digital books, digital cases, Google, John Jay, Judge Henry Selden, jury nullification, Justia.com disclaimer, law libraries disappearing, New Hampshire H.B. 146, quotes disappear, Reuters, Rothschild, Samuel Chase, Susan B. Anthony, Thomson Reuters Westlaw, United States v. Susan B. Anthony, westlaw, Zionism, Zionism changing case law
Zionism has reached into U.S. Law Books and may have removed critical knowledge and clouded our national heritage by altering quotes. More on this after examining United States v. Susan B Anthony
United States v. Susan B Anthony
U.S. v. Anthony, 24 Fed. 829 (1873) “The term resident and citizen of the United States is distinguished from a Citizen of one the several states, in that the former is a special class of citizen created by Congress.
James was right, that quote no longer exists, or was never there. James had a friend with access to Westlaw find a copy the case, it was sent to me as a pdf with a watermark in the lower right margins “digitized by Google”.
Case No. 14,459.
United States v. Anthony
Circuit Court, N.D. New York. June 18, 1873
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT – RIGHT TO VOTE – WOMEN – QUALIFICATIONS OF VOTERS IN NEW YORK.
1. A female voted, at an election in the state of New York for a representative in the congress of the United States. Under the constitution and laws of the state of New York, none but males were authorized to vote for members of the most numerous branch of the state legislature. She possessed all of the qualifications entitling a person to vote at such election, except she was not a male. She was indicted, under section 19 of the act of May 31st, 1870 (16 Stat. 144), for knowingly voting at such election without having a lawful right to vote. On trial it was contended, in defense, that, as she had all the qualifications required for electors of representatives in congress, by article 1, & 2, subd. 1, of the constitution of the United States (namely the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature). [ E ] except that of being a male, the restriction of voting to males, by the constitution and laws of New York was void, as a violation of the 14th amendment of the constitution of the United States, which provides that “no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” Held, that such restriction was not void.
[Cited in State v. Howard Co. Ct., 90 Mo. 598, 2 S.W. 790]
2. The 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments of the constitution of the United States, considered.
3. The 14th amendment defines and declares who shall be citizens of the United States and protects only such rights as are rights belonging to persons as citizens of the United States, and not rights belonging to persons as citizens of a state.
4. The rights of citizens of the state defined.
5. The right or privilege of voting is one arising under the constitution of the state, and not under the constitution of the United States.
[Cited in Kinner v. Weds, 144 Mass. 498, 11 N.E. 919.]
6. It is no defence to such indictment, that the defendant believed she had a right to vote, and voted in reliance to that belief.
[Cited in U.S. v. Watkinds, 6 Fed. 154; The Ambrose Light, 25 Fed 426.]
7. The defendant, knowing that she was a female, and that the constitution of New York prohibited her from voting, and having voted, the court refused to submit to the jury the question whether she intended, by voting to violate the statute, or any other question and directed the jury to find a verdict of guilty, and denied a request, by defendants’ counsel, that the jury be polled. Held. on a motion for a new trial, that such direction was proper, and not in violation of the right of trial by jury.
8. On the trial of an indictment, the court has the power, and it is its duty, to direct a verdict of guilty, whenever the facts constituting guilt are undisputed.
[Cited in U.S. v. Babcock, Case No. 14,486. Disapproved in U.S. v. Taylor, 11 Fed. 471.]
[Cited in State v. Burpee, 65 Vt. 3, 25 Atl. 964. Disapproved in Territory v. Kee (N. M.) 25 Pac. 926]
US v Anthony (a link to the full case)
All of the above in ‘green’ is emphasis added by myself. In Number 1 of Syllabus, they seem to have forgot that after a period, a sentence starts with a capital letter.
I further believe that Number 3 is interpolated, as that is where the quote should have appeared.
On page 382 in the case a there is a discussion about jury instructions between Judge Hunt and defense counsel. At (2): In determining the question whether the defendant did or did not believe that she had a right to vote, the jury may take into consideration, as bearing upon the question, the advice she received from counsel to whom she applied and also the fact, the inspectors of the election considered the question and came to the conclusion that she had a right to vote.
Judge Henry Selden was the counsel that told Susan B Anthony she could vote, he had retired as a Judge of the New York State Court of Appeals. As for the voter register, why didn’t he stand trial as an accomplice to violating the law?
Judge Hunt ordered the all male jury to convict Susan B Anthony. The jury was not exactly a ‘jury of her peers’ and why this case was not appealed is an interesting question.
Another question to ponder is Jury Nullification. According to this case a judge can order people to be found guilty. On the same topic New Hampshire has jury nullification as a matter of law when the Governor signed H.B. 146. This article also gives some quotes, if they are still there.
John Jay, America’s first US Supreme Court Chief Justice said, “The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy.” Samuel Chase, signer of the Declaration of Independence and a US Supreme Court justice said, “The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts.”
Changing Quotes In Case Law
There seems to be a rash of changing quotes in case law, here are some examples I have seen other examples of changed quotes. The older the case the more likely it will be altered.
It has gotten so bad that legal research websites like Justia.com have put up disclaimers. Look at the bottom of this case, or any case, where you will find the disclaimer:
Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.
It is obvious they are afraid of being sued, or why the disclaimer?
At one time, every county in the nation had a law library that was open lawyers, attorneys and to the public to research in the law. Times change and law libraries are almost a thing of the past.
When I lived in Elko County, Nevada 2000-2006 ; the City of Elko had an excellent law library. There was only a total population in the county of 60,000, but the law library had rows and rows of books, cases from all states Supreme Courts, Federal Reporters and Supreme Court Reports. By 2004 the library was gone.
Westlaw has been controlling the books, deciding which cases to report, and could well be tinkering with our past by changing quotes within cases. Notice on their website that they also own Findlaw and that their true name is Thomson Reuters Westlaw. From the history of the company this is Reuters, of news fame. This is the Zionist connection, as Rothschild owns 100% of Thomas Reuters.
Rothschild’s tentacles will slowly erode our past through digital copies of case law on the internet in a totally controlling manner as has been done with the banking industry. The importance of owning old books just became more important and may be the only way in the future to preserve the freedom this nation once had. With the law libraries decimated by design valuable quotes will slowly disappear. It is the Rothschild way of total enslavement.