whether or not LAWYERS do or should use Justia, anyway. imho, NO! Here’s why:

    Under no circumstances will Justia be liable in any way for any Content, including, but not limited to, for any errors or omissions in any Content, or for any loss or damage of any kind incurred as a result of the use of any Content posted, emailed, transmitted or otherwise made available via the Service.”

    A disclaimer on their terms of service. Not responsible for ANY ERRORS OR OMISSIONS in ANY content. Would you rely on them, then? Especially if you’re a lawyer?

    As Leo pointed out, lawyers have access to law libraries as well as subscribing to (expensive) legal databases like Lexis or Westlaw. His point, I believe, is that most people who searched the Web, trying to research the LAW concerning natural born citizenship, would be directed by GOOGLE to JUSTIA and the scrubbed cases. So bloggers, birthers, even journalists, would be misled into believing that what the obots were spewing, ad nauseum in the blogsphere, was true. Especially their LIE that the SCOTUS has NEVER defined “natural born citizen”. It has. It did. It remains precedent. Born in the US to TWO US CITIZEN PARENTS.

  25. WND now has a good writeup on this as well. You probably already know. I expected them to do something, then I started wondering if they were.

    Also, I think people must use Justia heavily at times, otherwise why do all of this and go to that trouble? It just doesn’t make sense if no one was using it to begin with.

    • Oh, hey! Look! It’s ANOTHER WND “exclusive!”

      We sort of figured they’d write one, too. It’s sort of a habit with them. 🙂

      What the heck is an “exclusive” when half the blogsphere is writing about it, and Bridgette wrote about it two days ago?

      This is exclusive to them, I suppose. They asked Justia for comment; they declined. Of course. Have they EVER responded to the question? Leo first wrote about it months ago. This is exclusive, too: They asked the SCOTUS about it!

      “The public information officer for the U.S. Supreme Court, Kathleen Arberg, declined to respond to a WND call and email query about whether there could be any ramifications from posting an incomplete court document and representing it as the full document.”

      No surprise there, either. They’re avoiding the issue of NBC-ship. Judge Thomas said so.

  26. Miri,
    All of this is so extremely frustrating at times. First, if you want to report something to the FBI, then that won’t do you any good. Next, if you want to report this to the DOJ, that will not do you any good either. If I report it to any senators, any kind of other congress people, well, that doesn’t help either. They are worthless!

    • FBI and DOJ will be worthless until there’s somebody else they report to, other than Barry and Eric the RED. Congress people are useless, too, until they realize they have to fight with both fists and not be afraid of the lamestream. It is frustrating because for three years now, we’ve pinned our hopes on one thing and then another, only to be stymied again. Maybe we all need a prayer circle. Burn some sage, too. Cover all the bases. 🙂

  27. Miri,
    I’m of the early orthodox Christians, meaning the very early Christians which we’ve proven to be Yahwehists. Many times they were called by the name of their deity, Yahweh the father and his son.
    Here’s what I’m thinking that will be the only remedy that I can even imagine so far. If our nation realizes that they must call upon Yahweh, then he will change his purpose and heal our land. I promise you that he will do it. Or shall I say, he promises, and his promises are truth! This is the only positive thing that I see happening. And father Yahweh’s son, who was called Yahushua (aka Jesus) when he walked in the flesh on the earth, has also inherited his father’s name, and he’s called Yahweh because it’s his family name. And speaking of the inheritance, the son Yahweh, it is written: Heb 1:4 (Yahushua) having become so much better than the angels, He has INHERITED a name more excellent than they.

    2Ch 7:14 and My people, on whom My name is called, shall be humbled, and shall pray, and shall seek My face, and shall turn back from their evil ways, then I will hear from Heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

    His “name” is literally the name Yahweh. It’s his honor, authority and power, plus an appellation (his identifying mark). Please look it up!

    But here’s the thing with the US. There is a whole lot of arrogance (sadly say), and a lot of stiff-necked people to where they just can’t imagine having to call their deity by the name that he says to do almost 7,000 times in the OT alone, plus counting places in the NT where we know, probably close to 8,000 times his name is used. It’s sad because for one thing, the Muslims manage to call upon their deity’s name, even though it’s not the real name.

    • Thanks for that kittycat77. It’s not so very different from the way I was taught. I believe as you do. Ask and it shall be given to you. We as a people do need to be humble and call on Him, trusting. The essence of FAITH. Right?

