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.

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/

“Why did John jay write the word natural...and Washington understand its meaning..”

John Jay tells us why:

“Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”

I interpret John Jay as being concerned about naturalized citizens who were not citizens at birth either due to to foreign birth or to having a legally recognized foreign father... not bastard US citizens who did not have a legally recognized foreign citizen father and who were never naturalized due to receiving US citizenship from their mothers at birth.

The presumption and law at the time was that the citizenship of the legal father determines the citizenship of the mother and children...unless there is NO legal father. If there was no legal father then the citizenship of the mother passes to her children.

The bastard children of foreign citizens on US soil in Jay's time would NOT need to be naturalized to be US citizens, but would be US citizens at birth through their mothers. Bastard children born on US soil would not be foreign citizens...especially not dual citizen UK subjects...nor would they be foreign born and thus such children would not meet the concern expressed by John Jay to Washington, IMO.

I do not presume to know how SCOTUS would rule on eligibility given the Obama fact pattern of 1961...assuming he was born in HI.

“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.”

Who is “them”? I am obviously not an Obama supporter. I do happen to suspect that the Obama team knows that if Barry is a bastard under the 1948 BNA he was NOT a UK subject at birth, nor was he ever a citizen of Kenya. The Obama team will fight having to resort to this constitutional defense because it destroys the fake narrative spun around parents and their “improbable love” and dreams.”

IIRC, Donofrio has refused to allow comments and discussion on his blog by me and others that addressed whether or not Barry's parents were married or whether the marriage was bigamous and Barry thus illegitimate and not a UK subject under the 1948 BNA.

Since the last time Donofrio insisted that we “respect” Barry's parents marriage on his blog, the INS documents have been released proving that Barry's presumed biological father was deported for suspected bigamy and reckless impregnation of a US and a Kenyan citizen while still being married with children back in Kenya.

I’m 100% in agreement with you that my argument supports one and only one path to NBC. That’s the argument I’ve always presented on these threads. There is only one path to citizenship against which there can be no legal arguments made. If one needs a law to clarify citizenship status, then arguments can be made for or against citizenship and the need for naturalization must be considered.

I believe MvH is clear in interpreting NBC as requiring both jus soli & jus sanguinis. However, the 14th and WKA have created a loophole by establishing a path to citizenship based solely on jus soli. (Thus the anchor baby controversy.) I believe we need the SCOTUS to rule on whether or not presidential eligibility requires both jus soli & jus sanguinis or only one of the two. Jus soli alone allows eligibility for anchor babies. Jus sanguinis alone allows eligibility for those born abroad to two citizen parents.

Them = Obama supporters.

IMO, what matters with respect to BO being illegitimate is whether or not his parents’ marriage was legal under U.S. law. Each country has the inherent right to confer citizenship or not. U.S. law decides who is or is not a natural born citizen. I believe BO is ineligible because he did not have two U.S. citizen parents not because he may or may not have had British citizenship in addition to U.S. citizenship.

The Minor definition of NBC was given to satisfy what this term means in the Constitution where it was specifically used in reference to presidential eligibility. "All children born of parents who were its citizens" was the "nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar ..." There aren't any loopholes. The Wong Kim Ark decision closed any potential loopholes because it said that when construing the 14th amendment, the Constitution does NOT say who shall be natural-born citizens (meaning the 14th amendment does NOT say who shall be NBC) AND elsewhere in the decision that the children born in the country of citizen parents are EXCLUDED from the citizen clause of the 14th amendment.

This makes FOUR places and FOUR ways this is explained/supported in WKA.

A) NBC not defined by the 14th amendment,
B) children born of citizen parents EXCLUDED from the birth clause of the 14th amendment,
C) a direct citation of the Minor definition of NBC, and
D) an affirmation of the holding in MvH that Virginia Minor was found to be a citizen by BOTH jus sanguinis and jus soli criteria (which Minor did in rejection of an argument that she and all women are citizens by virtue of the 14th amendment).

There should be no need for any other SCOTUS rulings as these are both very clear and very specific.

I do not think that the 1892 Foreign Marriage Act was the most up-to-date in 1961 when the alleged Obama-Dunham marriage occurred in HI. BTW, as of 1907 you COULD marry your deceased wife’s sister!

Note that in your 1892 posting the bride and groom had to swear that their was not legal impediment to the marriage...such as BHO Sr. being still married to Kezia and bigamy being illegal in HI.

The following Act of 1947 seems to update the passage you posted from 1892:

“Foreign Marriage Act 1947”

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo6/10-11/33/section/6#Scenario1Help

Certificates of marriages solemnised under local law. .

At the end of section eighteen of the Foreign Marriage Act, 1892, (which enables a British consul or a person acting as such to register marriages solemnised in accordance with the local law, if satisfied by personal attendance that the marriage has been duly solemnised) there shall be added the following subsections:—

“(2)In the case of such of such marriages solemnised as aforesaid at which a British consul, or person authorised to act as British consul, has not attended, His Majesty may by Order in council provide in such classes of cases, and subject to such conditions, as may be prescribed by the Order—.

(a)for the transmission to and receipt by the Registrars-General of Births, Deaths and Marriages in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland, respectively, of certificates of such marriages issued in accordance with the local law; and.

(b)for the issue by those Registrars-General, on payment of such fees as may be prescribed by the Order, of certified copies of such certificates received by them, and for enabling such certified copies to be received in evidence..

(3)Any Order in Council made under the foregoing provisions of this section may be varied or revoked by a subsequent Order in Council, and any Order in Council made under this section shall be laid forthwith before each House of Parliament.”

The problem isn’t having a Supreme Court definition, but figuring out what legal protocol is used for enforcing the definition and eligibility requirement. The courts are effectively saying it’s not their role to deal with eligibility problems, although I believe the court stepped in before regarding a senator’s eligiblity. Once it can be established that there is jurisdiction, then the definition speaks for itslef and Obama would be ruled ineligible. There’s no legal ground for saying that he is eligible, just legal ground to reject citizens from challenging him on eligibility.

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.