Kamala Harris the ineligible

 

 

I have posted this on several sites already. It’s a long read, but I tried to be as concise as possible. First off, Kamala Harris is not eligible.

Like Obama and Ted Cruz, the mother is not relevant to the eligibility issue, and never has been.  Read on and see what has been hidden will be revealed.

I know that those that taut Vattel, with the father and mother as separate entities are set in stone and this is wrong. The equation they use is Citizen Father (1) and Citizen Mother (2) and Born in Country(3), as a three legged stool. This is shortsighted as Vattel states in § 213. Inhabitants.

The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners, who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound to the society by their residence, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside in it; and they are obliged to defend it, because it grants them protection, though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens. They enjoy only the advantages which the law or custom gives them. The perpetual inhabitants are those who have received the right of perpetual residence. These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united to the society without participating in all its advantages. Their children follow the condition of their fathers; and, as the state has given to these the right of perpetual residence, their right passes to their posterity.

Again; Their children follow the condition of their fathers

Then in § 215. Children of citizens born in a foreign country.
It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed. By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot, of itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him; I say “of itself,” for, civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise. But I suppose that the father has not entirely quitted his country in order to settle elsewhere. If he has fixed his abode in a foreign country, he is become a member of another society, at least as a perpetual inhabitant; and his children will be members of it also.

 

Again; By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot, of itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him; I say “of itself,” for, civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise.

So back when Barack Obama came on the scene and stated the following.

So what does Barack Obama claim? “When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.” Let me explain. First off, the above statement claims no US Citizenship, it states that Barack was born to a British citizen and that act carried onto his children.

That act states that under that act, the underage supposed mother became a British subject (following the condition of her husband) and even with any US citizenship, Barack Obama can never be a ‘natural born citizen’. The location of his birth did not qualify Obama under the jurisdiction of US law.

 

This is why the mother (under the language of the Constitution does not matter, and there has been no amendment to alter that language. Remember what John Bingham wrote about the language in our Constitution.) historically a man and a woman come together as one (in marriage) they produce offspring, children. The wife becomes one with the husband and takes his condition. This is why under history and outlined in Vattel, the mother is not a separate entity, but conjoined in the union. The term as defined by the framers/founders understood this as they used Vattel in the founding of a new nation, (Ben Franklin to Charles Dumas). Thought out the Congressional record, debates, etc, the term parents were used together, however it was understood to mean as one. Christian theology (forgive the spelling here) Under the 14th Amendment, those that were born and UNDER the Jurisdiction were declared citizens, but this did not alter/change/amend the Natural-Born requirement.

 

Several cases beyond the 14th Amendment also clarify that just being born in the US does not make one a citizen, Elk vs Walkins 1884, that the US Supreme Court held that even though Elk was born in the United States, he was not a citizen because he owed allegiance to his tribe when he was born rather than to the U.S. and therefore was not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States when he was born.for example, that being said, it wasn’t till later that native Indians were granted citizenship. Even the touted Wong Kim Ark case declared she was a just a citizen.

One notable case is President Grant’s daughter, in 1874, she, Nellie Grant married Algernon Charles Frederick Sartoris, an Englishman. The couple left the United States and lived in Great Britain. British law stated that an alien woman became an English subject when she married a citizen of Great Britain. (Again, the British Acts declared that the wife follow the condition of her husband, that same act followed Barack Obama’s statement as earlier noted and why there is no mention of Barack Obama’s mother) Did this give Nellie Grant dual citizenship? The Act of 1868 determined that, by establishing residency outside the country, she had relinquished her American citizenship. When Nellie Grant Sartoris returned to the United States at the end of her marriage, State Department practice at the time held that, by returning, she automatically regained her citizenship. Despite this, in 1896, she petitioned Congress to reinstate her American nationality. In a Special Act of 1898, she regained an unconditional resumption of her citizenship. Thereby establishing she lost her citizenship my marrying a foreign national.  Mind you this was no ordinary citizen, but the daughter of the US President.

 

Moving forward to the FIRST TIME a woman could retain her US citizenship if she married a foreigner was in 1922 with the Cable Act, when a woman married a foreign national she lost her US citizenship if she married a foreign man, since she assumed the citizenship of her husband, a law that did not apply to US citizen men who married foreign women, since again the wife takes the condition of her husband as do the children.

