Orwellian Fascism in hiding citations of Minor v Happerstt from 25 decisions of the Supreme Court
Posted on | October 21, 2011 | 29 Comments
Orly,
The courts are corrupt. Where do we go from here???
Steph
25 ‘Natural-Born’ Supreme cases REMOVED by Justia.com prior 2 ’08 Election
Stephanie Flater
“In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot.” – Mark Twain
“If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.” – Thomas Jefferson
Comments
29 Responses to “Orwellian Fascism in hiding citations of Minor v Happerstt from 25 decisions of the Supreme Court”
Leave a Reply
EVIDENCE AGAINST OBAMA — YouTube Indiana Trial of Obama !
Petition the White House to institute Edward Snowden, National Whistleblower – Patriots against Government Corruption Day
OrlyTaitzEsq.comTAITZ REPORT
Official Facebook
IMPORTANT NOTICES – PLEASE READ!
Historic DVD Now Available!
DVD of the historic trial in GA and DVD of a historic testimony in NH, where evidence was provided showing Obama using a forged birth certificate and a stolen social security number. The DVDs are in a beautiful commemorative case with personal autographs from attorney Dr. Orly Taitz $22.50 each +$2.50 for shipping and handling.
---------
To order these DVDs, donate $25.00 by credit card on the website RunOrlyRun.com and email orly.taitz@gmail.com with you name and address. Or send a $25.00 check with your name and address to: Orly Taitz for US Senate 2012, 29839 Santa Margarita ste 100, RSM, CA 92688.
Advertisement / Sponsors
29839 Sta Margarita Pkwy,
Ste 100
Rancho Sta Margarita, CA 92688
orly.taitz @gmail. com
(949) 766-7687
--------------------------------------
Videography by Barbara Rosenfeld
--------------------------------------
Bumper Sticker
$9.99 thru PayPal--------------------------------------
--------------------------------------Orly Taitz Photo Collections
October 21st, 2011 @ 8:31 am
I don’t quite follow, can you please explain?
October 21st, 2011 @ 8:55 am
Orly, please explain. I don’t, understand?
October 21st, 2011 @ 10:56 am
I understand perfectly well. Click on the article and read it!
More Obots caught red handed scrubbing Supreme Court documentation. Outrageous! If this doesn’t bring the eligibility issue to the forefront of the main street media, nothing will!
October 21st, 2011 @ 11:45 am
Me three. What is the problem?
October 21st, 2011 @ 12:58 pm
@ The Truth…
“More Obots caught red handed scrubbing Supreme Court documentation. Outrageous! If this doesn’t bring the eligibility issue to the forefront of the main street media, nothing will!”
And the SCOTUS opinion in Minor v Happersett has been changed exactly how?
October 21st, 2011 @ 4:59 pm
Or any of the opinions in any of the 25 cases?
October 21st, 2011 @ 5:07 pm
In 2008, before the election, citations in court cases to the Minor v. Happersett case were removed from those cases on Justia’s website. When Justia got caught a couple years later, they put the citations back in.
Minor v. Happerset is the definitive Supreme Court case that states that a natural born citizen requires that both parents be citizens at the time of the child’s birth. This scrubbing of the Minor v. Happersett citations interferes with people doing legal research using the Internet. Justia is one of the primary Internet resources legal researchers use.
The question is who did this and why?
The Obama campaign is a likely suspect. They knew he was (and is) not eligible.
October 21st, 2011 @ 5:28 pm
ORLY, WILL THERE BE AN INVESTIGATION AND IF SO WHO WILL DO THE INVESTIGATING? I ALSO WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IF OBAMAS ELIGIBILITY WILL BE QUESTIONED WHEN HE RUNS FOR PRESIDENT AND WHO WILL QUESTION, CONGRESS OR THE SENATE? I ALSO WOULD LIKE YOUR OPINION ON HERMAN CAIN AND NEWT GINGRICH. I LIKE HERMAN CAIN BUT I LIKE WHAT NEWT IS SAYING ABOUT HOW HE WILL SIGN ALL OF THESE EXECUTIVE ORDERS DOING AWAY WITH THE ENERGY DEPT, ALL OF THE ZSARS, AND MAYBE THE EDUCATION DEPT WHICH IS A JOKE, AND MANY MORE.
October 21st, 2011 @ 6:38 pm
Both Orly & The Truth are full of ish. President Obama needs to send Orly’s ass back to that hole that she emerged from.
October 21st, 2011 @ 7:21 pm
each one of them has different strengths. Right now I am concentrating on eligibility.
October 21st, 2011 @ 8:04 pm
Birdy, I still don’t quite understand. Justia.com is just one webpage where that can be found. What about all the other webpages? And all the books in all the libraries? Where they changed as well?
October 21st, 2011 @ 9:52 pm
Every time someone quotes Orwell, God kills a kitten.
October 21st, 2011 @ 10:55 pm
Lapane,
You are full of more than “ish”. Why dont you comment on what your buddies at justia.com did by changing and scrubbing the actual Supreme Court official transcripts in 25 different cases,to benifit Obama’s eligibility problem. This is against the law and is well documented.
Paul Jackson,
Read the entire article again and then read what Birdy has written.
