Comments on: A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To al-Haramain Justice

By: MarkH

MarkH — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 05:46:47 +0000

Are you saying all lawyers aspire to be regarded as well as a carpetbagger or XXX theater barker?

By: ImperialFlow

ImperialFlow — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 02:42:16 +0000

It is either the greatest failing or greatest achievement of mankind that the proceedings of laws governing them require secular-clerics and scholars to interpret their meanings.

It’s times like this that I don’t regret at all the decision to avoid pursuing a legal degree; after having already passed the patent bar.

By: TheraP

TheraP — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 01:46:18 +0000

Reading through this thread has been a thing of beauty. I wish I had an adequate metaphor. But like a work of art.

By: emptywheel

emptywheel — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 00:57:08 +0000

JoeBuck and all

I think bmaz and I agree that the system in place for court transcripts is not right. Hell, I once wrote a probably 70,000 word post on it. Sort of.

But that doesn’t mean we can today change the compensation for the court reporters. So until we do, we ought to at least honor that system.

By: bmaz

bmaz — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 00:18:21 +0000

You know, with the whining on this that I have heard today, I am starting to be sorry I posted anything at all. You get a privilege and you proceed to indignantly whine about that which does not involve you, nor concern you and on which you clearly know nothing. Thanks a lot. You’re welcome.

By: JoeBuck

JoeBuck — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 00:11:19 +0000

I am sorry, but I cannot post the entire transcript; they are the proprietary product of the individual court reporters, and the preparation of transcripts is a source of income to them. Court reporters have a difficult job and they are entitled to this protection, and I will respect it.

This is wrong: official documents of this kind should not be proprietary, that’s undemocratic. If payments from this source form part of court reporters’ income, the base income should be raised to compensate.

By: Petrocelli

Petrocelli — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 23:56:50 +0000

I give you credit for this … setting up the above blog so that we are able to visualize the proceedings as if we were there in the Courtroom … well done, Sir !

By: bmaz

bmaz — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 23:47:05 +0000

No worries, was just perplexed.

By: Mary

Mary — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 23:10:57 +0000

*g*

License leverage.

By: dmvdc

dmvdc — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 23:00:06 +0000

I have no absolutely no reticence whatsoever, now. My problem was that I had thought this was a case of: “I have Special Access, a Source if you will, who shall remain nameless, and I got this, but I’m not going to disclose it because they make money off these things, even though I have it because of my Source.”

In other words, my reticence was at the hypocrisy. The hypocrisy that it turned out was entirely imagined. I apologize for that.

I’m a dope. Nothing new. Move along.

(Although I should say that I think it’s ridiculous that we don’t have a system in place to make transcripts and documents that aren’t sealed or otherwise subject to a protective order available to the public for free. The technology exists. It’s our government at work. There’s no reason that we shouldn’t have free access to the workings. Yes, that would mean that court reporters should probably receive a higher salary, so that they wouldn’t have to rely on what they can make from selling transcripts, and the equipment should be provided by the government. But I’m willing to go there, in exchange for free and open access.)