Again, moving forward, to The Citizenship Act of 1934, a U.S. citizen mother were not permitted to transmit U.S. citizenship to their children born abroad. The Act of May 24, 1934 (the “1934 Statute”) gave U.S. citizen mothers equality of status regarding their ability to transmit U.S. citizenship. However the provision was not applied retroactively. Therefore, children born before May 24, 1934 to a U.S. citizen mother and an alien father did not acquire U.S. citizenship.

 

That being the case, think of both Barack Obama and Ted Cruz. Prior to 2007, numerous references concerning Barack Obama state Kenyan-Born. Stanley Ann married a British subject, under the British Nationality Act. Barack Obama, foreign born to a foreign father, and then again at Ted Cruz, foreign born in Canada, to a foreign father (Cuban) and a mother who married a British subject, resided in England, prior to Ted Cruz’s birth in Alberta, Canada. Both sounds familiar.

 

To that point in 2000, in the United states Supreme Court Case of In the Supreme Court Case—Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS—Justice Ginsberg made the following statement

Mr. Kneedler, If Congress went back to the way it was when everything was determined by the father’s citizenship, go back to before 1934, suppose congress accepts your argument or we accept your argument and say plenary power, they can do whatever they damn please, so they say children born abroad of fathers who are U.S. citizens can become U.S. citizens, but not children who are born abroad of U.S. mothers where the father in an alien. That’s the way it used to be in the bad old days.”

 

Again, documenting that prior to 1934 the mother’s citizenship was not a determining factor.

 

If you were born between May 25, 1934, and January 12, 1941, you acquired U.S. citizenship at birth if both your parents were U.S. citizens and at least one had resided in the U.S. prior to your birth. The law at this time placed no additional conditions on retaining U.S. citizenship acquired in this way.

This is the reason prior to 1934, citizenship was based solely on the father. From the founding of the nation till 1934, the father was the determining criteria and the mother was irrelevant, as documented. The framers and founders understood that children follow the condition of their father.

Then in 1957, Convention on the Nationality of Married Women, an UN convention that entered force in 1958 and was ratified by 74 countries, protects the citizenships of women who married citizens of other countries (previously such a marriage often resulted in the loss of the woman’s original citizenship).

I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen -Rep. John Bingham, framer of the 14th Amendment, before The US House of Representatives ((Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291, March 9, 1866 )

Neither Acts of Congress has altered the Constitutional requirement of a Natural-Born Citizen nor as John Bingham wrote language of our Constitution, the courts have polluted the understanding and historical meaning to hide their treason.

 

Here is John Bingham, Framer of the 14^th Amendment

 

I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen -Rep. John Bingham, framer of the 14th Amendment, before The US House of Representatives ((Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291, March 9, 1866 )

 

The Constitutional requirement has not been altered by an amendment, as required by the United States Constitution.

Kamala’s parents were foreigners, owing allegiance to Jamaica and India. Is she even a US citizen?

Fireworks: Sheriff Joe Arpaio Takes On Fox News’ Alan Colmes Over Obama’s Forged Birth Certificate

Alan Colmes knows Obama is illegal and that Obama is using counterfeit documents. Listen as Alan Colmes goes though the ‘talking points’.  Sheriff Arpio nails it! Way to go Joe!

Video: Sheriff Joe Arpaio Speaks; Obama’s Forged Fraudulent Government Document Is Violation Of Law

Sheriff Joe Arpaio gave an interview with Pete Santilli and discussed immigration and the ongoing Obama identity document fraud investigation. Sheriff Arpaio says he knows in his own heart what the real Obama story is. And, they’re getting pretty close to a conclusion. He also addresses what would happen if Obama is found ineligible.

SR511 Again – Proves Barack Obama ineligible

There has been a lot of debate on several forums concerning John McCain and SR 511.

SR 511 simply stated that ‘Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.’

Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.

Whereas the term `natural born Citizen’, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;

Where is it defined?

MINOR v. HAPPERSETT

Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that “no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words “all children” are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as “all persons,” and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.

Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country’s President;

Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base

John McCain was born to citizen parents on US military soil,

Here is the kicker folks.

