Posted on 03/10/2012 9:41:00 AM PST by Aria
A singularly remarkable event has taken place in the United States of America. This event occurred in Arizona on March 1st and was an earth shattering revelation.
A long awaited press conference was given by Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, a five time elected Sheriff, which should have made national and international headlines. Arpaio's credentials include serving in the United States Army from 1950 to 1953, service as a federal narcotics agent serving in countries all over the world with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), and served as the head of the Arizona DEA. Without doubt, this is a serious Law Enforcement Officer, not one to be taken in by tin-foil-hat wearing loons.
Yet, in the five days since his revelations there has been little in the way of serious reporting on the findings he presented in his presser. With 6 short videos, the Sheriff and his team presented a devastating case, one the tame US press is apparently unable to report.
(Excerpt) Read more at english.pravda.ru ...
Danae used to have her lovely picture on her about page...you should/would be hitting yourself for not paying attention.
(cocks head weirdly)
No.... not just YET......
(I was hesitant to post such a weird yet humorous post, above, on the off chance that she and I might hit it off).... (but, as always, the humor won out) :)
Malwarebytes was blocking the site on my machine.
you might hit it off but methinks her other half might hit on you with a baseball bat....
Aw hell.
There’s not a dime’s worth of difference between a “liberal” and a “moderate” and a “progressive.” Or between them and a socialist, for that matter. There is a difference between a “liberal” and an “objective journalist” - but only in the hat they are wearing. A “liberal” can become and “objective journalist” merely by getting a job at a newspaper or a broadcast news operation. No change of attitude is required. And, as you note, nobody but a “liberal” is able to get a job with a “mainstream” news organization.That is the natural result of the lack of ideological competition among journalists. And the lack of ideological competition among journalists is the natural result of the wire services. As Adam Smith pointed out,
People of the same trade seldom meet together even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public or some contrivance to raise prices.That dictum emphatically applies to journalistsas much asmuch more than to other workmen. The wire services, after all, function as customers as well as suppliers to the journalists - so that the wire services define the style of journalism for all reporters. And calls that style “objectivity."
Thx for that. I run Malwarebytes...probably the same problem.
Thank you for your service!!!!!!!!!
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.
The scope of this is stunningly mind-boggling.
And as a side note: Laz definitely has some competition here regarding you. *wink*
I cannot possibly thank you enough.. I’ve been waiting for this to explode since late 2008. I’ve thrown as much wood on the fire as I can, but..WOW! great article!
Right back atcha! (Winning the future does THAT mean? I think the spellchecker just exploded as well.)
Most people pay by the search on Lexis and Westlaw. For that reason they use Justia.com or a similar free site if the only thing they want to do is to print out a case or to quote from a case. I've done it. I do it. Justia represents that it has the text of opinions, including U.S. Supreme Court opinions and U.S. Court of Appeals opinion.
It doesn't say that it edits those opinions from time to time based on the political leanings of its founder. During the 'natural born citizen' controversy, 25 cases that cited Minor v. Happersett had the cite to Minor removed from the case. The Google-based search engine was tweaked so that Minor v. Happersett didn't come up when you searched for U.S. Supreme Court opinions on natural born citizens.
Think of all the attorneys out there, arguing and writing articles, who take advantage of Justia's free Google-based search engine to find cases on 'natural born citizens.' They wouldn't find Minor in their search. If they read the other cases that cite Minor, they wouldn't find Minor, because Justia edited those cases to remove all references to Minor.
Does that make sense? It didn't go to the merits, but they tried to alter public discourse on this topic and to keep the 'experts', the lawyers, talking about it from knowing the U.S. Supreme Court had addressed issues similar to those of Obama's.
I just found out that Justia.com also revised the comments of Constitutional researcher, Dan Goodman on the topic of 'natural born citizen' in an article they published, as well as a case he cited in his comments after posting them on its site. Those are Goodman's words, not mine. Goodman says: "I am of the opinion that this was done intentionally."
As I said, I'm accumulating this, but my mouth is open as I'm finding out more and more.
I'm appalled as somebody who researches using primary sources. Justia. org has won prestigious awards for making the text of primary sources available to lawyers and the public. I can't think of any answer other than it falsifies them for political purposes. The 'coding error' argument has been thoroughly de-bunked, as far as I am concerned.
the reason for the requested thread is to add from the presser follow up congruent legal or political writings or comments
bttt
OMG...
Looks like the judiciary ( and judiciary research), along with the legislative branches of government have been co-opted by the executive branch (and its minions).
Claire Wolfe had a question/observation about an awkward time in a nation’s history...
I believe we are thisclose to the tipping point.
Prepare,pray,persevere!!
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.