JustiaGate

Someone was incredibly busy in June 2008 working on an illegal front invisible to the public; searching and altering Supreme Court Cases published at Justia.com which cite the only case in American history - Minor v. Happersett (1875) - to directly construe Article 2 Section 1's natural-born citizen clause in determining a citizenship issue as part of its holding and precedent. In this unanimous decision, the Supreme Court defined a "native or natural-born citizen" as a person born in the US to parents who were citizens; a definition which excludes from eligibility both Barack Obama and John McCain.

In June 2008 no one was discussing Minor v. Happersett 88 US 162 (1875) with regard to Obama. In fact, those who were discussing the then Senator’s citizenship status had focused instead on his birth in Hawaii in a attempt to prove the future president was not born in the United States despite publication of the Senator’s short form computer generated Birth Certificate. It would not be until October of 2008 that Barack Hussein Obama’s eligibility would be questioned as to his status as a dual citizen at the time of his birth.

“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.