      I believe that all prayer, no matter its form, is good, so long as the person’s heart is true and faithful and without guile. There are many ways to the Lord. So I was taught. I’m interested in learning more about your faith. Is there any website where I could read more?

      You’re right about the Muslims calling on their deity. Do you notice how the lamestream media change it from “Allah” to “god” when they report? Do we really believe Karzai says, “Praise god” and not “Allah be praised?”

      • Well, I depend on “trust” which in the definitions of both Greek and Hebrew mean “truth,” basically.

        But to reply to your questions about the Muslims. It’s kind of a complicated subject.

        I have information that is interesting. In around the 8th century C.E. (A.D.), Mohammad who was the founder of the Muslim religion, as you already know, was being taught from some Arab Jews. They had taken up that false Talmudic requirement to not speak the sacred name Yahweh (which is anti-scriptural) and is a false doctrine. This was what Yahushua (Jesus) the messiah was against previously in this time in the flesh on earth. Just as a side note, Miri, we know Yahushua’s name was that, and we already know that the early Christian assembly used the name Yahweh and Yahushua. I also have a copy of a Hebrew book of Hebrews that is an Interlinear of Hebrew with Latin form that has those names. And they were taken to Sebastian Munster, who was a Hebrew professor, plus other things. He received those from some so-called Jewish Christians, which they were cut up when he received them. So he had to piece them back together. I.e., they didn’t cut them up. It was done for them.

        Anyway, back to Mohammad. He was a violent man, which is why we have violent religion there, if one wishes to call it that, on top of what he was. So what happened with Mohammad. He he met the Arab Jews who were following the Talmud. When he asked them the sacred name, those Arab Jews who were at the time considering that the regular Arabs were a people of unclean speech (no joke), when Mohammad asked them about the name Allah in Arabic, which is eloah in Hebrew, then they told him that’s the name. To them, he had unclean lips, which if you understand the false ineffable name doctrine, then you’d understand. If Mohammad had said to them point blank, is Mickey Mouse his name, they would have said yes! They, the Talmudic Jews, were not going to tell a man of what they thought was a man of unclean lips the sacred name. “allah” was fine with them.

        But there’s more to it than that. All of mankind needs to know that Yahweh is the sacred name. Why? Because the Scriptures teach it, and I for one don’t follow the Talmud, Misnah, etc. Those are not sacred to Yahweh. The Scriptures say that mankind should follow.

        Keep in mind that I’m not taking up for Mohammad. He was a violent man, a raving manic, then a pedophile. He was a sick person.

        Now, what I told you about Allah/eloah above is the truth, but there’s more stuff coming out about Allah, which is why it can get confusing. Some things say that “allah” is actually a pagan moon deity. I haven’t been able to prove it conclusively. It could be also the truth, as well as the above could be true. eloah is close to sounding like allah. So both things could be true at the same time. But yet two different understandings of peoples.

    • Kittycat, Are you connected with anyone from the Tea Party or another group that could organize exactly what you are saying? I believe that prayer is the only way to save our Country from this evil that is upon us. We are a Christian nation and we should return to our Christian foundations. We should all gather and pray with one voice. I wish someone would organize a National Day of Prayer for the Soul of our nation. Prayer is powerful..

      • Kathy,
        No, I’m not connected with the Tea Party, but I do love them! Thanks. I have met tons of people that actually haven’t read their Bible enough, sad to say, and to know that all of mankind (meaning all of them) are supposed to call upon Yahweh. I mean, if anyone uses just a tidbit of their time studying the Bible, they could easily figure this one out themselves.

        Yeah, Kathy, I wish that all of the Tea Party would call upon Yahweh. He will change things if they did.

      • Also, sorry to add on to this, but it’s like he’s saying to the US, here I am, here I am, look, I’m here. Call upon me and I’ll do great things for you. Wow, to have the Tea Party and even the Veterans group that is going to march upon DC call upon Yahweh, I have the ultimate trust that he will change what may be coming upon this nation. But then it’s a two-way street, and the US will have to be willing to talk in his ways.

  28. This is tangentially related to this post. It’s about the NY Board of Elections changing the requirements for the presidency: http://pixelpatriot.blogspot.com/2011/10/internet-archive-nys-boe-cover-up.html

    It explains how, in their expert opinion, the election board AND the WayBack Machine folks conspired to keep the truth from the public. The Internet Archive/WayBack Machine is a not-for-profit, so apparently not a good move for them.

