Posted on 10/20/2011 12:00:20 PM PDT by Danae
New evidence conclusively establishes that 25 U.S. Supreme Court opinions were sabotaged then republished at Justia.com during the run up to the ’08 election. My prior report documented the scrubbing of just two cases. But last week, a third sabotaged case was discovered which led to a thorough examination of all US Supreme Court cases which cite “Minor v. Happersett” as they appeared on Justia.com between 2006 and the present.
Since Justia 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 off tampered versions of US Supreme Court opinions as if they were official versions published by the US Supreme Court.
+++SNIP+++
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”.
+++SNIP+++
... Justia’s reaction to my last report 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 URL’s for the two previously identified cases so the Wayback Machine could no longer provide historical snapshots of those cases as published at Justia.
TWO LAYERS OF SABOTAGE
In all 25 instances of tampering, the case name “Minor v. Happersett” was removed from Justia’s publication of each SCOTUS opinion which cited to it. Anyone searching for cases citing Minor at Justia or Google were led into a maze of confusion. In some instances, not only was the case name scrubbed, the numerical citation was also removed along with whole sentences of text.
I don’t know about you - but I don’t want ANYONE messing with material that they don’t own.
It would be one thing for Justia to remove all cases in which Minor v. Happersett was a citation entirely from its web site.
But, it is a different matter if you remove the citation from a case, but leave the case intact. You have then altered a document that you don’t own.
What if I was a law student and had to refer to a particular case - knowing that I had a test on the material the next day? Then I take the test and it asks for the citations. I know the citations cold EXCEPT for Minor v. Happersett - since it was removed from the text of the case by Justia ...
I suppose it would be ok to leave it on the web site - but only as long as they identify it as an edited document. At least it would give you an opportunity to go to a different web site. But that would kinda defeat the purpose of the scrubbing, wouldn’t it ?
As for me, I ALWAYS use the Cornell Law School web site, if possible. If they don’t have it, I go somewhere else, but I won’t go to Justia any more - don’t trust ‘em ...
I myself an in school, so I ahve access to the library, and the search engines/databases I have access to there are pretty extensive. Including Lexis, IHS Jane’s etc.
It seems this was more directed toward people who would not have had access to a subscription site. It is so disappointing... the one group who needs full information the most gets corrupted info. It’s not right.
Spinners on their Escalades’
The tone of your article is good, as it doesn't attack Obama. It just calmly makes the obvious point that he's not an NBC.
I had noticed that. O.O
In reality it is NOT about any specific candidate from either party.
It is about the constitution, and the SCOTUS cases which create the laws we put underneath the constitution. It all devolves from that document, and THAT is supposed to protect us. However, defending it means making some tough principled choices. That means you cannot be seduced by a great looking candidate and look the other way because he is just so darned awesome. That goes for all political parties.
Its about the constitution for me. That comes first, it has to, it is what makes us Americans, and without it we are nothing.
Danae you probably know this already but....
[UPDATE #3 8:54 AM Oct. 24, 200 - Justia.com has suddenly placed robots over their entire cite. So much for Justia’s mission, “To advance the availability of legal resources for the benefit of society.” Here is a link to the Wayback Machine’s URL search of Roe v Wade, a case which has nothing to do with POTUS eligibility. Here is a link to the Wayback Machine’s URL search for Minor v. Happersett. Both searches return the following statment at the Wayback Machine: “We were unable to get the robots.txt document to display this page.” This activity operates as an admission by Justia. A criminal investigation is required.]
from naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com
Atlas Shrugged.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.