The same is for American Military bases, if the land is purchased it’s considered American soil. The same stipulations have been applied for renting, hence US bought it to connect North America and South America. The U.S. rented the land from Panama

On February 26, 1904, the Isthmian Canal Convention was proclaimed. In it, the Republic of Panama granted to the United States in perpetuity the use, occupation, and control of a zone of land and land under water for the construction, maintenance, operation, sanitation, and protection of the canal.

Therefore John McCain was born to two United States Citizens ON United States controlled soil.

From 1903 to 1979 the territory was controlled by the United States, which had built the canal and financed its construction. From 1979 to 1999 the canal itself was under joint U.S.–Panamanian control. In 1977 the Torrijos-Carter Treaties established the neutrality of the canal.

The United States had soverign control of the canal zone when John McCain was born.

John McCain has both jus sanguinis and Jus soli citizenship.

Barack Obama has neither, as a foreign national father and no evidence (except manufactured) of place of birth.

Obama admits bio is fabricated

As this blog has stated ‘Obama in his bio has stated that it CAN NOT be taken literally’, come the admission that people were fabricated and an inadequately fact-checked news item leads to a fabricated claim that the president fabricated and lied about parts of his memoir.

If you read Dreams From My Father (embarrassing disclosure: I have not), you may have already gotten to the punchline: Obama is clear at the start of the book that certain characters are composites, writing, “For the sake of compression, some of the characters that appear are composites of people I’ve known, and some events appear out of precise chronology.” Someone eventually pointed this out to Byers, and Politico added this doozy of an update-and-correction at the bottom:

UPDATE: In the reissue of “Dreams from My Father,” Obama writes in the introduction that “some of the characters that appear are composites of people I’ve known.”CORRECTION: An earlier version of this blog post stated that Obama had acknowledged using composite characters in the reissue. In fact, Obama acknowledged the use of composite characters in the first edition of the book.

And it only gets worse from there. Rush Limbaugh cited Byers’ item extensively on the air on Wednesday, somehow managing to link him with Charles Barkley, imply that Obama would be willing to commit perjury, and openly call the president a liar.

Well, in an autobiography, if you’re gonna invent characters — in an autobiography, if you’re going to invent characters — and then only admit you invented them after people have tried to find them… You know, he invents this Genevieve babe and people can’t find her. She didn’t exist.

But those that are demanding that Barack Obama being vetted are criticized.

Does a composite girl bother anyone? Does a fabricated and created background and history bother anyone?

Does the fact that Obama’s Certification of Live Birth, Long Form Birth Certificate, Selective Service Registration all are forgeries.

1) The original, long-form 1961 Hawaiian birth certificate does not exist, an ‘ABSTRACT’ was produced.
2) Marriage license between Obama’s father (Barack Sr.) and mother (Stanley Ann Dunham) — not found, not released
3) Obama’s baptism records — sealed
4) Obama’s adoption records — sealed
5) Records of Obama’s and his mother’s repatriation as US citizens on return from Indonesia — not found, not released
6) Name change (Barry Soetero to Barack Hussein Obama) records — not found, not released
7) Noelani Elementary School (Hawaii) — not released
Punahou School financial aid or school records — not released
9) Occidental College financial aid records — not released. (These records were, however, subpoenaed but Obama lawyers succeeded in quashing the subpoena in court. No other Occidental records have been released.)
10) Columbia College records — not released
11) Columbia senior thesis — not released
12) Harvard Law School records (not mentioned below, but not released)
13) Obama’s law client list — sealed
14) Obama’s files from career as an Illinois State Senator — sealed
15) Obama’s record with Illinois State Bar Association — sealed
16) Obama’s medical records — not released
17) Obama’s passport records — not released

Confirmed: Obama’s Birth Certificate Not Authentic 2012

Arpaio revealed the findings of a investigation into the president’s birth certificate at a 1 hour and 20 minute news conference Thursday, calling the certificate “suspect.”

Arpaio’s team of investigators said they found that the long-form birth certificate was created electronically and never existed in paper form.

The president’s Selective Service card was also questioned.

Arpaio’s investigators claimed the document has “failed every test we put it through.”

