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/
“Linky thingies”? what is that? Some sort of shiny toy? Sounds more like lingerie really.
No Squeeky, You are the one throwing a load of polished turds at us, YOU go do your OWN research and come back with what you find.
You have spend hundreds of words telling us we are wrong. You have ONLY cited WKA and some poorly chosen quotes out of Vattel. Oh and bragged about your membership on Dr. Conspiracy and Orly Taitz.
You use these things to attack our research as if they were relevant to the discussion.
The discussion is about JUSTIA redacting surgically 25 SCOTUS cases which specifically refer to and Cite to Minor V. Happersett. Forget about WHY Minor got redacted for a moment... why, when you are DEMANDING we do your research FOR you, are you not absolutely APPALLED that a Legal website with SCOTUS cases available with out an expensive subscription has been proven to redacting the information??
You are 100% dependent on your own research on the internet, and Justia - a source of information SOLD to the public as being complete and accurate - is deliberately taking information out of SCOTUS cases on the internet.
Why doesn’t THAT have you ina fury?
No, instead you are all up in your after-birther rants as if it mattered.
Someone is erasing our laws. Hello! Wake the hell up! The barn is burning while you sift through the haystack for the magic missing needle.
Now, WHY HAVE YOU CHOSEN THE AVATAR OF A MURDERER FOR YOUR IDENTITY???
The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration that
all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,
contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case [p703] of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.
Any doubts about foreign born citizens has nothing to do with natural born citizens born inside the country. That issue has been settled.
At lest you recognize that we aern’t taking your arguments seriously.
You aren’t selling anyone on anything.
Now, Why have you chosen the avatar of a Murderer for your online persona???
Why have you chosen the avatar of a murderer for your online persona?
Justia is just one website, and if they screw something up accidentally it isn’t a big deal to me. For starters, I don’t think it was on purpose because Minor v. Happersett is not worth “scrubbing.” If I thought for one second that it was “scrubbed” on purpose, then I would be screaming mad, whether I liked the cases or not.
I take it that your refusal to provide links to any other cases is just proof that you don’t have any other such cases and you’re just blowing smoke. Which, will be proven once again when The Liberty Legal Foundation stuff goes KERPLOOF.
But you and your fellow Vattle Birthers will not see it because you will be too busy blaming the judges.
Seems Google may be blocking Vattel in editions where natural born citizens are born to citizen parents is written. Editions showing natives or indigenes born to citizens are not being blocked.
Pls note I said may.
Nope, not blowing smoke. I have already published on the research. l
Oh and FYI, the scrubbing/hacking/ what ever you want to call it, wasn’t only at Justia.
Apparently you just throw polished turds at Donofrio with out even reading what he is writing. That makes you flat earth stupid IMO. The information and hundreds of links are all right there. Its even searchable! There are screnshots and links and a specific detailed timeline.
Now, why do you use the name of a Murderer for your online Avatar?? Stop ducking the question and answer me.
He is talking about google you silly little girl.
Why do you use the name of a murderer for your online avatar?
My reference was meant for Google Books.
Squeeky: “human beings are part of the animal kingdom”
Squeeky: Vattle is a 300 year old French person from France.
Care to explain?
Squeeky: “I have suggested the Vattle Birthers sue Obama in Lousiana which has French laws, and see if they can win there”
Actually, I discovered Vattel was a vampire:
http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2011/10/05/emerich-de-vattel-a-vampire/
squeeky: The British are very nice people, and our friends now, but they can’t tell us nothing about nothing who our citizens can be. American laws do!”
“I actually AM wondering what part of English common law coming here to America you didn’t hear about”
Squeeky is a Democrat, and is on the O payroll.
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.