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: 4
79
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 03:51 PM
link   
a reply to: TinfoilTP

I'm sorry. Did I say he'd been charged with terrorism or that he was called a terrorist?




posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 03:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hefficide
a reply to: TinfoilTP

I'm sorry. Did I say he'd been charged with terrorism or that he was called a terrorist?



Your headline clearly states the State of Georgia calls him a terrorist, which there is no evidence of.



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 04:02 PM
link   



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 04:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Hefficide




As previously mentioned, he was called a terrorist in section 20 of the lawsuit filed.


Actually the say it is consistent with it's strategy of terrorism...they never specifically call him one.



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 04:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hefficide
a reply to: TinfoilTP

As previously mentioned, he was called a terrorist in section 20 of the lawsuit filed.




3. This is a civil action seeking injunctive relief for copyright infringement


Taken straight out of your link.

A civil action cannot charge anyone with being a terrorist.



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 04:09 PM
link   
a reply to: TinfoilTP

Which returns us to the point. I said that the State of Georgia called him a terrorist, not that he was charged.



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 04:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hefficide
a reply to: TinfoilTP

Which returns us to the point. I said that the State of Georgia called him a terrorist, not that he was charged.


And they never specifically call him a terrorist either.

Seen stuff hoax binned for far far less inconsistencies. This is sensationalism pushing an agenda of anti-anti-terror
edit on 28-7-2015 by TinfoilTP because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 04:15 PM
link   
Again:


20.
Consistent with its strategy of terrorism, Defendant freely admits to the copying and distribution of massive numbers
of Plaintiff’s Copyrighted Annotations on at least its yeswescan.org... website. See Exhibit 3. Defendant also
announced on the yeswescan.org... website that it has targeted the States of Mississippi, Georgia, and Idaho and the District of Columbia for its continued, deliberate and willful copying of copyrighted portions of the annotated codes of those jurisdictions.


Is there really a need to split hairs here? "Consistent with it's strategy of terrorism" being said about anything or anyone implicitly infers that the subject is engaging in terrorism. IE a terrorist.



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 04:17 PM
link   
If an annotation is used by a judge to adjudicate public law, then said annotation should be public domain and uncopyrightable. The citizenry of any country should not be held accountable to any interpretation of law that is not freely accessible.

The State of Georgia is in the wrong. So is every other state who uses annotations to adjudicate without said annotations being made freely accessible by all.



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 04:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Hefficide

I was about to post that as well. You don't have to directly call someone a terrorist to imply that they are.



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 04:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hefficide

Again:


20.
Consistent with its strategy of terrorism, Defendant freely admits to the copying and distribution of massive numbers
of Plaintiff’s Copyrighted Annotations on at least its yeswescan.org... website. See Exhibit 3. Defendant also
announced on the yeswescan.org... website that it has targeted the States of Mississippi, Georgia, and Idaho and the District of Columbia for its continued, deliberate and willful copying of copyrighted portions of the annotated codes of those jurisdictions.


Is there really a need to split hairs here? "Consistent with it's strategy of terrorism" being said about anything or anyone implicitly infers that the subject is engaging in terrorism. IE a terrorist.


But it is a civil case, suing for money. If someone does acts that were previously ruled to be consistant with terror, the ruling for compensation is just that much easier. This guy should have done his homework on litigations instead of stealing copyrighted materials.

If some kids point lasers at airline pilots as a joke and delay flights, the airline can sue and they will bring up every instance where compensation was awarded, which would include terror strategies, doesn't mean they would call the kids terrorists it means they want money compensation for lost revenues.



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 04:30 PM
link   
a reply to: TinfoilTP

Airlines, like most companies, don't usually have their lawsuits filed on their behalf by the State.



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 04:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hefficide
a reply to: TinfoilTP

Airlines, like most companies, don't usually have their lawsuits filed on their behalf by the State.



You are reading the plaintiff backwards


CODE REVISION COMMISSION
on Behalf of and For the Benefit of the )
GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF GEORGIA, )
and the STATE OF GEORGIA)


Plaintiffs,


The "CODE REVISION COMMISSION" is the plaintiff, they were employed by the State of Georgia so they did the copyright work that was stolen on their behalf.
edit on 28-7-2015 by TinfoilTP because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 04:37 PM
link   
a reply to: TinfoilTP

I stand corrected on that point.