At Thursday’s news conference, investigators said they will request a criminal investigation. They also said they have identified a person of interest in the forgery of the birth certificate.

Arpaio said he is not accusing the president of the crime. He said they will investigate who is behind the “possible forgery and fraud.”

“I haven’t decided where to go with this yet,” Arpaio said. “I just wanted to get the facts of this situation. We haven’t accused anyone of anything.”

The controversy over the certificate has been widely debunked, but it remains alive in the eyes of some conservatives, namely members of the Tea Party who urged Arpaio to look into the matter.

For the past six months, Arpaio’s “Cold Case Posse” has been investigating the authenticity of those documents to see if there’s been any fraud or forgery involved.

“We conducted a very professional investigation; we have come up with I feel some probable cause, some evidence,” Arpaio said Wednesday.

Arpaio said the investigation was done at no cost to taxpayers.

“Just let me say the results may be interesting without using the word ‘shocked,'” Arpaio said prior to the conference. “I think it will reveal some information no one else has really developed in a professional law enforcement manner.”

The Cold Case Posse comprises volunteers who are former police officers and lawyers.

JustiaGate

 Dianna Cotter, PortlandCivil Rights Examiner

October 18, 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 theUS 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.

NOTE: Although the author is correct that in June 2008, Minor was not being discussed. I did in fact publish the ‘Barack Obama Un-Constitutional‘ in Sept 2008, the exact date Sept 26th, 2008 which does list Minor as a reference.  Again, this blog is vindicated!

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 inDenver,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…”

And

“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, ifStanleywere 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.

Continue reading on Examiner.com JustiaGate – Portland Civil Rights | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/civil-rights-in-portland/justiagate#ixzz1bR3mM19i

Read from Leo’s site http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/10/20/justia-com-surgically-removed-minor-v-happersett-from-25-supreme-court-opinions-in-run-up-to-08-election/

 

Citizenship Jeopardy By Cindy Simpson at American Thinker http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/10/citizenship_jeopardy.html

Lame Cherry’s O’Looser

Lame Cherry has posted an interesting article on O’Looser. One point in the post is the following;

“We now for certain that there is absolutely no Obama birth certificate. (I have noted before that Jerome Corsi and Joseph Farah already knew this for certain, but now he rest of us children have confirmation there is no COLB.)
How do we deduce this? If there was a COLB, they would have allowed Taitz to see it and end this all by humiliating the Tea Party. ”

As I have stated for over the past two and a half years, ‘there is no Long form Birth Certificate in Hawaii that the forged COLB was supposed to be based on.” There is nothing supporting that Baracka Abdallah Husein Obama or any alias that he has, was ever born in the United States.  The COLB that was placed on the DailyKOS is a forgery, a fabrication, a digital creation. That the FactCheck and Fight the Smears images and printed out copies are based upon the same digital creation.
http://lamecherry.blogspot.com/2011/08/olooser.html

H/T Lame Cherry

The Illegal Obama – Pt. 2

President Obama’s uncle had Social Security ID

By Dave Wedge and Laurel J. Sweet
Tuesday, August 30, 2011

 President Obama’s accused drunken-driving uncle — who was busted after a near collision with a Framingham cop — has had a valid Social Security number for at least 19 years, despite being an illegal immigrant ordered to be deported back toKenya, the Herald has learned.

The president’s 67-year-old uncle, Obama Onyango, has had a valid Massachusetts driver’s license and Social Security number since at least 1992, said Registry of Motor Vehicles spokesman Michael Verseckes.

Onyango, whose sister, Zeituni Onyango, made headlines when it was revealed she was an illegal immigrant living in public housing in South Boston, was wobbly legged, “slurring” and had “red and glassy eyes” when he was pulled over at 7 p.m. Wednesday on Waverly Street in Framingham.

A marked cruiser pulled him over just past the Chicken Bone saloon, about a mile from Onyango’s single-family home. Onyango, the half-brother of the president’s father identified in some press accounts as “Uncle Omar,” initially denied drinking but admitted having “two beers” after police said they smelled booze on his breath, according to a police report.

“It was clear that he was moderately unsteady on his feet,” Framingham Officer Val Krishtal wrote.

