Posted on 11/11/2011 1:53:37 PM PST by Danae
JustiaGate: Say It Aint So, Carl Malamud.
Justia CEO Tim Stanley has a doppelgänger named Carl Malamud. Back in 2007, Stanley blogged about Malamud as follows:
“Our friend & hero Carl Malamud stopped by the “Justia offices” to talk about his new public interest public information project…. making the case law and codes of the United States of America (state and federal) freely accessible in a public domain archive…This archived data can then be used and worked on by the folks at Cornell, Google, Stanford…. and everyone!“
And Malamud made good on that promise. Whereas, Justia is a private enterprise offering free legal research with all the modern bells and whistles of hyper-linking and Google analytics, Public.Resource.org is a barebones public domain which associates all of its case URL’s with “courts.gov”. Malamud’s use of “courts.gov” is truly misleading in that it gives the appearance his site has a true governmental “seal of approval“, but it doesn’t. Despite such icky behavior, Malamud has charmed a lot of people.
LawSites had this to say about him:
“I can barely keep up with the efforts of Carl Malamud and his public.resource.org to “liberate” government documents. (See 1.8M Pages of Federal Case Law to Go Public and More Government Docs to Go on Web.) The latest project: Recycle Your Used Pacer Documents!.”
The New York Times published a story entitled, “Score One For The Web’s Don Quixote“, about Malamud’s quixotic attempts to bring every US legal document public for free. And Wired Magazine did a profile on Malamud which included this interesting bit of data:
” ‘West makes billions of dollars selling stuff we want to give away for free,’ Stanley boasts…
His company purchased and digitized all the Supreme Court decisions, put up the first free search engine for them, and donated them to PublicResource.org. Now Justia’s working with Cornell University to throw some Web 2.0 tools into the mix, including wiki pages for decisions…”
(Keep that reference to Justia working with Cornell on your desktop, we’ll come back to it shortly.) Tim Stanley is one of five on the Board of Directors of Malamud’s Public.Resource.Org. And Justia is listed as top benefactor as well.
Together, it cannot be denied, the pair are the Robin Hood and Friar Tuck of the free government document movement. Malamud was also very instrumental in helping Justia defeat Oregon’s copyright claim litigation. His “Ten Rules For Radicals include:
“This is thus my second rule for radicals, and that is when the authorities finally fire that starting gun—and do something like send you tapes—run as fast as you can, so when they get that queasy feeling in their stomach and have second thoughts, it is too late to stop.”
We shall see whether this alleged passion for open information and preservation is extended to a review of Malamus’ publication of public domain cases. We do know that his sidekick, Tim Stanley, doesn’t believe such freedom of information principles should apply to Justia since he’s removed all prior versions of Justia’s entire body of US Supreme Court case-law from the Wayback Machine. And in doing so, Stanley is guilty of the very thing Malamud warns about in his Rule #2 above.
This is an excerpt! Far more on this story is at Donofrio's site: http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/11/11/justiagate-say-it-aint-so-carl-malamud/
Daughter of Dr. Conspiracy more likely.
Not that it matters. Give her 20 years, let her get good an embarrassed by her writings on the net. What has been seen cannot be unseen.
You can monitor me all you want to. It doesn’t bother me any. If I ever get zotted for telling the TRUTH, then that is a good thing and I will get stars in my crown in Heaven for it.
You and the others are just trying to intimidate me into silence and it isn’t going to work. You and the other Vattle Birthers are wrong, and that is why you run around in circles screaming and hollering when somebody tells you are wrong.
As far as CULTS, I think you Vattle Birthers are the ones in a CULT, which is why people like Mark Levin tell you that you are “Not rational” and calls your theories “crap.” That is what happens to people in a CULT. They can’t think and their beliefs are stupid. Anybody outside the CULT, like me, is a threat to you.
So There!!!
Next you'll be threatening to hold your breath until you turn blue.
Series, how old are you?
Silly Goose! You can find the same thing here at Free Republic!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2705437/posts
ROTFLMAO!!!
LOL ...
yeah!
Truth ? Please .....
***
Delusion
Psychiatry. a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact: a paranoid delusion.
You said: “Daughter of Dr. Conspiracy more likely.”
Actually, Dr. C. threatened to ban me, because I was clobbering his Obots WITH LOGIC so bad. Sooo, I refuse to post there anymore except in my Think Tank capacity as The Head Researcher.
Again, ROTFLMAO!!!
Thanks ... filed for future reference.
You know dear, tilting at windmills screaming that the windmill is a liar does not change the fundamental fact that the Windmill is what it is.
But you go ahead and lower your lance — kick up your donkey, and RIDE on into the wind! “A giant. Canst thou not see the four great arms whirling at his back?”
You are a liar Squeeky.
An obfuscatory child with an huge overinflated ego and sense of self importance. You have misrepresented every quote you posted. You have taken all of them out of context. Whoever your Bff lawyer/friend is, they are an idiot, and ignorant of the law and its meaning. If I were you I would get the heck out of that relationship - though you appear to suit one another, thank goodness I am not you.
