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

a reply to: dragonridr

No, I'm not a lawyer. This topic is something I've considered for a long time and have held a firm belief of just as long. Judges have too much power. The judicial system is too convoluted at times even for some lawyers. So when I look at articles like was mentioned in the OP, I can't help but wonder why all these materials that have the ability to sway a judge, that has so much control over the lives of the people unfortunate enough to be in the system, aren't publicly available.

It's more than just others opinions on case law. These opinions affect a judge’s ruling. A ruling that has lasting implications over people's lives. The gravity of these rulings should be enough for us to demand complete transparency.

originally posted by: EternalSolace
a reply to: dragonridr

No, I'm not a lawyer. This topic is something I've considered for a long time and have held a firm belief of just as long. Judges have too much power. The judicial system is too convoluted at times even for some lawyers. So when I look at articles like was mentioned in the OP, I can't help but wonder why all these materials that have the ability to sway a judge, that has so much control over the lives of the people unfortunate enough to be in the system, aren't publicly available.

It's more than just others opinions on case law. These opinions affect a judge’s ruling. A ruling that has lasting implications over people's lives. The gravity of these rulings should be enough for us to demand complete transparency.

Why do you think lawyers go to law school for 4 years. If it was simple lawyers wouldn't exist. If your arguing laws are to complicated welcome to society. Trying to get everyone to get along requires rules.

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: EternalSolace
a reply to: dragonridr

No, I'm not a lawyer. This topic is something I've considered for a long time and have held a firm belief of just as long. Judges have too much power. The judicial system is too convoluted at times even for some lawyers. So when I look at articles like was mentioned in the OP, I can't help but wonder why all these materials that have the ability to sway a judge, that has so much control over the lives of the people unfortunate enough to be in the system, aren't publicly available.

It's more than just others opinions on case law. These opinions affect a judge’s ruling. A ruling that has lasting implications over people's lives. The gravity of these rulings should be enough for us to demand complete transparency.

Why do you think lawyers go to law school for 4 years. Of it was simple lawyers wouldn't exist.

This isn't about lawyers. Lawyers don't declare you guilty. Further, lawyers are just as bad as judges.

At any rate, I'm not saying that a judge can't or shouldn't use source material and research in their rulings. That is NOT my point.

My point is that any material a judge uses to interpret law should be available to the public for free.

a reply to: dragonridr

I've quickly come up with an issue that might be found in front of a municipal judge:

The law says I can't have my trash bin on the curb on Sunday.

Knowing that law on face value, I sat my trash bin on my drive way. I get cited by an ordinance officer. I take this citation before the judge and argue that my bin was not on the curb, but on my driveway. He takes a look at his annotations, and a judge before him offered the opinion that a trash bin shouldn't be in the vicinity of the curb.

With that annotation, that wasn't publicly available, I'd lose my case and have to pay the fine.

That just isn't right.

Yes, this example is overly simplistic. But the point behind it stands.

originally posted by: EternalSolace
a reply to: dragonridr

I've quickly come up with an issue that might be found in front of a municipal judge:

The law says I can't have my trash bin on the curb on Sunday.

Knowing that law on face value, I sat my trash bin on my drive way. I get cited by an ordinance officer. I take this citation before the judge and argue that my bin was not on the curb, but on my driveway. He takes a look at his annotations, and a judge before him offered the opinion that a trash bin shouldn't be in the vicinity of the curb.

With that annotation, that wasn't publicly available, I'd lose my case and have to pay the fine.

That just isn't right.

Yes, this example is overly simplistic. But the point behind it stands.

What do you want the court to make 8 yrs of college and a law degree available to you too? After all that helps the judge make decisions your example is stupid. If you are that worried instead of trying to research something on your own you know nothing about seek legal advice. Save you a lot of trouble in front of a judge.

Amazes me how people think they can do everything I have a doctorate in science wouldn't even attempt law that's the wife's job.

One more thing if you disagree with a law instead of complaining start a campaign to change it we just recently did that where I live.

a reply to: Hefficide

Oh, holy crap! That whole thing is totally jacked up. I agree with Mr. Malamud and vehemenently disagree with the state of Georgia.

The nerve of the state to do this is staggering!

I can only hope Mr. Malamud is able to get a good bulldog of an attorney and countersue the state of Georgia.

a reply to: dragonridr

What do you want the court to make 8 yrs of college and a law degree available to you too?

Not at all. What I want is that should I ever have to take, or decide whether to take, an issue before the court, to be able to access the same material that will be used to adjudicate my case. No one should have to pay for these materials because they're used in PUBLIC COURTS.

If you are that worried instead of trying to research something on your own you know nothing about seek legal advice. Save you a lot of trouble in front of a judge.

How many people can outright afford legal counsel? Should a poor individual be denied understanding of law that's equally applied to him?

After all that helps the judge make decisions your example is stupid.

It's stupid, to you, because it proves my point. Also, that example isn't far off from what happens in municiple and civil courts all the time.

If you are that worried instead of trying to research something on your own you know nothing about seek legal advice. Save you a lot of trouble in front of a judge.

It shouldn't cost anyone anything to learn and attempt to understand the law they're expected to abide by.

Amazes me how people think they can do everything I have a doctorate in science wouldn't even attempt law that's the wife's job.

It amazes me how people think the law should only be understood by an elect few when it effects us as a whole. Though I now see where your desire to keep this knowledge away from the public comes from.

