Replies

The most important part of this story, in my opinion, is the scrubbing of Justia.com. I've been researching this story and it's fascinating. There has already been one FR post on the story at the time when it began but no follow-up posts on the more recent developments. Justia.com founder Tim Stanley was a major Obama supporter. It's not a coincidence that the primary U.S. Supreme Court case on what constitutes a 'natural born citizen' in a case similar to Obama's claimed case 'accidentally' disappeared from the research site, along with all of the sites to it found in any other case.

For those who say 'real lawyers use Lexis and Westlaw', I'd say 'they do when they want to pay for the search or to Shepardize, but even Obama's big-time law firm Perkins Cole uses Justia.com as a reference in articles it publishes.

It's also telling that Justia was previously searchable by the Wayback machine - and those complaining about Minor v. Happersett and the 25 cases that cited it being altered were able to show Wayback Machine screenshots to prove the cases were altered.

However, after founder founder Tim Stanley claimed it was a coding error that caused the problem, and that other cases were affected (without offering any examples), Justia.com added a robots.txt file to all of its pages, which not only prevents future Wayback Machine snapshots of its pages, but also wiped out all previous snapshots from all earlier dates.

This means that Stanley could not show any screenshots to prove that cases other than the 'natural born citizen' cases had been scrubbed, and nobody can use Wayback Machine to prove he was lying.

Convenient, eh?

If you think I sound like a tin-hatted basement dweller, do some research. Stanley has admitted all of this. He just says the 'natural born citizen' cases were scrubbed as the result of a coding error. Draw your own conclusion as to why, out of all the appellate court and U.S. Supreme Court opinions in the world, the 25 accidentally scrubbed just happened to be those with the cite to Minor v. Happersett and 'natural born citizen.' What are the odds.

The scope of this is stunningly mind-boggling.

Draw your own conclusion as to why, out of all the appellate court and U.S. Supreme Court opinions in the world, the 25 accidentally scrubbed just happened to be those with the cite to Minor v. Happersett and 'natural born citizen.' What are the odds.

Does Justicia promise to un-scrub it? If they are sincere, one would assume yes.