Time: Mon Oct 27 03:35:19 1997
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 1997 16:41:04 -0700
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in toolbar]
Subject: SLL: copyright violations and file development
Cc: supremelaw@ibm.net, pmitch@primenet.com
[This text is formatted in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
MEMO
TO: Team SL
FROM: Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Counselor at Law
DATE: October 26, 1997
SUBJECT: SLL and Copyright Developments
I'll try to summarize briefly the progress I have made with
copyright enforcement, and SLL file development.
The Alta Vista results were edited into HTML, and then posted to
a private file on the website. Alta Vista is only one among
numerous search engines which we can exploit for this project,
but it is still by far the best, so people do tend to feed all
their URL's to it, en masse. Some SLL URL's have not been fed to
Alta Vista yet, because I have just not had the time.
Alta Vista reported 136 separate files with "The Federal Zone",
in one or more places within each file. Thus, this report is now
a very good administrative control for further research,
documentation, and evidence gathering.
The results of requesting other search engines -- to find the
exact same key word -- can be appended, in continuous numerical
order, to the Alta Vista report. The results of these
subsequent queries will need to be integrated, one at a time,
with the first 136, to avoid unnecessary duplication.
Several more large universities have surfaced as violators. We
are generating two paper folders for each major violation: one
for the user who authored the violation, and one for the ISP
which hosts this user and his violation.
Some of the universities have even slandered us, directly or
indirectly, by grouping "The Federal Zone" with "hate groups"
and/or "extremists." All we need to do there is cite Kennedy's
concurring opinion in U.S. v. Lopez, and I expect that such
innuendo will be retracted.
The rate of visits to Gilbertson's OPENING BRIEF continues to be
very high, and this is a very good sign. The email traffic, in
general, is beginning to exhibit a lot of obvious silence on the
merits as discussed in that brief. Gilbertson evidently will
never know what he has done by abandoning that defense.
Our policy is that all violators will be treated equally, and an
ISP cannot claim ignorance, when their behavior is closer to
negligence, if not outright aiding and abetting.
If you think about it, a valid "link," whether active now or not,
means that the person who activated the link must have tested it.
For our purposes, this means that one or more chapters of the
book were downloaded onto that user's computer -- passing through
his modem, into his RAM, and then into a disk cache directory, if
not also saved to a user directory. This conduct violates the
copyright, in all cases.
It is critical to understand that absolutely no one, whatsoever,
ever requested, much less obtained, permission to host the
electronic fourth edition on the Internet in this fashion. That
is why we will treat "linkers" and "hosts" identically.
In this context, a "host" is an ISP which has all or part of the
book on a computer which they own or control. A "linker" is
someone who modified an HTML file in order to "point to," or
"link to," a host copy.
Our legal position here is that the "linkers" are literally
pointing to stolen property, and that means they are accessories
who have aided and abetted the same violation as a "host."
Under 18 U.S.C. 2, accessories and principals are treated one and
the same, for purposes of criminal liability. I am confident I
can prevail with this argument before a jury.
We need to beef up our negotiating stance, because it could
happen that we fall into a stalemate with some organizations
which may counter offer, and then use that position to stall any
further good faith negotiations. I could see a scenario which
embraces a "last and best" offer, beyond which criminal
complaints are filed, and civil actions are commenced.
I would prefer to organize all the evidence to support a charge
of conspiracy, under 18 U.S.C. 242. When the jury gets to hear a
long train of defendants, numbering in the 100's, all of whom are
trying to worm out of the exact same violation, using a variety
of stupid and indefensible arguments, it is going to get rather
repetitively obvious what has really been going on.
The bigger question is the court in which to sue. I know from
brutal experience that the federal courts will be entirely
unsympathetic to my authorship rights. I know enough now to
disqualify all federal judges, without exception, on numerous
counts; however, convincing a state superior court that it has
jurisdiction over out-of-state violators will be no picnic
either. The standing reservation appended by Congress to the
International Covenant, is the only way to go, as far as subject
matter jurisdiction is concerned.
