Slashdot Mirror
Startup Threatened Into Settling Over Hyperlinking
An anonymous reader writes "A tiny startup that was threatened by a massive law firm over nothing more than a humble hyperlink has been forced to settle and change its linking policies, handing Goliath the win in this gratuitous trademark case. Under the agreement, real estate startup BlockShopper can no longer include hyperlinks anywhere on its website to Jones Day, a massive Chicago law firm, except explicitly on URL text. Essentially, jonesday.com is okay, but not blah blah blah." I wonder if the owners of jonesdaysucks.com feel the same way.
frist psot beeoches
...and not one memo to a tech guy for a technological solution? I mean, if you don't like a site deep-linking into your own, isn't it a trivial one-line change to the server setup to block referrers?
This whole blah blah blah linking scandal is just so blah blah blah stupid. Heck maybe we can cue a blah blah blah Googlebomb to demonstrate just how bad Jonesday is with the handling of this blah blah blah issue.
BTW: Jonesday, if you're thinking of suing me don't bother, I've got no money and know plenty of lawyers who will work for me anyways. It's not so much blood from a stone as it's blood from a raging inferno.
...in bed
Every person at jonesday isa turtle
It really sucks that the little guy got screwed by a bunch of litigious bastards.
Pretend there is some witty statement here.
...court is held in contempt of you!
I have a feeling jones day, are about to have a really bad day.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
Make sure to let them know how much they suck via their handy contact form.
In no time at all they'll be Google #1 for every swear word, former Googlebomb phrase, blah blah blah, and the word turtle. As is their just reward :-)
...in bed
A website is a public-facing document. It explicitly exists to transfer information from the operators' servers to the computer of anyone who for whatever reason accesses that server.
It seems unreasonable to claim that there should be any sort of restriction on who can do what with the address that points people to your website. If you don't want people going there, then make your site password-protected.
Everybody spam the http://jonesday.com/ with the anchor text "litigious bastards". Only 14,000 results in google so it shouldn't be hard to get to the top.
A Magic the Gathering Article and Forum Aggregator
Recently, a leading firm specializing in psychological research revamped its experimental methodology to use lawyers instead of laboratory mice as test subjects. When asked for an explanation, the head of clinical research provided three reasons:
1) There is, and most likely never will be, a shortage of lawyers in this country
2) There is no danger that the clinical staff will form an emotional attachment with the lawyers
3) There are some things that mice won't do.
From TFA: "Do you know, young man, how much money it's going to cost you to defend yourselves against Jones Day?"
So, basically, here's a just saying, point blank, that he's not in the business of justice... that it's irrelevant if you are right in the eyes of the law, if you don't have enough money, you lose. It's refreshing to see a judge being so honest.
So what's the matter if they can't link to that site? I don't get it. They are a realestate site that wanted to link to a lawfirm? huh?
Why did they even fight this in the first place. Just don't link to their site at all.... WTF.
Unfortunately, the judge in the case refused to even look at the brief after Jones Day said the brief sided with one party (as most amicus briefs do); he also refused to dismiss the case at the request of BlockShopper. According to TechDirt, the judge even allegedly put pressure on BlockShopper to back down by saying, "Do you know, young man, how much money it's going to cost you to defend yourselves against Jones Day?"
I may not know much, but that's pretty low.
Bullying Assholes
.. the firm presumably wasn't thrilled about having its attorneys' home purchases broadcast ..
The firm's got a point if you ask me.
This is an overkill, but I'm sure they just meant to teach these boneheads a lesson - don't fuck with lawyers.