Many researchers have been defrauded by justia.com because someone at the website intentionally hid important information from anyone using this site, in order to benifit Barack Obama. Since justia.com is trusted by law to print exactly what is in the official printed transcripts of SCOTUS cases, and they clearly did not, they are in violation of federal law!
Hmmmmm….and it just so happens that the CEO of Justia is tied to Obama’s election campaign. What a coincidence!
Why would they do this Mr. Jackson? Is this something you condone?
It seems to me that you do, since you are on the wrong side of the argument once again. When are you going to wake up man?
October 22nd, 2011 @ 4:06 am
some people are awake, but were paid to play a role of a zomby
October 22nd, 2011 @ 6:20 am
You have that one correct Orly.
Maynard,
Everytime you make a comment, God kills more of your brain cells. You should be careful, I don’t think you had enough to begin with.
October 22nd, 2011 @ 8:47 am
The Truth, I still don’t get it. Justia doesn’t produce the official transcripts, it just puts on the internet what is printed in the books. Were the books changed as well? And what law requires Justia to print exactly what is in the books?
October 22nd, 2011 @ 1:48 pm
this is not a secific law, but the fact, that high ranking official is connected to Obama for America campaign and it is part and parcel of effort to defraud 311 million American citizens.
October 23rd, 2011 @ 9:48 am
Paul Jackson
October 21st, 2011 @ 12:58 pm
Paul, if you haven’t already (I believe you have) you may wish to review the findings and report made by Leo Donofrio at his website.
To answer your direct question above, “And the SCOTUS opinion in Minor v Happersett has been changed exactly how?” The correct response is it hasn’t. You have proposed a straw-man question while avoiding data findings for this specific report. The U.S. Supreme Court opinion remains the same, unchanged.
However, that is not the discussion nor the question posed by Leo Donofrio.
The question is “Why” did Justia legal reference website – shortly prior to the 2008 elections – tamper opinions by omitting sections of Supreme Court case in Minor?
Your guess is as good as anyone’s. Ignorance? Stupidity from legal experts? Accidental? Forgetful? Intentional? That is the question Paul.
Once is explainable, twice is an anomaly, consecutive outliers are questionable beyond normalcy.
October 23rd, 2011 @ 10:08 am
The question remains the same.
Do the American Citizens have a “Right to Know” of their elected officials qualifications?
– Or –
Do they not?
Not a difficult question.
To date, not one single Obama supporter has answered that simple question.
October 23rd, 2011 @ 1:06 pm
William,
Great posts!
I have asked that question plenty of times, in comments in the past. They are ” avoiding that issue”.
Hmmm…..sound familiar.
Bob T. Freeman,
I am not your source for Cliff- Notes. I’m sorry you are confused, but maybe if you read the entire article, you would see the references for the law that has been broken on 25 different counts.
October 23rd, 2011 @ 1:08 pm
William,
Great posts!
I have asked that question plenty of times, in comments in the past. They are ” avoiding that issue”.
Hmmm…..sound familiar.
Bob T. Freeman,
I am not your source for Cliff- Notes. I’m sorry you are confused, but maybe if you read the entire article, you would see the references for the law that has blatantly been broken on 25 different counts. The article is very clear. You just need to READ IT!
October 23rd, 2011 @ 2:47 pm
The Truth, I’ve read the article and I don’t see how Justia broke any laws. Are you saying any time any one does not reprint with 100% accuracy what is in the public domain he has committed a felony?
October 24th, 2011 @ 10:00 am
@ William…
“The question remains the same.
Do the American Citizens have a “Right to Know” of their elected officials qualifications?
– Or –
Do they not?
Not a difficult question. ”
Of course they have a right to know of the qualifications.
I’m going to go a little further and surmise that by “qualifications” you mean “legal eligibility” to hold the office for which they run.
The answer is the same… yes.
October 24th, 2011 @ 10:01 pm
Bob T. Freeman,
Go back and read it again. It CLEARLY states what law was broken.
October 24th, 2011 @ 10:04 pm
Paul Jackson,
If your answer is “yes”, then why do you continually argue for the side that seeks to hide the document that would prove legal eligibility?
October 25th, 2011 @ 6:43 am
Since Justia is just one of many legal search engines, this is a moot issue. Attorneys Shepardizing legal opinions would use Westlaw or Lexis/Nexis – not Google.
October 25th, 2011 @ 8:06 am
HOW is the law broken? Because not exactly reprinting what is in the public domain isn’t covered by the statute that Donofrio cited.
October 25th, 2011 @ 9:26 am
Kaci,
That is partially correct. Yes, Attorney’s mostly use the expensive programs Lexis and Westlaw.
However, that is less than 1% of the population in general that has access to such expensive legal programs. The other 99% (for example) use free top-rated online legal research companies (such as Justia) for their information on U.S. Supreme Court case look-up.
Therefore, when the general population decides to review a U.S. Supreme Court case, they have a expectation to review a full text (as declared by the company) reference to the case. Arguably, the cases pertaining to the Minor case were skewed through omitting portions of the case rendering it highly misleading to the general population of Americans wishing to review the case decisions.
Moot? I don’t think so.
October 25th, 2011 @ 9:29 am
Paul Jackson
October 24th, 2011 @ 10:00 am
Yes Paul, that would be a correct.