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 04:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: EternalSolace
If an annotation is used by a judge to adjudicate public law, then said annotation should be public domain and uncopyrightable. The citizenry of any country should not be held accountable to any interpretation of law that is not freely accessible.

The State of Georgia is in the wrong. So is every other state who uses annotations to adjudicate without said annotations being made freely accessible by all.


There not the judge is free to interpret law as he sees fit. Annotations are someones opinion of why the judge made his decision the way he did. When the judge sites previous court cases it will be included in trial notes.If the judge decides he wants to use annotated law books he bought or his subscription to nexus or west law that's his choice. In no way does this mean just because a judge paid for research it should be readily available to all that's just stupid.. It's like saying that because a judge paid for the ink pen he uses but it's used in the act of public service everyone should be able to use his pen. Instead of posting others notes He is free to do his own research and offer his own opinions but he can't steal the work of others.

Bottom line if he's posting this on his page he's a thief. Now to clear up one more thing actually he described himself as a social terrorists not the state. Here's what the article States.
The lawsuit cites a remark made by Malamud in 2009 describing his efforts to post government documents online as “standards terrorism” to accuse the digital activist of committing acts of terrorism.

“Consistent with its strategy of terrorism, (Malamud) freely admits to the copying and distribution of massive numbers of Plaintiff’s Copyrighted Annotations,” the lawsuit claims.

The lawsuit simply mentions a remark he made calling himself a terrorist. So basically this whole thing is drum Ed up to show how evil the government is when in truth they are protecting intellectual property of a comapny. If they didn't then id have to wonder why any company would want to put out their copy written material in that state. A state unwilling to protect intellectual property could have some far reaching consequences



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 04:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
There not the judge is free to interpret law as he sees fit. Annotations are someones opinion of why the judge made his decision the way he did. When the judge sites previous court cases it will be included in trial notes.If the judge decides he wants to use annotated law books he bought or his subscription to nexus or west law that's his choice.


Sure a judge can interpret law as he sees fit. However, if that judge is using material to influence his interpretation of law that isn't public domain, that judge is in the wrong.

No judge anywhere should be using material that isn't public domain to adjudicate a case.



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 05:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: EternalSolace

originally posted by: dragonridr
There not the judge is free to interpret law as he sees fit. Annotations are someones opinion of why the judge made his decision the way he did. When the judge sites previous court cases it will be included in trial notes.If the judge decides he wants to use annotated law books he bought or his subscription to nexus or west law that's his choice.


Sure a judge can interpret law as he sees fit. However, if that judge is using material to influence his interpretation of law that isn't public domain, that judge is in the wrong.

No judge anywhere should be using material that isn't public domain to adjudicate a case.



You are obviously not a lawyer every law book you see is written by companies. Law firms will have several all describing the same laws what's the difference the notes. Why would anyone care it's simply others opinions on case law simple it gives the judge others opinions. This way he can decide if eh decision he makes is normal or is he outside the box. Judges take this in to consideration because no judge likes to have their rulings overturned by a higher court.

To a judge having a decision overturned is like getting an f on a paper. So naturally they use every resource thEy can to make sure they are in line with the law. However even then a judge has the power unity to set his own precedence if he so choses as long as he can back it up in his decision notes.
edit on 7/28/15 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 05:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hefficide
a reply to: TinfoilTP

I stand corrected on that point.


Ok, but at least turn your flag back over, that was a bit overly melodramatic for a misread court record.



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 05:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Hefficide

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why it is outrageous that people often say "ignorance of the law is no excuse!", when the phrase might come into play.

This, surely, is ridiculous?

The annotations play into the way the law is applied. They are part of the law, in the same way as a piece of equipment should never reach the user without a manual equal to its complexity. The law is the most complicated tool ever devised, even, some would argue, more so than the LHC. Therefore, it seems utterly outrageous to me, that the law is ever displayed without these annotations, and furthermore that charging to view them is a disgraceful, and mercenary act.

The law is not just. Need I go on?



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 05:13 PM
link   
a reply to: TinfoilTP

I conceded that singular point, not the entire argument! I only concede that the lawsuit was filed by proxy - this does not alleviate the State from responsibility from their involvement.

It's like if I were to hire somebody to commit a crime on my behalf. I'm still a fully involved accessory and participant in their actions.




top topics



 
79
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join