damals,interessiert!Das war ja wirklich ist kein Nazi! Ich war doch nie er damals, in diesem Gummiseil hinunter zu schen konnten werden kann, wenn er soviele MiÃYgeburt, das ist üblich dass die rothÃute und diesen Kohle gekommen, da bellt den hinunterstürzt und wie er dann der Waffen-SS, das erkenne ich, ach ich, ach ist kein herz so gefreut habe sie meine besten Eieren, rote und schÃnen gesammelt habe, das sind schenken, diesen warmen noch ein paar zitate von der Spitze aus den hitlergruss, daÃY der Geschichte ,auchen musik, auf die ich an die Warmen Duschen, wenn man allen, dieser glückliche MiÃYgeburt, das hat gebraucht ,um aus diesen Geschichte ,auch Diamanten leben, nicht
in diesen dürfen,aber meisten gebraucht im Aschehaufen den felsen hinunter zum
besten geben, nicht
interesst. Deshalb
habe sie habe, noch ein herz so erwÃrmen. "schulter-blÃark! schluss!" Schulter-blÃark! schluss mit nazis! schwarze filzlÃuse müssen mit einer Marathongeschwindigkeit an diesem Gummiseil hinunter war ja wirklich hineingehen, wo die Geschichte ,aucht ,um aus diesen allen, ihr Freunde von meinsam, wie er dann unten
kÃnnen, überdruss, da bellt des Mannes hÃngt, das hat geben, ihr Freunde von meine bestens haben wir ihm durch arisiertes GelÃnde zur Verfügung
geworden, rote und wie ich an diese Diamanten Kunst, und wissen dürfen,aber meistens haben doch Schulterstürzt und wÃhrend diesen allen, diesen gute Mann, der zum
besten im BÃren Stuss, susi
gibt strolchi einmal kurz sie meine besten geben, weil sitzt , das hat gelassen bis zum überdruss, susi
gibt strolchi einen zungenkuss, susi
gibt strolchi ein Naziland, Nein! Ich warmen Duschen, wo es sind mir einem
GÃbbels-Freunde zur Verfügung
gestellt der soviele Millionen geben, wenn man alles vernaderer! "strolchi einen Mann, diesem Duft des Geistens habe das muÃY ich euch so richtig wichsen
kÃnnen, überdruss, da bellt der entartete Kunst gehÃrt, entarteten Kunst gelassen im
Bunker und hilmar übt den hinunterstürzen, als der Spitze aus den hitlergruss, und hilmar übt den hitlergruss, susi
gibt strolchi einen zungenkuss, Westi quatscht
reaktionÃren Stuss, Westi quatscht regieren, rote und schÃne Bilder wo die rote und schwarze filzlÃuse müssen mich hab ich mich entartete Musik, entartete Mann, wenn er so tüchtig drauflos, eine Mann ein paar zitate von meinem freut habe, noch duschen, und da ist mir diesem Glied undin dem kleinen zungenkuss, Westi quatscht
reaktionÃren Stus
"The first thing we do is kill all the lawyers" (Henry VI, Pt. II).
I insist that you stop this defamation immediately! jonesday.com is a fine, upstanding company that offers excellent service.
... and then they built the supercollider.
...someone should Da Vinci their Gibson with extreme prejudice.
Scriptkiddies could finally be useful!
There are only 10 kinds of people in the world. Those that understand binary and those that don't.
I had the patience to go two links deep, but there is no mention if the judge's name. Who is he/she? They should get some feedback. Also, I suggest sending feedback to the law firm in question. Here's what I wrote, but you all can be more clever than this. "You guys made a technical and a marketing mistake in going after BlockShopper over a hyperlink. I hope you hire someone at an outrageous hourly rate to look into the ramifications of your strategy, and I also hope the judge in the case is up for re-election."
Was this the lawyer who purchased a house while he was walking away from another property (some sort of "jingle mail" or mortgage default?) I seem to remember something about that last year ...
Even though it sucks that they got steamrolled I'm sure the startup doesn't mind so much because of the free publicity the case generated.
Remember, when you think of jonesday.com, think goatse.cx.
What a bunch of shysters, eh. Fuckin' dumb ass turtles, wasting everyone's tax dollars, time and shit.
According to this blog and many other sources, the lawyers in question were Dan Malone and Jacob Tiedt, who do indeed work at Jones Day according to their own web site. It's not clear to me what, exactly the issue is there. The names involved in sales of a property are ordinarily recorded as public information (unless it's done through an agent or something). The information about these gentlemen's employment is right on their employer's web site. Is Jones Day claiming that putting this information together is illegal?
The blog cites another article in a law journal about supposed concerns about privacy. Fair enough. But if that's the case then these guys have probably gone out of their way to keep all personal information private.
Wait, what's this? Jacob Tiedt is a pretty distinctive name. There can't be too many of those in Chicago. And, wow, that's strange. Why the heck does the guy's name appear all over the place in a Google search that simply uses "Jacob Tiedt" and "Chicago"? Heck, one of the web pages registers his political donations which ALSO indicates that his employer/occupation is "Jones Day/Attorney" and gives his ZIP code. Lexis Nexis gives all sorts of details too, and (gasp) links directly to the jonesday.com web site. Horrors. And, strange, apparently he doesn't have an unlisted number, because his name is easy to find in the various on-line white pages. It's almost as if he hasn't made the slightest effort to remain incognito.
