Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

JUSTIA.COM CAUGHT RED HANDED HIDING REFERENCES TO MINOR v. HAPPERSETT IN PUBLISHED SCOTUS OPINIONS
Natural Born Citizen ^ | July 1, 2011 | Leo Donofrio

Posted on 07/01/2011 4:01:29 PM PDT by SatinDoll

The US Supreme Court Center at Justia.com is the leading resource on the internet which publishes United States Supreme Court decisions. They have been caught red handed in an Orwellian attempt to revise US Supreme Court cases which mention Minor v. Happersett as precedent on the issue of citizenship, as opposed to the other issue decided in Minor, voting rights.

I have documented two incredible examples where Justia.com has been caught in the act of taking a hatchet job to US Supreme Court decisions by removing, not just the case name, “Minor v. Happersett”, but whole passages related to Chief Justice Waite’s statements on the citizenship issue which were cited favorably in BOYD V. NEBRASKA EX REL. THAYER, 143 U. S. 135 (1892), and POPE V. WILLIAMS, 193 U. S. 621 (1904).

I have published my complete investigation into this fraud perpetrated by Justia.com – including snapshots and evidence collected from the Way Back Machine at the Internet Archive – in the comments section of my previous report, THE EXPRESS LANE TO NATURAL BORN CLARITY. My investigation was triggered by a reader’s comment regarding Boyd. The comment was on a separate issue. But I then noticed that the Boyd case, as currently published by Justia.com, made reference to Minor v. Happersett without properly naming the case.

***************************************************

This is beyond shocking. Somebody, back in 2008, just prior to the election, ordered these revisions and saw to their execution. This is direct tampering with United States law. And it is evidence that Minor v. Happersett was known to be a huge stumbling block to POTUS eligibility.

It confirms that Minor v. Happersett was seen as a dangerous US Supreme Court precedent which construed the natural-born citizen clause of Article 2 Section 1 to make only those persons born in the US to citizen parents (plural)… eligible to be President.

According to binding US Supreme Court precedent, Obama is not eligible to be President. And we are obviously very late coming to this legal truth. Somebody at Justia.com tried to control and alter our awareness by hiding important Supreme Court references to Minor dating back to 2008. This is smoking gun proof of tampering. Please read my full report here.

There needs to be an investigation.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Conspiracy; Government; Military/Veterans; Miscellaneous; Politics; Reference; Religion; Society
KEYWORDS: barrysoetoro; birthcertificate; certifigate; corruption; cwii; elections; eligibility; fraud; justia; naturalborncitizen; obama; palin; president; scotus; usurper
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-183 next last
The one thing a President should never EVER do is piss off the Supreme Court.

Are these Democratic Party moles pulling this shit, or what?

1 posted on 07/01/2011 4:01:37 PM PDT by SatinDoll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll; onyx; penelopesire; maggief; hoosiermama; SE Mom; Fred Nerks; Red Steel; seekthetruth; ..

HolyMoly .. the reach and treachery of the cretins is beyond outrageous!

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/07/01/justia-com-caught-red-handed-hiding-references-to-minor-v-happersett-in-published-us-supreme-court-opinions/


2 posted on 07/01/2011 4:10:09 PM PDT by STARWISE (The overlords are in place .. we are a nation under siege .. pray, go Galt & hunker down)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll
Trust me you have only touched the tip of the iceberg. There are evil things going on. Combine this with the illegal tampering with Obama’s passport record as well as Stanley Ann Dunham’s passport records. There are other things that I choose not to mention in a public forum but they are blatant and they are extremely bad.
3 posted on 07/01/2011 4:16:53 PM PDT by detective
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll

Whoa. If true, and I doubt whether Donofrio would lie about this, then it could be the smoking gun.

Obama managed to put the issue to sleep again by using Trump as an excuse to release his long-form COLB on the net and then immediately distract attention from the comments of experts who found it to be a forgery by breaking the news about the COLB immediately before the planned raid on bin Ladin.

