Slashdot Mirror

http://thetruthistold.com/ Trumps http://www.profane-justice.org/ who wrote below but has sense been edited... Statement issued by sHell's righthand man. Is it time to show them how much you really like them? Re: [FamilyRightsAdvocacyIMPROVEMENTProject] Is your group still with yahoo? Hello Anita: Suzanne is currently busy working on a project, so I will answer your question. Suzanne's site is down because it went over the allotted bandwidth usage. Suzanne has received 25,749,317 hits as of yesterday over a four day time period. Seems lots of people like her information, eh? Kay Re: [FamilyRightsAdvocacyIMPROVEMENTProject] They Gone... Nothing happened. Everyone is working on their projects and getting things accomplished without publishing what we're doing. Obviously, it's working since profane justice has received so many hits. Kay Too this : Nothing happened. Everyone is working on their projects and getting things accomplished without publishing what we're doing. Obviously, it's working since profane justice has received so many hits kay

var response = confirm("I agree to this site's terms of use and purchase as published in the copyright notice on each page.");

if (response == false)
      {
      alert("If you disagree with the terms, you must indicate your disagreement by leaving this site or closing your browser now.");
      }

Like others I wanted to see if she had a robots.txt file.

"FAQ about Internet Archive - so many of you IGeeks* got your digital panties in a twist, based on inaccurate reports. Goes to show you. . .you shouldn't believe everything you read on a blog site. . .sheesh. Grow a brain and engage it BEFORE you engage your mouth.

Suzanne sez. . .Hey, these *Internet Geeks have made li'l ole me a STAR! I'm blushing. . . see article and blog and blog"

Like others I wanted to see if she had a robots.txt file.

"So - you psychos who are calling me non-stop and REFUSING to give their names (cowards) - my sheriff's office is trapping your calls and I'm pressing charges. I am also reporting each of your abusive and harassing emails. I enjoy a good respectful debate as much as the next guy, but I'm not anybody's whipping boy." --http://www.profane-justice.org/

"So - you psychos who are calling me non-stop and REFUSING to give their names (cowards) - my sheriff's office is trapping your calls and I'm pressing charges. I am also reporting each of your abusive and harassing emails. I enjoy a good respectful debate as much as the next guy, but I'm not anybody's whipping boy." --http://www.profane-justice.org/

When we receive payment for copyright infringement or obtain a court judgment and collect on it, you will earn 5% of the amount which is collected as actual damages. In the event of multiple identical submissions, the first one received by AFAC will receive the reward. The reward is paid only for the actual pages for which we receive payment or collect on a judgment. In our most recent infringement claim, the total actual damages for copyright infringement is $600,000 - which meant you would have earned $30,000!

I checked out the website in question. Which is located here: http://www.profane-justice.org/ the rules for that website just seem too harsh for a website that is trying to be a Family Advocacy Center. I don't know too many family's, or children that have five grand laying around before they even print out a few pages on that website. Doesn't look like it to me that they really want to help the public, if they are demanding so much money like they are. For such a website it just seems to me the rules need to be more flexible. Their Foster child page is geared towards a child. But what if they needed a print out of that page to give to their lawyer? I realize they waiver the fee for family's. But the way they have the page setup, and the mere sound of the words is a turn off for most seeking good help online. A child will not read through the full copyright page to see they are excluded from paying the fee. They will just see the parts on the pages on the bottom that say pay us $5,000.00 or else be sued.

I don't like the layout either. Looks like crap. In the copyright notice it states that the website is only to be viewed on a computer. I wonder if she has heard of the term of Fair Use? Plus the website itself is on a .org domain. This is usually reserved for nonprofits. You want a real eye opener read the part about the credit card charge back in the copyright notice at the bottom.

I don't think the woman has a case either. There are ways to protect pages, and one of them is the robots text. But what person in their right mind would put a full block on a website that advocates Family Advocacy?

