Discussion in 'Anon Sparrow' started by Anonymous, May 4, 2011.
For the judge
and to waste time
it's like watching water boil. wogs watching water boil or xenu watching water boil
Any indication if the ACLU has made its' presence known?
He didn't say either way, and I forgot to ask. :/
please please pretty please?
btw, because people seem to be unaware or have forgotten:
same judge that heard the original (civil) complaint last year:
old news: (July-October 2010)
she's already entertained (some) arguments from each of the parties and mulled them over a bit.
She threw out the TRO as "moot" because of the criminal trial- but is probably going to give it more serious consideration, since that's over.
She asked the parties to verbally "agree to stay away from eachother". Sounds as if she'd like to see the parties just stop being meanie-pants to each other.
No idea where this is heading, but my gut says she's not the 'hangin' type. Since its not a 'hangin' case, no clue.
Probably- whoever has the best DOX and fewest footbullets will get more cred.
ignore everything after the word 'Sounds', and everything after 'but is probably'.
The rest is from the court record and memory.
Never mind. Was raging at Narconon article b4 checking the date. Whatever happened has happened by now. It was 2008. Meh, my bad.
ok lunch HAS to be over and it's 2:00 and the hair is standing up on the back of my neck.
intuition that something is going down? or shave my neck?
Tch. The heartbreak of dust mites...
It never made sense to me because the transcript is a work product that the reporter is paid for and belongs as record to the court. BUT There was a famous CA trial a few years back...and the transcripts were purchased by a group (much like this one) and they were posted..not too long after there was a notice of copyright violation issues and much negotiations as to ownership since a large collective contributed to the cost. As I recall it was a nightmare. As I said, it was CA, and it was years ago...still better be informed and do it right rather than leave the door open for a scilon to slither through.
well rather than posting the actual transcript.
To be safe, we can always have some people read it and then divulge the lulzy parts, but in their own words. (well pretty much verbatim, but not really)
Then it wouldn't be copyright infringement at all would it?
or is this a dumb suggestion?
We are all in the trench and the Force is strong with the Sparrow! As the man says at 7:50 almost there, almost there!
They are going to observe every appearance.
The thing costs so much (they always do) and it is many pages by now. If we raise the $2,000 to buy the complete transcript, it would be a huge scanning task, and it seems a shame to give it all away when it costs so much.
I'd agree with posting the best parts, but not the scans.
Moxon on his case and the fail that comes with it.
Yes Luke is Sparrow!
I'd be happy to host and make available online the transcripts, if Sparrow or anyone feels iffy about there being some copyright infringement issue. I don't believe copyright infringement would be an issue, not only for the sound reasons expressed by the 10th Circuit, but because I believe that by its very nature, a court transcript is not copyrightable inasmuch as it is not an 'original work of authorship' but rather analogous to a factual list, such as a phone book (which is not copyrightable per Feist v. Rural).
I do believe that you can use portions for newsworthiness (like Fair Use under DMCA) but I tend to recall one cable channel reenacting the Michael Jackson molestation trial with actors to circumvent any copyright issues. I believe the reenactments became their own copyrighted material. This may be one way around it.....to have some lulzy animation going alongside a table read.
Best thing to do is confirm the correct information with the court reporter/reporting company, as well as with the court itself. There are many "true crime" novels that use court transcripts, so there IS an appropriate way of going about using them.
Correct me if I am wrong, would not the case need to be made that Sparrow made profit from it or that he caused a loss or other damages to the owner of the copyright material for an owner to collect damages? Also I now the DC courts record in different formats, sometimes it is audio and other times it is more traditional. If those are public records paid for by the tax dollars what is keeping him from having his own transcript done? Grant it I am sure you are correct about the 10th Circuit. Otherwise we are privatizing a part of justice.
I still want to do a old style radio program reenactment of this for real. AGP as Moxon, chain smoking hag as Kim, Sparrow and Tom Key and and electronic reproduction voice as the Prosecutor. Acting like the cults robot then he should be played by one.
I haven't heard from him yet, but this is from the court website:
05/13/2011 Track 2 - Mediation Scheduling Order Entered on the Docket Track 2 - Mediation Scheduling Order Entered on the Docket
DCM Track Track 2 - Mediation was added on 05/13/2011 with the following milestone(s):
Deadline For Discovery Request T2 due 07/12/2011
Exchange Witness Lists T2 due 07/12/2011
Proponent's Rule 26(b) (4) Statement T2 due 07/19/2011
Opponent's Rule 26(b) (4) Statement T2 due 08/11/2011
Discovery Closed T2 due 09/12/2011
Deadline For Filing Motions T2 due 09/26/2011
Dispositive Motions Decided T2 due 10/25/2011
ADR - Mediation T2-1 due 11/09/2011
ADR - Mediation T2-2 due 12/09/2011
Pretrial T2 due 01/09/2012
Pretrial T2-2 due 02/07/2012
The answers to any questions about format would range from reporter to reporter, though some jurisdictions may mandate standards (especially for transcripts by courthouse reporters); I don't really know.
