For later read .............. FRegards
Posted on 10/20/2011 1:12:42 PM PDT by Danae
Maybe. I have no idea who they hung out with. Stanley may have nothing to do with it. It is impossible to say who did this, it could have been some coder who works for him. It’s his company however!
Just for the record Metro boy Charlie Crist,Fla gov. at the time, negotiated a deal with Miami Cubans to back McStrange and that won fla.We can almost thank Crist for obama.
Looks like some possible islamic ties there as well.
Full Disclosure: I hope you don't have any plans to visit Ft. Marcy Park, dude...
Cheers!
Please tell Leo that even a little nobody in a small Georgia town is impressed by his work and doing everything to get the word out.
Thanks to you ALL for the work you’re doing.
Thank you Mortrey.
BTTT
“These surgical alterations would alter and shape the national dialogue; leaving a persistent and incorrect interpretation of the meaning of the ‘natural born citizen’ clause. There is no doubt whatsoever that this was the specific intent of those responsible for this illegal editing of American history and law.”
So after reading the article and the thread, let me see if I have this right. The allegation is that...
- Sometime prior to July 6, 2008, someone at Justia.com (possibly Obama-supporter Tim Stanley) decides that Minor v Happersett is detrimental to Obama.
- Justia decides to respond, but not by deleting the text of Minor v Happersett from its website.
- Instead, Justia removes references to the case name “Minor v Happersett” and its citation in the pre-1875 Supreme Court reporters (21 Wall 162).
- Then, in the place of the information it removed, Justia puts hyperlinks to the Minor v Happersett page on Justia.com, utilizing the more common U.S. Reports locations for that case (88 US 165).
- Then for some reason, Justia also does the same thing for other pre-1875 cases. So, in Luria, it also substitutes hyperlinks for case names for Osborn v. Bank of United States and for U.S. v. Babbitt.
- Then sometime prior to April 2010, Justia added back in the case names and original reporter numbers, but also retained the hyperlinks to the US Reporters.
- And Justia did all of this to hide the significance of Minor from the general public, even though it knew that this would have no effect on lawyers or actual legal experts, who use Lexis or Westlaw.
- And Justia also did all this to hide the significance of Minor, even though by replacing the case name with a direct hyperlink, it was actually making it EASIER and FASTER for readers to locate the Minor decision if they were reading Luria.
Frankly, I’m finding this all more than a bit inscrutable. If Justia wanted to scrub Minor, why would it ADD hyperlinks to the Minor decision? And why would it do the exact same thing for other pre-1875 decisions?
How would anyone even be impeded in researching ‘natural born citizenship’ by having *only* a direct hyperlink to the Minor decision, rather than a bare citation to “21 Wall. 162”?
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.