This web site is licensed to be viewed on a computer only.

http://www.profane-justice.org/assets/images/autog en/a_2galbut.gif

Technically you can't actually click to see the terms without agreeing to them.

No contract there according to my understanding of contract law here in the UK

In order to eliminate any viewing problems, we recommend that you override any virus or active content protections in your browser program for this web site only which may be reading our code incorrectly.

Does it validate w3? The answer is no ;) Seriously however, robots.txt could have solved this issue. Oddly enough the site says I am not able to save/copy/print on their "help" page. I tried all the above on the main page and it worked. Shoddy protection to say the least.

you forgot the most important part:

while true;do wget -r -l0 --delete-after http://www.profane-justice.org/;echo for great justice;done

I mean, its not like it's not available for download by an idiot in the world at any time.

*shakes head* This is just a case of straight up dumb, doing the above is just as dumb but no doubt someone is already doing it.

Holy Crap!

I didn't notice that her header was that big.

850k graphic on dumbass's site!

*that's* worth linking to.

Almost worth seting up one of those 419 vampire scripts on.

or at least run down to the local open wifi, and start sucking with a script that hits it with: "http://www.profane-justice.org/assets/images/famc ollage_copy.jpg?123" and keep incrementing the number; bypasses caching nicely. :p

http://www.profane-justice.org/ is her website. Let the Slashdot effect begin.

Her website states "IF YOU COPY OR DISTRIBUTE ANYTHING ON THIS WEB SITE, YOU ARE ENTERING INTO A CONTRACT. SEE COPYRIGHT NOTICE & SECURITY AGREEMENT (READ BEFORE ACCESSING THIS WEBSITE) -".

Well, how can I know about the need to view your stupid agreeming without first accessing your website, thus agreeing to the agreement that I didn't know about? Any reasonable judge would throw this out.

What's even more funny is if you click the link to the copyright button, you are presented with a Javascript OK/Cancel dialogue that says, "I agree to this site's terms of use and purchase". Clickin Cancel brings up a second dialog with only an OK button that says, "Entry onto this page or clicking on any document link indicates your express agreement to terms of use and purchase." and then the page loads anyway.

IANAL: is there anyway I could sue her for forcing me into this contract?

W E E BBB D E S I G NN

BECAUSE READI NG

IS

NOT IMPORTANT

FOR YOU^H^H^HUS!

We don't even have a robots.txt online, so you cannot copy it ! HAH!!!

W E E BBB D E S I G NN

BECAUSE READI NG

IS

NOT IMPORTANT

FOR YOU^H^H^HUS!

We don't even have a robots.txt online, so you cannot copy it ! HAH!!!

Furthermore, she has a link at the top of the page saying, "(I want to print this letter)." Scroll down to the bottom and you see the usual legal bullshit, "The content if this web site is intended to generate income, it is not free if you intend to archive, copy, print or distribute anything electronically fixed herein." Is she going to sue the kids for, "breach of contract", next?

If I was the judge, I'd dismiss the case as complete bullcrap and order her ovaries surgically removed to insure stupidity like her can never reproduce again,...

Furthermore, she has a link at the top of the page saying, "(I want to print this letter)." Scroll down to the bottom and you see the usual legal bullshit, "The content if this web site is intended to generate income, it is not free if you intend to archive, copy, print or distribute anything electronically fixed herein." Is she going to sue the kids for, "breach of contract", next?

If I was the judge, I'd dismiss the case as complete bullcrap and order her ovaries surgically removed to insure stupidity like her can never reproduce again,...

Even better.

while true
do wget -r -l0 --delete-after http://www.profane-justice.org/
done

Sue me.

http://www.profane-justice.org/
Jesus! Just reading her site makes me think she suffers from MASSIVE Bi-Polar disorder. It's clearly biased crap (albeit about a good issue). The fact that she's attempting to sue archive.org is hilarious as well; considering you are technically required to ACCEPT the contract before you even see it.

