[UPDATE #3 8:54 AM Oct. 24, 200 – Justia.com has suddenly placed robots over their entire site. So much for Justia’s mission, “To advance the availability of legal resources for the benefit of society.” Here is a link to the Wayback Machine’s URL search of Roe v Wade, a case which has nothing to do with POTUS eligibility. Here is a link to the Wayback Machine’s URL search for Minor v. Happersett. Both searches return the following statment at the Wayback Machine: “We were unable to get the robots.txt document to display this page.” This activity operates as an admission by Justia. A criminal investigation is required.]
[UPDATE #2 9:14 PM Oct. 23, 2011 – JustiaGate Is Top Headline Story at World Net Daily.
[UPDATE: 5:03 PM Oct. 20, 2011 – Dianna Cotter’s report “JustiaGate” appears at Examiner.com]
New evidence conclusively establishes that 25 U.S. Supreme Court opinions were sabotaged then republished at Justia.com during the run up to the ’08 election. My prior report documented the scrubbing of just two cases. But last week, a third sabotaged case was discovered which led to a thorough examination of all US Supreme Court cases which cite “Minor v. Happersett” as they appeared on Justia.com between 2006 and the present.
Since Justia placed affirmations on each tampered opinion which state “Full Text of Case”, personnel may also be guilty of violating 18 U.S.C. 1018 by intentionally passing off tampered versions of US Supreme Court opinions as if they were official versions published by the US Supreme Court.
At this point, we do not know who committed these acts of sabotage. Since neither Obama nor McCain meet the Supreme Court’s definition of a “natural-born citizen” in Minor v. Happersett, the deception might have been undertaken on behalf of either one.
Regardless of who you supported in 2008, or whether you agree with the assertion of Minor’s relevance, every American should be outraged that 25 Supreme Court cases were surgically sabotaged and then passed off to the public as if the tampered versions contained the “Full Text of Case”. This is the very definition of “Orwellian” fascism. It’s propaganda. And there is no place for it in the United States. The sacrifices for truth and justice which created and have sustained this nation are wantonly debased by the subversive deception emanating from Justia.com servers.
We do not know at this point if Justia personnel were behind this or if their site was hacked. That being said, Justia’s reaction to my last report mirrored the deception of the sabotage. Instead of addressing the proof, Justia quietly and with stealth un-scrubbed the evidence without acknowledging or addressing the issue at all. And they placed “.txt robots” on their URL’s for the two previously identified cases so the Wayback Machine could no longer provide historical snapshots of those cases as published at Justia.
TWO LAYERS OF SABOTAGE
In all 25 instances of tampering, the case name “Minor v. Happersett” was removed from Justia’s publication of each SCOTUS opinion which cited to it. Anyone searching for cases citing Minor at Justia or Google were led into a maze of confusion. In some instances, not only was the case name scrubbed, the numerical citation was also removed along with whole sentences of text.
But the deception goes deeper still. There are three official citations for Minor. v. Happersett: 88 U.S. 162, 21 Wall. 162, and 22 L. Ed. 627. Researchers will either search for the case by name, or by any of these three citations. Since it is common for legal researchers to query both the name of the case and/or the official numerical citation, these opinions were tampered for both.
In Kansas v. Colorado, Kepner v. U.S., Schick v. U.S., and South Carolina v. U.S., the citation left behind after scrubbing was “88 U.S. 422”. In Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization, the citation left behind was 88 U.S. 448. Minor officially begins at 88 U.S. 162 and finishes at 88 U.S. 178. So 88 U.S. 422, and 448 are completely bogus. (See collage of screenshots.) The other 20 cases cite to actual pages in Minor, but not to the official citations. While Justia linked from the bogus citations back to the first page of Minor, anyone searching for US Supreme Court cases citing Minor by querying the official citations would have been thwarted.
This further establishes that the sabotage undertaken at Justia was surgically precise. The reality that both candidates eligibility was questionable according to Minor v. Happersett appears to have been known and handled by somebody’s legal team. However, Justia CEO Tim Stanley was associated with “Obama For America 2008”. (Dianna Cotter’s article will take a closer look at Tim Stanley.)