You need to go look in a mirror. It is you and your fellow Vattle Birthers who take stuff out of context, butcher quotes, and mangle the law. You even try to insert French law into America. I bet most of you never even read Wong Kim Ark, because once you do a couple of times, it isn’t all that hard to follow.
You Vattle Birthers are the ones who call names and smear courts who don’t agree with you like calling the Ankeny judges “Hillbilly Hoosiers” so you don’t have to accept what they say. Funny thing is, you never seem to really go through the decision thingies and come up with any good reasons why they are wrong, except for “But they don’t agree with US!!!”
Deep inside you are probably a nice person and all that, and you have just been caught up in a CULT of pseudo-lawyers and cranks. Unless you start reading this stuff for yourself and doing your own thinking, you are liable to stay stuck in the CULT. That would be a shame.
Funny thing is, you Vattle Birthers
Anyone who asserts that the definition of natural-born citizenship is settled law refuses to face reality. There are legitimate questions that need to be addressed by the courts. Leo Donofrio provides evidence to support what he believes was the intent of the FF. He does not claim that the law is settled. In fact, he will shortly make the best argument to date for Obama's eligibility in an effort to further discussion of the law.
The quote Squeeky likes to toss out destroys her own argument. "For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.” In plain English, for the intellectually challenged, that says doubt exists in the law. Where there is doubt in the law, there is room for interpretation and discussion. Squeeky and even Mark Levin suggest that no such discussion is needed. That's one interpretation, I suppose, but not an objective one.
When the official position of the U.S. government (in the Dept. of State Foreign Affairs manual) is that statutory citizenship granted at birth is not necessarily equivalent to that of a natural-born citizen under the Constitution because the courts have not ruled on the matter, the discussion must continue until the definition of a Constitutional NBC is settled under the law. Until then, there is only one path to citizenship for which there is no doubt under the law.
I think last time we communicated we locked up some serious horns together, your post should be reflective of how all posts should be here on FR!
The damn trolls have turned this place into forum of suspicion and mistrust of fellow FReepers, let's not let them win.
Well, if by “tool”, you mean somebody who can “read” and somebody who knows how to use a “calendar”, then maybe I am one. Let’s look at what you said:
“For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.” In plain English, for the intellectually challenged, that says doubt exists in the law.”
Okay. FIRST, let us establish that YOU agree with ME, that Minor v. Happersett did NOT resolve those doubts, sooo that means it IS NOT precedent. Maybe YOU should tell Donofrio, because he isn’t listening to me. Which also means all the Justiagate stuff is just a big distraction.
SECOND, oh what was the date of the Minor v. Happersett stuff??? 1875. And did anything happen AFTER 1875 which might have resolved those doubts???
Hmmmm. YES!!! 23 years later in 1898 the Wong Kim Ark case thingy solved the doubts. A natural born citizen is somebody born here under the jurisdiction of the U.S. which simply means not the kid of a diplomat or invading soldier.
I asked my BFF Fabia Sheen, Esq., a lawyer, about the foreign affairs manual thingy and she told me to ask if you had a linky thingy so she could see what you were talking about. And me, too.
Thank you!!!
Soooo, an anchor baby is under the jurisdiction of the US eh?
An anchor baby inherits the Citizenship of his or her parent(s) as well as US Citizenship.
For example, a child born to illegal parents inherits the birthright Citizenship of what ever Country they are from....e.g. US/Mexico
How can a duel Citizen be a Natural Born Citizen and not have the protection of the Country from which they inherited their duel Citizenship from?
They can't.
In other words, they are not under the jurisdiction of the US, solely.
It’s always a pleasure to tangle with you, Ron. We’re both passionate about the subject matter thus locking horns is to be expected. STAR asked me a while back to make a noticable effort with my fellow freepers of the birther persuasion if I really did mean well and was not here to pick fights with them or make fun of them. I did make an effort.
Thanks Buckeye, I sincerely mean that.
The courts say they are. Wong Kim Ark, Section V:
In short, the judgment in the case of The Exchange declared, as incontrovertible principles, that the jurisdiction of every nation within its own territory is exclusive and absolute, and is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by the nation itself; that all exceptions to its full and absolute territorial jurisdiction must be traced up to its own consent, express or implied; that, upon its consent to cede, or to waive the exercise of, a part of its territorial jurisdiction rest the exemptions from that jurisdiction of foreign sovereigns or their armies entering its territory with its permission, and of their foreign ministers and public ships of war, and that the implied license under which private individuals of another nation enter the territory and mingle indiscriminately with its inhabitants for purposes of business or pleasure can never be construed to grant to them an exemption from the jurisdiction of the country in which they are found. See also Carlisle v. United States (1872), 16 Wall. 147, 155; Radich v. Hutchins (1877), 95 U.S. 210; Wildenhus’ Case (1887), 120 U.S. 1; Chae Chan Ping v. United States (1889), 130 U.S. 581, 603, 604.
If you aware of a “anchor baby” exception, I would appreciate knowing about it.
Appreciated.
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.