Breaking: The Justia Incident

I’m just seeing this for the first time: Legal records — official reports of Supreme Court decisions — were apparently altered with regard to authority on citizenship requirements for the US presidency during the 2008 campaign.

One could make a case that these alterations could have been done by the McCain or Obama camps; each had peculiarities with regard to their births that bear on the issue.

Another oddity is that when this was brought to Justia.com’s attention, rather than be alarmed and seek answers, they (allegedly) quietly changed things back and put mechanisms in place to hide their tracks.

Similar to Gore v Bush 2000?

I don’t know how valid any of this is. But I cannot help being reminded about the Gore v Bush court challenge during the 2000 election — an affair that I played a minor role in and was involved in a peculiar debate about here — where Gore’s attorney altered the result of a prior case (a known false affidavit) and presented this false information to the Florida Supreme Court. When this was caught by a reporter, the attorney (David Boies) would not retract it.

He ultimately faced a challenge to his license to practice law as a result, but there were enough Democrats on the Florida review board to prevent that damage. Before that took place, George Will summed up the action:

The case for impeachment was: If a president is allowed to lie under oath in a civil proceeding, the justice system is in jeopardy, because it depends, utterly, on the truthfulness of advocates and witnesses. Which brings us to Gore’s Florida month of living dangerously, and evidence that Clinton’s and Gore’s practice of playing fast and loose with truth and law is a communicable disease.

Florida’s chaos deepened when Boies convinced Florida’s credulous Supreme Court of a crucial falsehood. He said that in an Illinois election case 10 years ago, a judge ordered that stray, random–so-called “rogue”–dimples be counted as votes. But in fact such markings were not counted. The judge counted dimples as votes only if the voter left a pattern of dimples, indicating an intent to vote but a failure to follow directions. Florida’s court, combining judicial activism and intellectual sloth, did not trouble itself with anything as recondite as independent verification of this assertion by an interested party.

Next, to influence the Broward County canvassing board, Boies had someone associated with the Illinois case awakened around midnight to send an affidavit confirming Boies’s misrepresentation. A day later, the sender’s memory refreshed, he sent a revised affidavit. But Boies’s team did not advise Broward County of the second affidavit. Broward counted hundreds of Gore votes by following the misrepresented standards from the Chicago case.

Days later, in Judge N. Sanders Sauls’s court, Boies, arguing that Palm Beach County’s punch-card voting machines failed to register votes for Gore, presented as an expert witness a Yale statistician. The statistician testified that there are more “undervotes” (ballots on which no candidate for an office is voted for) when candidates for that office are listed in a ballot’s left-hand column. To validate his theory, the expert relied on Palm Beach County’s 1998 ballot. Boies’s team signed and filed a “proffer” advising the court that their statistician would testify that “a closer inspection of the [1998] Palm Beach County ballot reveals that the senatorial race was recorded in the first column and the gubernatorial race in the second column.”

But the senatorial and gubernatorial candidates were listed in the same column. The statistician never examined that 1998 ballot, closely or otherwise. He said he relied on “facts” supplied by Gore’s legal team. Not wise.

In a sworn affidavit on the same subject, the statistician qualified his judgment in a way inconvenient to Boies’s team, saying that to be certain of a particular conclusion that Boies’s team liked, further study would be required. But Boies’s team did not include the qualifying phrase in a document presenting the statistician’s views to the court.

Back to the Future

This Justia case feels a little bit similar. It will be interesting to see how it develops. From the Examiner:

October 24, 2011 7:48am (Pacific) UPDATE: Justia has blocked the Waybackmachine as this article predicted they might. This follows their earlier pattern established in July 2011, using the same .txt technique mentioned further down in this article. Searching for Minor v Happerset on Justia’s site will bring up that SCOTUS decision page normally. When the URL of that page is inserted into the Waybackmachine, the following message appears instead of the normal calendar: “We were unable to get the robots.txt document to display this page. Our request Timed Out.” The Search URL used: http://supreme.justia.com/us/88/162/case.html
– D. Cotter

Someone was incredibly busy in June 2008 working on an illegal front invisible to the public; searching and altering Supreme Court Cases published at Justia.com which cite the only case in American history – Minor v. Happersett (1875) – to directly construe Article 2 Section 1’s natural-born citizen clause in determining a citizenship issue as part of its holding and precedent. In this unanimous decision, the Supreme Court defined a “native or natural-born citizen” as a person born in the US to parents who were citizens; a definition which excludes from eligibility both Barack Obama and John McCain.

Continue reading on Examiner.com JustiaGate – Portland Civil Rights | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/civil-rights-in-portland/justiagate#ixzz1boj2t1nG

I’d certainly like to find out who was involved.

===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

Categories