I have said that I doubt very much whether this will permanently kill the problem. Obama has tried various means to kill it earlier, with eager cooperation from virtually the entire press, including conservative outlets that are presumably feeling the pressure. Yet doubts have continually persisted, and the story has revived, and I believe a majority of Americans still doubt whether he is really an American.

This story, of course, bears more immediately on the problem that if Obama’s story is accepted, then his father was still a citizen of the British colony of Kenya at the time he was born. So he is not a natural born citizen even if we take him at his word. Which is a big IF indeed, since he is a congenital liar, and both COLBs are obvious fakes.


4 posted on 07/01/2011 4:17:37 PM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll

Ping

So Leo was lucky enough to catch this. It makes you wonder how many more things are being edited to benefit the DNC and or others.

Mark my words, I don’t want it but I see CWII becoming more and more inevitable. God have mercy on us all.


5 posted on 07/01/2011 4:19:58 PM PDT by The Working Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll

Here is a lesson... instead of taking the ramblings of lunatics on blogs at face value... see if they are lying to you.

Go to the Justia page, and look at the Boyd case for yourself.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/143/135/case.html

WAIT... what do we see?

Oh yes... As remarked by Mr. Chief Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 88 U. S. 167:

And what about the Pope case that Leo is rambling about?

http://supreme.justia.com/us/193/621/case.html

YEP, Minor is clearly referenced throughout the case.

Now Leo was hoping that you wouldn’t do what I did, and click on the Justia link and see if he was lying. He wants you to take his word for everything. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if he deliberately doctored his screenshot himself to make it look like a CONSPIWACY!!!! exists where it doesn’t.

Next time, check for yourself.

Oh wait... let me guess, the Lizard people were scared because Leo boy called them out, and then they quickly went back and fixed the links in the Justia stuff, because we all know that JUSTIA IS THE BE ALLZ AND END ALLZ OF SUPREME COURTZ MATERIALZ!!!!

Right?


6 posted on 07/01/2011 4:20:25 PM PDT by freedomwarrior998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

Think about this for a second people... Justia isn’t an official repository of anything. It’s an unofficial cite that links people to Court cases.

If the Lizard People really wanted to “scrub the record” of Minor, because “it is such a devastating case for Obama”, why didn’t they touch Findlaw or Open Jurist? (Two other unofficial repositories). Moreover, since all of these are unofficial web sources, couldn’t people just go down to their local law library and look up the cases in an official reporter?

What about Westlaw and Lexis, do the Lizard People have to go there too?

I’ve already shown you that Leo is lying at worst, or delusional at best regarding his “VAST CONSPIWACY INVOLVINGZ JUSTIAZ!!!” if he can’t even get this right, why take anything else he says at face value?


7 posted on 07/01/2011 4:25:47 PM PDT by freedomwarrior998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll

4later


8 posted on 07/01/2011 4:27:39 PM PDT by harpu ( "...it's better to be hated for who you are than loved for someone you're not!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: El Sordo

Ping


9 posted on 07/01/2011 4:28:41 PM PDT by freedomwarrior998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: freedomwarrior998

Go read the article. He took snapshots and investigated it back through early in 2008.


10 posted on 07/01/2011 4:31:14 PM PDT by SatinDoll (NO FOREIGN NATIONALS AS OUR PRESIDENT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll
Somebody, back in 2008, just prior to the election, ordered these revisions and saw to their execution. This is direct tampering with United States law. And it is evidence that Minor v. Happersett was known to be a huge stumbling block to POTUS eligibility.

The conspiracy to get an ineligible candidate elected president is unraveling.

11 posted on 07/01/2011 4:32:04 PM PDT by TigersEye (Wranglers not Levis. Levi Strauss is anti-2nd Amendment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll

He’s lying. I just linked you to the Justia pages, which has the references to Minor that he claims the “EVILLZZZ CONSPIWACY” took out.