RECAP OF PREVIOUS REPORT
On July 1, 2011 I published a report: “Justia.com Caught red Handed Hiding references To Minor v. Happersett In Published US Supreme Court Opinions“. The article featured screenshots and links to the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine which chronicled tampering with two US Supreme Court opinions, Boyd v. Nebraska and Pope v. Williams. Both cases cite to Minor v. Happersett, the only US Supreme Court decision to directly construe the natural-born citizen clause in relation to a citizenship issue. The Court’s unanimous opinion in Minor defines those born in the US to citizen parents as natural-born citizens:
“The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” (Emphasis added.)
McCain clearly does not meet the definition since he was born in Panama. And since Obama’s father was never a US citizen, the current POTUS doesn’t meet the Supreme Court’s definition of a natural-born citizen either. Minor v. Happersett has, therefore, been the subject of an intense disinformation campaign. Falsehoods about the case have been widely spread. The two most flagrant are:
1) that Minor was only a voting rights case – not a citizenship case – and therefore the Court’s discussion of federal citizenship was dictum and not precedent
2) that Minor was overruled by the 19th Amendment
Both criticisms are false. Unfortunately, many of the Supreme Court cases which cite to Minor as precedent on citizenship were scrubbed by Justia along with other cases that continued citing Minor as good law on voting rights issues well after the adoption of the 19th Amendment. As you will see from the holding in a Supreme Court opinion from 1980, the contention that Minor was overruled by the 19th Amendment is false.
PATTERN OF JUSTIA SUBTERFUGE
The tampering exhibits a very noticeable pattern. Below, I will include screenshots as well as links to the Wayback Machine which illustrate this pattern clearly.
In most of the cases scrubbed at Justia, the Wayback Machine evidence shows that the very first snapshots taken of Justia URL’s for these cases was in 2006, with a couple of snapshots taken in early 2007. In all of the cases, the first snapshots exhibit that Justia originally published the cases correctly as they appear in the official US Supreme Court reporters. However, by November 2008, all 25 opinions had been sabotaged.
Some cases scrubbed the words “Minor v. Happersett” every time they appeared, and some left it in one time, but removed it in other places. References to The Slaughterhouse Cases, Scott v. Sandford, and Osborn v. Bank of United States (citizenship cases which prove troublesome for Obama’s eligibility) were also scrubbed along with full sentences from majority opinions (as was done in Pope v. Williams), and dissents (as was done in U.S. v. Wong Km Ark). The scrubbing was surgically precise as to the issue of POTUS eligibility. The Wayback Machine snapshots prove that the tampering stayed in effect through the final snapshots taken in 2010.
RECAP OF MY INITIAL REPORT REGARDING “BOYD v. NEBRASKA” and “POPE v. WILLIAMS.”
After I published the first report on July 1, 2011, the Boyd and Pope cases were un-scrubbed at Justia so that Minor v. Happersett was reinstated to each opinion, and the citations were corrected. The other 23 cases, known only to the sabateur(s), were also un-scrubbed. Perhaps they thought nobody would ever discover the depth of the operation, because they failed to place blocking robots on the other 23 cases. This allowed us to look back into history and see the tampering unfold for each case on the Wayback timeline.
The initial report documented that Justia.com had removed the case name, “Minor v. Happersett” from its published opinions of Boyd and Pope. The report also documented that, in the Pope opinion at Justia, full sentences discussing Minor v. Happersett were removed thereby changing – not only the citations in the case – but also the Court’s stated opinion.
Within an hour after I published that report, Justia.com had re-instated the opinions to include the missing references to Minor and the missing text without commenting or noting the revisions. Justia then further covered the trail of deceit by placing robots on their URL’s for Boyd v. Nebraska, and Pope v. Williams, so that access to the Wayback Machine’s snapshots is no longer possible for those cases. (Should they now scrub the robots, here are screenshots for Justia’s Boyd and Pope opinions which show the robot blocking.)
Justia’s stated mission is as follows:
“Justia’s Mission
To advance the availability of legal resources for the benefit of society.”
