Arizona sheriff finds Obama presidential qualifications forged

Pravda ^ | 3/7/2012 | Dianna Cotter

[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.

[WildHighlander57]

What I meant was that some of the judiciary remedy was diverted due to the disappearance of minor vs. Happerstadt (sp?) from justia. How much opportunity was lost due to that so-called glitch.

[Flotsam_Jetsome]

"How much opportunity was lost due to that so-called glitch."

That would be the proverbial

If the non-resident foreigner status of his (to this day unproven) father was brought into the conversation early enough, his NBC status could have been discussed based on the definition of NBC in the MvH case and this could very well have sunk his run before the Democratic Convention. The "mangling" of the Justia links was in late spring or early summer of 2008, right? Hmmm

Once he was the "official" nominee, and especially once he was "elected", the fix was in. Justiagate or no Justiagate.

[Danae]

True that. It was extra insurance. That and they didn’t want to make it any easier. That is certain.

[WildHighlander57]

I wonder if it leis-nexis was also affected?

[WildHighlander57]

leis should be Lexis

[Scoutmaster]

What I meant was that some of the judiciary remedy was diverted due to the disappearance of minor vs. Happerstadt (sp?) from justia. How much opportunity was lost due to that so-called glitch.

Little, I'd say, but the answer gets complicated. The information was always available at Lexis and Westlaw, for an attorney doing in-depth research or trying to Shepardize the case in question (a procedure by which you determine the subsequent history of a case, or find other cases which have cited a specific case to agree with it, or amplify, modify, add to, distinguish, or overrule the entire case or a particular legal point in the case).

However, attorneys simply looking to quote certain cases aren't always going to pay to use Lexis and Westlaw (if their Lexis and Westlaw accounts are on a per-use basis), or if they are hot-linking the case or a quote from the case, which can only be done with Justia, of the three.

Also, 'little,' because the case that was hidden isn't directly on point in the opinion of most, although it touches on relevant issues and is a U.S. Supreme Court opinion.

You would also have to review all that was said about the case that was affected - some people said it wasn't meaningful because it wasn't cited by other cases, when in fact it was cited but Justia removed the cites to it from 25 other cases. We don't know whether those who said the Minor v. Happersett wasn't cited were saying so because they couldn't find it in Justia.

Even if we were to say it didn't affect the outcome, there's this: leftist lawyers were claiming there was no 'there' there to the 'natural born cititzen' issue. Really? If there was nothing to the issue, then why go to the trouble to make the cases on 'natural born citizen' disappear from the nation's premiere free search engine of, and repository of, free federal court opinions by making them unsearchable, or deleting cites to them? Why alter the language in a least one 'natural born citizen' case? Why would a liberal law professor republish a law review article about what is required to be a 'natural born citizen,' changing his references to ''parents' to 'parent,' and use the identical title for the new article so that if you search for it, you may find the revised article?

I just discovered this issue yesterday and have spent about eight hours on it - but I'm still chasing rabbits down holes, still trying to learn the facts, trying to analyze the legal implications, and so forth. It's not tinfoil hat speculation. Justia.com has admitted that the cases were mangled - the founder simply says it was a 'coding' error, and coding errors that selectively affect 'natural born citizen' cases (right, as if all coding errors pick those cases during a Presidential campaign) don't also selectively remove words from a 'natural born citizen' case. Something's amiss.

[Scoutmaster]

I wonder if it leis-nexis was also affected?

I've never seen any speculation that Lexis or Westlaw were affected. Also realize that the Minor case was available in hard text in the U.S. Supreme Court Reports published by West, and cross- indexed in published indices (primarily by West), and from other sources, such as www.findlaw.com. It was out there, and attorneys are held responsible for the contents of what they file. An error on Justia (or Westlaw, or Lexis) is not an excuse for an attorney in connection with a court filing; that's not my opinion, that's a matter of law.

[Danae]

You are correct ScoutMaster. I have no reason to think Lexis or WestLaw were in any way effected. However, most people do not have the thousands of dollars a year a subscription to those sites requires. most people do not have access to those resources. Additionally, how many people know where to go to get a hold of a Supreme Court Reporter? You need a Law School for that. Justia is Google powered internally with the Google Mini, and Google optimized on the internet, driving traffic on any SCOTUS search Justia’s way. because it is EASY, I mean E A S Y to use for the average person, many found themselves returning to it. The other free sites, including the Supreme Court itself are NOT even remotely as easy to use.