You can take what he says at face value if you want, but it won’t make any of it true.


12 posted on 07/01/2011 4:34:06 PM PDT by freedomwarrior998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: freedomwarrior998

You go freedomtroll....ping your backup.


13 posted on 07/01/2011 4:35:49 PM PDT by Las Vegas Ron (Woah, Obama will appease Trump, but not Lakin? Thanks LSM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: freedomwarrior998

Did you use the wayback machine and check the case during the time D mentioned? He’s NOT talking about now, he’s talking about in 2008...


14 posted on 07/01/2011 4:36:57 PM PDT by piytar (The Obama Depression. Say it early, say it often. Why? Because it's TRUE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: piytar
Wrong... He specifically says:

"The comment was on a separate issue. But I then noticed that the Boyd case, as currently published by Justia.com, made reference to Minor v. Happersett without properly naming the case."

15 posted on 07/01/2011 4:39:29 PM PDT by freedomwarrior998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: freedomwarrior998

“Here is a lesson... instead of taking the ramblings of lunatics on blogs at face value... see if they are lying to you.”

Nice self description. You stink of desperation.


16 posted on 07/01/2011 4:45:34 PM PDT by SatinDoll (NO FOREIGN NATIONALS AS OUR PRESIDENT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: detective; SatinDoll

Somebody, back in 2008, just prior to the election,
///
WOW!!! 2008?!? ...thanks for posting this.
...that’s a pretty convincing smoking gun that they KNEW even back then.
(just like that paper from Obama’s law firm, that argued against the natural born clause, showing they clearly understood it was to a citizen father.
(in spite of the deniers here.)

...good points by detective also.
but theres lots more than can be mentioned. the forged Selective Service form, the impossible Connecticut SSN, the missing page 14 from the divorce records, lost kindergarden records in Hawaii, etc. Virginia Sunahara being in the birth index, but Hawaii officially saying they have no record of her... (I’m sure Satindoll could add much much more...)


17 posted on 07/01/2011 4:46:42 PM PDT by Elendur (the hope and change i need: Sarah / Colonel West in 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: freedomwarrior998
If the Lizard People really wanted to “scrub the record” of Minor, because “it is such a devastating case for Obama”, why didn’t they touch Findlaw or Open Jurist? (Two other unofficial repositories). Moreover, since all of these are unofficial web sources, couldn’t people just go down to their local law library and look up the cases in an official reporter? What about Westlaw and Lexis, do the Lizard People have to go there too?

This is spot on and people are going to blow right past it. Even the current Justia opinions referenced in the original article indeed contain citations to the alleged "scrubbed" case. I'm a skeptic about Obama's past and record but this Justia theory enters tin-foil hat stuff.
18 posted on 07/01/2011 4:48:55 PM PDT by rockvillem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: The Working Man
It makes you wonder how many more things are being edited to benefit the DNC and or others.

They certainly are editing the history that is put forth in the public school textbooks.

19 posted on 07/01/2011 4:53:28 PM PDT by Faith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: freedomwarrior998
Here is a lesson... instead of taking the ramblings of lunatics on blogs at face value... see if they are lying to you.

Only an O-bot would do this! O-Bot!

20 posted on 07/01/2011 4:54:44 PM PDT by Gena Bukin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll
"There needs to be an investigation."

It will never happen in the Senate. I will have to happen in the House.

21 posted on 07/01/2011 4:55:09 PM PDT by YHAOS (you betcha!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll

Typical response of one who would rather believe in a fantasy, rather than utilize reason. I am sorry that the world hurts you so much. Wrap up the tin foil a bit tighter, perhaps the Lizard People can’t get you that way.

The fact is, Leo is claiming that Justia took out a case name, and edited a paragraph to “HIDEZ DA TRUF”...

