Eligibility Rulings Vanish From Net

A New Jersey attorney who brought the firstlegal challenge to Barack Obama’s occupancy in the Oval Office to the U.S. Supreme Courthas published a report revealing that references to a U.S. Supreme Court decision addressing the definition of “natural-born citizen” were scrubbed at one of the key online resources for legal documents.

The Minor v. Happersett case is significant because it is one of very few references in the nation’s archives that addresses the definition of “natural-born citizen,” a requirement imposed by the U.S. Constitution on only the U.S. president.

That case states:

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.”

Jerome Corsi’s New York Times best-seller, “Where’s the Birth Certificate?”, which addresses Obama’s Social Security Number and a host of other disputes, is now available for immediate shipping, autographed by the author, only from the WND Superstore

In the dispute over Obama’s eligibility, dating back to before his election, it has been argued that the Minor case does not apply. Some have argued that it applies only to voting rights.

But now Leo C. Donofrio, whose original Donofio v. Wells against the New Jersey Secretary of State alleged Obama does not meet the Constitution’s Article 2, Section 1 “natural-born citizen” demand for presidents because of his dual citizenship at birth, has released research suggesting that even as Obama was preparing to be the Democratic candidate for president in 2008, someone was scrubbing court records of that case.

“New evidence conclusively establishes that 25 U.S. Supreme Court opinions were sabotaged then republished at Justia.com during the runup to the ’08 election,” he reported

(Story continues below)

He initially reported several months ago on a few of the adjustments in the text of the Supreme Court opinions at the online resource, “but last week, a third sabotaged case was discovered which led to a thorough examination of all U.S. Supreme Court cases which cite ‘Minor v. Happersett’ as they appeared on Justia.com between 2006 and the present.”

Arguably, under the definition in the case, neither candidate in 2008, Democrat Obama nor Republican Sen. John McCain, would be eligible. McCain was born outside of the United States at a U.S. base in the Panama Canal Zone, and Obama’s father never was a U.S. citizen.

Donofrio explained in his report that he did not know who made the changes inside the documents purporting to be U.S. Supreme Court opinions, and “the deception might have been undertaken on behalf of either one.

“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,’” he wrote.

“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 emenating from Justia.com servers.”

Justia staff did not return a WND message requesting comment.

Donofrio wrote that it’s not just a prank-level matter.

“Since Justice placed affirmations on each tampered opinion which state ‘Full Text of Case,’ personnel may also be guilty of violating 18 U.S.C. 1018 by intentionally passing offtamperedversions of U.S. Supreme Court opinions as if they wereofficialversions published by the U.S. Supreme Court.”

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.

Among the dozens of examples identified by Donofrio was theLuria case.

The case from 1913 was an appeal out of New York that concluded: “Where a point involving sufficiency of the complaint is not raised and defendant does not challenge the statement of the court that it supposes the point will not be raised, it is too late to raise it in this court.

“This court concurs in the conclusion reached by the district court that the residence in a foreign country of one whose certificate of naturalization was attacked as fraudulent was intended to be and was of a permanent nature and justified the proceeding on the part of the United States to cancel the certificate under § 15 of the Act of June 29, 1906.”

Using the online Wayback machine, Donofrio found a 2006 image of the pertinent reference to Minor v. Happersett in the document. The reference is near the highlighted word:

Then Donofrio found a 2008 image of the same page, but the Minor v. Happersett reference had disappeared:

A subsequent image of the same page, from 2010, revealed that the Minor v. Happersett still was gone:

Finally, the current image, as of Friday afternoon, revealed that the reference had been restored:

“We do not know at this point if Justia personnel were behind this or if their site was hacked. That being said, Justia’s reaction to my last report (in July) mirrored the deception of the sabotage. Instead of addressing the proof, Justia quietly and with stealth un-scrubbed the evidence without acknowledging or addressing the issue at all. And they placed ‘.txt robots’ on their URLs for the two previously identified cases so the Wayback Machine could no longer provide historical snapshots of those cases as published at Justia,” Donofrio explained.

He said he found 25 instances of tampering, and in some cases not only was the case scrubbed, the numerical citation also was taken out.

Read more:Eligibility rulings vanish from Nethttp://www.wnd.com/?pageId=358645#ixzz1boMK2CBr