JustiaGate:CEO Tim Stanley Admits Publishing “Mangled” Supreme CourtOpinions–..OyezConnection

JustiaGate: CEO Tim Stanley Admits Publishing “Mangled” Supreme Court Opinions – The Oyez Connection – SCOTUS Response.

Stanley admitted that the cases identified in that report had, in fact, been published in a corrupted manner. The CNET report also indicates that the corruption of data was more widespread than we knew:

“Tim Stanley, told CNET today that some citations were mangled because of a programmer’s error…’The issue was not limited to the cases these folks are focused on.’ “

Prior to the CNET interview, the public was able to witness firsthand the progression of changes made to the 25 cases which cited Minor v. Happersett. However, concurrently with the release of Tim Stanley’s only public comments on the matter, Justia also placed “robots.txt” code over their entire Supreme Court Center domain. This drastic response withdrew from the Wayback Machine all previous snapshots of every Supreme Court opinion ever published by Justia, not just the 25 exposed here.

When asked about this cover up by CNET’s Senior Political Correspondent, Declan McCullagh, Stanley stated that the cases were removed, “because they have errors in them, not to cover up this issue.” But removal does, in fact, cover up the issue to the detriment of the public at large, and more specifically to the detriment of those who relied upon the false data.

In a separate report concerning Justia’s great influence over the online legal community (it’s impossible to hyper-link paid services such as Lexis and Westlaw), a 21 minute audio interview with Stanley from Jan. 2007 emerged, wherein he made the following comments illustrating who the primary users of Justia are:

“The primary users of it tend to be lawyers or attorneys looking for legal information or looking for case-law, or looking for information from some of the legal blogs that are online. And the other sort of major group of users tends to be law students or other students in the college environment or high schools that are looking for information on the US Government and sort of how the court system works.“

Obviously, the legal system does not work if cases are “mangled”. Instead of hiding the corrupted data, Justia must publicly document the damage to each case so that those who visited Justia between 2008-2011 may know the falsehoods they relied upon.

Justia’s stated mission is, “To advance the availability of legal resources for the benefit of society“. Hiding the evidence does not benefit anyone but Justia (and Obama).

It bears repeating that those cases remained altered for approximately three years. And now that Stanley has removed previous versions of the cases from the Wayback Machine, there is no telling how many corrupted cases were fed to the public by Justia servers thereby affecting the national dialogue on POTUS eligibility and perhaps other important issues as well.

Justia must comprehensively inform the country as to the exact damage done to our national body of Supreme Court case law.

Because of the dire implications of this legal tragedy, Tim Stanley has a duty to reveal exactly how much false data was published disguised as genuine opinions of the United States Supreme Court.

Otherwise, for those who were misled, directly or indirectly (via news, blogs, comments, etc.), Justia’s versions usurped the law which therefore became subservient to Justia’s corruption.

Not only attorneys were affected, students were too. And students don’t have access to expensive paid services such as Lexis and Westlaw. Justia would have been the last stop for those students. They had no reason to question the authenticity of the corrupted cases.

Those who relied upon Justia’s “mangled” opinions are entitled to know the depth of the deception. Only a complete documentation will enable those affected to change their documents and/or their minds according to the genuine opinions of the US Supreme Court rather than remaining in a state of educational subservience to Justia’s failures.

Instead, Stanley has taken the opposite approach and has covered his mistakes up by removing access to them from the Wayback Machine. This deprives affected persons from knowing if their research at Justia was accomplished by using corrupted opinions. The entire academic community, legal or otherwise, should demand a forthright revelation from Justia.

JUSTIA’S MANIPULATION OF THE OYEZ PROJECT CREATED THE FALSE IMPRESSION OF US SUPREME COURT ENDORSEMENT.

If Tim Stanley does not thoroughly document and release all of the “mangled” information, the US Supreme Court should firmly insist that he do so. And not simply because the Court must be vigilant that its rulings be respected, but also because Justia gives the false appearance of being endorsed by the US Supreme Court.

Justia has created this false appearance by including the following header with every published US Supreme Court opinion, “US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez“ (click image to enlarge):

“The Oyez Project at Chicago-Kent is a multimedia archive devoted to the Supreme Court of the United States and its work. It aims to be a complete and authoritative source for all audio recorded in the Court since the installation of a recording system in October 1955. “

While Oyez is listed at the US Supreme Court’s website as a source of Supreme Court information, Justia is not.

However, Justia has used its status as a prime benefactor of Oyez to piggy-back upon Oyez thereby giving the false impression that the US Supreme Court endorses Justia while it does not.

Justia’s ruse here is a sad attempt at buying a second-hand SCOTUS endorsement, and it’s another creepy example of the non-existent ethics emanating from Justia’s subversive servers. Furthermore, Justia’s headers have implicated Oyez in the scandal, since the header implies both Justia and Oyez are responsible for having published the mangled cases.

