JustiaGate: Say It Aint So, Carl Malamud.

Natural Born Citizen ^ | 11-11-11 | Leo Donofrio

[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/

[Squeeky]

Why don’t you just try reading the words???:

it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. . . .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.

Natural Born Citizen Possibilities

1. Children of two citizen parents - No doubts
2. Children of two foreign parents - Doubts
3. Children of 1 citizen and 1 foreign parent- Doubts

For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.

From Ankeny: 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

23 years later Wong Kim Ark solves any lingering doubts.

That is not hard to understand. Its what all the lawyers in the country except for a handful believe.

[Danae]

Please, do tell us, exactly where did WKA overturn Minor?

It contradicts it somewhat, but VERY inconclusively.

But more to the point, please tell us all why well over 50 cases (Federal and State) cite to Minor if it was overturned by WKA?

Ummmm hummm.

Simple answer is this, WKA didn’t overturn the holding in Minor, so cases spanning over 100 years cite Minor. Including one in the 1980’s. Minor is solidified in LAW through its repeated citation in following SCOTUS cases.

[Squeeky]

You asked: “But more to the point, please tell us all why well over 50 cases (Federal and State) cite to Minor if it was overturned by WKA.”

Simple. Minor was NOT overturned by WKA because there was nothing to overturn, since the Minor judges did not even try to define natural born citizenship. Minor left the issue open.

(Remember Ankeny 2009???: 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)

Then you asked: “But more to the point, please tell us all why well over 50 cases (Federal and State) cite to Minor if it was overturned by WKA?”

Look up the cites and see what it was being cited for. I only found one which was even close to being a citizenship definition case and that was on a naturalized citizen.

Better yet, step back and ask yourself another question. Minor was done in 1875, and you said it defined NBC as needing 2 citizen parent.

23 years later in Wong Kim Ark, the DISSENT wanted to base citizenship on parentage and bloodlines, not place of birth. Then how come they didn’t cite Minor v Happersett???

The WKA majority people discussed WKA a whole bunch. Why didn’t the WKA DISSENT use Minor v. Happersett if it says what you say it does???

Easy answer. Minor Happersett did NOT define natural born citizenship at all, much less as requiring to citizen parents.

[Danae]

Again I cite Lexis, which I cannot link to. Sorry about that. You can always go to a Law Library and look it up. since I an sure you are going to assert that free cites like Justia didn't affect the National Discussion by redacting Minor I am certain that will be easy for you.

I also take this time to point out you have NOT answered most of my earlier questions about WHY Justia would redact an "irrelevant" case like Minor.

Want to connect those dots for us please? Or... are you ducking the question??? Thought so.

Back to WKA:

CASE SUMMARY

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Appellant federal government officials challenged an order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California that granted a writ of habeas corpus discharging appellee from the custody of appellants on the grounds that he was a citizen of the United States. Appellants argued that appellee was excluded from entry into the United States by virtue of acts of Congress known as the Chinese Exclusion Acts.

OVERVIEW: Appellant officials of the federal government challenged a writ of habeas corpus that was issued by a district court on behalf of appellee, who alleged that he was detained on his return to the United States and held on the grounds that he was not entitled to entry pursuant to acts of Congress that were known as the Chinese Exclusion Acts. Appellee alleged he was a natural-born citizen of the United States of Chinese descent and had been domiciled in the United States prior to a temporary visit to China. Appellants contended that appellee did not belong to any of the privileged classes enumerated in the Chinese Exclusion Acts, which would have exempted him from the classes of persons especially excluded by the provisions of the acts. Appellants, however, conceded that if appellee was a citizen, the Chinese Exclusion Acts, prohibiting persons of the Chinese race from coming into the United States, did not apply to him. The United States Supreme Court affirmed the writ of habeas corpus on the grounds that the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory was constitutionally enshrined.

OUTCOME: The writ of habeas corpus was affirmed based on the court's answer in the affirmative to the single question presented for determination as to whether a child born in the United States was a citizen if his parents were of Chinese descent and at the time of his birth were subjects of the Emperor of China.