He claims the the Justia page has edited the text of the opinion to read only like this:

“The privilege to vote in any state is not given by the federal Constitution, or by any of its amendments. It is not a privilege springing from citizenship of the @ 88 U. S. 491. In this case, no question arises as to the right to vote for electors of President and Vice President, and no decision is made thereon. The question whether the conditions prescribed by the state might be regarded by others as reasonable or unreasonable is not a federal one. We do not wish to be understood, however, as intimating that the condition in this statute is unreasonable or in any way improper.”

Yet, a direct link to the Justia page in question, shows both the presence of a case name, and a complete unedited paragraph:

“The privilege to vote in any state is not given by the federal Constitution, or by any of its amendments. It is not a privilege springing from citizenship of the United States. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162. It may not be refused on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, but it does not follow from mere citizenship of the United States. In other words, the privilege to vote in a state is within the jurisdiction of the state itself, to be exercised as the state may direct, and upon such terms as to it may seem proper, provided, of course, no discrimination is made between individuals, in violation of the federal Constitution. The state might provide that persons of foreign birth could vote without being naturalized, and, as stated by Mr. Chief Justice Waite in Miner v. Happersett, supra, such persons were allowed to vote in several of the states upon having declared their intentions to become citizens of the United States. Some states permit women to vote; others refuse them that privilege. A state, so far as the federal Constitution is concerned, might provide by its own constitution and laws that none but native-born citizens should be permitted to vote, as the federal Constitution does not confer the right of suffrage upon any one, and the conditions under which that right is to be exercised are matters for the states alone to prescribe, subject to the conditions of the federal Constitution already stated. although it may be observed that the right to vote for a member of Congress is not derived exclusively from the state law. See Federal Constitution, Art. I, Section 2; Wiley v. Sinkler, 179 U. S. 58. But the elector must be one entitled to vote under the state statute. (Id.) See also Swafford v. Templeton, 185 U. S. 487, 185 U. S. 491. In this case, no question arises as to the right to vote for electors of President and Vice President, and no decision is made thereon. The question whether the conditions prescribed by the state might be regarded by others as reasonable or unreasonable is not a federal one. We do not wish to be understood, however, as intimating that the condition in this statute is unreasonable or in any way improper.”

http://supreme.justia.com/us/193/621/case.html


22 posted on 07/01/2011 4:58:53 PM PDT by freedomwarrior998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: LucyT; BP2; rxsid; null and void; Candor7; melancholy

ping


23 posted on 07/01/2011 5:06:24 PM PDT by tutstar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedomwarrior998

So...why aren’t you challenging Leo Donofrio at his own site, rather than grandstanding here?

Are you a coward?


24 posted on 07/01/2011 5:14:46 PM PDT by SatinDoll (NO FOREIGN NATIONALS AS OUR PRESIDENT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: freedomwarrior998

is this another pimp my blog thing?

or is this just a plant by media matters to maker every look all tin foil hat


25 posted on 07/01/2011 5:17:35 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: freedomwarrior998

“It’s an unofficial cite that links people to Court cases.”

What’s an unofficial “cite”? Is that the same thing as an unofficial “site”?


26 posted on 07/01/2011 5:17:51 PM PDT by Let_It_Be_So (Once you see the Truth, you cannot "unsee" it, no matter how hard you may try.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: freedomwarrior998

Let me guess. You immediately assume that Leo forged a screen shot but accept at face value the BC that not one expert will say is genuine (and all but one who have spoken out have said it is definitely NOT genuine)?

The “reason” you utilize depends on Leo forging a screenshot. You ridicule others as having tin foil hats because you claim that Leo is committing a conspiracy. lol.


27 posted on 07/01/2011 5:18:16 PM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Elendur
just like that paper from Obama’s law firm, that argued against the natural born clause, showing they clearly understood it was to a citizen father.

A paper from Obama's law firm? Do you have a link?