Oyez does not publish a phone number at their site. I left a message at the Oyez.org feedback box under the listed category of “erroneous information” which included the following query:

“Since every case published by Justia has a header which states, “US SUPREME COURT CASES BY JUSTIA & OYEZ”, Oyez is now implicated in the scandal. I would appreciate a comment addressing both the scandal, and the header at Justia.”

I initially received a candid and pointed response concerning the alleged subversive activity by Justia from a staffer at the US Supreme Court’s Public Information Office.

But, at this time, Patricia McCabe Estrada, Deputy Public Information Officer, has asked me not to print the original response, requesting that I print “no comment” instead.

Out of respect for the Court, I have refrained from publishing the initial comment. I have faith the US Supreme Court will request that Justia bring the hidden information documenting the full extent of the mangled cases to the attention of the public so those who erroneously relied upon Justia’s corrupted versions of US Supreme Court rulings may know the truth of the law.

If the US Supreme Court does nothing more to address this scandal, I will publish the initial comment along with all of my correspondence between myself and the Deputy Public Information Officer since that correspondence acknowledges the prior comment, and bears witness to our email discussions concerning it.

The Google Obama Connection

Written by Tony Adkins IDontAgree.com Wednesday, 16 February 2011 23:04

###

Fellow conservatives,

There’s something very uncomfortable, and probably unethical, going on between the Obama administration and corporate giant Google.

You won’t get the real story from the media - so Conservative Action Alerts has done a little research and uncovered some alarming Obama-Google connections.

Take a minute to read this little tale; I think you will be just as concerned as we are about how the White House is cozying up to the largest, most powerful search engine in the world.

Sincerely,

Tony Adkins
Spokesperson, Conservative Action Alerts

OBAMANET

Google executive Eric Schmidt, who just stepped down as their lead executive, said in October last year that “the Google policy on a lot of things is to get right up to the creepy line and not cross it.”

He failed. Because what you are about to read is REALLY CREEPY.

Consumer Watchdog, a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization, has called on House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) to investigate the Obama administration’s close ties to Google.

Google has spent millions of dollars on lobbying and political contributions, trying to spin their way out of big questions about their monopolistic practices and privacy breaches... but having friends in high places, like, say, THE WHITE HOUSE, certainly helps when pesky investigations start cropping up.

You first need to be aware that Google employees donated over $800,000 to Obama’s presidential campaign. Former CEO Schmidt campaigned for Obama and served as an informal “economic advisor” during his run. Then when Obama got elected, Schmidt and other executives pitched in $25,000 each to help pay for the inaugural celebration.

So naturally, Obama rewarded all their hard work with administration jobs. Schmidt sits on Obama’s Council of Science and Technology Advisors, and other Google employees acted as “advisors” to the Obama transition team.

The most visible appointee (and the most controversial) has turned out to be Andrew McLaughlin. McLaughlin used to be head of global public policy at Google, and now he is Deputy Chief Technology Officer for the Obama administration.

That means McLaughlin shapes public policy that affects Google’s rivals in the technology industry.

But wait? Didn’t Obama claim he was against such a thing when he campaigned for President? Why, yes he did, and it is stated directly on his campaign website:
“No political appointees in an Obama-Biden administration will be permitted to work on regulations or contracts directly and substantially related to their prior employer for two years.”

Rep. Issa is already familiar with McLaughlin because it came to light recently that McLaughlin used his personal email account to discuss policy matters with Google.

The White House’s response was to “reprimand” McLaughlin and reassure the country that it wasn’t a big deal, because he “didn’t have any effect on policy decisions.”

No; of course not. (wink, wink)

The Consumer Watchdog report also raises concerns about Google’s privileged access to NASA’s Moffett Airfield, which is conveniently located near Google’s headquarters in California. The report says the airport “has been turned into a taxpayer-subsidized private airport for Google executives used for corporate junkets.”

Google and NASA struck a “deal” in 2007, allowing Google to use the airfield “in the name of scientific research.” But apparently, Google needs to do a lot of research in the Caribbean, or among the Hollywood elite at the Sundance Film Festival-—because those are the kinds of places Google executives are taking the jets.

Other groups have been denied use of the field, including a nonprofit humanitarian group-—because obviously, hitting the swag room at Sundance is much more important than getting aid to needy people.

So there’s the incestuous personnel issues and the fact that Google is using taxpayer money for vacation jaunts-—but perhaps the most serious abuse of all occurred with the “Wi-Spy” coverup.

For three years, across thirty countries, Google’s Street View cars were supposed to be capturing STREETS... but they also accessed open wireless networks as well and downloaded personal information like emails, passwords and other private data in the process.

(Schmidt’s famous reply to critics of their mapping system was, “If you don’t like it, then move.”... he didn’t mention what people should about the data that was stolen from them; should it move, too?)

Rest:
http://thebeezbuzz.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1467:the-google-obama-connection

~~~~~
Google Chairman Eric Schmidt Doubles Down On His Support Of President Obama
Noah Davis | Sep. 19, 2011

~~~~~

Eric Schmidt Tried To Get Google To Hide His Political Donation In Search Results

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.