Justia CEO and founder, Tim Stanley, is known as a leading light advocating for freedom of legal information on the web. Stanley was also the founder of Findlaw, which he sold to West Publishing for $37 million. So, what’s good for the goose should be good for the gander, and therefore Stanley is the last person who should be using robots to hide previous versions of Supreme Court cases (which are in the public domain anyway).
I haven’t spoken to Tim Stanley or anyone else at Justia. I did not think it prudent, seeing as how Justia tried to cover their tracks after my last report, to contact them prior to releasing the rest of the evidence I gathered from the Wayback Machine. I needed to publish before they could place robots on the URL’s for the other 23 tampered opinions.
OTHER BLOGGERS ARE COMING TO THE STORY.
Other bloggers following the developments discussed herein will be contacting Justia.com in the days ahead as this story develops. I held back on publishing this follow-up so I could enlist the help of these other bloggers and journalists who have already viewed the evidence. Dianna Cotter, who has published articles for Accuracy In Media and Examiner.com, has documented everything, and she has worked closely with me in the days leading up to this report. She will publish a follow-up later today at Examiner.com.
Furthermore, whoever was responsible for placing the robots on Boyd and Pope at Justia should know that Dianna Cotter and I have forwarded and discussed the information published below with writers at The Washington Times, Accuracy In Media, Free Republic and many other publications.
I have also forwarded evidence of the tampering (screenshots, Wayback Machine URLs and downloaded HTML for each Wayback snapshot) to Cindy Simpson (who published an article yesterday at American Thinker which discusses Minor v. Happersett). I have also shared the evidence with attorney Mario Apuzzo who is writing an analysis of Justia’s sabotage of Wong Kim Ark, a case which was subjected to multiple instances of tampering by Justia. (I will update my report with links to the reports of Dianna Cotter and Mario Apuzzo when they are published later today.)
I reached out to people I trusted before publishing so that all of the evidence could be documented by multiple sources, media publications and attorneys. The evidence has been viewed and documented by so many sources now that any attempt by Justia to block it, the way that it blocked the evidence of my first report, will be futile. This tampering happened at Justia.com. That is a fact. The questions which need to be answered now are who ordered it and who carried out the subversive plot.
Additionally, the US Supreme Court’s Public Information Office was forwarded the evidence. I have personally spoken with one staffer and one official there. Dianna Cotter has also been in contact with the SCOTUS PIO.
TAMPERING WITH OFFICIAL WRITINGS IS A CRIME UNDER 18 U.S.C. 1018.
§1018. Official certificates or writings
Whoever, being a public officer or other person authorized by any law of the United States to make or give a certificate or other writing, knowingly makes and delivers as true such a certificate or writing, containing any statement which he knows to be false, in a case where the punishment thereof is not elsewhere expressly provided by law, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
The statute covers a “person” authorized by any law of the US to make or give official writings. Justia.com is authorized – according to the federal Public Domain laws – to re-publish US Supreme Court opinions. In every case that was tampered, the words “Full Text of Case” appear on each scrubbed opinion. Since the cases were intentionally sabotaged by the removal of text, the affirmation at the top of each page which indicated that one is reading the “Full Text of Case” is knowingly false. It’s the inclusion of this intentionally false statement which makes this a crime under the statute.
Each of the 25 instances of tampering carries a maximum sentence of one year in prison. There are 25 possible counts, so the saboteur(s) could potentially face serious prison time. And there may be other relevant criminal violations as well.
FALLOUT UPON THE REST OF THE ELECTRONIC LEGAL PUBLISHING COMMUNITY
Not only were those who consulted Justia for these cases defrauded, this behavior has also cast doubt upon the entire enterprise of electronic legal publishing. The other bloggers I have shared the evidence with are rounding up interviews with heavyweights in the legal publishing field, including West (who has previously sued Justia CEO Tim Stanley).
Furthermore, the American Association of Law Libraries (AALLNET) have been notified and are discussing the issue with Dianna Cotter.
I imagine the American Bar Association will not be pleased and that Tim Stanley, if he is behind this, could be disbarred in California and the federal courts.