With regard to your question about damages, a copyright owner would need to have registered the work in order to collect statutory damages and/or attorney fees; separately, I believe it is no longer necessary to show that the infringer profited in order to collect damages (established in the Napster, Grokster case line). The thing is, most court reporters recognize that their expectation of profit ceases after the first sale, the high cost of which I agree is warranted; court reporters do not have it easy. But I believe most already operate by the vague expectation that they do not hold a copyright.
With regard to your question as to what is stopping Sparrow from hiring his own reporter to transcribe his trial, (a) the court would be within its discretion to disallow it for a number of good reasons (administrative, the problem of competing transcript versions, etc.); (b) assuming the impossibility of two court reporters recording the trial, it would easily wind up costing Sparrow more because he'd be paying for the court reporter's time as well as the transcript (the price of which wouldn't change).
pretrial Feb 2nd 2012?????
Tikk!!! Splain please!!!
This means the judge did not throw the case out. It also means that the judge does not want to deal with it till a mediator tries to resolve it. The next time the judge expects deal with it is 2-7-2012 except the issues listed prior to that date. The only question now it did the judge issue a TRO?
Oral Ruling Granting Plaintiff's Written Motion for Preliminary Injunction by Judge Macaluso in open court. Entered on the Docket 5/13/11.
Was hoping Sparrow would get his life back sooner than that.
05/13/2011 Event Resulted: Event Resulted:
The following event: Status Hearing scheduled for 05/13/2011 at 11:00 am has been resulted as follows:
Result: Status Hearing Held. Ctrm 415 (Courtsmart). Parties present. Testimony taken. Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction is GRANTED. The Court made the following ruling on the record: Defendant is to come no closer to the Scientology Building than across the street and must stay away from the west side of 16th Street between the blocks of O St. and P St., Defendant may protest on the east side of the 16th Street between the blocks of O St. and P. St., Defendant must stay away at least 50 feet away from Ms. Belotte and have no contact (in any form) with Ms. Belotte. All parties must preserve all evidence in this case for trial. Plaintiff is to prepare a written order and send it to Chambers and Atty. Lester within 5 days. Atty. Lester may make any agreed upon corrections to that order within 5 days of receipt. Case placed on Track 2 Mediation. Order signed and filed. Copies given to parties in the courtroom. JUDGE MACALUSO/tdh
Judge: MACALUSO, JUDITH N Location: Courtroom 415
05/13/2011 Oral Ruling on Written Motion Entered on the Docket Oral Ruling Granting Plaintiff's Written Motion for Preliminary Injunction by Judge Macaluso in open court. Entered on the Docket 5/13/11.
He can protest across the street.
Looks like there's going to be a trial next year sometime. All those interim dates are pre-trial due dates for things like experts, discovery, witness lists, etc. Looks also like the judge is forcing the parties into mediation. Since this isn't a complex case and both sides are pretty dug in, I wouldn't expect mediation to end this, but what do I know. But my sense is that this judge really wants this to settle and is discouraging a trial.
SPARROW! WE NEED TO GET YOU A BIGGER SIGN!
Okay I am a bit fuzzy about the somantics and technicalities of stay away orders.
1) If Kim Bellotte walks towards Sparrow or runs towards him, does that mean Sparrow has a duty to keep away regardless?
2) If he meets Kim by chance around a corner, does that count as a violation?
3) Does Kim need to also maintain distance from Sparrow?
4) What does it mean "any form." Can Kim interpret an anti-scientology sign as contacting her in particular?
Pre-trial T2-2 is due February 7th of 2012
Does "Mediaion-Track 2" mean they are proceeding along a typical trial course? [ANSWERED]
I'm encouraged to believe that this trial may over some time next spring.
Next blood year?
Read what tikk wrote.
I will celebrate the win in this. Sparrow can protest again. Don't rain on it.
Everyone who protests with Sparrow can go where they please, so it's mostly trivial.
I'm guessing you are right tikk and if you don't end up hosting it, I will.
I have a much shorter, 56 page transcript of my testimony last month in a California case and I plan to put it online for free download/reading by anyone who wants it. I agreed to wait until after the decision which should be in July 2011 but I am going to host it.
I don't see any reason why we can't post such things as long as we are not charging for same.
But as time goes on I would trust your legal judgement on such matters over mine any time.
I hope we get to see it online soon (subject to Sparrow and his lawyer agreeing).
Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!