RE: [tips_and_tricks] Don't Share That Law! It's Copyrighted
- Randy Conn wrote:
> Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Don't Share That Law! It's CopyrightedThat's why they run this website:
> "California claims copyright to its laws, and warns people not to
> share them.
Can you say, "Catch-22"?
> And that's not sitting right with Internet gadfly, andSee, he never read Article XX, section 3, of his own state constitution,
> open-access hero, Carl Malamud. He has spent the last couple months
> scanning tens of thousands of pages containing city, county and state
> laws - think building codes, banking laws, etc. Malamud wants
> California to sue him, which is almost a given if the state wants to
> continue claiming copyright.
and the Business and Professions Code that regulates attorneys, and so
he is capable of entertaining the belief that mere neighbors can
exercise judicial powers without having taken the one required oath of
office, and that other so-called attorneys can represent anyone when out
of compliance with B&P 6067. Both laws are available thanks to the
state sharing with you what some fools who collect paychecks from it may
sue over for being shared on its own website above.
> He thinks a federal court will rule inI will wager that the man is so much in a hurry to win, he will permit
> his favor: It is illegal to copyright the law since people are
> required to know it.
unsworn paycheck endorsers to act as judges and attorneys totally
unchallenged for their bona fides and required official filings. That's
what most people do!
> Malamud helped force the SEC to put corporateYou can make major mistakes and still win. I know that I myself have
> filings online in 1994, and did the same with the patent office. He
> got the Smithsonian to loosen its claim of copyright, CSPAN to stop
> forbidding people from sharing its videos, and most recently Oregon to
> quit claiming copyright on state laws." Malamud's talk at Google ("All
> the Government's Information") is also well worth watching.
won cases not so much because I was right, but because my opponents were
- --- In email@example.com, "Frog Farmer" <frogfrmr@...>
> I will wager that the man is so much in a hurry to win, he will permitYou know.....I've had this notion from reading cases that nobody seems
> unsworn paycheck endorsers to act as judges and attorneys totally
> unchallenged for their bona fides and required official filings. That's
> what most people do!
to care if the Judge is really a judge or the attorney signing the
document is really an attorney and in good standing. Seems to me that
proof of these things should be a part of every record made.
- Gimesumodat wrote:
> You know.....I've had this notion from reading cases that nobody seemsIt is assumed and presumed to be in order, and in the record (that's
> to care if the Judge is really a judge or the attorney signing the
> document is really an attorney and in good standing. Seems to me that
> proof of these things should be a part of every record made.
what the record is for!) because those two people make their daily
living by working with each other and as the line of "defendants" passes
by they see only more $$$ signs and no reason to slow the flow. The
individuals who SHOULD care more are these "revenue sources" a.k.a.
"defendants". Many are not even made into "real" defendants, but when
you tell them that they are one, they believe it! Then they act in
accordance with that false conclusion of law, to their own detriment,
like WWII Jews being assigned to a color-coded railcar, and getting into
the line that matches the color they were told, like obedient complying
no-waves-making consenters to tyranny. Few probably are aware of the
legend on New Hampshire license plates ("Live Free or Die"). Soon
Americans will be told which line to get in. Most will do it. But more
than expected will not!