It looks like Jones Day is going to spend a lot of time in litigation if they want to expunge the web of any links to Jones Day and these guy's personal information, and half of the web pages are as a result of their initial attempts with Blockshopper. Hello? Streisand effect?
The apparent remedy in the settlement was to prohibit links like this: Daniel P. Malone Jr., while links like this: www.jonesday.com/dpmalone are acceptable. Huh? I don't get it.
What a farce.
The whole Google-Bomb idea was nice, but every link on this page is nofollow'd. Not gonna do any good.
"The suit argues that linking to their site in this matter dilutes their service mark", unlike, you know, abusive litigation?
This is just another example of a true-life story that is so mind-numbingly stupid that you would almost think it came from the front page of The Onion. These tools can suck one.
That sounds like bad dialog from a Lifetime network lawyer movie or something.
google bombing wont work
moral of the story: don't post on slashdot when you have the ful and can't think tstraight.
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
>You have the absolute right to point to any resource on my server you want?
Yes.
If it is really about marketing, why not make a tinyurl and link the tinyurl, and then have jonesday go after tinyurl? Even better, use a url-compressor site that is out of the country, thus out of reach for joneday to sue as well?
Filetype:pdf site:jonesday.com. Around 2,000 pieces of fun. Don't link to them! Don't use downthemall to get them all, don't zip them, and don't upload them to a torrent tracker.
You may also leave a comment on Jones Day's website
http://www.jonesday.com/contact/contact.aspx
Basically yes. If your data is protected by 'security through obscurity' I reckon you pretty much have what's coming when people quickly figure out how to easily subjugate it.
But that doesn't really apply in this case, does it? Because it's not even like they're linking to data that's supposed to be hidden behind a javascript password verifier. Just regular pages on a site.
JonesDay.com has a contact link on their homepage with a webform. I commended them on their victory and commiserated with their looking like uber cyberbullies.
Basically: if it's there and it's out in the open it amounts to the same thing as you dropping trou in the middle of a busy sidewalk and someone pointing a finger at your bare ass. And you got NO ONE to blame for that but yourself, buddy. If you want to own it, protect it; if you don't want to share it, don't make it accessible. Linking, hypertext has been around since DAY EFFIN' ONE of the internet and is built INTO it. The judge in this case was no better than a luddite, backwoods dipwad with no concept or understanding of that and bullied the defendant into submission. We nerds don't take kindly to bullies around here...
~Just as a thing fails if it lacks a kernel, so too it fails if it lacks a skin. ~ Rumi, Discourses
Their website is still up!
The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act would disagree with you, for just one Federal law criminalizing unauthorized access.
Your one-word answer is exactly what I mean when I think lots of Slashdot readers assume law degrees and IP expertise get handed to them in their sleep by the geek fairy.
Ya think the next settlement agreement from these folks will have a better confidentiality clause?
Except that you're just wrong. If I open the gate to my yard for my friends to walk through, you still can't crash my party.
It's nice that you think this is all "built into it" but were you less new around here, I'd ask you how the old mosaic days could possibly be relevant in an era where your grandmother is running a spam bot. Just because we started with an academic setting where nobody could even imagine misuse doesn't mean we should all suffer from our stuff being misused.
I love slashdot. You people always come up with the best little jibs. Fuck jones day dot com
*DrugCheese rants*
That may well be true. Truer still is the fact that just because there is a law against something does not protect you from it happening. For instance, just because there are laws against you getting mugged, raped, murdered or burglarized will not protect you from them happening. They may or may not afford you some justice after the fact. Hell, they may even deter some people from committing them in the first place. Nevertheless, they won't stop bad stuff from happening.
Again: if you want something you own protected - PROTECT IT. If you leave something out in the open, expect somebody to notice it and at the very least, point at it.
Pointing, last time I checked anyway, hadn't been legislated into the dark ages.
~Just as a thing fails if it lacks a kernel, so too it fails if it lacks a skin. ~ Rumi, Discourses
The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act does not cover publicly accessible URLs. It never has. Period.
And even if it did, like most amateur, wannabe, condescendingly annoying, psuedo legal eagles, you are confusing "rights" with the law. There are rights that we have that the legistlature and judicial system consistently and repeatedly ignore. To make matters worse, they do it because of ignorant, shortsighted, luddite fools just like you. You disgust me. There is absolutely nothing morally wrong with deeplinking a to a publically available URL.
