Replies

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

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.

I can’t check anything out because Way Back Machine doesn’t have any listings using the search term you’ve got in your screenshot. I have no way of knowing that’s even the Justia site that’s being shown on the screenshot.

If it’s really there and just won’t show on my computer you’ll have to tell your buds at Homeland Security that they need to stop messing with my computer. lol. But of course, that is too conspiratorial to be true, so the site just must not exist and you forged that “screenshot”. Right? ;)