Tag Archives: Leo Donofrio

JustiaGate: Justia Unjustified?

© Miri WTPOTUS October 28, 2011

Attorney Leo Donofrio has exposed Justia, an Internet-based law library, for apparently scrubbing crucial information from Supreme Court rulings just prior to the 2008 election, possibly to protect Barack Hussein Obama II’s candidacy.

The scrubbed information included any reference to a Supreme Court ruling, Minor v. Happersett, that defined the phrase natural born citizen.

Had the general public known about the SCOTUS ruling that defined natural born citizen, 2008 would have seen a very different election.  Many more Americans would have known that Barack Hussein Obama II was, and remains, ineligible for the presidency under the Constitution.    Continue reading

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. 

Continue reading

Shoddy Reporting Concerning Closed Chrysler Dealers:What the TARP Inspector General Report Does NOT Say.

By Itooktheredpill

Stories at both HotAir.com and MichelleMalkin.com are missing important parts of the picture, and could be unwittingly hurting the dealers.

Nowhere in the SIGTARP Report does it say that the Government “forced” (as Malkin put it) Chrysler to reduce its dealership network.

Continue reading

What Ed Morrissey Gets Wrong When Attacking “Birthers”

By Itooktheredpill

Over at HotAir.com, Ed Morrissey posted the following at 1:00 pm on February 6, 2010 :

Farah claimed that the Tea Party movement was partially fueled on the notion that Barack Obama isn’t really a native-born citizen of the US. … Breitbart responded, “When has a president ever been asked to prove his citizenship?” But in fact, Obama did do just that when he released the Certification of Live Birth in June 2008, in response to an entirely different question. That may have been the first time a Presidential candidate has ever done so, and the COLB is a document that could get Obama a passport, a driver’s license, and a Social Security number. It’s all the legal proof required. If that wasn’t enough, Obama’s political opponents found contemporaneous records of his birth in the Honolulu Advertiser from August 1961.

Let’s break that down sentence by sentence and show where Ed Morrissey, who is very talented and usually nails things spot-on, this time gets several things wrong…
Continue reading

Obama is the 2nd Unconstitutional President

Posted by Bridgette


21st President of the United States  (1830 – 1886)

Term: September 20, 1881 – March 3, 1885

Chester Arthur was the first President to have his citizenship challenged.


Chester Arthur, “I may be President of the United States, but my private life is nobody’s damned business.”


Dianna Cotter, Portland Examiner
Dec. 14, 2009

Students of history know that history repeats itself, and today we are reliving the past of 1880’s. Some of the similarities between the 21st President and the 44th are startling, and the ramifications are huge.

President Chester A. Arthur was the son of an Irish immigrant, William Arthur, and Vermonter, Malvina Stone. Arthur would tragically assume the Presidency upon the assassination of President Garfield in 1881 and become the 21st President. President Arthur was successful in keeping the secret of his heritage, and he died shortly after leaving the White House November 18, 1886. He served honorably and well as President of the United States, but was not Constitutionally Qualified for the Office of either Vice President or President, and set a precedent by which it would happen again.

During the campaign of 1880, questions were asked about Chester’s birth place, but just as today, those doing the research were looking in the wrong direction. Arthur’s father, William Arthur was a British citizen at the time of the future President’s birth. Born in Ballymena, Ireland in 1796 he would not become a Naturalized citizen until August 31st, 1843. No one ever checked into his immigration status at the time of his son’s birth. Chester Arthur, 14 at the time his father was naturalized, and would surely have known this. Sound somewhat familiar?
Continue reading

Coincidence or Intentional?

by Bridgette

Coincidence or Intentional?

Barack  Obama  takes the oath of office from Chief Justice John Roberts

There appear to be three or more major documentary omissions that occurred regarding Obama’s nomination, his election, and are now being seen in eligibility lawsuits. When looked at one by one, we note the problems. But when viewed together, a pattern emerges. Leading up to his election, all pertinent information and documentation about his background was either lost, misplaced, hidden, fabricated, or sealed. These items could be included in this pattern of omissions, but we do not have the evidence in hand.

Here are three that show another pattern of fraud and deception and, I believe, intention.

Omission #1
The Democratic Party was responsible for vetting and certifying Barack Hussein Obama as legally eligible to seek the Oval Office. The U.S. Constitution has only three very specific requirements for the position of President of the US. It appears there were two DNC Certifications prepared by the DNC. Copies of these were recently found online. Both documents were signed, dated and notarized by the same same people on the very same day. When comparing the two, it was noted on Document #1 that the proper legal text was used in the DNC’s “Official Certification of Nomination.” Document #2 was missing a portion of the text that clarified that both the presidential and vice presidential nominees were legally eligible to serve. Document #2 was sent to most States for their records. Not one State official noted the omission of a pertinent sentence. Following is the missing text in Document #2 regarding the constitutional eligibility statement:

” the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution.”

Coincidence or intentional?

Omission #2

Cheney does not call for objections during the Electoral College vote as required by the Constitution. He was reading from a prepared script or the “Rules of Order.” Perhaps the script was altered like Document #1 above, and the specific wording to call for or accept objections was not there to be read. Was it omitted intentionally? At the point in the program where VP Cheney should have read the statement asking for objections, there was some activity out in the audience. Whatever was occurring, Nancy Pelosi jumped up from her chair thus interrupting VP Cheney, and everyone began clapping. When the applause ended, VP Cheney picked up from where he left off when the applause interrupted him. Perhaps he lost his place, or it was overlooked, or it wasn’t in the script he was reading, but the pertinent statement wasn’t read. Coincidence or intentional?

Omission #3

It was just noticed by Leo Dorofino that the DOJ’s brief in Barnett vs Obama (Orly’s lawsuit) omitted a few pertinent sentences from a paragraph they were citing to substantiate their case.

“Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any. Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof…” Coincidence or intentional?

Even though I have read most of the cases, I hadn’t thought to compare paragraphs of information presented by the opposition, but perhaps there are others. Even though we can “see” a pattern of fraud and deception, the examples that are brought to light, and that can be substantiated might prove very valuable. Are there any other examples of which you are aware?

(AP Photo/Jeff Christensen)