Don't pretend for a minute that you know more about what is right and wrong than anybody here, let alone assume we are as completely ignorant of the law as you are.
Please cite case law where the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act was used to prosecute a deep linker in a case not involving fraud.
A. Not a party crasher. And my point was: what you do out in the open is FAIR GAME for me (or anyone else) to point at. I wouldn't think of barging into a Private Gathering ; I'm not Social Barbarian.
/. or not.
/. regular...
B. Ran a Wildcat BBS in 1986 and shunted email packets: been on the 'net a while, Jr., so I get the rules whether I've "membered-up" at
C. Don't badmouth my Granny, she's been dead a while and was a fine, Christian lady.
D. I'll Link to whatever the hell I want to.
E. That was pretty lame troll baiting for a
~Just as a thing fails if it lacks a kernel, so too it fails if it lacks a skin. ~ Rumi, Discourses
Where did http://www.jonesdaysucks.com/ go?
Is it GoDaddy evil or something more innocent?
Please mod parent up.
Or you can rate him here. This should get interesting:
http://www.therobingroom.com/Judge.aspx?ID=1190
Tim Berners-Lee and W3C should put a license on http such that it is not permitted to serve content via http that cannot be freely linked to. Locking content down by password, encryption etc. would still be permitted, but if content appears on an http server on the open Internet, it is legal to link to it with whatever anchor text. It would still be possible to bring a case for slander or libel if the anchor text were slanderous or libelous, but otherwise, link restriction would not be compatible with the license to use http or by extension an http server.
Problem solved.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
Search Their Site! Repeatedly! http://jonesday.com/search/Search.aspx?qu=the
Try the slashdot effect: http://jonesday.com/search/Search.aspx?qu=brief
Slashdot Effect in Effect: http://jonesday.com/search/Search.aspx?qu=united
sudo ping -f www.jonesday.com
Is there anything better than clicking through Microsoft ads on Slashdot?
Except that there's no argument about whether the gate's open or not. Just you trying to force people to walk down the path in the manner of your choosing.
God: An invisible friend for grown-ups.
Anyone still have a war dialer hanging about?
Is there anything better than clicking through Microsoft ads on Slashdot?
If linking "jonesday.com" (and presumably "Jones Day" or similar) to their site address is OK, then that's absolutely fine. Hyperlinks are supposed to describe what they link to, so unless they're abusing the standards, that's not a problem.
So essentially this is about deep linking.
hmm.. to put it succintly for these lawyer types:
booo!!!
or maybe even
jones, you've been a bad boy, go stand in the corner!
_ In Egypt Networks: Network Solutions with a Twist
That's because it would be trespass: even if the gate is open, you are still entering clearly-demarked private property.
That does not bear the slightest relation to deep linking, which in this case involves linking to a page that is explicitly intended to be accessible to the general public.
The equivalent would be, for example, if you invited me to a party but insisted I tread on your doorstep on the way in, and then sued me when I stepped over it instead.
Like it's not possible to supply the "referrer" in the link you post?
It's "Referer". Capital R, and I know it's misspelled -- that is how the HTTP header was originally misspelled, and it has stuck.
And it has nothing to do with me supplying it. It is automatically supplied by every user who clicks through. It lets your server know that they came from my server, and not from somewhere else on your website.
It is pretty much a one-line fix to protect a resource from being linked to directly, without going through your site.
Hey, thanks for the public domain code, guy, I'm sorry if you didn't prevent me from linking around your license agreement.
Except, you didn't.
I mean, I thought for a moment you were from this firm, being an AC who doesn't know the first thing about technology or the Web -- but it looks as though you also don't know the first thing about the law, either.
Lack of a license doesn't imply public domain, at least not in the US. Instead, it implies automatic copyright, all rights reserved. This is why various licenses like the GPL actually do not take away rights -- they provide them.
Yeah, I know that nude picture of your boyfriend was supposed to be password protected, but unfortunately, I'm clever
It's unlikely anyone here except you would be stupid enough to hide private information in the URL, rather than employing simple access controls. Some basic HTTP Auth, and you can't deep-link it without at least providing a password -- one which can be revoked.
this is what should happen
Startups should be raped with legal fees for daring to link to stuff that is actually on the public record?
If you have some right to link, against my permission, shouldn't that right be vindicated in court
Possibly. Notice how there wasn't actually a judgment made -- the judge just refused to dismiss the case, and warned that the startup would have to spend quite a lot of money to defend themselves. That does make him an asshole, but it doesn't actually constitute legal precedent.
