(Varmints have arrived, per usual.. ;)
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.
Wrong. 18 U.S.C. 1018 provides that:
Whoever, being a public officer or other person authorized by any law of the United States to make or give a certificate or other writing, knowingly makes and delivers as true such a certificate or writing, containing any statement which he knows to be false, in a case where the punishment thereof is not elsewhere expressly provided by law, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
Justia.com is neither a "public official" nor an "other person authorized by any law of the United States to make or give a certificate or other writing," so 18 U.S.C. 1018 does not affect them.
You don’t get it do you?
Most people do NOT have subscriptions to Lexis or West. Or any of the other heavy search sites. So people depend on what comes up on Google or Yahoo or Bing first!
Google a legal case and BET that Justia.com will come up at the top. What do you think most people are going to do when doing research? Pay and subscribe or hit the free site?
EXACTLY.
They hit the free site, and that free site Tampered with cases so that they COULD NOT be found on searching for them!
HELLO! How can you not see the significance of that?? Really??
At last your article is on “news” even not breaking.
Sigh.
My team did it. We were paid $500/scrub.
You’re welcome.
So federal criminal laws should govern the content of material published by private individuals not under contract with a government agency? Wow. Should they government be doing this in the name of freedom?
O.o
Really.
Given that this is a federal crime... you might want to crawl back under your rock.
PS: at 500$ a scrub... just to suggest something like that is abhorrent to me. But then with a lack of substance you do regularly resort to insulting statements.
Seems a lot of people don’t like your article.
Means the content really disturbs them.
Good.
(Varmints have arrived, per usual.. ;)
If he could understand the law, he wouldn’t be a birther. You’re pissing into a very deep well of ignorance...
Publishing “Full text of case” when publishing SCOTUS cases menas you are publishing the FULL text of the case. If you state that on material that you have deliberately REMOVED text from, and altered in other ways....
Yes, there should be and in fact IS legal penalty for doing things like this.
There is also a push in the Government Printing Office for Digital Authentications of Governmet Documents, and that includes SCOTUS cases which are the Law of the land.
Yeppers.
:)
They will ahve a hard time justifying the erasing of SCOTUS cases to reduce the importance of Minor v. Happersett. Shoot, just the fact that Justia saw fit to NEED to do it speaks VOLUMES about Minor.
The cat is out of the bag. We shall see who it scratches first.
Of interest ping!
“This type of “correction” is a consequence of the computer age. 1984 made real if you please! Any material deemed “incorrect” can easily be erased.”
I have been wondering about this when it came to Kindles and literature. What would they do to the Bible? And some echos of Fahrenheit 451, where memorizing books will be needed to kept the true literature alive.
But this is just plain hubris to the max!
Yeah, they’re really over this and the other thread, they got their instructions. They don’t like this at all.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2795647/posts?page=59
I’ve submitted the link on this to Digg, now guys, digg it.
http://digg.com/news/politics/justia_com_surgically_removed_minor_v_happersett_from_25_supreme_court_opinions_in_run_up_to_08_election
Thanks tbw2!!!
Sure! Another example “editing” Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn. The latter text has already been removed from school libraries. It will be much easier to “edit” the offending words when the only access to the book is through a computer.
bttt
Discussion from July: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2742925/posts
Yep. Justia put .txt robots on the pages Leo found. You can’t get at those on waybackmachine now. But you CAN on the ones we published about today. There are 25 WELL documented pages of SCOTUS cases which got tampered with at justia. Then they got tampered with again when they put them all back to Original SCOTUS versions.
It is abhorrent.
Hows things in your neck of the woods? I notice our regular weather is back... (shiver)
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.