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



Any HONEST person must also recognize that Justice Gray was appointed to his post in 1881 by.... wait for it...... Chester Arthur - who was well aware of the fact he was NOT a Natural Born Citizen. Justice Gray was likely aware of the citizenship controversy surrounding Arthur, particularly when writing the Opinion in a case like WKA which had the potential for calling into question the authenticity of his own lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. Ya think? Ummm hummmmm. Certainly possible, enough so that it cannot be discounted out of hand.

[Danae]

“...this Court HELD...”

The HOLDING of a SCOTUS case is LAW Squeeky. A dissent IS NOT LAW. Dictum isn’t law, it is an informed non-binding opinion.

Your argument is false on its face.

I sure as hell hope you didn’t go to law school. Because not one of your arguments would pass muster. FAR sharper minds than yours have already dissected this, and dissected the arguments you are regurgitating from Dr. Conspiracy.

Good night Squeeky, it’s been fun, but it’s after midnight here and I tire of throwing pearls to swine.

[Flotsam_Jetsome]

“Is the presumption that we live in a representative republic, with laws subject to judicial review an elaborate myth? “

Unfortunately, it would appear so.

And Mark Levin’s stance in light of the Minor vs Happersett information becoming (more) widely known and in the face of the Justiagate revelations is, to my mind inexplicable, if not despicable, as is the non-coverage by Master of the Chalkboard, King of Connect-the-Dots Glenn Beck. Are they “Too Big to Not Play Ball”?

[Squeeky]

You asked: “I also take this time to point out you have NOT answered most of my earlier questions about WHY Justia would redact an “irrelevant” case like Minor.”

Uh, a programming error just like what they said??? I don’t know what other cases that may have been bo-bo’ed in addition to Minor v. Happersett. I do know that Minor v. Happersett is NOT quoted to define natural born citizenship. I know this because if it had been, it would have already been brought out by somebody.

I also know it because I have information that you probably do not have. Because I have a Think Tank, and I research my stuff. Sooo, while Donofrio and his disciples are running around in circles screaming and shouting, I happen to know that there is nothing to scream and shout about.

Which I suspect Donofrio knows, too. But, this is YOUR theory, that this case defines NBC, and sooo it is YOUR job to prove it. YOU need to find all the cites to Minor v. Happersett, which is a little less than 200 to approximately 13 different issues. I am betting you don’t find any which use it to define natural born citizenship. And I am pretty confident.

But I am NOT going to do your homework for you. Because YOU will have a better chance of learning if you waste YOUR time chasing these wild gooses. Which I don’t need to chase, because I already pretty much know where they are.

[Squeeky]

You said: A dissent IS NOT LAW.

You are sooo right! Why don't you inform your Leader, Leo Donofrio?

(If you can't figure out what I am talking about, I discuss this in my "The Missing Link" Internet Article under "The Donofrio Shuffle" part of it.)

[Danae]

Tisk tisk tisk! You are ducking questions sqweeky. I hold no respect at all for your “think tank” (fyi, girls night out doesn’t qualify as a think tank.). It doesn’t excuse your ducking questions. Or maybe it does. Either way, you can’t argue your way out of this fail.

End of the matter is this, you can’t answer the questions I asked without admitting Minor was relevant enough to Justia to risk its reputation and prosecuition to redact Minor out of 25 cases which cited it, and then were returned to normal after being discovered. FYI Minor wasnt redacted, cases citing to it were. (That right there proves you dont read Donofrio’s work.) It also doesn’t account for Stanley’s fedex excuse which got hard core debunked by a PhD. If certainly doesn’t explain why “Free full case information” guru Tim Stanley took Justias entire SCOTUS server off the wayback machine.

You claim to “debunk” Donofrio, but you don’t even read his site. You cherrypick off or Dr. Conspiracy etc. and then claim it as your own.

That essentially puts you in the class of a plagiarist as opposed to an original thinker.

Good night.

[Danae]

Fedex = Regex, short for Regular Expressions.

[Danae]

What are you pointing to? Scott? Or the fact that justia seclectively redacted citations to Minor?

You DO know you are shooting yourself in the foot by quoting Donofrio out of context don’t you? No? You should get that looked at.