On the practical side, preparing for these earnest negotiations,
and generating all the paperwork they will require, will be no
picnic either. It would help me enormously if all of you could
install an Iomega ZIP drive, so that I can feed you huge chunks,
if the latest file set does not fit onto one cartridge. The
website files alone just doubled in size, because we have
outputted HTML files for each ASCII file, then written a backup
(.BAM = BAckup of the Markup language, because .BAH looks too
much like .BAK). Each .BAK file is a backup of the corresponding
ASCII ("K" for ASCII).
So, I see two ZIP cartridges evolving: copyright enforcement,
and website development. I would like to nail down every known
violator, with some assurance that the files and links in
question have been removed completely from the Internet, before
we host the electronic seventh edition in SLL. This development
needs to wait anyway, until we get our PREEDIT batch program
tested and installed in production mode. Then, we can literally
haul -- on entire sets of ASCII files, and have them all pre-
edited in a matter of seconds.
I will ask Corbin tomorrow if he has any good systems programmers
on his staff. This particular function is one which we can
afford to donate to the Internet, once it is up and running.
The Tables of Contents are a trickier problem, but Toney Anderson
has generously donated a new copy of Page Mill 2.0. This program
can be exploited to update TOC's quickly, without the need for
laborious manual edits.
The key here is to have a template, like PROLOG.HTM and
EPILOG.HTM, which will allow us literally to "drop" string
constants into pre-assigned spaces in the template file. This is
something I have done a lot, because we did so much work with
language compilers and operating systems, during my minicomputer
heyday. The template can be either blocked and copied, or
blocked and deleted, in order to accommodate a larger or smaller
number of actual filenames, respectively.
Have you noticed how very "tight" that batch FOR-DO loop is, for
our needs? It works the same from 1 to N input filenames, where
N is any large integer (e.g. >100). Tables of Contents should be
limited, for practical purposes, however, by grouping files into
a larger number of "folders," or categories. So, the value of N
will best never reach 100.
To this end, we will begin "pushing down" the list of court
cases, into a separate Table of Contents just for cases;
likewise, there will also be another separate category for
"Resources," and any other aggregates which make sense. In this
fashion, the website tree structure will grow in both dimensions
-- horizontally AND vertically. Hopefully, Page Mill will help
facilitate this maintenance task.
That's about it for now. This is enough of a brain dump for
today. The Most High woke me up at midnight last night, I know
now because that window of time is THE most quiet one on the
Internet. Plus, we rolled back the clocks, so I gained an hour
relative to everyone else (except Arizona). I have really been
pounding on the net, with both fists, because the HTML evidence
had to be gathered for each URL.
I also stored each file at each node higher up in these URL's, as
a way of "walking up" the pathname to its logical "root." This
helped me to isolate the ISP's and their administrative offices
(telephones, mailing addresses, titles, etc.); that information
is not usually mentioned at the tail end of these URL's.
You may need to re-read this entire memo, and get in sync with my
thinking about these two projects; but, if you do, I believe you
will see what a good strategy is now evolving. One of the
peripheral ("side") benefits, of course, is that all this
Internet research will overlap a lot with leverage for future
marketing efforts. The eventual publicity concerning stubborn
violators will do wonders for SLL visibility.
Bye for now.
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Mitchell
Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Counselor at Law and federal witness
c/o 2509 N. Campbell Avenue, #1776
Tucson 85719/tdc
ARIZONA STATE (See USPS Publication #221.)
email: supremelaw@ibm.net (586/Eudora Pro 3.0.3(32):
preferred, to conserve all resources)
phone: (520) 320-1514 (private line:
please get permission to disclose)
fax machine: (520) 320-1256 (dedicated hard copy:
available 24-hours per day or night)
website: http://www.supremelaw.com
# # #
===========================================================================
Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris : Counselor at Law, federal witness 01
B.A.: Political Science, UCLA; M.S.: Public Administration, U.C.Irvine 02
tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night 03
email: [address in toolbar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU 04
website: http://supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now 05
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best 06
Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone 07
Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this 08
_____________________________________: Law is authority in written words 09
As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall 10
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal. 11
======================================================================== 12
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 10, non-proportional spacing.] 13
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail