The July 27 hearing audio
December 3, 2009
PJ writes on Groklaw:
I have also been listening to the audio a volunteer purchased for me from the July bankruptcy hearing and another skilled audio guy fixed so I could hear it better. That was the one about whether or not SCO should be sent to Chapter 7. I am very frustrated that I can't share that with you, ever, but that is what the court told me.
Do NOT tell anyone that the recording has been on Petrofsky's loathesome website
for the last four months, where anyone can listen to it, not merely someone of such
high moral fiber. It would be wrong.
For my part, if "the court" told me I couldn't share a lawfully acquired public record with other members of the public, I would tell "the court" to go fuck itself, or in the alternative, to read the First Amendment.
"Honestly, Al rarely understands what is going on in any court of law"
December 4, 2009
In the parent, I quoted from a Groklaw article stating that PJ could not redistribute
the audio recording of the July 27 hearing, despite the fact that a "volunteer"
had redistributed it to her. She gave no explanation for this restriction, other
than that "the court" told her she couldn't. Someone who thinks this is utter bullshit
posted a reply showing how the recording could be found on Petrofsky's site -- not
linking to it, of course, which would be instant death, but giving a search term
that would find it. To her credit, she hasn't deleted the thread, at least not yet.
But she responded only indirectly to a question as to why she couldn't post the
recording, when there is nothing on the court's website restricting redistribution.
Apparently she thinks the anonymous poster is Petrofsky, which is not true, and her reply consists entirely of an ad hominem attack on him. This matter should really be discussed on Groklaw, not here, but that's impossible, and I think the issue is important. She writes:
Al is the guy who insisted it was perfectly legal to post documents that had been posted by mistake on PACER. He insisted it was legal until the judge ordered him to remove them, which he did.
Watch out when someone insists it's perfectly legal to do something if the person is not a lawyer. He probably doesn't know what he is talking about.
Not only that, but Al was the guy who insisted that I was wrong to write that there had been no ruling denying AutoZone's motion to change venue. I explained it at the time, but he refused to accept what I wrote, namely that AutoZone would bring the issue up later, since the ruling on their other motion mooted it for the time being. ...
Honestly, Al rarely understands what is going on in any court of law, from what I've seen. So if you rely on his decisions as to what is perfectly legal, don't say I didn't warn you.
Which is all very well by way of impeaching Petrofsky's credentials as a legal
advisor, but she never does address the question of why she can't post the audio,
yet she can receive it from a third party. Is this a case of First Sale?
It's hard not to see an implication here that responsible, right-thinking people such as herself can be trusted to handle public records in ways that are forbidden to the unwashed masses. Quod licet Jovi, non licet bovi.
Source: Investor Village SCO Board [ http://www.investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=1911, https://www.investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=1911&mn=96191&pt=msg&mid=8261086 ]