[Squeeky]

You are just circular reasoning all over the place. YOU:

1.Minor v. Happersett is a very important case and defines natural born citizenship.
2.Justia messed up on it.
3.Justia wouldn’t have messed up on it, unless it was important.
4.Therefore Minor v. Happersett is important and defines natural born citizenship.
5.Repeat.

ME:
1.The Minor judges say they aren’t resolving the issue of whether children of foreigners are citizens or natural born citizens.
2.Ankeny v. Governor confirms the issue was left open.
3.No case cites Minor v. Happersett to determine or define natural born citizenship.
4. Therefore, the case is not important enough to purposely scrub.

As far as me being a Original Thinker, I do not think there is any way you can read my website and still say that. The Obots are wonderful “little picture thinkers” and very good at accumulating information. But they mostly can’t think New Thoughts or do Big Picture thinking.

So, for example, while the Obots are good at accumulating the google books stuff on natural born citizenship, they are lousy at thinking how to use that information to debunk Leo Donofrio.

But, not me!!!

[Squeeky]

Read it more carefully. You are not getting it. But, I am tired and have to go to bed. Good night!

[Flotsam_Jetsome]

“Natural Born Citizen Possibilities

1. Children of two citizen parents - No doubts
2. Children of two foreign parents - Doubts
3. Children of 1 citizen and 1 foreign parent- Doubts”

Thanks for teeing this up. In setting the eligibility standards for the highest office in the land, it makes perfect sense that the Founders would be referring to the Gold Standard of citizenship, that being one with no doubts as to the presumed loyalty of said presidential aspirant citizen. There have never been doubts as to the citizenship of persons born in the US of US citizen parents. THAT is the Gold Standard of citizenship that Minor vs Happersett holds as self-evident.

The “logic” of your “argument” that Natural Born Citizen (versus simple naturalized at birth citizenship) status is conferred simply by being born on US soil is laughable on its face. By your “logic”, an “anchor baby” would be eligible to hold the office of the presidency.

[ShadowAce]

[BuckeyeTexan]

They are interesting and fun to read and are sooo good that Dr. Taitz herself even posted one of mine on her website.

Orly Taitz?! Bwaaahaaaahaaaa! That doesn't lend you any credibility.

[punchamullah]

Al Capone did not rob banks; he was a gangster, and far too cowardly for that sort of work. I believe it was the great Willie Sutton who said that!

[DiogenesLamp]

I think I have run across it before. John Marshall appears to have been a big proponent of Vattel. Is this from “The Venus”? Or some other case?

[Squeeky]

You said: “By your “logic”, an “anchor baby” would be eligible to hold the office of the presidency.”

Uh, they are. Your “hysterics” argument that”Oh no, it can’t mean that or else [fill in the blank] could happen!!!” was tried way back in 1844. It was sooo laughable that it lost back then, too.

And the Constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification 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,” ifcc. The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected president who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the Constitution ? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor, that by the rule of the common law, in force when the Constitution was adopted, he is a citizen.

Moreover, the absence of any avowal or expression in the Constitution, of a design to affect the existing law of the country on this subject, is conclusive against the existence of such design. It is inconceivable that the representatives of the thirteen sovereign states, assembled in convention for the purpose of framing a confederation and union for national purposes, should have intended to subvert the long established rule of law governing their constituents on a question of such great moment to them all, without solemnly providing for the change in the Constitution ; still more that they should have come to that conclusion without even once declaring their object.

Here is where you can read it for yourself. Just sit down first in case the sheer horror of REALITY overwhelms you.

http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/11/09/lynch-v-clarke-ruling/#more-7118

[STARWISE]

Doubt that equally firmly held opposing contentions
and detailed research show up on that squeeky site.

What say you, Squeeky?

In the light of this blatant corruption of case law
reference material, depended upon by millions for judicial accuracy, how badly are you misleading your readers?

Perspective

World English Dictionary

perspective

—n

1. a way of regarding situations, facts, etc, and judging their relative importance

2. the proper or accurate point of view or the ability to see it; objectivity: try to get some perspective on your troubles