It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Man Posts Laws Online: State of Georgia Sues - Calls Man A Terrorist

page: 3
79
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 02:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: notmyrealname

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: Hefficide




What part of them referring to his activity as "terrorism" in a lawsuit are you having trouble accepting?


Show me where in the suit brought on by the state of GA that it says anything about terrorism, it doesn't.

What your doing is going by what this man who is being sued is saying not the actual suit itself, but again feel free to show from the original complaint that I linked to that the state of Ga is considering this as anything other than a copyright infringement.

I have read it and it doesn't.

This is about the state of GA. suing this man correct for copyright infringement?

Or is there another one that is exactly like this one where they call him a terrorist in their official complaint?


Funny how people go out of their way to attack government. This is an obvious case if copy write infringement. This man is making money using other people's materials. And somehow it's the state just attacking him. What is this country coming to when we praise criminal behavior.

I would appreciate if you could show me where and how Mr. Malmud is making money from disseminating information that is supposed to be free of charge in the first place.


Because you have no idea what your talking about would be the big reason.. He doesn't have the legal right to display anything with notes others have written when he displays this on his website he is taking someone else's commentary on the law and using it to solicit donations on his website.

Here ill make this incredibly simple for you. We have people that review books and movies they sell their reviews for money. Do you think it's ok if someone decides to just start posting his reviews on their website. See that's called stealing and that's what he's doing if he wants to get the laws and post his comments he's fine but he can't steal others work.

People get such an anti government attitude they are condoning copy write infringement. I'd say several here need to take a serious look at their beliefs when they start causing them to condone a thief.
edit on 7/28/15 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 02:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: notmyrealname

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: Hefficide



What part of them referring to his activity as "terrorism" in a lawsuit are you having trouble accepting?


Show me where in the suit brought on by the state of GA that it says anything about terrorism, it doesn't.

What your doing is going by what this man who is being sued is saying not the actual suit itself, but again feel free to show from the original complaint that I linked to that the state of Ga is considering this as anything other than a copyright infringement.

I have read it and it doesn't.

This is about the state of GA. suing this man correct for copyright infringement?

Or is there another one that is exactly like this one where they call him a terrorist in their official complaint?


Funny how people go out of their way to attack government. This is an obvious case if copy write infringement. This man is making money using other people's materials. And somehow it's the state just attacking him. What is this country coming to when we praise criminal behavior.

I would appreciate if you could show me where and how Mr. Malmud is making money from disseminating information that is supposed to be free of charge in the first place.


Because you have no idea what your talking about would be the big reason.. He doesn't have the legal right to display anything with notes others have written when he displays this on his website he is taking someone else's commentary on the law and using it to solicit donations on his website.

Here ill make this incredibly simple for you. We have people that review books and movies they sell their reviews for money. Do you think it's ok if someone decides to just start posting his reviews on their website. See that's called stealing and that's what he's doing if he wants to get the laws and post his comments he's fine but he can't steal others work.

People get such an anti government attitude they are condoning copy write infringement. I'd say several here need to take a serious look at their beliefs when they start causing them to condone a thief.

Look, if you think that acting in a childish and condescending manner elevates your weak argument then have at it. The fact of the matter is that anything that is purchased or written by the government using government (read public) funds for application of laws that the public must follow, should be free of charge. Your argument is that that because the government hired a private company instead of writing the information themselves, it should be copyrighted and restricted from free public viewing. I feel that my perspective is correct and yours is shortsighted and narrowly focused.

If someone makes information that they provide free of charge on their website, then it is free information. If he asks for donations to maintain his website, he is not selling information until he links said donations with the receipt of the information; this is not the case. However, maybe if you become more condescending in your reply to this post, you can compensate for your seeming lack of understanding of the issue at hand.



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 02:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: notmyrealname


Feel free to explain whether you think my interpretation of his comments is correct.


I was replying to your first post with the extensive quotes from the complaint - so I think whether or not I agree with your interpretation of someone elses comments is totally irrevalent.

I do agree with your comments about a 'sovereign exemption' or the like for any material in the post I was repling too and raise you the idea that any associated materials routinely used in the furtherance of jurisprudence should be public domain.

As the annontation are done by a private (and do we get to know who these estemed legal minds are????) firm the material is considered protected under copy write laws. Then he is clearly in violation.

Personally - I think this specific case will hopefull bring the subject of 'private' opinions, analysis and guidance about 'public' law into the open. I think, and I use myself as an example, the 'public' believes that all 'legal reference' material is public domain and accessable to all. This is a clear breach, in my opinion, of the social contract and the rule of law.