  29. “A proposed revision to Freedom of Information Act rules would allow federal agencies to lie to citizens and reporters seeking certain records, telling them the records don’t exist.

    The Justice Department has proposed the change as part of a large revision of FOIA rules for federal agencies. Specifically, the rule would direct government agencies who are denying a request under an established FOIA exemption to “respond to the request as if the excluded records did not exist,” rather than citing the relevant exemption.

    The proposed rule has alarmed government transparency advocates across the political spectrum, who’ve called it “Orwellian” and say it will “twist” public access to government.

    In a public comment regarding the rule change, the ACLU, along with Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) and OpenTheGovernment.org, said the move “will dramatically undermine government integrity by allowing a law designed to provide public access to government information to be twisted to permit federal law enforcement agencies to actively lie to the American people.”http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/24/justice-dept-proposes-lying-hiding-existence-of-records-under-new-foia-rule/#ixzz1boFYoD1z

    What I’d like to know is how Obama’s administration thinks that they have the POWER to CHANGE LAW UNILATERALLY?


    NOW WE could EXPLAIN to the ACLU why they want to make this change, can’t we? Because we’ve been able to determine via the nature of their responses WHETHER OR NOT RECORDS EXIST and then make LOGICAL DEDUCTIONS.




    • If I recall the administration also changed the rules for NARA and the archiving of information right after Obama’s election. I believe we reported on it and wondered why they were doing it. NARA archives all government documents. I think it was an Executive Order

      Now they want to have a law protecting what they have already done – lied about not having documents that are available through FOIA and eventually NARA. They want to stamp documents permanently as unavailable! Why not just put Top Secret on them…they already have no doubt. That was another one that Obama signed as an Executive order..to have his files unavailable.

      Are his blackberry messages being kept? I still want to know. Or are those going down the rat hole and not part of the national security records?

      • He will be an incumbent..

        January 21, 2009 (Second day in office!)
        EXECUTIVE ORDER 13489

        By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to establish policies and procedures governing the assertion of executive privilege by incumbent and former Presidents in connection with the release of Presidential records by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) pursuant to the Presidential Records Act of 1978, it is hereby ordered as follows:


  30. Is anyone here able to comment at HotAir.com?

    If so, I’m interested in having someone comment on the following two stories:

    1) “Orwellian”: Justice Department proposes lying about records under new FOIA rule
    (Please leave a comment letting them know that what’s REALLY “Orwellian” is the alteration of the historical record at Justia.com … JUSTIA.COM SURGICALLY REMOVED “MINOR v HAPPERSETT” FROM 25 SUPREME COURT OPINIONS IN RUN UP TO ’08 ELECTION.)

    2) Perry: You know what’s a lot of fun? Birth certificates!
    (Similarly, Please leave a comment giving Ed Morrissey the heads up that it’s not all about the birth certificate… even if the “Obama birth narrative” is 100% true, he was born to a natural born British subject, who passed British subjecthood to him at birth, and it is a very serious issue that someone tampered with the historical record of 25 Supreme Court cases in an apparent attempt to deceive members of Congress into believing that such a person is, contrary to the precedent set in Minor vs. Happersett, a “natural born citizen” of the United States)

    • That change to the FOIA process is really Orwellian, imo. They want to LIE and make it look as if records don’t exist instead of saying they’re not supplying them for some legal reason. I still want to know HOW the heck Obama can unilaterally change how a LAW, passed by our representatives in Congress, works! The law is the law. It says how the system is supposed to work. The letter and the SPIRIT of the law are probably in sync.

      The PURPOSE of the LAW is to give US, the People, what BELONGS TO US–the work product of our government. SUNSHINE! Obama claims to be the most transparent president and yet he HIDES everything. That FOIA proposed change is to hide the FACT that his mother has passport records that will prove SOMETHING that he doesn’t want to be known. Guaranteed. There’s no other LOGICAL reason for them to propose changing how the law operates. Even the ACLU understands that. Can it possibly be that someone at the ACLU has discovered intelletual honesty?

      btw, last night, Greta Van Susteran said “on the record” that she believes the birth certificate is real. I always thought Greta was smart and discerning. She also critized Obama for being non-transparent, but not about not giving any documents to prove who he is. No, she criticized him for not allowing reporters to cover his fundraisers.

      O’Reilly, to one-up Greta (not really), actually said that (paraphrasing), “It’s an Internet RUMOR that Rubio’s not eligible to be VP. Rubio is eligible for any office to which he’s ELECTED.”

