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/
And BTW, the The Constitution nor the 14th uses the word "soldier", though it does mention invaders.
Illegals who enter are Country are no doubt invaders, and you think WKA gives Citizenship vis a vie jus soli birth?
BTW, WKA's parents were here LEGALLY.
You said: “Illegals who enter are Country are no doubt invaders, and you think WKA gives Citizenship vis a vie jus soli birth?”
Yes. Do you have any evidence they are not being treated that way???
PLUS, you said:”BTW, WKA’s parents were here LEGALLY.”
Well, so were Mark Rubio and Bobby Jindal’s parents. Sooo, that means you Vattle Birthers have to quit saying they are not eligible to run. Right?
Uh, they have dual citizenship???
They are treated as Citizens, wrongly so.
PLUS, you said:”BTW, WKA’s parents were here LEGALLY.”
Yes they were, hence the decision conferring Citizenship
Well, so were Mark Rubio and Bobby Jindal’s parents. Sooo, that means you Vattle Birthers have to quit saying they are not eligible to run. Right?
Rubio and Jindal are Cit zens, NOT NBC thus intelligible.
Jindal even admitted it.
Rubio has some extenuating circumstances that do not fit into an absolute conclusion.
The bottom line it would need to be decided by SCOTUS.
Uh, yeah...a couple visiting here on vacation from x Country and the wife gives birth here, does the child not inherit its parents Citizenship?
I believe we are in agreement that SCOTUS said it was not necessary to resolve the doubts about those who weren't born here to citizen parents in order to answer the primary question at hand.
sooo that means it IS NOT precedent.
There we disagree. Just because the court refused to resolve doubts about other paths to citizenship does not indicate that they didn't set precedent on one particular path to citizenship.
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.
7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency"
(TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)
a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.
d. (snip) In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.
In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by stating:
“Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this
This understanding was reaffirmed by Senator Edward Cowan, who stated:
“[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word...”
In 1889, the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case10,11 once again, in a ruling based strictly on the 14th Amendment, concluded that the status of the parents was crucial in determining the citizenship of the child. The current misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment is based in part upon the presumption that the Wong Kim Ark ruling encompassed illegal aliens. In fact, it did not address the children of illegal aliens and non-immigrant aliens, but rather determined an allegiance for legal immigrant parents based on the meaning of the word domicil(e). Since it is inconceivable that illegal alien parents could have a legal domicile in the United States, the ruling clearly did not extend birthright citizenship to children of illegal alien parents. Indeed, the ruling strengthened the original intent of the 14th Amendment.
http://www.14thamendment.us/birthright_citizenship/original_intent.html
You said: “The bottom line it would need to be decided by SCOTUS.”
They already did, in 1898. Personally, I don’t have any objections to SCOTUS hearing it again and kind of wish they would. I just hope if they do, the Vattle Birthers pay more attention to this one than they did to Wong Kim Ark.
Great information and arguments, both of you!!
That is an outright lie.
Buckeye was right, you're a tool.
;)
I learned from the best!
a. by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens.
d. (snip) In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute
Citizen pursuant to a statute means naturalized citizens. People born inside the U.S. do not need a statute to naturalize them or make them natural born. They are that way simply by being born here. The 14th Amendment is NOT a statute. That's why we have a Bill of Rights, and other protections such as Birthright Citizenship built into the Constitution. And why the Constitution trumps "statutes."
You know, that is a really telling comment.
You posit that it needs to heard again because the first decision doesn't really address the matter....yet you argue on the other hand that WKA fills the (your) need.
It also supposes that SCOTUS is, or in some cases not correct, IOW not infallible.
For example, Dred Scott, Roe V. Wade were horrible decisions and in modern times Kelo, yet WKA is definitive for your purposes in this argument.
Your logic is in inexplicable.
This is why you go back and reflect on what the Founders based their ideology (Vatell, Natural Law and most importantly semantics) and writings of the Constitution meant, AT THE TIME, and not for how you want to twist it for today's comfort....and particularly your agenda
You said: “That is an outright lie.”
Wrong. You just made an outright refusal to read. Remember this, from what I call “The Case The “Two Citizen-Parent” Birthers Just HATE!!!”
“Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”
Those THREE judges agree with me. Are there any who agree with you???
Bald faced lie.
WKA did not define NBC, though I admit at first, in 2008 I had thought so. Thats when when we started looking for cases before and after. that is when the real discussion of Minor should have been had. Yet it seemed like a minor case. We have Justia and others to thank for that.
Why aren’t you following the trail? Why have you stopped on square one? There is a whole lot more Squeeky. You are like a child with a new toy. You are so fixated on the shiny bauble in your hand, you are missing the rest scattered, unnoticed at your feet. Indeed, you kick them away so entranced are you.
Its time to shift your paradigm.
Now please enlighten us as to why you would choose an alias which is that of a murderer?
You're lying again, WKA DOES NOT say that.
“The Case The “Two Citizen-Parent” Birthers Just HATE!!!”
I've been trying to keep some semblance of decorum and indulgence with you but that statement that "birthers just hate" is a sure tip off of much a flipping f'n idiot you are.
KMA Fromm loving troll.
Jeeesh .... impenetrable to fact and common sense, too.
Do yourself a favor: read the Founders’ writings
and the beginnings of this nation.
SCOTUS does take their intentions into consideration.
Excerpt:
“The Founders of this Nation entrusted the law making power to the Congress alone in both good and bad times. It would do no good to recall the historical events, the fears of power and the hopes for freedom that lay behind their choice. Such a review would but confirm our holding that this seizure order cannot stand.”The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.”
I have only seen this thread. The personal attacks started and, after a brief relapse, "squeeky" went back to reasoned posts in the face of further personal attacks. His/her posting history is irrelevant to this thread.
WKA never spoke of those in the United States here only temporarily. WKA was specifically targeted at those who were permanently domiciled in the United States. Obama Sr.was never admitted here permanently.
WKA never covered transients.
What was it you were arrogantly throwing at others... something about READING the cases? yeah, maybe your girlfriend didn’t read that part.
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.