SCOTUS leaker unlikely to be convicted (Not classified information)

[lantern2814]

Illegally obtained according to who?

It was leaked you moron. Illegally. At least try to keep up for Pete’s sake.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Cool, this can set a new precendent.

Lets leak everything from SCOTUS months in advance. This seems like a great idea.

Certainly any effort by the court to erode 2A should be met with a similar response. Threats of violence against those judges. Its only fair.

 

[lantern2814]

You really don't know what you are talking about. Copyrightability has never had anything to do with whether something is "officially released". And everything the SCOTUS writes is inherently public domain the moment the ink flows from the pen tip.

Not if it hasn’t been officially released yet.

 

[DarthTrader]

Legal expert doesn't see the leaker going to jail:

Supreme Court Hunt for Who Leaked Draft Roe v. Wade Opinion Has No Road Map

The marshal running the probe has untested investigative powers, and the leak might not even be a crime.

www.wsj.com

Wall Street Journal is full of dog shit. Ask yourself this. "Does it make me money?"

If no - then it's feeding you shit

 

[pyetro]

It was leaked you moron. Illegally. At least try to keep up for Pete’s sake.

Besides the former prosecutor, this law professor disagrees with the USMB nickname.
Why can't these law people read message boards? Jeez:

 

[pyetro]

Wall Street Journal is full of dog shit. Ask yourself this. "Does it make me money?"

If no - then it's feeding you shit

So who do you want me to link to? Fox News? Oh... Wait.
Fox News: Leaking SCOTUS draft opinion overturning Roe is not a crime, expert says

Leaking SCOTUS draft opinion overturning Roe is not a crime, expert says

The stunning leak of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito's draft majority opinion has caused speculation that the person behind the leak could be held criminally liable, but one expert is skeptical the leak itself violates any laws.

www.foxnews.com

 

[Sunsettommy]

Not if it hasn’t been officially released yet.

She is being silly since she is saying unknown unpublished government material is somehow in Public Domain when no one but one to a few people know it exist and that isn't released yet.

Her way means that ALL Government classified material is Public Doman thus must be available to the public that is how stupid she is.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Not if it hasn’t been officially released yet.

Seriously, you really have no idea what you're talking about. The draft isn't copyright protected. There is no copyright. It is public domain. Period.

 

[22lcidw]

Before Trumpybear, this breach would be unheard of. After the Trumpytornado ripped through established procedural norms like they were a little town in Kansas it seems kind of ho-hum. Shoving the three ultra-conservative justices down America's throat really turned the institution into a full fledged political beast just like all the other branches of the Federal Government.

We will end up what you do. Castro and Che came to power because of corrupted politics and politicians and crazy agendas. Biden is as bad as they come. Him being installed into the White House has shown us all the true scumbag he is. The whole Prog party watching citizens suffer and doing nothing to curtail it with dufus voters who may still be mesmerized by their one liners and insults towards others.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

If it was first placed in Public Domain

That's not a thing. A court opinion never has copyright protections in the first place. They never exist. By contrast, if you write a two sentence poem, copyright protections automatically exist the moment the ink flows out of the pen.

 

[Sunsettommy]

That's not a thing. A court opinion never has copyright protections in the first place. They never exist. By contrast, if you write a two sentence poem, copyright protections automatically exist the moment the ink flows out of the pen.

I am talking about UNPUBLISHED STOLEN SCOTUS DRAFT material you talked published court opinion two very different things.

All government material that is published goes straight into Public Domain no copyright rules applies.

Justice Alioto has the Intellectual rights (pointed out in the link you continually ignore) to his unpublished DRAFT that was supposed to be later revised and circulated to other justices as they add their thoughts of the case to it before a final document is developed and signed by all the Justices which takes weeks to complete the entire time it is UNPUBLISHED material that is moving around out of sight from the Public view since such activities are not subject to public view that is why it isn't in Public Domain yet because it part of official government activities of sensitive legal argument only they participate in.

You have a serious difficulty handling the word Unpublished of material that is in current form can't be posted yet as it is being undergoing legal actions by elected government officials which can remain Unpublished for reasons of Classified or National Security claim and THOSE are never supposed to be seen in Public.

Stealing unpublished draft that was undergoing legitimate legal government business is a crime that has disrupted lawful activity of a developing decision that was slated to be published around June which of course becomes Public Domain now that has been damaged with no resolution stated.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That's not a thing. A court opinion never has copyright protections in the first place. They never exist. By contrast, if you write a two sentence poem, copyright protections automatically exist the moment the ink flows out of the pen.

But that's hollow. Good luck with that claim. Else people would just be writing down song lyrics and going to court saying they wrote them 20 years ago.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Legal expert doesn't see the leaker going to jail:

Supreme Court Hunt for Who Leaked Draft Roe v. Wade Opinion Has No Road Map

The marshal running the probe has untested investigative powers, and the leak might not even be a crime.

www.wsj.com

If the law isn't on the books, then it's not illegal.

 

[DBA]

If the law isn't on the books, then it's not illegal.

We should just publish all discussions between the SCJ's. Right? What could that possibly hurt?

Personally, I believe they should be treated as "internal only" documents or risk losing the power of the court all together. This was an attempt to exert political pressure on the justices, which is a HORRIBLE precedent.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

We should just publish all discussions between the SCJ's. Right?

I would say no.

 

[Mac-7]

Legal expert doesn't see the leaker going to jail:

Supreme Court Hunt for Who Leaked Draft Roe v. Wade Opinion Has No Road Map

The marshal running the probe has untested investigative powers, and the leak might not even be a crime.

www.wsj.com

Its almost certain the culprit is a fledgling ambulance chaser

Come down on him like a ton of bricks

Including taking his law license

 

[tyroneweaver]

The Democrat controlled DOJ will find a way to protect the bottom feeder who leaked the draft. The Democrat controlled Media will make the bottom feeder into a folk hero.

Daniel Ellsberg 2.0

 

[ColonelAngus]

If you like a leak on a decisions you do not like and do not like a leak on decisions you like, you are a bit of a c-word.

 

[whitehall]

Let's cross that bridge when we come to it. Strange that the Feds take criminal trespass so seriously that they organized a sweep and incarceration without due process and even a senate committee hearing. The administration seems so concerned about disinformation that they established a federal bureau but yet the most notorious breach of security in Supreme Court history is dismissed as not worth prosecuting. Find a freaking statute, the FBI does it all the time.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

But that's hollow. Good luck with that claim. Else people would just be writing down song lyrics and going to court saying they wrote them 20 years ago.

And?