I can't imagine it either. :)
Please click the pic.
Help keep the lights on
Become a monthly donor today!
Posted on 10/24/2011 10:02:42 AM PDT by Seizethecarp
A New Jersey attorney who brought the first legal challenge to Barack Obama's occupancy in the Oval Office to the U.S. Supreme Court has published a report revealing that references to a U.S. Supreme Court decision addressing the definition of "natural-born citizen" were scrubbed at one of the key online resources for legal documents.
The Minor v. Happersett case is significant because it is one of very few references in the nation's archives that addresses the definition of "natural-born citizen," a requirement imposed by the U.S. Constitution on only the U.S. president.
Among the dozens of examples identified by Donofrio was the Luria case.
Dianna Cotter wrote in the Portland Civil Rights Examiner: "This was done in these specific cases in order to prevent their being found by Internet researchers long before anyone had even begun to look for them, even before Obama would win the Democratic nomination at the DNC Convention in Denver, Colo., in August '08. This is premeditation and intent to deceive."
She noted that attorneys working on arguments always would return to the originals from the Supreme Court, "but 99.99 percent of the population has no access to dusty law texts or expensive legal research services such as Lexis and Westlaw.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Going viral ping...
??
Looks like older cases are being archived into ‘bound’ .pdf files.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?Search=Happersett&type=Site
This is astonishing. This needs to become more known. There is an ever-growing body of evidence of intentional cover-up involving the ineligibility of Barry Soetoro.
This is interesting, but there’s no memory hole for the internet. Scrubbing an entire case from the record is like trying to get pee out of a pool. It’s in there. People can still find Minor v Happersett without “dusty law texts” and “expensive legal research services.”
I find Google to be superior to Lexis and Westlaw for about 50% of my legal research. Google Scholar and many other free search engines make it possible for anyone to research the law, not that there are that many people who really want to.
Thanks for the ping!
I updated my story... Justia has now installed .txt bots on its entire site.
You cannot plug Justia URL’s into the waybackmachine now and see the history of the pages.
This was predicted in my article.
Maybe these serious researchers should have looked here:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html
Thats true, but this wasn’t directed at people capable of researching in a Law Library. Certainly not for those with $$$ Subscriptions to Lexis and Westlaw. No this was pointed at the average blogger... millions of Americans who would trust that “Full text of case” actually MEANT full text of case as opposed to a tampered one. Justia.com is a free site, it pays the salary of its people through advertising and click throughs.
See the point here yet?
Excellent work, Danae!!
Interesting - So according to you is is no big deal that references to this case were scrubbed from a popular legal research site? (When BO was still a candidate.)
No, and I seriously doubt they were “scrubbed”. Minor is irrelevant to the meaning of NBC, since it specifically decided NOT to explore the debate over the term.
The idea that someone gained something by justica having problems is silly. Or has it escaped the birthers that, with Minor now posted in full and glorious detail, there still is not a single state in the Union, a single member of Congress, or a single court that believes Obama’s Kenyan daddy makes him ineligible?
Just a bunch of birthers posting false claims about Minor, and living on in their fantasy world. I wish they’d put effort into defeating Obama at the ballot box...
Has anyone asked them to respond to this info yet?
Stop harshing the mello.
This makes my blood boil!
That, and as I believe someone pointed out in one of the other threads on this topic, there are numerous examples of other cases/citations that are incorrect/missing from Justia. The fact is, there is a reason that Lexis and Westlaw can charge as much as they do for legal research tools - building and maintaining accurate databases of caselaw (particularly old caselaw, before our current era of consistent, standardized citations) is difficult and labor-intensive. It is not surprising that a free service such as Justia would be flawed.
I can't imagine it either. :)
Please click the pic.
Help keep the lights on
Become a monthly donor today!
“but 99.99 percent of the population has no access to dusty law texts or expensive legal research services such as Lexis and Westlaw.”
That’s simply not true.
My guess is that more than 1 out of every 10,000 people in this country has access to law texts, dusty or not and to Lexis and Westlaw.
That, and as I believe someone pointed out in one of the other threads on this topic, there are numerous examples of other cases/citations that are incorrect/missing from Justia. The fact is, there is a reason that Lexis and Westlaw can charge as much as they do for legal research tools - building and maintaining accurate databases of caselaw (particularly old caselaw, before our current era of consistent, standardized citations) is difficult and labor-intensive. It is not surprising that a free service such as Justia would be flawed.
“Justia.com is a free site,”
You get what you pay for.
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.