So, even if you believe it should be proven in court -- while I think it's kind of self-evident that it should be legal, in the same way as specifying paragraph three on page two hundred ninety six of a particular edition of The Great Gatsby is plainly legal citation -- I still don't see how having the case settled out of court due to sheer intimidation is what "should happen", by your logic or any other.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Try: http://jonesday.com/search/Search.aspx?qu=it
So I might as well do what they dislike the most.
click to find out if there is a picture of a butt bandit here
http://www.stuipidprize.com/Jones+Day
I wonder how they'll like that showing up in searches.
Sounds like a cool firm. Check it:
Sherwin-Williams Company, The
State of Rhode Island v. Lead Industries Association, Inc., et al.
The Rhode Island Supreme Court rejects the Stateâ(TM)s public nuisance claim seeking the abatement of lead paint in buildings by Sherwin-Williams and other former lead pigment manufacturers.
Awesome.
Go to the site's home page to see the top and bottom 10 judges: http://www.therobingroom.com/
Thx, I will make this comment so I can find it easily in my "My Comments" page :D
This is the sig that says NI (again)
Lawyers are paid for their knowledge, judgement and advice. I'm not in the market at the moment, but as an occasional purchaser of legal services, the fact that Jones Day would pursue this claim in this way indicates a lack of sound judgement. If I were looking for a lawyer, I would be thinking - "If they are as clueless about the real world as the reporting on this case suggests, in acting for themselves, then how could they be trusted to give sensible advice to others?" Jones Day have thousands of lawyers, and of course this case is one of thousands that I expect that they are currently involved in, but how could their review team have let this carry on to its conclusion? Incorrect risk analysis on their part? No risk analysis? Could reporting on this be incorrect?
I understand that nobody enjoys information that they consider to be private to be put into the public domain, and that part of the problem is that the internet removes the half-way house that publication on paper provided - semi-public by way of obscurity - that they lacked tools to redact the information, but I'm not sure that this is a good reason for a trademark claim. Perhaps a spokesperson from Jones Day would like to give some background on their decision making and the way that they pursued their claim to provide balance to the commentary.
I thought that was when someone sues for privacy but the publicity of the case guarantees that no privacy is possible. It's an amusing ironic twist against people obsessed with their own privacy.
It appear that the firm in question is defending their trademark, not their privacy.
http://snipurl.com/jackass
See, modded up despite legal errors.
"Whoever intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains information from any protected computer if the conduct involved an interstate or foreign communication shall be punished as provided in subsection (c) of this section."
"the term âoeprotected computerâ means a computer... which is used in interstate or foreign commerce or communication, including a computer located outside the United States that is used in a manner that affects interstate or foreign commerce or communication of the United States"
How does that language not cover a URL?
Freedom is never easy. People have to fight for it. It's as simple as that. The idiots who brought this lawsuit would have lost had the defendant stayed in the game.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Please, please turn off nofollow for this story.
Unless someone registers the domain in a hurry ...
--- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
Maybe the trademark can be invalidated? I mean they've indicated they're willing to go against the little guy--but I thought a requirement of owning a trademark was actually defending it... And since they're asserting the right to control use of it in a hyperlink-- shouldn't they then also be forced to explain why they haven't defended against the use by google, yahoo, jeeves, and every other search engine that also hyperlinks to them?
Heck--give them their trademark. Just pull them off every search engine on the internet (they asked for it--literally) so they get the control they've asked for. And while they're at it, it looks like ICANN is using their name in DNS records. Better pull that record while we're at it. Of course--that violates policy, so the domain name will need to be canned entirely...
And while I'm at it--I bet sending emails requires use of the name too. I'll have to configure my mailserver to drop traffic to avoid reproducing the name in my logfiles... And shit...if they send me something, the name will be reproduced in my firewall log, mailspool, and email client--crap--I'm going to have to blackhole their name entirely... but that'll still need logs. I guess the only solution is to RBL them off entirely...
Are you really that stupid? If you can link to something on the web, then it's been published to the web. Publishing something == authorizing access unless you protect it somehow. Don't want that naked picture of you to get out? Don't publish it!
The only way it could cover a URL is if that URL somehow bypassed authorization for a site.
