[Hidden-tech] What Happened: Franklin Law Library Citizens Report

explodingbee . explodingbee at gmail.com
Fri Dec 1 18:31:34 EST 2017


Hi Rob,

Ok.  I will try to respond to your query now.  I was not able to do it
earlier.  Here we go:



1) *Physical books facilitate legal research better than online
sources:*  Doing
legal research is often substantially easier when one has, and facilitated
by having, the physical books, as opposed to just online records.  I have
been doing legal research for quite a few years (although I am not a
lawyer).  I know what it is like when one is straining to learn about a
particular legal point, or to find sources for a particular issue.  Legal
research is different from other types of research in that one often needs
to refer to many cases and various documents which refer to other cases or
texts (sources which reference other sources); and one is often dealing
with voluminous texts.  One is also often under time pressure to get this
information.  One also often (or at least sometime) does not even know
exactly what one is looking for and yet one needs to look hard in many
areas/sources to try to find a solution to one's legal dilemma/issue.  I
can tell you from my own experience that it is simply easier to have the
physical legal treatises (which may be 500 to 1,000 or more pages long
each) in front of you to do the research.  It is just easier to find things
and remember where one was looking previously and instantly get to a table
of contents or an index.  It is just better to have the physical books.  In
case you think that my views might be an anomaly, I can tell you that some
and probably many lawyers feel the same way.  One example is John
Stobierski, a lawyer who practices in the Greenfield area and who was
quoted in a 3/22/17 Greenfield Recorder article as saying similar things
(using different words).  You can read his quoted comments in paragraph
3(c) of the summary of the issues
<https://saveourlawlibraries.files.wordpress.com/2017/08/on-the-destruction-of-massachusetts-law-libraries-2m.pdf>
on our website <http://saveourlawlibraries.com>.

2) *Storing legal data on DVD’s would be problematic:*  When you use the
word "digitizing" you seem to be thinking of putting files on DVD's
(although maybe I misunderstood you).  What the Executive Office of the
Trial Court is doing here, however, is putting things online, not on
DVD's.  If one tried to put all these books on DVD's I suspect that many,
many, many DVD's would be needed.  I don't know how many, but I remember
seeing a set of Westlaw (I think it was Westlaw) DVD's years ago and it was
something like 25 DVD's (I did not count them).  And that is (apparently)
just the material that Westlaw had in its databases.  Lots and lots of
legal materials are not on Westlaw.  And many items need to get updated
every year.  New cases come along which overturn previous cases or which
change the case law on a particular issue, thus negating the influence of
numerous other cases.  For this reason (and other similar reasons),
physical copies of large legal treatises get updated annually with "pocket
parts."  Those pocket parts get inserted (or a cardboard tab attached to
the pocket part gets inserted) into a "pocket" in the back of each volume
of the treatise.  I think it could potentially cause all kinds of problems
and confusion (not to mention avenues to facilitate fraud and censorship by
the powers that be) to have 100's of DVD's of legal data, and then updates
on other DVD's, or updated DVD's, or a combination of updates online and
other materials on DVD's.

3) *It is easier to censor online materials than physical books:*  One
problem with putting books online instead of having physical books, as the
Executive Office of the Trial Court has been doing, is that the online
materials can be readily manipulated and edited more easily and more
anonymously.  If one were to try to edit a physical book, one would
probably leave physical evidence of the edit.  If someone tore out a page
or pasted in a new, edited page there is a good chance that he would leave
physical evidence of what he had done.  Furthermore, there is the problem
that if one did that and then returned the book, the records of who had
checked out the book could lead to the person who edited it getting caught.
If one tried to do this inside the library, without checking the book out,
there is a chance that the person might be seen and caught.  There is also
the problem that one would have to repeat this physical edit over and over
again in every law library in the state (and, depending on the book, in
other states).  Similarly, if one wanted to remove the entire book by
stealing it, he would have to steal it from all the libraries in order for
the censorship to be consistent; and it might well be a book kept in
libraries of other states so one might have to go all over the country to
steal these books, each time risking getting caught. In contrast, if one
changes some data in a very large database produced by a very large company
(like Westlaw or LexisNexis) it might be very unclear who had committed the
censorship act, or even if it was an infiltrator who did not really work at
the company who did it through hacking.  There is greater anonymity by
censoring data that is online.  This is all the more true given that these
large legal materials companies are outsourcing much of their work offshore
to countries like the Philippines and India.  One could just blame it on
unknown workers in India who “misunderstood” this or that.



