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.
It's like it's telling you exactly what was changed.
No. Review your Harvard Blue Book for official citations. Justia and Findlaw and Cornell can be useful tools, but shouldn't be relied upon as official. (And Cornell should be considered the best of that lot - Justia would be third on that list.)
Donofrio posted a screen cap of what he said was the current page. Somebody tried to say that since the page NOW (after Donofrio had posted to alert people of this) has “Minor v Happersett” on it, Donofrio must have forged the screenshot. Went into the standard Obot drivel about tin foil hats and how nobody who is interested in facts would be fooled by this, how stupid conspiracy theorists are because Donofrio probably forged the screenshot.... blah, blah, blah.
Well, like you say, the reference to “Minor v Happersett” is not in the Google cache taken from June 21st. I just wanted somebody to post the image before Google updates their cache to get rid of the evidence. I’ve got the screenshot saved but can’t post it on my blog because it’s the wrong format.
Donofrio has shots from the Way Back Machine showing it was like that since 2008. So from 2008 until at least ten days ago the reference was edited out, and sometime within the last 10 days (Donofrio says within the last day or two, depending on when he posted his analysis) it was changed.
So all the big garbage about Donofrio forging the screenshot is shown to be wrong. The left ALWAYS projects onto others what they themselves do. Always. Predictable and pathetic.
The same can be said about the example I provided earlier from the Brown case, which had nothing to do with citizenship or Minor. As I said, this is site-wide.
Thank you VERY much, LucyT, for the ping, and an equally heartfelt thanks to you, Butter, for distilling it all into one extremely lucid and helpful post. This is a very revealing piece of information.
We are up against a great, great evil in this administration. Obama and his enablers have done more to destroy the US in 2.5 yrs than anyone or anything I am aware of, in the history of our country. I realize the War Between the States was horrible and devastating on every level. But at least it involved Americans on both sides. What we are dealing here with is a foreign threat—and it occupies the Oval Office.
Heaven help us.
What Donofrio pointed out was not a footnote. It was the actual text of the decision, and it had the reference specifically removed - an alteration of the actual text of the decision that has been there since 2008 and has been corrected sometime after June 21st, when the Google cache still had it with the reference edited out.
The footnote you mentioned doesn’t include the name of the case because it is several cases lumped together in one grouping - and the actual text of the Brown v Bd of Education decision refers to them simply as being the earliest cases after the 14th Amendment. So it is not reasonable for you to equate those 2 situations. Nothing that would indicate that it was a “site-wide problem”.
And just for the sake of accuracy, the Google cache that you linked to for Brown v Bd of Education was from yesterday, not “a few days ago”. Looking at the text from yesterday, I saw no instances where a case was referenced simply by a number, with the title of the case edited out. That argues AGAINST it being a “site-wide problem”, as you suggested.
Donofrio showed that the reference was missing since 2008, and I showed through the Google cache on June 21st that it was still missing as of 10 days ago.
So for 3 years they didn’t update their links and then TODAY they just so happened to “update their links”?
Not sure what you’re smoking, but I don’t think I want to have any of it, whatever it is.
But I’ve seen this tactic before - claiming that as long as something wrong isn’t the *only* time it was like that, in order to make it seem like there hasn’t been tampering to cover for Obama. That tactic is gonna get the Obama machine into a heckuva lot of trouble eventually. Mark my words.
So it was entered into Justia correctly on April 4, 2006, sometime in 2008 it was changed to get rid of the “Minor v Happersett” reference, and it was corrected sometime today - after Donofrio posted about it yesterday.
Wow.
Thank you. Is there a way to have it so that it also shows Google’s notation that it is a snapshot of the page as it existed on June 21, 2011?
Nice catch.
I found the cached page for that case by searching in Google with the search term “As remarked by Mr. Chief Justice Waite in 4088 U.S. 167”. That was the only page which used those words - where “Minor v Happersett” was missing. And sure enough, it was the Jusia page that Leo had said lacked the reference.
Which also suggests that other sites did not take out the reference - only Justia.
The footnote you mentioned doesn’t include the name of the case because it is several cases lumped together in one grouping
Then look at the Miranda case.
This is how it looks now, and this is an archive of the same page I grabbed from Archive.org from 2009.
If I were a conspiracy nut, I would wonder why they edited out the name of the Cohens v Virginia case...if I were a conspiracy nut.
No, the one you mentioned had no title given to it because it was MULTIPLE CASES. The text of the actual Brown v Bd of Education was not altered to get rid of the titles of the cases; the text clearly referred to those cases as the earliest cases - NOT by specific reference to any one of them.
IOW, what you showed did NOT have the text of the SCOTUS decision altered to get rid of a specific case title. And there was no place in that decision where a case was referred to only by its number and not by its title. So what you posted actually showed the exact opposite of what you claimed it showed. It showed that the alteration of the actual text of a decision is NOT a “problem” that the site suddenly corrected today, after Donofrio brought attention to it.
And philman 63 has shown the timeframe in which the text was altered to get rid of the “Minor v Happersett” reference. It was originally entered correctly and it took a concrete, specific action by somebody to alter that text.
Same with the Cohens reference in Miranda. In fact, it was missing during the exact same timeframe as the missing reference to Minor. In 2007 and before, it was there, and then from 2008 until now it was not.
The same thing happened to me on another thread after I mentioned that when I and many other Freepers were in school that we were taught that a Natural Born Citizen was a person born in the country with two citizen parents. First I was attacked and ridiculed and told to provide a textbook that backed what I was saying up. I replied that I had been searching for textbooks from the time period that might have been used during the time that I went to school but that they were very difficult to find.
I received more ridicule and comments that there were “truckloads” of them available on Amazon. I replied that the poster must have been much better at searching Amazon than I was and to please post links to civics textbooks from the time period from the 1950s through the mid 1970s. I received a half dozen links, I followed every one, but not one was a link to a civics textbook from the time period asked for. One of the books linked to was from 1890 and was available free in Kindle format. It didn't have even one reference to “natural born” anywhere in it. The other books were from 1920 through 1930. It was a complete waste of my time. It was all grandstanding and an attempt to gain legitimacy by posting irrelevant links. Amazon does not appear to have any civics textbooks from the time period when I attended school. Even the obots here could not find one.
I am highly offended by some of the remarks that have been made here by freedomwarrior998. If you would like to get to know where he or she is coming from take a look at http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/by:freedomwarrior998/index?tab=comments;brevity=full;options=no-change. Even the posts that I generally agree with are worded in such a nasty way that I have a difficult time reading them without feeling angry. freedomwarrior998, in my opinion your abrasive writing style completely overpowers any point you are trying to make. I don't think being a bully is an effective way to win people over to your point of view.
What’s the “6 Wheat 264”?
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.