LURIA v. US
Let’s begin with Luria v. US, 231 U.S. 9 (1913). This was the first case I found after Boyd and Pope which exhibited definite tampering. The quote which drew my attention is this:
“Citizenship is membership in a political society, and implies a duty of allegiance on the part of the member and a duty of protection on the part of the society. These are reciprocal obligations, one being a compensation for the other. Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 88 U. S. 165; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94, 112 U. S. 101; Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 22 U. S. 827.”
Here we have a direct citation to Minor v. Happersett as precedent by the Supreme Court… 15 years after Wong Kim Ark was decided. Furthermore, voting is not mentioned anywhere in the opinion. This is another important case which bears witness to Minor as authority on federal citizenship. Last week, when I checked the current page for Luria at Justia, it contained the reference to Minor.
I then went to the Wayback Machine and plugged in the Justia URL for Luria. It returned a calendar with nine snapshots of Luria ranging from Nov. 4, 2006 through April 13, 2010. Mimicking the pattern for all 25 cases, the Nov. 4, 2006 snapshot is not tampered with. All of the snapshots prior to the one for July 6, 2008 are also not scrubbed. But the snapshot for July 6, 2008 has been tampered with.
“Minor v. Happersett” was removed along with the reference to “Osborn v. Bank of United States”, another important opinion in the lineage leading through Minor to Luria.
Compare the tampered July 6, 2008 version of the Justia snapshot for Luria with the Nov. 2006 version quoted above:
“Citizenship is membership in a political society, and implies a duty of allegiance on the part of the member and a duty of protection on the part of the society. These are reciprocal obligations, one being a compensation for the other. Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency. 88 U. S. 165; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94, 112 U. S. 101; 22 U. S. 827.”
Minor and Osborn are missing. Furthermore, the remaining numerical citation does not indicate any of the three official citations for Minor, nor does the point stated in the quote appear at 88 U.S. 165.
The tampering persists in all Wayback Machine snapshots following July 6, 2008 through the final snapshot taken by the Wayback Machine on April 13, 2010.
To make the progression of the tampering with Luria v. U.S. easier to follow, I have prepared a collage of the relevant screenshots from 2006 to the present. Additionally, here are full screenshots for each date discussed above as to the Luria tampering:
screenshot of LURIA v. U.S. on Nov 4, 2006 – Minor and Osborn are there
screenshot of LURIA v. U.S. on July 6, 2008 – Minor and Osborn are missing
screenshot of LURIA v. U.S. on April 13, 2010 – Minor and Osborn are still missing
LURIA as published at Justia today (October 19, 2011) – Minor and Osborn are back
CITY OF MOBILE v. BOLDEN
I have chosen to highlight City of Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1980) because it cites Minor as a continuing precedent on the voting rights issue 60 years after the adoption of the 19th Amendment. This kills the argument that Minor was overruled by the 19th Amendment. Here is the relevant passage as it appears at Justia today un-scrubbed:
“More than 100 years ago, the Court unanimously held that “the Constitution of the United States does not confer the right of suffrage upon anyone. . . .” Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 88 U. S. 178. See Lassiter v. Northampton Election Bd., 360 U.S. at 360 U. S. 50-51. It is for the States “to determine the conditions under which the right of suffrage may be exercised . . . , absent, of course, the discrimination which the Constitution condemns,” ibid.”
Notice that the citation gives a reference to one of the three official citations I discussed above, “21 Wall. 162”, followed by a citation to the exact page where the quote is found in another official US Supreme Court reporter. Since the case has been un-scrubbed, researchers will find this reference to Minor by searching either for the Minor case name or its official citations. However, back in 2008 when the cases were sabotaged (and through 2010 until whenever the cases were fixed), such research was likely to have failed by design of the saboteur(s).
Moreover, the favored argument of Obama supporters – that Minor is only a voting rights case which was overruled by the 19th Amendment – is not only proved false by the Supreme Court’s recognition of Minor’s citizenship precedent in Luria v. U.S., but the City of Mobile case also exhibits that Minor is still precedent in that the Constitution does not provide anyone a right to vote. So there is no conflict between Minor and the 19th Amendment, which protects against discrimination on the basis of sex once the right to vote is granted by the states.
