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/

You were insulted by the fact your arguments failed. You chose to take that personally and are all up and “righteously offended”.

You didn’t get insulted, you had your logic torn apart and you lost the argument. Two different things Squeeky.

You haven’t done enough research Squeeky, and you aren’t making cogent arguments based on accurate interpretations of specific legal language IN CONTEXT of the cases it was found in. You are relying on Obot, anti-constitutionalist dogma which has already been argued here, and debunked.

Now, if you want to have a discussion, how about justifying the redaction of dozens of SCOTUS cases, violating the False Writings Statute (look it up)? Want to explain why so many cases which originally cited to minor so mysteriously - accidentally - lost their citations to Minor? How about the specific text which further solidified Minor’s HOLDING, and it’s relevance? Why did that go missing too? Now, the cherry on top... why did Justia HIDE its entire server from the internet archive?

I want to see you come up with some logical explanation for that.

I apologize in advance for throwing this trick question at you. You can’t answer this without coming to the conclusion it was DELIBERATE. Why do it at all if Minor doesn’t matter? Why take the chance of getting caught committing a felony for no reason????? Good luck with that. I can’t wait to see you connect dots which I know for CERTAIN do not exist.

Modern textbooks??? OH, here is MODERN one I just quoted from on my latest Internet Article. It is from 1879, just 4 years after Minor, and doesn’t seem to have grasped the overwhelming importance of the Biggest Citizenship Case Ever:

“4. 1879 Outline for Civil Government Designed For Common Schools by W.. Thatcher:

Art. II., Sec. i, Clause 5.—Qualifications of the President.

No person, except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.

(a.) Natural born.—Born in the United States. Our state constitution does not thus limit the office of its executive.”

I had to stop at 21 examples of stuff that contradicted Donofrio’s silliness because I could have written a book on how messed up his theory is.

So There!!!

“How about the specific text which further solidified Minor’s HOLDING, and it’s relevance?”

If you are talking about “Lockwood”, I am already working on an Internet Article to address that WILD GOOSE CHASE. Which is probably like 2 or 3 in the future. (Next is probably, “The Unkindest Cut Of All” one that I am working on.)

But basically, the citizenship status of the female lawyer is irrelevant. The decision would have been the same if she was natural born or naturalized. Just like in Minor v. Happersett.

The issue was the 14th Amendment stuff and whether it added stuff to citizenship or not. Which MvH said it didn’t, like voting and practicing law. Therefore, the case was NOT used to DEFINE citizenship but instead just to compare before and after stuff on the 14th Amendment.

As far as dots to connect, there aren’t any. Like the Ankeny v. Governor case in 2009 said:

“Id. at 167-168. Thus, the [Minor] Court left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen.12”

Not bad for somebody who isn’t even a lawyer, huh???

lolz. Let me know when you have a cogent point to make.

That review was correct, the 14th Amendment did not give Women the right to vote, and Minor v. Happersett ALSO did not give Women the right to vote.

Via Lexis which I cannot link to, you will have to get your own subscription. Sorry about that, but its one of the reasons more people had to rely upon such resources as Jusita. Most don’t have access to it because it is darned expensive.

Minor v. Happersett 154 U.S. 116

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Petitioner attorney sought leave to file a petition for a mandamus requiring the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia to admit her to practice law in that court, alleging that admission was denied on the basis that she was a woman.

OVERVIEW: The attorney was licensed to practice law in several states of the United States, and she sought admission to the bar of Virginia. The Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia denied her application, notwithstanding that it was provided by Va. Code § 3192 that any “person” duly authorized and practicing as counsel or attorney at law in any state or territory of the United States. The attorney claimed that the denial was based on the fact that she was a woman. The attorney sought leave to file a petition for a mandamus requiring the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia to admit her to practice law in that court. The court denied leave, holding that the right to practice law in the state courts was not a privilege or immunity of a citizen of the United States and therefore that only the state had the authority to construe § 3192 and to determine whether the word “person” as therein used was confined to males, or whether women could be admitted to practice law in the commonwealth.

OUTCOME: The court denied leave to file the petition as sought by the attorney.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/suffrage
suf·frage
n.
1.
a. The right or privilege of voting; franchise.

enfranchisement, franchise - a statutory right or privilege granted to a person or group by a government (especially the rights of citizenship and the right to vote)

Women’s suffrage was not just about voting rights, though that is the most common point people make. It was about Women’s EQUALITY as citizens. Until the 19th Amendment, Women were legally second class citizens. Minor was deliberately pushing that envelope by attempting to get admitted to the Bar as an attorney. The case obviously failed.

I forgot to mention that you need to learn the difference between dicta and holding.

That said, this from the HOLDING of the case (Read it in detail, and read it in context.):

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=88&invol=162

“It is contended that the provisions of the constitution and laws of the State of Missouri which confine the right of suffrage and registration therefor to men, are in violation of the Constitution of the United States, and therefore void. The argument is, that as a woman, born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is a citizen of the United States and of the State in which she resides, she has the right of suffrage as one of the privileges and immunities of her citizenship, which the State cannot by its laws or constitution abridge.

There is no doubt that women may be citizens. They are persons, and by the fourteenth amendment ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ are expressly declared to be ‘citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.’ But, in our opinion, it did not need this amendment to give them that position. Before its adoption the Constitution of the United States did not in terms prescribe who should be citizens of the United States or of the several States, yet there were necessarily such citizens without such provision. There cannot be a nation without a people. The very idea of a political community, such as a nation is, implies an [88 U.S. 162, 166] association of persons for the promotion of their general welfare. Each one of the persons associated becomes a member of the nation formed by the association. He owes it allegiance and is entitled to its protection. Allegiance and protection are, in this connection, reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other; allegiance for protection and protection for allegiance.

For convenience it has been found necessary to give a name to this membership. The object is to designate by a title the person and the relation he bears to the nation. For this purpose the words ‘subject,’ ‘inhabitant,’ and ‘citizen’ have been used, and the choice between them is sometimes made to depend upon the form of the government. Citizen is now more commonly employed, however, and as it has been considered better suited to the description of one living under a republican government, it was adopted by nearly all of the States upon their separation from Great Britain, and was afterwards adopted in the Articles of Confederation and in the Constitution of the United States. When used in this sense it is understood as conveying the idea of membership of a nation, and nothing more.

To determine, then, who were citizens of the United States before the adoption of the amendment it is necessary to ascertain what persons originally associated themselves together to form the nation, and what were afterwards admitted to membership.

Looking at the Constitution itself we find that it was ordained and established by ‘the people of the United States,’3 and then going further back, we find that these were the people of the several States that had before dissolved the political bands which connected them with Great Britain, and assumed a separate and equal station among the powers of the earth,4 and that had by Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, in which they took the name of ‘the United States of America,’ entered into a firm league of [88 U.S. 162, 167] friendship with each other for their common defence, the security of their liberties and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other against all force offered to or attack made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretence whatever. 5

Whoever, then, was one of the people of either of these States when the Constitution of the United States was adopted, became ipso facto a citizen-a member of the nation created by its adoption. He was one of the persons associating together to form the nation, and was, consequently, one of its original citizens. As to this there has never been a doubt. Disputes have arisen as to whether or not certain persons or certain classes of persons were part of the people at the time, but never as to their citizenship if they were.

Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides6 that ‘no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,’7 and that Congress shall have power ‘to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.’ Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words ‘all children’ are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as ‘all persons,’ and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea. “

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.