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 02:39 PM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd




As the annontation are done by a private (and do we get to know who these estemed legal minds are????) firm the material is considered protected under copy write laws. Then he is clearly in violation.


The republishing of the laws is fine, but when he republishes the laws with the annotation he is infringing on the copyright of those who wrote the annotation as they are the owners of the annotations...something that makes this a copyright infringement case.



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 02:45 PM
link   
a reply to: notmyrealname




The fact of the matter is that anything that is purchased or written by the government using government (read public) funds for application of laws that the public must follow, should be free of charge.


The laws are, but when a third party writes the annotations for said law they are the copyrighted content from them that nobody has the right to republish without their consent.

It isn't about the laws themselves it is about a private company wanting to keep what they write protected from others using that info for their own gain.



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 02:47 PM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd
My comment is simple, if public money is expended for something that is utilized by the state for the enforcement of laws, that information should be free from copyright restrictions as the public paid for it.If every person in the state, divvied up the cost for the documentation and bought it with a joint account, (which is the case really) then the document is public at that point.



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 02:49 PM
link   
a reply to: tsurfer2000h
If you repost your opinion over and over enough, maybe it will become the accepted opinion; no matter how incorrect it may be.



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 02:51 PM
link   
How are annotations used? Are they really used as described in the OP? I believe this needs to be clarified before any other detail.



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 02:51 PM
link   
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

That engages the conversation in a good direction. Do we as Americans feel that this practice is OK? Entrepreneurialism is at the heart of our culture and society, and I personally think it's a good thing. However, does this practice skirt our legal rights, specifically the Fifth Amendment protections and substantive due process?

It seems to me that hiding the subtleties of prior legal interpretations behind a pay wall defeats the intended meaning of those who created the law.



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 02:53 PM
link   
a reply to: CheckPointCharlie


Annotation

A note, summary, or commentary on some section of a book or a statute that is intended to explain or illustrate its meaning.

An annotation serves as a brief summary of the law and the facts of a case and demonstrates how a particular law enacted by Congress or a state legislature is interpreted and applied. Annotations usually follow the text of the statute they interpret in annotated statutes.


Legal dictionary



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 02:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: notmyrealname

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: notmyrealname

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: Hefficide



What part of them referring to his activity as "terrorism" in a lawsuit are you having trouble accepting?


Show me where in the suit brought on by the state of GA that it says anything about terrorism, it doesn't.

What your doing is going by what this man who is being sued is saying not the actual suit itself, but again feel free to show from the original complaint that I linked to that the state of Ga is considering this as anything other than a copyright infringement.

I have read it and it doesn't.

This is about the state of GA. suing this man correct for copyright infringement?

Or is there another one that is exactly like this one where they call him a terrorist in their official complaint?


Funny how people go out of their way to attack government. This is an obvious case if copy write infringement. This man is making money using other people's materials. And somehow it's the state just attacking him. What is this country coming to when we praise criminal behavior.

I would appreciate if you could show me where and how Mr. Malmud is making money from disseminating information that is supposed to be free of charge in the first place.


Because you have no idea what your talking about would be the big reason.. He doesn't have the legal right to display anything with notes others have written when he displays this on his website he is taking someone else's commentary on the law and using it to solicit donations on his website.

Here ill make this incredibly simple for you. We have people that review books and movies they sell their reviews for money. Do you think it's ok if someone decides to just start posting his reviews on their website. See that's called stealing and that's what he's doing if he wants to get the laws and post his comments he's fine but he can't steal others work.

People get such an anti government attitude they are condoning copy write infringement. I'd say several here need to take a serious look at their beliefs when they start causing them to condone a thief.

Look, if you think that acting in a childish and condescending manner elevates your weak argument then have at it. The fact of the matter is that anything that is purchased or written by the government using government (read public) funds for application of laws that the public must follow, should be free of charge. Your argument is that that because the government hired a private company instead of writing the information themselves, it should be copyrighted and restricted from free public viewing. I feel that my perspective is correct and yours is shortsighted and narrowly focused.

If someone makes information that they provide free of charge on their website, then it is free information. If he asks for donations to maintain his website, he is not selling information until he links said donations with the receipt of the information; this is not the case. However, maybe if you become more condescending in your reply to this post, you can compensate for your seeming lack of understanding of the issue at hand.


Again your wrong your trying to make up facts. When these lawyers and judges take the time to write opinions and explain the law and companies like west law pay them to do it that becomes west laws intellectual property.