The first snapshot for City of Mobile v. Bolden in the Wayback Machine is from Sept. 19 2006 and Minor is in the case. The case remains un-scrubbed on the Wayback timeline until June 27, 2008 when “Minor v. Happersett” is first shown to have been scrubbed. Minor remains missing from subsequent snapshots taken of the case through the final snapshot taken on Nov. 8, 2010.
It appears that the 25 scrubbed cases were un-scrubbed after I published my first report on July 1, 2011. And Minor is now back in Justia’s current published opinion for City of Mobile v. Bolden. Below are screenshot links for each relevant date:
screenshot – CITY OF MOBILE v. BOLDEN on Sept. 19, 2006 – Minor is in
screenshot – CITY OF MOBILE v. BOLDEN on June 27, 2008 – Minor is missing
screenshot – CITY OF MOBILE v. BOLDEN on Nov. 8, 2010 – Minor is still missing
CITY OF MOBILE v. BOLDEN at current page at Justia – Minor is back
The Mystery of In Re Lockwood 154 U.S. 116 (1894).
A crucial US Supreme Court decision which has miraculously been absent from the national dialogue on Presidential eligibility is Ex Parte Lockwood, 154 U.S. 116 (1894), an essential case which confirms Minor v. Happersett as precedent on the definition of federal citizenship:
“In Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, this court held that the word ‘citizen’ is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation, and, in that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution as since;” (Emphasis added.)
Lockwood directly cites Minor as precedent on the definition of federal citizenship, yet I can find no hits in Google searches which discuss this case in relation to Obama’s eligibility. Furthermore, If you visit Cornell’s page for Lockwood, the opinion is cut off right after “Minor v”. It never gets to Happersett and what comes after. The Cornell page is filled with gibberish from some other case.
The Lockwood opinion is also mangled at the Wiki Source page which doesn’t mention Minor at all. And as of Oct. 18, 2011, the version on Lexis has “Minor” mis-spelled as “Miner” in the body of the Lockwood opinion hosted there.
What about “In Re Lockwood” at Justia? The current URL for the full Lockwood case at Justia returns no snapshots at the Waybackmachine. This is unusual in that “In Re Lockwood” is the only case which has no Wayback Machine history for Justia’s publication of a case. However, when you search at the Wayback Machine using the Justia URL linking to their preview of Lockwood (Justia always has one URL for the preview and one for the full case), 7 hits are returned.
It appears Justia originally published the case as “Ex Parte Lockwood” back in August 2007, and both the preview and the “Full Text” referred to Minor at that time.
Then, in May 2008, Justia suddenly changed the name of the case from “Ex Parte Lockwood” to “In Re Lockwood” which is how it is published by Justia today. Both titles are technically correct since the official US Supreme Court reporter states the name of the case exactly as, “Ex parte: In Re BELVA A. LOCKWOOD.”
Regardless, as you will see below, the timing of Justia’s renaming the case on its server is very suspicious. While the August 2007 preview of the case at Justia mentions Minor, the revised May 2008 revision of the preview for Lockwood strips Minor therefrom. Furthermore, Justia’s publication of the case as “In Re Lockwood” is the only instance where no snapshot history exists in the Wayback Machine for the full case URL. We can see that the preview was scrubbed of Minor and that Justia changed their caption of the case from “Ex Parte Lockwood” to “In Re Lockwood” by May 2008, but we can’t see a snapshot of the full case going back to that time, so I do not count Lockwood in with the 25 cases which are proved to have been sabotaged.
Regardless, Lockwood is the holy grail of cases which stand in support of Minor on the definition of federal citizenship because the Supreme Court stated the words, “this court held” in relation to Minor’s definition of federal citizenship. And Lockwood is the only case which appears to have been tampered with at sites other than Justia.
MORE SCRUBBED CASES
I will conclude with somewhat of a document dump. For the remaining cases, I have provided the following:
– the case name
– a link to the current page at Justia
– a link to the first snapshot in the Wayback Machine which exhibits the tampering, and a screenshot of the same
Besides screenshots and links to Wayback Machine snapshots, I have saved the actual HTML for each relevant snapshot as well. Evidence has been circulated, copied and stored by many others. And the story is going to be explored until the truth is found.