28 posted on 07/01/2011 5:28:19 PM PDT by Kleon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: YHAOS; Gena Bukin; Faith; rockvillem; Elendur; piytar; Las Vegas Ron; TigersEye; The Working Man; ..
Lower right hand corner...all the way at the bottom.
BOYD V. NEBRASKA EX REL. THAYER, 143 U. S. 135 (1892)

Have a Happy Day!
Now who put that on there?

How is it that you tell the last edit day of a webpage? Anybody?

29 posted on 07/01/2011 5:32:31 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll

Grand Jury or Attorney General in the county where it was published, to investigate?

What should it be?


30 posted on 07/01/2011 5:35:25 PM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: detective

Another small “Exhibit-A” might be the property which Obammy calls home in Chicago being deeded to several other individuals concurrently, including the name of the deceased person in Connecticutt who actually owned the SS Card number of ONE OF the SEVERAL SS cards that Obammy uses; if I remember the report correctly. There’s some deep doo-doo connected to that character in the white hut......but I see no evidence that ANYONE who is in a position to really DO something about it gives a hoot about it.


31 posted on 07/01/2011 5:36:33 PM PDT by Tucker39
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

javascript:alert(document.lastModified) in the address bar does NOT work!


32 posted on 07/01/2011 5:37:05 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll; Red Steel

Could somebody post this image?

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:CMSJBi5RW2cJ:supreme.justia.com/us/143/135/case.html+%E2%80%9CAs+remarked+by+Mr.+Chief+Justice+Waite+in+%40+88+U.+S.+167%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com

I’ve got it saved on my computer but have forgotten how to post an image in html (and lost the instructions I was given. sigh).


33 posted on 07/01/2011 5:43:30 PM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
Now who put that on there?

Obviously the same person who added the smiley face to the long-form birth certificate. It's a calling card.

34 posted on 07/01/2011 5:44:44 PM PDT by Kleon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Kleon

Care to offer an opinion as to why javascript:alert(document.lastModified) in the address bar does NOT work!


35 posted on 07/01/2011 5:49:31 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

You seem computer literate. If you know how to do html, could you post this image please, ASAP?

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:CMSJBi5RW2cJ:supreme.justia.com/us/143/135/case.html+%E2%80%9CAs+remarked+by+Mr.+Chief+Justice+Waite+in+%40+88+U.+S.+167%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com


36 posted on 07/01/2011 5:51:55 PM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
Care to offer an opinion as to why javascript:alert(document.lastModified) in the address bar does NOT work!

It works for me. It's not going to tell you anything, though, because of the content to the right that's always being updated.

37 posted on 07/01/2011 5:58:24 PM PDT by Kleon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Cicero; SatinDoll; rockinqsranch; repubmom; HANG THE EXPENSE; Nepeta; Plummz; Bikkuri; ...
Image and video hosting by TinyPic

The US Supreme Court Center at Justia.com is the leading resource on the internet which publishes United States Supreme Court decisions.

They have been caught red handed in an Orwellian attempt to revise US Supreme Court cases which mention Minor v. Happersett as precedent on the issue of citizenship, ..."

I have documented two incredible examples where Justia.com has been caught in the act of taking a hatchet job to US Supreme Court decisions by removing, not just the case name, “Minor v. Happersett”, but whole passages related to Chief Justice Waite’s statements on the citizenship issue.

***************************************************

This is beyond shocking. Somebody, back in 2008, just prior to the election, ordered these revisions and saw to their execution.

This is direct tampering with United States law. And it is evidence that Minor v. Happersett was known to be a huge stumbling block to POTUS eligibility.

[snip]

According to binding US Supreme Court precedent, 0bama is not eligible to be President. And we are obviously very late coming to this legal truth.

Somebody at Justia.com tried to control and alter our awareness by hiding important Supreme Court references to Minor dating back to 2008. This is smoking gun proof of tampering. Please read..."

. . . . Article and comments.

. .

