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

[Lisa Hoag]

Having re-read Vincent's comments, I can endorse and attest to his first
claim, that legal research is much easier to do with the physical books,
than with online documentation. In our Constitutional framework, our laws
can be created by legislation, or by case law. Laws are also frequently
informed, variously, by presidential executive orders, US Codes
(U.S.C.C.A.N.), by regulatory agencies, and by US Treaties, to name just a
few. Therefore, legal records are unique to perhaps any other type of
scholarly documentation, in that they quite frequently contains citings to
case law and other legal documentation that may inform the correct
interpretation of the document before one. In researching the law
libraries, I have on numerous occasions, looked up a citing, to verify the
facts claimed by an author. I will often end up (in the law library) with
anywhere from 3 to 6 volumes, from different treatises, since each legal
reference almost invariably directs one to additional sources. In one
recent research, where the citing given was presidential executive order
no. 11110, I ended up with four additional books on the table which were
important to understanding the first properly, and it was necessary to
cross reference them together for an accurate understanding.

Vincent has been in pro se litigation for 19 years, unlike myself. I have
only used the law libraries occasionally, when I've had to write a by-law
for my town, or look up a law or regulation. I have also seen Vincent's
opinion on this affirmed by other authors in the legal field who have
offered white papers on these topics. Right now there is an explosion of
use of the law libraries by pro se litigants. Here are a couple useful
articles pertaining to this topic:
• Indiana State Bar Association’s Future of the Provision of Legal Services
Committee describes the rise in unrepresented litigants as a
crisis, Library in Indiana, threatened with closure, chooses instead to
preserve its printed materials:
https://practicesource.com/they-shoot-law-libraries-dont-they-luckily-not-in-this-case/

• White Paper: "Chaos Cyberspace and Tradition - Legal Information
Transmogrified", by Robert Berring, Walter Perry Johnson Professor of Law,
at UC Berkeley School of Law
(Corporate buyouts of the original West Publishing Company, and Shepard's
Citations, have turned legal online database records into "swiss cheese").:
http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/facpubs/1951/

Best Regards,

Lisa




Warm Regards,

Lisa

On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 6:31 PM, explodingbee . <explodingbee at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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-shredde
>>> d-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
>>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>



-- 
Lisa Hoag Designs
PO Box 983
Wendell, MA 01379
http://www.lisahoagdesigns.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.hidden-tech.net/pipermail/hidden-discuss/attachments/20171205/93e52c73/attachment-0001.html