One more thing if you disagree with a law instead of complaining start a campaign to change it we just recently did that where I live.

Sorry, I'm entitled to my opinion and will discuss it whether or not it's popular.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h
It is a matter of the interpretation of the law not a fact. Your opinion is that because it is copyrighted, it does not matter if it was paid for by public money for public use. My opinion is that is it was paid for utilizing public money for public use, it should be subject to the same regulations as all state generated media.

If the interpretation of the law becomes a pay-to-play game then on;y the wealthy will be able to benefit from the complete application of the law; this obviously will not stand legally and Malamud is pointing that out. I completely understand trademark and copyright law as I have both. I also understand when I place a bid on a public contract or write a business plan to a government entity, any copyright that may be in place, is not applied to the submission.

You can keep repeating your very focused black/white view of the topic however your lack of understanding of the situation only leads me to believe that you are inflexible in your views and thus destined to be narrow minded.

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: EternalSolace
a reply to: dragonridr

I've quickly come up with an issue that might be found in front of a municipal judge:

The law says I can't have my trash bin on the curb on Sunday.

Knowing that law on face value, I sat my trash bin on my drive way. I get cited by an ordinance officer. I take this citation before the judge and argue that my bin was not on the curb, but on my driveway. He takes a look at his annotations, and a judge before him offered the opinion that a trash bin shouldn't be in the vicinity of the curb.

With that annotation, that wasn't publicly available, I'd lose my case and have to pay the fine.

That just isn't right.

Yes, this example is overly simplistic. But the point behind it stands.

What do you want the court to make 8 yrs of college and a law degree available to you too? After all that helps the judge make decisions your example is stupid. If you are that worried instead of trying to research something on your own you know nothing about seek legal advice. Save you a lot of trouble in front of a judge.

Amazes me how people think they can do everything I have a doctorate in science wouldn't even attempt law that's the wife's job.

One more thing if you disagree with a law instead of complaining start a campaign to change it we just recently did that where I live.

If that is the case, maybe you should not be so closed minded with regards to discussions of the law and stick to science…Just a suggestion.

Well, ironic that the guy hosting legal documents gets sued for copyright infringement.

I guess he should have actually made sure that posting them online was LEGAL before doing so?

a reply to: babybunnies

That is kind of the point... The gentleman in question is engaging in passive resistance against an irrational and Unconstitutional law.

a reply to: babybunnies

If you're held liable to a rule, regulation, or law, would you not expect to have full access to those limitations and any material used to interpret it?

When you take on a job, most employers have an employee manual. Is it fair that you're given this manual and expected to abide by it, but the employer has a seperate book with interpretations of the manual and it costs you to access it?

originally posted by: Hefficide
a reply to: babybunnies

That is kind of the point... The gentleman in question is engaging in passive resistance against an irrational and Unconstitutional law.

So copy write laws are irrational? So people should expect others to steal there intellectual property?

originally posted by: EternalSolace
a reply to: babybunnies

If you're held liable to a rule, regulation, or law, would you not expect to have full access to those limitations and any material used to interpret it?

When you take on a job, most employers have an employee manual. Is it fair that you're given this manual and expected to abide by it, but the employer has a seperate book with interpretations of the manual and it costs you to access it?

You do every state can and will provide you a copy of any and all the laws if you request it? However if you want a review of the law and have it explained by someone you better be willing to pay them for their trouble. See you guys are going off on a false tangent you are held to what the laws say. Of you are unable to interpret it or form your own opinions than pay someone like an atty.

a reply to: dragonridr

Putting aspects of law behind a pay wall is not the same thing as somebody pirating a movie or a song. It's a stretch, in every sense of the word, to apply the same to things that aught to be in the public domain. And the information that might be used against a person in court - in the US - most certainly qualifies as public domain.

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Hefficide
a reply to: babybunnies

That is kind of the point... The gentleman in question is engaging in passive resistance against an irrational and Unconstitutional law.

So copy write laws are irrational? So people should expect others to steal there intellectual property?

I'm implementing a law and you're not allowed to know about it unless you pay me $250,000 dollars. By the way, you're still expected to abide by this law by penalty of jail.

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: EternalSolace
a reply to: babybunnies

If you're held liable to a rule, regulation, or law, would you not expect to have full access to those limitations and any material used to interpret it?

When you take on a job, most employers have an employee manual. Is it fair that you're given this manual and expected to abide by it, but the employer has a seperate book with interpretations of the manual and it costs you to access it?

You do every state can and will provide you a copy of any and all the laws if you request it? However if you want a review of the law and have it explained by someone you better be willing to pay them for their trouble. See you guys are going off on a false tangent you are held to what the laws say. Of you are unable to interpret it or form your own opinions than pay someone like an atty.

Yes, they can provide me a copy of the law. I can even look it up online. But those laws aren't the only thing they're using to adjudicate, are they?

That's the problem. The things they are using, for the tenth time, aren't public domain.

Law and it's interpretation isn't intellectual property.

a reply to: Hefficide

The state of Georgia is wrong on this. People should have the ability to know the law and have access to such legal documents. Labeling a person as a terrorist for giving access to other Americans to those documents is simply wrong.

So Georgia wants their laws and transactions kept secret. Great state.

a reply to: amazing

It's a beautiful state with some incredible people. Sadly our leadership is currently lacking. We have the distinction of having a Governor who was censured by Congress ( Nathan Deal ).