38 posted on 07/01/2011 6:02:20 PM PDT by LucyT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll
Okay, I looked into this, and it turns out Leo is just being a loony conspiracy theorist again without checking his facts first.

This is the Justia entry for Brown v. Board of Education as it appears today.

Notice under footnote 5, it has a link to "Slaughter-House Cases."

This is Google's web cache of the same page from a few days ago.

As you can see, the name and link to the case are missing.

This appears to be a site-wide problem that they fixed and had nothing to do with covering up for Obama.

39 posted on 07/01/2011 6:07:03 PM PDT by Kleon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll

aiding and abetting DNC fraud in the fund-raising for Election ‘08.

The plaintiffs will be starting to organize shortly.


40 posted on 07/01/2011 6:10:33 PM PDT by mo ("If you understand, no explanation is needed; if you do not, no explanation is possible")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion; bushpilot1
It isn't an image. You have a page cache. .../search?q=cache:CMSJBi5R...

Hey, bushpilot1, could you help out?
Go to the link given by butter above and do a screen capture of every instance of "minor" in a search. Lower case without a check in the "match case" box.
I don't do screen captures and you're a pro at it.
BTW, butter, anybody going to the link you've given can do the same search on "minor" and see the results.

41 posted on 07/01/2011 6:11:23 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Kleon

A problem they’ve had since 2008, and just fixed now!

There is no substitute for shining the light of truth on an issue.


42 posted on 07/01/2011 6:11:37 PM PDT by SatinDoll (NO FOREIGN NATIONALS AS OUR PRESIDENT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Kleon
It works for me.
Really?! You don't get the "...disabled to prevent social engineering attacks..." dialogue box?
43 posted on 07/01/2011 6:16:16 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
Really?! You don't get the "...disabled to prevent social engineering attacks..." dialogue box?

No, I don't.

44 posted on 07/01/2011 6:17:20 PM PDT by Kleon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll
A problem they’ve had since 2008, and just fixed now!

I have no idea; for all I know it happens when they update their links.

What's important is that it can be observed even on cases not relating to eligibility.

45 posted on 07/01/2011 6:18:47 PM PDT by Kleon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll

Not sure why freedomwarrior998 is so passionate in his adamant rush to refute the info, to the extent of insulting members. If there’s no fruit to be borne, time will tell. I’m ordinarily no conspiracy buff, but I’m also tired of being expected to turn a blind eye to loose ends that don’t make sense, and this White House is one huge tangle of loose ends.


46 posted on 07/01/2011 6:23:13 PM PDT by drierice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

There’s no mention of Minor v Happersett in that page. Is that what you were seeking?


47 posted on 07/01/2011 6:23:16 PM PDT by STARWISE (The overlords are in place .. we are a nation under siege .. pray, go Galt & hunker down)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion; philman_36

This is the notation at the top of the page:

This is Google’s cache of http://supreme.justia.com/us/143/135/case.html. It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on Jun 21, 2011 08:46:58 GMT. The current page could have changed in the meantime. Learn more

~~~~

So, that’s not the current page?


48 posted on 07/01/2011 6:27:55 PM PDT by STARWISE (The overlords are in place .. we are a nation under siege .. pray, go Galt & hunker down)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Kleon
So what do you get when you enter javascript:alert(document.lastModified) (don't forget to remove the parenthesis) into the address bar?
49 posted on 07/01/2011 6:28:51 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE
So, that’s not the current page?
If the current page doesn't match the Cached one than it appears that something was changed.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/143/135/case.html Google result...
First return...
supreme.justia.com/us/143/135/case.html - Cached

Google Cached Pages
Clicking on that link takes you to the Google cached version of that web page, instead of the current version of the page.
Snip...When Google displays the cached page, a header at the top serves as a reminder that what you see isn’t necessarily the most recent version of the page.

Snip...This is useful if the original page is unavailable because of:
The owner’s recently removing the page from the Web

50 posted on 07/01/2011 6:40:51 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-183 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson