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/
You said: “WKA did not define NBC, though I admit at first, in 2008 I had thought so. “
You are the second Vattle Birther here to say that to me. What that says to me is that you started off on the right track, then you started hanging with the Vattle Birthers, reading French law, and falling for the Sovereign Citizen Voodoo Interpretation of 14th Amendment. You lost your way, and you lost your ability to read and comprehend simple English language stuff.
Don’t test the truth of that statement by just listening to me. Just start asking yourself why only a handful of lawyers buy into the Vattle Birther stuff, and why people like Mark Levin, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, etc, say that stuff is nonsense. Ask yourself why FOX News Channel isn’t all over this.
Ask yourself why Jerome Corsi wrote Obama Nation in 2008 and didn’t say a single word about eligibility. ( I know because I have a First Edition copy of the book I bought back then!)
Start asking questions and maybe you can break away from this stuff. If you are seriously curious about my name, I bet you find the answer without going very far.
I think the more curious question to ask is why are you all over this?
“I think the more curious question to ask is why are you all over this? “
Why are you all over it??? Did Bobby Jindal or Mark Rubio do something to offend you??? What is YOUR motive in mis-representing the law and giving false and bad legal advice to conservatives???
Are you on drugs?
WTF are you even babbling about?
"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?"
Here is my answer is from READING Wong Kim Ark:
His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 6a, “strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;” and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, “if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.”
It can hardly be denied that an alien is completely subject to the political jurisdiction of the country in which he resides — seeing that, as said by Mr. Webster, when Secretary of State, in his Report to the President on Thrasher’s Case in 1851, and since repeated by this court,
independently of a residence with intention to continue such residence; independently of any domiciliation; independently of the taking of any oath of allegiance or of renouncing any former allegiance, it is well known that, by the public law, an alien, or a stranger [p694] born, for so long a time as he continues within the dominions of a foreign government, owes obedience to the laws of that government, and may be punished for treason, or other crimes, as a native-born subject might be, unless his case is varied by some treaty stipulations.
You are wearing me out cutting and pasting this stuff all the time. How long ago was it that you read Wong Kim Ark??? Maybe you need to re-read it, to refresh yourself on it???
You really are utterly hopeless. You should have taken your own advise Squeeky. I dare say I have read dozens and dozens of cases. I could not work with the people I do with out doing a LOT of research.
How about you take your own advise, and start reading some cases other than WKA. You might just learn something.
WKA never applied to a transients. Obama Sr. was certainly a transient.
From the Holding in WKA:
“The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.”
Despite your obsession with Leo, he is correct in stating the following:
This holding has been the subject of enormous dispute in the United States. The “holding”,
which is controlling US law, contradicts much of the “dicta“, which is not considered legal precedent. While the dicta makes it appear as if Justice Gray believed all persons born on US soil (except children of foreign dignitaries or enemies of the US) were US citizens under the 14th Amendment, the actual holding of the court is limited to “the single question” of whether the children of aliens who have a “permanent domicil and residence in the United States” are 14th Amendment citizens.”
Maybe you should read the case instead of depending on your girlfriend’s myopic “analysis”.
Oh great question Ron! If we “birthers” (Only fools use that term) are so whacked, why are such intellectual giants as Squeeky Fromm paying any attention to what a bunch of ignorant rubes think??
Maybe because the ignorant rubes are correct.
Otherwise this massive ego maniac would be trolling face book and posting fairy pictures of her girlfriend.
If you are tired, go take a nap.
If you want to continue your losing argument, then keep typing. No one is forcing you to do anything. Your obsession is in control of that I think.
Its pretty obvious that you have never read WKA in context. All you have done is turn around and ask your girlfriend what she thinks, then type it in. maybe you let her do it for you, heck if I know.
You don;t understand anything about the case other than what you want to see. Funny thing is, is that in the summer of 2008 those obots just like you were arguing against WKA as if their lives depended on it, well their bunny muffin messiah Obama’s political life did anyway.
Now that more recognize the difference between dicta and holdings, it is clear that the dicta DID try to leave one impression, and then Gray contradicts himself. BUT he did LIMIT it by his choice of wording. He had reason to do that.
Now, answer the question, Why did you choose the name of a murderer to post under. What is it about Lynette Fromme you admire so much you chose an online avatar in her name?
Wonder why..the US Supreme Court is replete with...”Vattel says..”
Constitutional law professors told us Vattel is used in the Constitution..this includes xix sec 212.
Supreme Court justices directly quoted Vattel: natural born citizens are born from citizen parents.
Franklin, Jay and Dickinson tell us Vattel was constantly in the hands of the Founders when the Constitution was written.
The Law of Nations is written in the Constitution.
The majority of the Bill of Rights come from Vattel.
The Declaration of Independence has Vattel all over it..
The right to possess the lands in the Americas comes from Vattel.
The justification to form the colonies into the United States comes from Vattel.
The justification to have the American Revolution comes from Vattel.
I could go on and on..till my fingers bleed to justify the importance of Vattel to the Founders.
You come to this forum claiming to be a source for all things Vattel. I doubt you have read a chapter..a sentence his work.
Maybe that is your problem, maybe you should try thinking for a change.
§ 214. Naturalization.(58)
A nation, or the sovereign who represents it, may grant to a foreigner the quality of citizen, by admitting him into the body of the political society. This is called naturalization. There are some states in which the sovereign cannot grant to a foreigner all the rights of citizens, — for example, that of holding public offices — and where, consequently, he has the power of granting only an imperfect naturalization. It is here a regulation of the fundamental law, which limits the power of the prince. In other states, as in England and Poland, the prince cannot naturalize a single person, without the concurrence of the nation, represented by its deputies. Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.
Great post FRiend!
So now you don’t know the difference between England and America?
How embarrassing for you.
You REALLY need to learn how to quote things IN CONTEXT. You kill your own arguments when you fail to do it - which is pretty much all the time.
You aren’t really wondering why we aren’t taking you or your girlfriend seriously are you?
Great synopsis!
It figures. You missed the whole point. The issue is that the U.S. Dept. of State clearly takes the position that some citizens, who are considered natural-born under our law not naturalized, may not be natural-born citizens according to the Constitutional test for presidential eligibility. The reason they take that position is because the courts haven’t ruled on the matter. The definition of natural-born citizen is not settled law.
Those born abroad to two citizen parents are not naturalized under our law. They are granted natural-born citizenship at birth and do not have to follow the same procedural path to citizenship that naturalized citizens must.
In discusing citizenship, MvH makes reference to those born abroad but no court has ruled concusively on their NBC status:
“and that the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens.”
The definition of NBC is not settled law.
Well, I can trust Leo Donofrio on what is dicta. Or, I can trust the 3 Appeals Court judges in Ankeny v. Governor who quoted all kinds of stuff from Wong Kim Ark. Hmmmm. I pick the judges. You also said this:
“How about you take your own advise, and start reading some cases other than WKA. You might just learn something.”
I will be happy to read other cases if you have some cites and linky thingies.
“You aren’t really wondering why we aren’t taking you or your girlfriend seriously are you?”
No, actually I am NOT wondering at all. Not any more than I would wonder if Moon Landing Deniers clung to their delusions.
As far as confusing Engand and America, I am tempted to say that is better than confusing France and America. But here I actually AM wondering what part of English common law coming here to America you didn’t hear about. I am kind of afraid to ask.
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.