Please contact your Congressional representatives and make sure they have no plausible deniability. This is a very serious moment in our national history. Please help document the sabotage of U.S. law. Without truth in the law, there is no law.
Baldwin v. Fish & Game Comm’m of Montana, 436 U.S 371 (1978)
current live page at Justia ( “v. Happersett” reinstated, but “Minor” is still missing)
Oct. 30, 2008 – first Wayback snapshot with Minor removed – SCREENSHOT
Breedlove v. Suttles, 302 U.S. 277 (1937)
current live page at Justia
Nov. 18, 2008 – first Wayback snapshot with Minor removed – SCREENSHOT
US v. CLASSIC, 313 U.S. 299 (1941)
current live page at Justia
April 30, 2008 – first Wayback snapshot with Minor removed – SCREENSHOT
Colgate v. Harvey, 296 U.S. 404 (1935)
current live page at Justia
Nov. 18, 2008 – first Wayback snapshot with Minor (and Slaughterhouse Cases) removed – SCREENSHOT
Coyle v. Smith, 221 U.S. 559 (1911)
current live page at Justia
August 8, 2008 – first Wayback snapshot with Minor removed – SCREENSHOT
Hague v. Committee For Industrial Organization, 307 U.S. 496 (1939)
current live page at Justia
June 29, 2008 – first Wayback snapshot with Minor removed – SCREENSHOT
Hamilton v. Regents, 293 U.S. 245 (1934)
current live page at Justia
May 1, 2008 – first Wayback snapshot with Minor removed – SCREENSHOT
Harris v. Mcrae, 448 U.S. 297 (1980)
current live page at Justia
July 25, 2008 – first Wayback snapshot with Minor removed – SCREENSHOT
Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U.S 47 (1907)
current live page at Justia
Dec. 5, 2008 – first Wayback snapshot with Minor removed – SCREENSHOT
Kepner v. U.S., 195 U.S. 100 (1904)
current live page at Justia
May 7, 2008 – first Wayback snapshot with Minor removed – SCREENSHOT
Kramer v. Union Free Sch. Dist., 395 U.S. 621 (1969)
current live page at Justia
June 2, 2008 – first Wayback snapshot with Minor removed – SCREENSHOT
Lynch v. Overholser, 369 U.S. 705 (1962)
current live page at Justia
Nov. 19, 2008 – first Wayback snapshot with Minor removed – SCREENSHOT
N.Y. Ex Rel. Bryant v. Zimmerman, 278 U.S. 63 (1928)
current live page at Justia
June 3, 2008 – first Wayback snapshot with Minor removed (Slaughterhouse Cases removed as well) – SCREENSHOT
Rodriguez v. Popular Democratic Party, 457 U.S. 1 (1982)
current live page at Justia
Oct. 2, 2008 – first Wayback snapshot with Minor removed – SCREENSHOT
Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 816 (1971)
current live page at Justia
July 24, 2008 – first Wayback snapshot with Minor removed – SCREENSHOT
Schick v. U.S., 195 U.S. 65 (1904)
current live page at Justia
Oct. 13, 2008 – first Wayback snapshot with Minor removed – SCREENSHOT
Snowden v. Hughes, 321 U.S. 1 (1944)
current live page at Justia
July 24, 2008 – first Wayback snapshot with Minor removed (Slaughterhouse Cases removed as well) – SCREENSHOT
South Carolina v. US, 199 U.S. 437 (1905)
current live page at Justia
July 6, 2008 – first Wayback snapshot with Minor removed – SCREENSHOT
In Re Summers, 325 U.S. 561 (1945)
current live page at Justia
July 4, 2008 – first Wayback snapshot with Minor removed – SCREENSHOT
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark,169 U.S. 649 (1898)
current live page at Justia
June 19, 2008 – first Wayback snapshot with Minor removed –SCREENSHOT 1, SCREENSHOT 2, SCREENSHOT 3
Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (1968)
current live page at Justia ( “v. Happersett” reinstated, but “Minor” still missing)
July 25, 2008 – first Wayback snapshot with Minor removed – SCREENSHOT
by Leo Donofrio, Esq.
Oct. 20, 2011