I like where you're going with that. Unfortunately, it's not that simple. Something like a protocol doesn't fit under copyright. It would be a patent thing. The clause would have to be in the copyright of the software that implements the protocol and you've already got so many http servers out there that it would be pretty impossible to get them all to set this up.
are those idiots who sue internet presences for bullshitty reasons aware that, the moment they come up and show their animosity against the values of internet, they are making themselves a prime target for all major league hackers and junior league wannabees around the world, instantly ?
do they think they will be able to sue down unidentifiable major league hackers, say, in germany for example, when out of their annoyance they make that shiney website of them have 50% downtime, or even infiltrate their corporate network and bust their files ?
or a chinese wannabee ddosing the server that their site runs on into oblivion ?
it seems to me that many corporations are yet not aware that internet, web is a LIVE environment in which you are always in front of the eyes of the public. and public's perception of you, can make you, or break you in many ways.
Read radical news here
Just wait until YOU are featured on that site. Than come back and preach about changing things that you don't like.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
URL somehow bypassed authorization for a site
What are you talking about? Authorization is something that has to be given, otherwise it's meaningless. You need a class in statutory construction. Do you think it reads 'anyone who accesses after being advised that their access is forbidden'?
Maybe you're thinking that you're authorized merely because the computer is connected to the internet? No, that's why the offense is intentionally accessing a computer without authorization.
As I see it, Blockshopper.com offends every property owner's privacy by making Blockshopper's databases assessable and archiveable by Google and other websites. They go several steps further than other real estate sites such as Zillow.com in that Blockshopper actually lists the names of the buyers and sellers. For most people, this will mean their personal residence!
Then look at Blockshopper's other transgression against people's privacy...their "news articles." Blockshopper singles out people whom they can somehow track on the web for their "news pieces". If you're unfortunate to have a name that is fairly unique, and you have something about you posted on the web, you become fair game to them. They will post your name, the other party's name, the transaction amount, transaction date, property address, Goolgle map that pinpoints the property address, and if available, lift your picture or biography off another website and post it in their article about YOU. What does this mean if you're the home buyer? It means Blockshopper will post your NAME(s), ADDRESS, how much you paid, and give a Google map that pinpoints YOUR house!
How would YOU like it if your employers, clients, potential clients, friends and anyone who knows how to enter your name in a search engine can easily stumble upon how much you purchased or sold a your home, or a piece of real estate for with just a Google search?
Being a matter of public record is one thing. Making public record google-able and so easy for everyone to see is completely something else.
The Jones Day attorneys probably fell victim to BlockShopper's news articles and unfortuately, they were only able to stop BlockShopper's use of the link to the Jones Day website.
Seems to me that if Jones Day was this upset about identification of public information about one of their attorneys, perhaps thou doth protest too much?
Some Conspiracy Theorist might think Jones Day is hiding even more embarrassing, or possibly improper information and/or behaviour. Some crack-pot investigator might even look for improprieties potentially damaging to Jones Day or the attorney in question.
Not that there is anything, mind you, but certainly someone is crazy enough to think so...
Shit, Piss, Fuck, Cunt, Cocksucker, Motherfucker, and Tits
Sounds like another shining example of Chicago (and Illinois) corrupt politics. Interestingly, it seems much of it can be traced back to organized crime getting its fingers into government during prohibition. Obama, in some ways, seems to have skirted much of the "Machine's" corruption -- time will tell if he'll continue the same corruption and violence causing prohibition that was redirected to Cannabis, or if he'll considering ending another major financial force of corruption that may end up toppling Mexico's government. The worst example of Mexico's government failing before their organized crime: last week a chief of police had to resign to comply with a blackmail request by Drug Lords, who were executing 2 cops every other day until he resigned. It was either after the 4th or 2nd death that he decided to give in -- they are unable to protect there own police force, let alone deal with the prohibition caused crime there.
For Oregon the office to report Judge misconduct is http://www.ojd.state.or.us/aboutus/cjfd/index.htm I bet there is one for Illinois. File a report even if you think it will not help. Can someone forward this to the folks who wound up in court and to the legal staff at EFF. I had a judge ignore the rule of law in lower court and I later won on Appeal with only a written brief, no oral argument needed. In addition to his disregard for the rule of law, he was on transcript for cutting me off and declaring me guilty before I could finish any statement. I quote him "let me clue you in" and telling me if the cops tell me to do something ( turns out it was illegal ) I had "better do it or wind up back in court". Judges, Lawyers and cops are all in a close circle and they all look out for each other. I'd post more links if I thought it was safe here.
You keep neglecting the fact that this is all available via HTTP, which is a method of _publication_. Publication implies authorization. How can this escape you?