Here are a couple of examples of online censorship and how anonymous it can
be:



(3)(a):  On November 26, 1977 advanced aliens took over British TV stations
to broadcast a message to the public.  The message told us what we must do
to overcome evil in our world and pass into a much higher state of
evolution. (I believe it is true, that this was really done by aliens.  But
even if it was a hoax the point I am making about censorship of online
materials still applies.)  (One version of this video is here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BWHVmBY0Cs )  The point here is that a
section of that broadcast is missing in all the videos of it that I could
find.  That section talks about the importance of getting rid of all
nuclear weapons AND nuclear power plants.  I have spent hours, I think,
reviewing various videos of this broadcast and every one I watched had that
section missing.  But the full broadcast, including the omitted section,
were recorded in a written periodical (don’t have the name right now but
that is findable and I have it somewhere).  This webpage has the text of
the broadcast, including the omitted section.  (That webpage is here:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread125790/pg1 )  (I don’t have time
to check this entire webpage but I am assuming it is an accurate transcript
of the entire message which I have previously reviewed.)  The censored
section, which you will find missing from every youtube video you can find
on this topic (or at least every one that I viewed) is in two paragraphs:
the paragraph, starting with the words “Be still now and listen…” and the
following paragraph, which ends with the words “All weapons of evil must be
removed.”  So here is my question to you, Rob:  Who censored this?  Can you
tell me?  Who did it?  I don’t think you can tell me.  Furthermore, notice
how most people who watch the video and even most people who know about
this broadcast are not even aware of this censorship.  All the videos (and
many written versions of the text) quietly omit this section.  Anonymous
censorship.  This is one example of how online censorship is so easy and
anonymous.



Another example of online censorship is Eustace Mullins’s seminal book,
Secrets of the Federal Reserve.  This was the first book to write about and
expose the utterly corrupt Federal Reserve Bank.  My understanding is that
before this book was first published in the 50’s, very few people even knew
of the existence of the utterly corrupt Federal Reserve (or at least they
knew very little about it).  Eustace Mullins exposed the whole thing.  There
are now other writers who have co-opted and plagiarized his message (with
support from the powers that be, I think it is safe to assume) and
expressed it in other books (e.g. The Creature from Jeckyll Island) in a
way that the powers that be are more comfortable with.  But the point is
that when you look at online versions of Mullins’s book (no regular
publishing house has been willing to publish it; Mullins had to self
publish, and that was in an era when it was much more difficult to do that
than it is nowadays) portions of the book have been altered.  Here is an
online version of the book:  http://www.apfn.org/apfn/reserve.htm  If you
look on p. 96 and 104 and elsewhere you will see strange illustrations
(labeled as “Chart II” and “Chart VI”) which look like they reflect ancient
Egypt.  *I have a physical copy of the book which i purchased online from a
relative of Eustace Mullins (who died a few years ago).*  I can tell you
that on p. 96 is Chart II, a schematic diagram (titled “FEDERAL ADVISORY
COUNCIL To The FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD OF GOVERNORS 1914”) which a chart of
the people in that advisory council.  I can tell you that on p. 104 is
Chart VI, which is a chart (titled “Federal Reserve Directors: A Study of
Corporate and Banking Influence”) showing certain corporations and other
entities which are apparently involved in some way with the Federal Reserve
Bank.  The Egyptian pictures are not in the physical book.  These charts
have been edited in the online version to undermine the book (and make the
reader think “WTF?”).  So can you tell me, Rob, who did this censoring?  I
don’t think so.  It is easy to be anonymous in censoring or editing online
materials.



