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/
Disregard the cynics and grumblers. Thank you
very much for your contributions, Danae.
Whether or not there will ever be brave souls to
deliver adjudication and justice, recourse and
recovery for this dastardly infamy, the fact that
this purposeful, insidious conspiracy was revealed
cannot be denied and will be part of the most
despicable presidential chapter in American history:
huge ..leaps and bounds more consequential than
Chester Arthur.
God help us all, save us from the evil ones.
Thank you, Spaulding!
Thank you very much, dearest Danae and thanks very much STAR for the update ping!
It’s breathtaking .. in implementation and scope.
Ya know how folks say things like: that would
mean all these people in all these places/agencies
would’ve had to agree to all lie and conceal these
things. Who could carry that off? That’s too
incredible to believe.
Well, here’s how a vital presidential Constitutional
and judicial issue (and potentially the very survival
of our nation) has been purposely and fraudulently
contaminated by a few in situations of influence
.. but that issue is used constantly in law and
referred to by millions.
Those millions have unknowingly been duped and
scammed, and carried this contagion of lies and
conspiracy forward and far and wide as fact, like a metastasizing cancer, decimating the very foundations
of our system of justice.
Truly .. keep praying, dear O.
Bingo~!
You are on the Money Spaulding. Forgive the pun!
To the contrary, you pretty clearly display a woeful disregard for the entire legal language with such a pedantic commentary.
It is beyond sickening.
Good to hear that you have been “debunking Donofrio” Squeeky. Were anyone to take you seriously they might actually read Minor v. Happersett, which is a fine example of clarity, and become confident of the truth themselves. But beware, as Donofrio warned, that Minor becomes clearer and clearer with each reading. That is where a good professor can accellerate the understanding of a case, or a theorem, or a schema. Perhaps you will help others to confirm the truth, in spite of your apparent attempt at misdirection? With practice you might think applying to be a consultant to Anita Dunn's organization. We have had a number at Free Republic, who were paid to disrupt - or so they said.
Minor is a remarkable document, not murky like Wong Kim Ark, which may inspire the reader to read cases by other justices. In Wong Kim one wonders why he went here and there. It seems very likely that Horace Gray knew how close his reasoning was treading to his appoint-er Chester Arthur's ineligibility. Minor left no opening, explaining that the definition he affirmed, like every definition in the Constitution, came from our common-law at the time of the framers. He put the term “citizen” in front of its class, “natives” or “natural-born citizens” because a citizen before the 14th Amendmendment was what he needed. He explained that there are only two classes of citizens, natural born, and naturalized, because no naturalized citizen was defined before the 14th Amendment. Without Elizabeth Minor having been a natural born citizen, he had no citizen about whose rights, sufferage nor anything else, the Consitution had jurisdiction. The definitions of citizens before the 14th varied from state-to-state, were not "Uniform" - "about which there was doubt" - and thus could not be addressed by the Supreme Court.
I will admit that there is one comment in Minor, dictum, which is puzzling, but which Squeeky is not likely to be able to clarify, so I'll save it for rxsid’s research forum. For anyone interested in a textbook case of how precedence is established, read Minor. Of course, now that we know that Justia is not trustworthy, and Cornell is corrupted, it isn't clear, unless you have recourse to a law library, where to find a copy with all its citations intact. Minor itself may not have been edited. Google would always point first to justia.com, and probably still does. Yale did have some on-line archives, but beware that Tim Stanley, Carl Malamud, and their fellow travelers at a number of law schools apparently believe the the end justifies the means, and they feel justified when they rewrite our law - because!
The truth must be brought to light, or our country will perish.
There were doubts about the citizenship of kids of foreigners because they don't meet the definition of natural-born citizens. The class of citizens that are natural-born have no doubts to resolve.
I’ll disagree on one issue, Spaulding. Wong Kim Ark becomes clearer and clearer with each reading too. Justice Gray respected the NBC definition from Minor and made sure to uphold that definition and create a separate definition based on different criteria in order to declare Wong Kim Ark to be a citizen. There are several places within the WKA decision where Gray distinguishes NBC from other types of citizenship.
Thanks very much for the summary.
You may also enjoy this page from the 1876 American Law Review article which showcases the Tremendous Importance attached to this groundbreaking case of Minor v. Happesett, which allegedly defined natural born citizenship:
You can pile 10,000 words on the case, but when the judges come right out and say, "For the purposes of this case it is NOT necessary to solve these doubts", that is a pretty good hint that this case is not going to be your friend.
To be totally up front, it would be prudent for
you to declare that what you’re proffering here
in your ‘Missing Link’ url and the rest of your
stated opinion on this issue is from your own
site..... just so as not to mislead folks, ya know....
Are you an attorney?
A link to your posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/by:squeeky/index?brevity=full;tab=comments
Nope. I am not a lawyer. I do some work for my BFF FaBia Sheen, Esq., a lawyer, and I had 6 hours of business law in college and IIRC, I had a B and a A in that. Yes, the link is to my Think Tank. If you prefer, I can copy and paste a bunch of stuff here, or you can read it there. Whichever is fine with me.
Yes, the link is to my Think Tank.
~~~~~~~
It really should be disclosed when you post your
content from there, in the interests of credibility
and complete honesty.
I personally have no interest in spending time
there; I’m merely responding to what you post
here, and keeping things real.
Oh golly, you wouldn’t be blog pimping would you? Your posts don’t even make sense. Do you pick that stuff at random or what? LoL
I don’t blog pimp. If I wanted to, I would just post my stuff here in the blog section in its entirety. I used to get a lot hits when I did, but that has never been a big deal to me. I think my Internet Articles are the very best ones on this issue on the whole Internet. They are interesting and fun to read and are sooo good that Dr. Taitz herself even posted one of mine on her website.
If you do not appreciate them, then that is YOUR problem, not mine.
So There!!!
What you’re not getting is that when you don’t identify the link as yours, your personal site in which you have a vested interest, it’s underhanded and deceitful.
We’re conservatives here at FR, for gawdssakes .. no shams, no deceit, no ulterior motives, fakeouts or coverups.
Whatever opinion you have is just that .. just like everyone else. You’re not some voice of authority. You’re posting opinion from what you gather online and what your BFF the lawyer may possibly be opining to you that you pass on as a think tank and then post here.
I don’t know if you’re just a lurker, if you are an authentic conservative, or if you found this to be a convenient place to dump your think tank site content as invitations, but when you see a sham, a total fraud revealed as Donofrio and others have with Stanley and Malamud and the law and facts they erased, manipulated and re-engineered, and you still insist there’s nothing there, then something’s not connecting in your thought processes.
Get real.
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.