I think what would help here is if you understood what he's posting. He isn't posting the laws that's available free of charge. Most States have it online and if they don't your welcome to go to the court house go to records and you can copy anything you like. They normally just charge you for use if the copier. Want to avoid that take a picture using your cell.

What he's doing is posting the comments and formatting. See legal companies like west law not only gives you descriptions much like a play by play on sports. They will index it to other cases so you can see how the decision was made. In law this is called precedence. Then when you read the notes written by someone they paid to do so they go over the merits of the decision. Him posting this is stealing as I said he's free to post his comments on law but he can't steal others.

Now I don't know if your truly just not understanding what he's doing or you just can't admit your wrong either way he's stealing intellectual property and no it's isn't owned by the government and it was created by them.

The only possible argument is you don't believe judges should have the right to be paid to give there legal opinions on a particular law. But you would be arguing against something that's been done for 100s of years. Lawyers used to sell there annotations on laws in volumes just like encyclopidias. This was the start of law books.
edit on 7/28/15 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 03:00 PM
link   
a reply to: notmyrealname




If you repost your opinion over and over enough, maybe it will become the accepted opinion; no matter how incorrect it may be.


Not an opinion it is fact...you should really look into what copyrighting ones work entails, and why it is a problem when someone publishes a copyrighted material without consent.

In fact it can be a problem here if you republish other's copyrighted material here without prior consent, although most are allowed to be republished...the owners of this copyright never gave him permission to use their material on his site.

Had you actually done a bit of research you would know that...but I guess it's easier to make the comment you did instead of actually understanding what your talking about.



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 03:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Hefficide

Please forgive my ignorance but I don't see where that explains how judges apply annotations. I can extrapolate that they are in fact fact used as you claim, but are they really? Is there some evidence that definitively states that are used in administering laws? Maybe your link says they do and I need it spelled out for. Wouldn't be the first time. Thanks for sharing and replying if you do!



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 03:02 PM
link   
.

The only way he is a terrorist is if the State is the Enemy of the People .

.



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 03:06 PM
link   
a reply to: CheckPointCharlie

Annotations are part of previously decided case law. Previously decided case law, including review of the previous annotations, decisions and so forth are all part of the legal idea of stare decisis.

ETA: These things come into play primarily in a judge making nuanced decisions about things like mitigating factors and how they have previously been interpreted by other judiciary members.

edit on 7/28/15 by Hefficide because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 03:10 PM
link   
He is possibly, or setting and example for, taking money away from those getting rich on the material. Siphoning money from the greedy is a major society offense. They gotta label that as terrorism.



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 03:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Hefficide

thanks friend. That makes it a bit more clearer for me.

This is indeed a troubling case.

Anyone know the reasoning as to why the State of Oregon decided to drop their case against this guy?



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 03:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: Hefficide




Carl Malamud, has indicated that this type of strategy has been a successful form of “terrorism” that he has employed in the past to force government entities to publish documents on Malamud’s terms


So that's his claim not the states as it seems to be what the OP is presenting.

As it shows in the link of the whole complaint it never once mentions terrorism and it being related to this case.

So in fact he isn't being called a terrorist and this suite has nothing to do with the state calling him a terrorist, it doesn't really matter what some article says the complaint is the real evidence that shows the truth.

He isn't being called a terrorist by the state of GA.


This is much ado about nothing.

No terrorism charges, fake story....HOAX BIN time!



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Hefficide




That engages the conversation in a good direction. Do we as Americans feel that this practice is OK?


I guess it depends on who you ask...but I do see where they have the right to keep what they do theirs.

Republishing others material is a problem when it is copyrighted...just as ATS has a problem with us doing that without prior consent, he didn't have the consent to republish their work.

I mean think about it this way...

You copyright something that you want to keep as your own and someone publishes your material without your consent...wouldn't you have a problem with that?



However, does this practice skirt our legal rights, specifically the Fifth Amendment protections and substantive due process?


Well let's see shall we...


Fifth Amendment: An Overview

The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides, "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."


www.law.cornell.edu...

Well the fact that he used private property and published it without just compensation and made them for public use...I would have to say he isn't protected under that amendment.



It seems to me that hiding the subtleties of prior legal interpretations behind a pay wall defeats the intended meaning of those who created the law.


They aren't changing the meanings of the laws they are just adding opinions from those who know the laws. And they have the right to keep that material theirs and, not let it get published without their consent.



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 03:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Hefficide

Its terrorism because they don't like it. And when stupid people don't like something, its called "terrorism" now.

It has replaced more dated terms like "Godless", "Heathen", "Communist", and "Satanic".



...but is it Socialist?




top topics



 
79
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join