4) *Large legal materials companies cannot be trusted to safeguard our
legal history online:*  Additionally, it is insane to entrust our entire
database and history of legal texts (or much of those materials) solely to
these large legal materials companies, like Westlaw and LexisNexis.  These
companies can be bought out at any time by other, larger entities who do
not respect legal histories and legal ethics.  And as a matter of fact this
has happened, from what I have read, both with LexisNexis and Westlaw.  I
have attached to this email an article by a LexisNexis insider (titled
"Response by Anon to Shawn Hocking article on SLAW titled “Christmas comes
early for Lexis employees.” ") who explains that the company was bought out
by Reed Elsevier, which knew nothing about legal issues and which sought to
use the company as a cash cow.  Reed Elsevier has been completely
mismanaging the company and seeking to maximize profits by laying off
workers outsourcing work to India and other countries, with the result
being that quality has gone out the window and, the author predicts, the
company will probably just collapse in the near future.



This insane company, and one or two others like it, are what we are going
to entrust our very rich legal history to?  Bad idea.



Ok.  So those are my responses to your query and your concerns.  (I wanted
to put up a post on the website relating to these issues but I have not
have time to.  I may do so in the future.)



Best regards and hope to see you tomorrow at the meeting (see
saveourlawlibraries.com for info on the meeting),