The EASE of use made it a go to for many, including myself at the time. You pretty much had to go to a brick and Mortar law library to get it. Now, how many political junkies went and did that during the 08 campaign?

Exactly.

How much of a difference did it make, we will never know. What we do know is that Justia advertised “Full Text of Case” on its pages before they got busted. By me and by Leo Donofrio. The magnitude of the damage is irrelevant when discussing the legality, shoot even the morality of such actions.

Wrong is wrong.

[Scoutmaster]

Additionally, how many people know where to go to get a hold of a Supreme Court Reporter? You need a Law School for that.

I wasn't justifying it. I was explaining that Lexis, Westlaw, Justia, and other online sources are not the only sources for U.S. Supreme Court opinions.

And, respectfully, you do not need a law school to obtain a copy of the U.S. Supreme Court Reporter, although it is the most obvious location. Large county courthouses sometimes have law libraries (in the metropolitan area in which I live, I've been in at least four county courthouses that have West's Supreme Court Reporter). State bar associations generally have law libraries. Law firms have copies of the U.S. Supreme Court Reporter in hard copy or on CD-ROM (I've practiced in very large law firms - up to 900 attorneys - so I've been in firms that actually had the hard copies before they switched to CD-ROM).

I am *not* minimizing what Justia did; I am incensed at it. What Justia did is wrong and shows an attempt to influence discourse and legal review of this topic no matter that Minor was available from other sources.

And Minor was available from other sources. From Westlaw; Lexis; West's U.S. Supreme Court Reporter (in hard copy or on CD-ROM); www.findlaw.com; www.supremecourt.gov; several dozen other internet sources; the Lawyers' Edition, United States Supreme Court Reports (an alternative to West's Supreme Court Reporter - it's the L.Ed or L.Ed 2d you see in a full cite to a full U.S. Supreme Court opinion); the United States Reports (the U.S. in a full cite); and so on.

Justia was offensive because it was such a newly touted, easy to use, public, award-winning source, with a Google Mini, Google-optimized search engine. It was offensive because you don't muck around with the opinions of the U.S. Supreme Court and other federal courts for political purposes. I don't care who you are.

[Danae]

Exactly! Some things are sacrosanct. SCOTUS law is one of em.

I know there were many other sources, I used many of them in the verification process in identifying what Justia scrubbed. The reporters were 100% a part of that.

[Scoutmaster]

several dozen other internet sources;

I'm going to back-peddle on that comment. I've taught legal research. I could find a lot of arcane sources for the text of U.S. Supreme Court opinions. However, several dozen suggest at least 36 online sources.

I can hear that discussion now:

"I'll bet you $5 I can find at least 36 online sources for U.S Supreme Court opinions."

"Thirty-six? Thirty-six? You're on."

[daisy mae for the usa]

Danae, great job! Thanks for finding a break in the clouds so a bit of light could shine through. Very encouraging to many!!!—Daisy

[Danae]

No, thank you!

I had an opportunity to speak some truths and took it. I am grateful for the opportunity!

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

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.

Does Justicia promise to un-scrub it? If they are sincere, one would assume yes.

[Scoutmaster]

Does Justicia promise to un-scrub it? If they are sincere, one would assume yes.

if they were sincere they wouldn't have done it to begin with (just a note). justia put the opinions back in the original form . . . after they were caught and the damage was done. i think leo has found some traces still lingering. i'm on too much percocet after yesterday to grab my notes and follow up on that comment. check with danae or give me a couple of days.

[Danae]

Hi Guys.

Justia put Robots.txt on their entire site when we reported in October. There is now no way to know what they changed by using the WaybackMachime.

One must go an compare the text they put up against a subscription site like Lexis or Westlaw, or have a SCOTUS Court Reporter to tell if they are actually presenting the full text of the case. At first they put up disclaimer up stating that they weren’t responsible if the text wasn’t exact. Then they changed that to stating that it was the text of the case, NOT the FULL text of the case.

Do not use Justia. They cannot be trusted.