      So O’Reilly has gotten and is repeating the TALKING POINTS: If you’re ELECTED, then you suddenly become ELIGIBLE, no matter WHAT the law or the CONSTITUTION say.


      • I still want to know HOW the heck Obama can unilaterally change how a LAW, passed by our representatives in Congress, works! The law is the law.

        Answer: Democrats have no respect for the Constitution nor the Rule of Law. They are Democrats. They believe in “Democracy”. They believe that those who win popular vote elections, by any means necessary, should be allowed to “rule”. They do not support and defend the Constitution nor our Constitutional Republic. They detest the very word “Republican”, and they do not want a Republic, ruled by the Rule of Law. They want one nation under Obama.

      • So O’Reilly has gotten and is repeating the TALKING POINTS:
        If you’re ELECTED, then you suddenly become ELIGIBLE, no matter WHAT the law or the CONSTITUTION say.

        Repeating something I said in an earlier comment on another thread, remember that Governor Perry said:

        It doesn’t matter. He’s the President of the United States. He’s elected.

        Spoken like someone who thinks that we are a Democracy, not a Republic. A Republic is ruled by the Rule of Law. A Democracy is ruled by the Rule of the Majority. Governor Perry, when he says, “It doesn’t matter”, is saying that the Rule of Law doesn’t matter. And when Governor Perry says, “He’s the President of the United States. He’s elected.”, he is saying that what matters is the outcome of an election, not the Rule of Law.

        Perry may as well be a Democrat. He sure isn’t a Constitutional Republican.

        • Yep. It appears as if NONE of them are Constitutional anything, anymore. Despite that they’re sworn to uphold the Constitution.

          Now I can understand if they think there IS some controversy over the precise meaning of “natural born citizen” and believed the LIE that the SCOTUS (which decides what the words mean, if there’s a controversy) has NEVER ruled on its meaning.


          IF Congress and the media were misled, and they were, then it’s their DUTY to get to the bottom of the conspiracy to mislead them AND to correct their prior ERRONEOUS statements about what the meaning of “natural born citizen” is. Birth in the US to TWO US citizen parents. That’s what the SCOTUS said. That’s THEIR definition, not ours, except in the sense that we Constitutionalists respect what the SCOTUS RULES (precedent), as we respect the Constitution and the CLEAR ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE FOUNDERS WHO WROTE IT.

          The additional case that determined what “born into the sole allegiance” means is just icing on the cake.



      • Obama claims to be the most transparent president and yet he HIDES everything.

        Indeed. The following text on the White House web site is “just words”.

        President Obama has committed to making his administration the most open and transparent in history, and WhiteHouse.gov will play a major role in delivering on that promise.

        [archived at http://www.webcitation.org/5wFJjivhF]

    • A Supreme Court RULING on the DEFINITION of “natural born citizen” is NOT A CONSPIRACY THEORY, nor is it “nonsense”, nor does it destroy anyone’s credibility. In fact, it LENDS credibility to the logical arguments that “birthers” have been making for over 3 years. Who loses credibility are “reporters” or “bloggers” who refuse to LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE AND MAKE A LOGICAL DEDUCTION–OBAMA IS NOT, NEVER WAS, AND NEVER WILL BE ELIGIBLE FOR THE PRESIDENCY (SHORT OF A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT OR SCOTUS CHANGING ITS MIND ABOUT THEIR DEFINITION–BORN IN US TO TWO US CITIZENS).

  31. Not only has Leo Donofrio conclusively proven his case of surgical tampering with the Supreme Court decisions in JustiaGate against Timothy  Stanley, he has at the same time shown the lineage of Supreme Court decisions interpreting the “natural born citizen” clause of the Constitution requiring child be born of citizen parents.

     “The Slaughter-House Cases citations were tampered along with Minor in Snowden v. Hughes, and this is very important.  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.”

    Stanley is peddling a response to JustiaGate which requires one to accept that all 25 cases were accidentally altered to remove the words “Minor v. Happersett” and the official citations to Minor, while various portions of relevant text pertaining to the eligibility issue were also removed from other cases along with the Slaughter-House Cases name and it’s official citation… along with further references to citizenship precedents such as Osborn v. Bank of United States and Scott v. Sandford(removed from US v. Wong Kim Ark) which features the following definition of natural-born citizen:

    “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” ”



  32. Those names have big connections…

  33. Post this as a comment to other blogs, where you can…

    Have your heard about Justiagate?



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 )

Connecting to %s