Vincent Gillespie



On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 12:27 PM, explodingbee . <explodingbee at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi Rob,
>
> Thanks for your response.  Your questions (or concerns or whatever I
> should call them) seem logical and understandable.  I cannot put together a
> response right now because of things going on.  I will try to respond by
> some time tomorrow.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Vincent Gillespie
>
> On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 8:55 PM, Laporte Rob <rob at 2disc.com> wrote:
>
>> I could get my mind around this issue better if I read:
>>
>>
>>    1. Evidence that the digitized library is and will be incomplete.
>>    2. Evidence that the digitized library could be tampered with or
>>    damaged, with greater likelihood than by stolen or lost books and by fire
>>    or water destruction.
>>    3. An explanation of what special interests would get by reducing
>>    availability, if indeed a digitized version would reduce availability.
>>    4. A hypothetical case of someone being disadvantaged by the
>>    digitized version of the library.
>>
>>
>> My firm, DISC, was a Document Imaging & Scanning Company (D-I-S-C) during
>> 1995-6 and did such jobs until about 2001 (primarily search marketing since
>> 1997), including for lawyers and Yale. Back then the technology was
>> impressive (and ahead of what the IRS uses today!). Done right, I would
>> think it could empower users of the digitized library.
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> *Rob Laporte*
>> Founder & Managing Partner
>> *DISC, Inc. - "Making Web Sites Make Money"*
>> 413-584-6500 <(413)%20584-6500>
>> Rob at 2disc.com
>> www.linkedin.com/in/2disc
>> www.2disc.com
>>
>> *NOTE:* Emails can be blocked by spam filters throughout the web. If you
>> don’t get a reply within an expected span of time, please call.
>>
>>
>> ---- On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 16:41:35 -0500 *Lisa Hoag <1world4all at gmail.com
>> <1world4all at gmail.com>>* wrote ----
>>
>> Hi To All :),
>> Thank you to those who signed our petition to protect our
>> Massachusetts County Law Libraries. I have spent most of this year
>> researching the destruction of the Massachusetts County Law Libraries,
>> and Franklin County in particular. Here is the report at Save Our Law
>> Libraries:
>> http://saveourlawlibraries.blogspot.com/2017/11/report-on-fr
>> anklin-law-library-11-27-17.html
>> Direct link to pdf:
>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zSCwHx8-Bn5dAk6WGzMj_XyW_PnY4vhC/view
>>
>> There is a pdf of the deaccessioning "weed list" from Franklin County
>> Law Library here:
>> https://saveourlawlibraries.wordpress.com/records-showing-th
>> e-law-books-from-the-franklin-law-library-which-were-shredded-incomplete/
>>
>> I must also tell you that Hampshire Law Library, which is still
>> intact, is now at risk. The books have been shredded when a courthouse
>> is renovated, and the law library spaces are now being shrunk, and the
>> space taken for the court service centers.
>> • Hampshire County Courthouse gets state money for repairs
>> http://www.recorder.com/Northampton-courthouse-gets-renovati
>> on-money-12957212
>> • County courts slated for consolidation under 10-year state plan
>> http://www.gazettenet.com/Northampton-part-of-plans-to-resto
>> re-state-s-deterioriating-courts-9246819
>>
>> Court service centers help people fill out the trial courts various
>> forms, but they do not provide a library, where citizens can educate
>> themselves about the laws, and do their own research about the laws,
>> and our Constitutional Rights. There are no longer any librarians in
>> charge of the law libraries. The former Law Library Coordinator for
>> the Massachusetts Trial Court Law Libraries, who retired in 2013, had
>> an MLS from Lesley University. The new law library coordinator is also
>> Senior Manager of Court Services, and came into the position through
>> her postition as a court service center manager. There is now no one
>> in charge of the history of our laws and legislation contained in
>> these collections that has any professional archival training, or
>> library science training.
>>
>> Please forward this report to your friends. We are now working to
>> create a petition to protect Hampshire Law Library. If you would like
>> to help protect Hampshire Law Library. please email us at
>> saveourlawbooks at gmail.com.
>>
>> Also, if you can make a couple phone calls, or emails that would be
>> great. We need folks to call Franklin Courthouse, and request that the
>> Franklin Law Library full originally promised space be restored ( the
>> original promised space was two full floors, enough to house the
>> 30,000 vlume original collection - we do have a way to restore the
>> collection, but first the space must be restored). (Feel free to be
>> creative ad call/contact anyone you think might be good :)
>> Franklin Courthouse:
>> (413) 774-7011
>>
>> Office of Court Management
>> Massachusetts Trial Court
>> Facilities Management
>> Suffolk County Courthouses
>> 3 Pemberton Square
>> Room 106
>> Boston, MA 02108
>> Phone: 617-725-8787 <(617)%20725-8787>
>>
>> Senate President Stan Rosenberg:
>> stan.rosenberg at state.ma.us
>> 413-584-1649 <(413)%20584-1649>
>>
>> Warm Regards to All,
>>
>> Lisa Hoag
>>
>> http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/86-of-200-yr-old-franklin
>>
>> --
>> Lisa Hoag Designs
>> PO Box 983
>> Wendell, MA 01379
>> http://www.lisahoagdesigns.com
>> _______________________________________________
>> Hidden-discuss mailing list - home page: http://www.hidden-tech.net
>> Hidden-discuss at lists.hidden-tech.net
>>
>> You are receiving this because you are on the Hidden-Tech Discussion list.
>> If you would like to change your list preferences, Go to the Members
>> page on the Hidden Tech Web site.
>> http://www.hidden-tech.net/members
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Hidden-discuss mailing list - home page: http://www.hidden-tech.net
>> Hidden-discuss at lists.hidden-tech.net
>>
>> You are receiving this because you are on the Hidden-Tech Discussion list.
>> If you would like to change your list preferences, Go to the Members
>> page on the Hidden Tech Web site.
>> http://www.hidden-tech.net/members
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.hidden-tech.net/pipermail/hidden-discuss/attachments/20171201/951e27bd/attachment-0001.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Response by Anon to Shawn Hocking article on SLAW titled ?Christmas comes early for Lexis employees.?.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 345982 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.hidden-tech.net/pipermail/hidden-discuss/attachments/20171201/951e27bd/attachment-0001.bin 


Google

More information about the Hidden-discuss mailing list