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/
“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.”
Leo will “shortly make the best argument to date for Obama’s eligibility”???
Link please or your source please. I missed that...
Oh I have done the research. Published it as well. I am not gonna hand it to you on a platter. Go get it big girl.
Now, why did you take the name of a murderer for your online persona?
Haha !!!.You have no clue what bushpilot1 has posted...some of the finest library research on FR. You are so barking up the wrong tree with us little girl.
Why did you take the name of a murderer for your online persona?
I will pay attention to you in a little while. Right now I am busy on a new Internet Article about this silliness and am trying to concentrate sooo it will be good.
Is that similar to a Kenyan born American or an American born Kenyan.
What ever happened to a Swiss born Swiss. Vattel was probably a Swiss born Saxon
Read a few days ago Vattel’s Saxon sponsor was the grandfather of the lady who married Clausewitz.
She published On War after her husbands death. It was the grandfather who probably assisted publishing Droit des Gens.
All 6 of em.
No one is forcing you to troll here.
Why did you take the name of a murderer for your online persona?
You obviously have not done your research yet. Now quit faking, and goofing off, and go do your homework. LMAO.
Rotflmao!!!
Did you guys hear that? Hahahaha oh that was priceless! You need a shoehorn for that Squeaky? Lol
Why did you take the name of a murderer for your online persona Squeeky Fromme? Stop ducking.
“Furthermore, I will be offering for the national debate, the best argument I can make in favor of Obama’s eligibility. Having done the research, I have come to the conclusion that Obama is not eligible to be POTUS. But I have also identified some evidence which should have been used by Obama’s supporters in support of his eligibility which they have not properly utilized. In fairness to the national debate, I will make the best case available for Obama as well as against.”
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/11/02/4217/#comment-19671
:) how ya doing Tex?
On this basis, Barry would not be a dual citizen at birth and would have legal loyalty to only on sovereign, the USA.
Leo says he still doesn't buy the new theory he will reveal...and he could reject Barry's eligibility based one the specific language in Minor v. Happersett defining NBC as being the child of two citizen parents on US soil.
“On this basis, Barry would not be a dual citizen at birth and would have legal loyalty to only on(e) sovereign, the USA.”
Interesting take. The same posit could be made if his long form birth certificate (presuming one actually exists), indicates the father as “unknown”. Of course, the life narrative that he and his minions have spoon-fed to the voters would then be shown as a virtually complete fabrication. . .
I don’t believe his argument will address the 1948 BNA. He said that in researching case law, he discovered arguments that Obama supporters should have used but haven’t. We’ve been through the 1948 BNA arguments with them.
I’m good. How ‘bout you?
We DO have a SCOTUS ruling. Again, you're making the argument clearer and clearer. The ONLY doubts are for "paths" to citizenship that are NOT characterized as natural-born citizen. The path of citizenship for which there is no doubt, is born in the country to parents who are citizens. THESE are the natural-born citizens as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. It's a self-limiting characterization and definition.
Been fighting a nasty something. The headache yesterday was monstrous.
Other than one kid sick with the same thing, not too bad today.
Got to get the other one ready for school here in a minute.
Gonna be interesting to see what Leo has been doing of late!
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.