That's for sure. The explanation for such selective disappearance of text, combined with the appearance of new text, combined with the timing, makes these Justia people look like absolute clowns.
The excuse is absolutely ludicrous, and I can't believe anyone could have said it with a straight face.
So, at least now we know that:
Someone should setup an alternate website, one which can actually be trusted.
Sargon, your point is not only well taken, it was discussed at length by one of the legal authorities on the topic, Professer Robert Berring at another “Law.gov” conference, here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuiytrzxFsE&feature=player_embedded during which you can hear Tim Stanley, perhaps a bit worried after Berring described an assignment for Boalt Law students wherein the student retrieves the same citation from Lexis, then Westlaw, then Findlaw (free) and Justia(free) and one other. He is very concerned with the veracity of the free archives.
Donofrio pointed to a lecture given by Stanley at the “Center for American Progress”, a Soros operation, for those who don't know, which is a marketing pitch for the value of making case law transparent. He doesn't, of course, elaborate on the possibilities of hiding laws which might interfere with Soros/Obama’s objectives to permanently change the society. One cannot know Stanley's objective. Soros and other groups have a path to government grants. You don't think he is just spending "his own" money? Perhaps this one little misdirection got him a big pot of venture money. In Silicon Valley, when a technology is not unique, "cashing out" is the goal. Would Google have purchased Justia, allowing Stanley and Stern to sell their overpriced valley mansion and retire to Monte Carlo, or a castle in Spain?
The attempts to technically understand how the text could have been changed accidentally are surely inspiring, or have inspired, some competent, albeit politically or financially motivated programmers who have access to the entire justia archive to produce a perfectly explainable result, which Justia will later make available to the public after offering the design rules they are creating as we speak as the explanation for their result. Denying access to justia archives is tantamount to a confession of their complicity, but the right judge may not see it that way. If I were Stanley's council I'd look for Judge Carter, the spineless former Marine.
We don't know how much Leo was able to download, but you can bet Justia does, and will use that fact to thwart any legal investigation. They'll know what he does and doesn't have, and use what he doesn't have to thwart even discovery. Leo has seen this before, and probably wouldn't venture to trust the federal courts again. They are bought and paid for.
Justia and its partners, Oyez, Soros, perhaps even Kirkland and Ellis, who defended McCain and sponsored legal briefs attacking Article II (Sarah Herlihy), have skillfully hidden the trail which leads to the positive legal definition of who is a natural born citizen. They all knew the truth, and probably so do must Republicans, since they ignored the hundreds of constituents who asked Congress to vet Obama, an Obama who had already told us he was born a subject of the British Commonwealth.
I agree, someone should start another open legal reference source, one which permits hyperlinks, because justia.com should be finished. Trust is an essential component both within the legal community and for the public. The Soros/Obama experience has seriously tarnished the ethical reputation of the legal community, and we will all suffer if they don't clean up their act. When the phrase "equal justice under the law" is taken as sarcasm, a society is left, as Andy Stern put it, "With the pursuasion of force."