Onyango’s white Mitsubishi SUV was pulled over after the vehicle made a sudden right turn in front of a cruiser at a stop sign, causing Krishtal to slam on the brakes to avoid a collision. Onyango blew a .14 on the Breathalyzer and continually interrupted the officer, the report states.

“(Onyango) spoke English well, albeit with a moderate accent. I detected what I believed to be some slurring as he spoke,” Krishtal wrote.

Onyango was ordered held without bail on a federal immigration warrant after his arraignment Thursday in Framingham District Court. Court papers show he was the subject of a previous deportation order. He was being held in the Plymouth House of Correction last night.

Mike Rogers, a spokesman forClevelandimmigration attorney Margaret Wong, who is representing Onyango, said he “wouldn’t know how” Onyango obtained a Social Security number. Wong is the same lawyer who represented the president’s aunt, Zeituni Onyango, in her fight to win asylum last year. Reached at her apartment in a South Boston public housing complex yesterday, Zeituni Onyango said of her brother’s arrest: “Why don’t you go to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. inWashington,D.C., and ask your president? Not me.” She then hung up on a reporter.

The bust came just days after another illegal immigrant was charged with running down and killing a 23-year-old man inMilford.

Asked about the issue yesterday, Gov. Deval Patrick said: “You know my stance: Illegal is illegal. We need comprehensive immigration reform.”

Howie Carr and Jessica Heslam contributed to the report. Link

The questionable and forged documents of Barack Abdallah Husein Obama are now even more in question as multiple family members have been exposed in having forged documents and being in the US illegally.

Baracka Abdallah Husein Obama – Forged COLB [Certification of Live Birth] Certificate

Baracka Abdallah Husein Obama – Forged Long Form Birth Certificate

Baracka Abdallah Husein Obama – Fraudulant Social Security Number, issued from the State of Conn, where Baracka Abdallah Husein Obama was never a resident.

Baracka Abdallah Husein Obama – Fraudulant Selective Service Registration

Is Barack Abdallah Husein Obama in the US illegally as well?

UPDATE!

Information from Susan Daniels;

 

Obama’s Uncle Onyango Obama:

 

OBAMA, O. ONYANGO
Gender: M
SSN: 027-38-XXXX
Issued between 1964 to 1966 in the state of Massachusetts.

 

Obama’s Aunt Zeituni Onyango:

 

Zeituni, Onyango
Gender: F
313-23-XXXX
Issued between 2001 and 2002 in the state of Indiana. There is no evidence Zeituni Onyango ever stepped foot in Indiana.

 

Barack Obama is NOT even a US Citizen – so says the law

 

Baracka Abdallah Husein Obama, has never claimed any US Citizenship.

As the 1866 Act provides: “All persons born in the United States, and NOT SUBJECT to any foreign power, (excluding Indians not taxed,) are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.”

quote; “NOT SUBJECT to any foreign power”

Baracka Abdallah Husein Obama has unequivocally stated that at birth he was a British subject, whose allegiance, protection, and jurisdiction was to the British Crown and  WAS SUBJECT TO A FOREIGN POWER.

Obama’s statement never acknowledges any United States citizenship, allegiance, or Jurisdiction, in any part thereof, nor any other country.

Baracka Abdallah Husein Obama acknowledges only one allegaince and that is to a foreign power.

 “When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

Michelle Obama stated ‘Barack Obama a Kenyan’

Michelle Obama  ‘When we visited Barack’s home country of Kenya’

A ‘citizen’ is not a ‘Natural Born Citizen’, as proven by the distinction in the Constitutional eligibility requirements in the United States Constitution.

United States Constitution Art 1, sec 2

Representitive eligibility requirement.

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have …been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, .

CITIZEN!

United States Constitution Art 1, sec 3

Senatorial eligibility requirement.

No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have…been nine Years a Citizen of the United States

CITIZEN!

United States Constitution Art 2, sec1

Presidential requirement.

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

NATURAL BORN CITIZEN!

NOTE:  ‘a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,’ the United States Constitution was adopted in 1789. ‘

Was Baracka Abdallah Husein Obama in the United States or any of the several indepedent and soverign States in 1789?

If they equated to the same definition and meaning the Founding Fathers, Framers, signers of the United States Constitution would have used the same wording.