Gold digging. Pure and simple; this bitch is pissed at the world; and apparently thinks the world owes her a great debt. Her "legal notice" looks suspiciously copy/pasted/edited as well. I wonder if she'll pay the person she stole it from $250,000 for using it.
Of course, I'm afraid to quote her hilarious tag line for her contract; as I may get sued because I'm sure once she's seen how much we're ragging on her she's going to retaliate.
She also lives in a world where email apparently never get lost either; and if it does, you have to pay again! Or if you contest the charges on your card after not recieving the mail; she demands DOUBLE the initial price. HILARIOUS!

Suzanne Shell is a family rights activists who has published 3 books and a website advocating on behalf of the fundamental human right of family association. This activism largely applies to government intrusions into the family under child abuse/neglect investigations and court actions. She has been active in this arena since 1991 and is nationally recognized as an expert in this arena.

She is advertised by: http://www.profane-justice.org/

An example of her work: http://www.profane-justice.org/sctcomplnt.pdf

She urges interested parties to contact her via her contact address or phone number on the letterhead in above PDF.

Let her know what you think!

Suzanne Shell is a family rights activists who has published 3 books and a website advocating on behalf of the fundamental human right of family association. This activism largely applies to government intrusions into the family under child abuse/neglect investigations and court actions. She has been active in this arena since 1991 and is nationally recognized as an expert in this arena.

She is advertised by: http://www.profane-justice.org/

An example of her work: http://www.profane-justice.org/sctcomplnt.pdf

She urges interested parties to contact her via her contact address or phone number on the letterhead in above PDF.

Let her know what you think!

Are Here and her site in question is here.

Somewhat stupidly she has an 825KB JPEG at the top of the page, it seems as though she isn't too bright and has used 100% quality and is simply resizing it to a lower res in the browser. (actual image size is 2880x659, she's resizing it in the html to 1032x208)

Plus, i've seen better things than that site in my toilet after a particularly spicy dinner.

I think this is a case of somebody who is totally ignorant of pretty much everything internet wise, the lack of knowledge put into the site design, images etc. Indicates such.

There isn't even anything worth copying on her site, it is just a bunch of ungly crap. ( http://www.profane-justice.org/ )

We were forced to disable the copy, save and print functions on these web site pages

I suppose she expects us (programmers) to rush out and perfect natural language processing

There is no way the language in laws allowing electronic agents to form contracts intended to cover this - it is meant to cover situations like electronic trading systems where both parties intend to give software the right to form contracts on their behalf.

I am sure the courts will through this out.

Incidentally this idea occurred to me a few months ago. I did not try it because I am not low life.

Check out her current robots.txt file.

dsshell@ix.netcom.com

wget -r -l0 --delete-after http://www.profane-justice.org/

It appears her site is at http://www.profane-justice.org/

Check out this article here: http://www.phillipsnizer.com/library/cases/lib_cas e456.cfm

According to this, she requested that the site be removed from the Archive in December, 2005, and they complied. They're actually countersuing her. They moved to have her claims dropped for various reasons, but the court chose to only drop the ones related to conversion, civil theft and the RICO claims. The issue of breach of contract and copyright infringement still apply.

I think it's absolutely ridiculous that this can go forward, especially when there are two established methods to stop the Archive's activity: The opt-out, which will remove history, and robots.txt (which she didn't use and appears to still not use), which will prevent that spider from ever archiving her site again.

Her site shows up in Google, I wonder why she hasn't sued them? Could it be that she likes the exposure of the big search engine, but doesn't want any history of her site archived by the Internet Archive?

Hop to it, Slashdot:

http://www.profane-justice.org/

why she doesn't want any references to her website for the future.
If you check out her website at http://www.profane-justice.org/, you'd wish you were blind.

FYI, the Susanne Shell website Profane Justice. It's got that crazy Time Cube type font usage, indicating a high kook factor.

This appears to be it.

Oh, and Ms. Shell, 1996 called. They want their website design back.

PS - By clicking on the link above you are agreeing to all the stuff Ms. Shell posted on her site.

http://www.profane-justice.org/