Replies

Thank you. Now I can do some checking. Random checking of cases. Just changing the volume number randomly I stumbled across this one (Snowden v Hughes) at http://web.archive.org/web/20080311023329/http://supreme.justia.com/us/321/1/case.html ) On page 7 (or at least I guess that’s a page number)it said this on March 11, 2008:

“to state citizenship and derived solely from the relationship of the citizen and his state established by state law. In re Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 83 U. S. 74, 83 U. S. 79; Maxwell v. Bugbee, 250 U. S. 525, 538; Prudential Ins. Co. v. Cheek, 259 U. S. 530, 539; Madden v. Kentucky, 309 U. S. 83, 90-93. The right to become a candidate for state office, like the right to vote for the election of state officers, Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 88 U. S. 170-178; Pope v. Williams, 193 U. S. 621, 632; Breedlove v. Suttles, 302 U. S. 277, 283, is a right or privilege of state citizenship, not of national citizenship, which alone is protected by the privileges and immunities clause.”

Every case there has a title of some kind listed, although the Slaughterhouse cases are not referenced individually because they were never given individual titles.

On July 24, 2008 it said this:

“to state citizenship and derived solely from the relationship of the citizen and his state established by state law. 83 U. S. 74, 83 U. S. 79; Maxwell v. Bugbee, 250 U. S. 525, 250 U. S. 538; Prudential Ins. Co. v. Cheek, 259 U. S. 530, 259 U. S. 539; Madden v. Kentucky, 309 U. S. 83, 309 U. S. 90-93. The right to become a candidate for state office, like the right to vote for the election of state officers, 88 U. S. 170-178; Pope v. Williams, 193 U. S. 621, 193 U. S. 632; Breedlove v. Suttles, 302 U. S. 277, 302 U. S. 283, is a right or privilege of state citizenship, not of national citizenship, which alone is protected by the privileges and immunities clause.”

The reference to the Slaughterhouse cases has just the number reference rather than “In re Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 83 U. S. 74, 83 U. S. 79”. But of all the other cases, the only one that had anything altered was Minor v Happersett. This is not an across-the-board, site-wide situation. Minor v Happersett was the only case that got its title taken off.

The page at Justia now has that corrected. Just for kicks I did the same type of Google search that had allowed me to show that as of June 21st the page that Donofrio screen-capped was exactly as Donofrio said it was. I did this search: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=1003&bih=594&q=%22like+the+right+to+vote+for+the+election+of+state+officers%2C+88+U.+S.+170-178%22&oq=%22like+the+right+to+vote+for+the+election+of+state+officers%2C+88+U.+S.+170-178%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=undefined&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=3545l6700l0l3l3l0l2l0l0l151l151l0.1l1 . It gave me a listing of a cached entry for that page, showing that the last time that page was cached it had the term “”like the right to vote for the election of state officers, 88 U. S. 170-178” (lacking the “Minor v Happersett” title). But when I clicked on that link to see the cached page (so I could see when was the last date it was cached) I got a screen saying, “
Your search - cache:MjgJVAUeE2IJ:supreme.justia.com/us/321/1/case.html “like the right to vote for the election of state officers, 88 U. S. 170-178” - did not match any documents. “

But the original search I did included other sites that matched the search terms, including the one that is cached at http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:j2C9BJ_FrsQJ:www.clubjuris.com/usa/us_supremecourt/321/1/case.php+%22like+the+right+to+vote+for+the+election+of+state+officers,+88+U.+S.+170-178%22&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com . That was cached on June 5, 2011.

So not only can we see that Minor v Happersett was treated differently than the 5 other titled cases cited right next to it, we can see that Google denies it has the cached Justia site that matches those search terms even though they listed the cached site when I did the search.

Sort of like the 1960-64 birth index that has Virginia Sunahara’s name listed, but the HDOH denies that they have a birth record for her.

What this says to me is that they are all screwing with us and then accusing us of being crazy. Not cool in my book, nor in the book of anybody with a conscience. But that shows us the post-modern psy-ops that Google, Justia, the HDOH, and other entities are pulling on the entire world in order to cover for Obama - to keep us all chasing the little inconsistencies and debating the definition of “is” all over again multiple times... while Obama destroys the foundations of this country and the ability of anybody to know ANYTHING.

I’m sick of this crap. It’s anarchy. Nobody can know anything. Rules, laws - heck, even words themselves - don’t mean anything. It’s all just one big blurry mash of “nothing matters” - no foundations, nothing we can count on, and the only “truth” that matters is what the media can get to “stick”. We’re running military operations in Libya to try to kill GAdaffi and his followers, but it’s not “force” - and even if it is “force” we don’t know whether the War Powers Act that Obama violated is Constitutional in the first place. If it’s not, then not only would Obama need Congressional approval - he’d need a declaration of war. But Obama says he doesn’t have to answer any questions and everybody in his administration has flipped the bird at Congressional subpoenas and gotten away with it so far.... so nobody can make anything “stick” anyway.

This is utter madness. A nation cannot survive this. We are going 250 miles an hour around a curve rated for 15 mph. Whoever is driving this car is on a death wish and committing vehicular homicide on the nation sitting in the passenger seat.