You will only make more work for yourself by using them because you have to check ever darned thing they publish. Same goes for any company using SCOTUS feeds from Public.Resource.org, and that includes Cornell Law.

Pretty damn sad isn’t it?

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

One must go an compare the text they put up against a subscription site like Lexis or Westlaw, or have a SCOTUS Court Reporter to tell if they are actually presenting the full text of the case.

I agree you can't trust Justicia. I was just thinking that if they never make the full text available, that is further proof that they intentionally altered the text. In addition, that might be easier to understand (they said it was an unintentional technical error but the text is still altered) for some than discussions about robots.txt.

I am not suggesting that you yourself spend all your time on this. It might be a good project for somebody on Breitbart, National Review, etc. But maybe the reason you have not had more help from those folks is that they are afraid they will be smeared with the "Birther" tag. Indeed, many today have a 30-second-sound-byte-attention-span. Or shorter. It appears that leftists have created a mountain of disinformation. For too many, this disinformation is now "common knowledge."

Thanks for your excellent work. I am just now discovering it.

[Scoutmaster]

Do not use Justia. They cannot be trusted.

for the most part, it's not a matter of 'trusting' justia. generally, justica doesn't do what i need.

to me, justia has never been more than a blip in the field of legal research. justia itself wasn't that big a deal - except for what hotlinking, appealing to nonlawyers, lawyers looking to quote a case without researching through the case using keynotes and shepardization. i'd love to see the number of users. most attorneys were still using westlaw and lexis, and other sources. justia and other free sources may be the wave of the future, but the things justia doesn't do kept it from being a key source for legal research, despite the google connection. take me. justia? meh.

you must consider what i do. if i'm writing a white paper, an article for publication, a chapter for a book (or the complete book, although i've only been published in that form a couple of times), or doing that background research for another attorney's memo or brief; or if i'm presenting something in class as an adjunct professor, i must (must, must, must) shepardize any case i cite.

so i use lexis or westlaw for that.

if there's a keynote in a case - a particular subpoint in a case - i can use lexis or westlaw to find cases that discussed that subpoint. justia? dont' make me laugh.

but with findlaw.com or justia, if i just need to find a quote from a case or need to refresh my memory as to what was dictum and what was actually ruled, i can pull it up.

justia's other 'big selling point' is that you could hotlink to justica. a person reading your article (for which you used westlaw or lexis) could be given a hotlink to justia so they could read the case, free, themselves.

i'll need to see if other sources, such as supremecourt.gov can be hotlinked.

personally, i site a few hundred cases a week. i rarely used justia.

finally, you don't need to compare the text against a scotus court reporter, do you? can't you compare it against the text at supremecourt.gov?

and off the record, isn't the oyez project great? i love listening to the actual recording of the original oral arguments.

[Scoutmaster]

Justia put Robots.txt on their entire site when we reported in October.

i'm aware. it was in your second article and in one of leo's. i'm not a litigator and haven't cracked an evidence book in a while, but i believe this could be considered as evidence to support the claim lexia tweaked only the natural born citizen cases.

if this were an attempt to repair a dangerous condition, it may not be admissible - the value to society of fixing a problem outweighing the prejudicial value of introducing it to show evidence that the party knew of the defect. Here, the only value of the robots.txt code was to (a) make it impossible to view screenshots of old versions of pages and (b) keep the wayback crawler from crawling the lexia pages and taking screenshots in the future.

where's the public benefit? i put on my 'i being fair and sitting in the middle' hat, and still the only thing i see is that it (a) keeps people from proving lexia's founder lied in his cnet interview about other non-'natural born citizen' cases being affected and (b) keeps reporters from nosing around and seeing for themselves the changes that had been made.

do i need to run to publix and buy a family-size roll of heavy duty reynold's wrap?

[Danae]

Good for you skippy. Most folks who VOTE dont have access to Lexis and westlaw. You do. Yippee. We are NOT talking about YOU. We are talking about jane doe. John doe. THEY do not have your resources and THEY outnumber you. Starting to catch the drift here skippy? They Google search. Catching on yet? It doesn’t take a degree in rocket science. Neither you nor I know how much the scrubbing effected things scoutie. That is a doctoral dissertation son. Where is your doctorate?