The Insanely Complex Rules The Supreme Court Requires You To Meet To Ask It To Hear Your Case

from the what's-the-point dept

We recently talked about Aaron Greenspan for his efforts to continue some of the efforts that Aaron Swartz began -- freeing up information to legal documents, in particular. However, back in 2007, we also wrote about Greenspan for being yet another Harvard person claiming that he really invented Facebook, and that Zuckerberg copied from him. We thought those claims were kind of silly. Greenspan did eventually settle with Facebook on a trademark claim (after Greenspan tried to get Facebook's marks cancelled), though last year he tried to claim he had new evidence of copying by Zuckerberg, which all seems fairly silly. As we've noted time and time again, ideas mean little. It's all about the execution. Facebook executed in a way people wanted. Get over it.

That wasn't Greenspan's only long shot legal dispute. He also sued author Ben Mezrich, Mezrich's publisher Random House, and Columbia Pictures, claiming that they all more or less rewrote his own book. Mezrich's book, Accidental Billionaires, became the hit movie The Social Network, and Greenspan claims they both infringe on his own book, which he had trouble publishing, about the origins of Facebook. Greenspan is representing himself (pro se) and hasn't had much luck. The case was easily dismissed by both the district court and the appeals court. The district court reminded Greenspan that you can't copyright facts. I tend to think that Greenspan's legal escapades concerning these things are simply tilting at windmills. There's no case here and he should really move on.

That said, there is a really fascinating tangent to all of this. After the appeals court once again rejected Greenspan's arguments, he went through the process of filing to ask the Supreme Court to hear the case (the chances of this actually happening are very, very, very slim). However, his blog post about his reasons for filing and the insane process that the Supreme Court makes you go through is absolutely worth reading. Basically, he notes that every step of the way there are bizarre, convoluted and ridiculous rules that seem to serve no purpose other than to try to make it frustrating as hell for a normal everyday person to actually appeal to the Supreme Court without hiring an expensive lawyer and/or some really expensive services. Here's just a snippet of a much longer piece, which I highly recommend, despite my feeling that his lawsuits are a complete waste of time.

The first thing to know is that the finished booklet must be 6 and 1/8th inches wide and 9 and 1/4 inches high.

9 and 1/4 inches is a strange number when it comes to page length. Most of us know paper (so long as we're not in Europe or Asia) as being 8 and 1/2 inches wide by 11 inches high, commonly referred to as "Letter" size paper. If you take a standard sheet of Letter paper and fold it over, you get a booklet that is 5 and 1/2 inches by 8 and 1/2 inches. For the Supreme Court's purposes, that for whatever reason doesn't work. (Interestingly, the dimensions of the printed text block easily fit on a Letter sheet of paper, so Rule 33.1 could be said to be designed to mandate slightly bigger margins, and nothing more.)

Well—you might think (as I did)—maybe they sell 12 and 1/4 inch by 9 and 1/4 inch paper in stores (so that when you fold it over lengthwise you get a booklet that matches the Court's required dimensions).

They most certainly do not sell 12 and 1/4 inch by 9 and 1/4 inch paper in stores. It's one of the only things, in fact, that I've ever typed into Google and not found a single relevant result for. However we farm trees to make paper, we do not farm them to make paper of this size. It does not exist in the marketplace.

He goes on to note that the Supreme Court even specifies the weight of the paper, but not the type (which makes a difference in understanding the weight), leading to confusion. Oh yeah, also the filings are encouraged by the Court to be bound together with a specific stitch: saddle stitch. The whole thing is a crazy story -- and while I think this legal filing itself is a waste of time, I really appreciate his sharing the details of some of the insanity it takes to actually file.

Yes, we don't want random crackpots continually inundating the Supreme Court, but it really seems like these archaic rules now serve little purpose other than to make things nearly impossible for anyone who doesn't do exactly this for a living to take part in the process. Basically, it's just like other sets of regulations whose sole purpose really seems to be to prop up a mini industry that has sprung up around them. In this day and age, it seems only reasonable that the rules should be modernized quite a bit.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 19th, 2013 @ 4:13pm

    I think it's sound thinking. Otherwise you'd have every crackpot with a gripe inundating the court. If your cause is worthwhile and implicates the constitution, there are plenty of skilled lawyers from advocacy groups prepared to help.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    PRMan, Feb 19th, 2013 @ 4:47pm

    Sounds like a good business model

    Sell paper for laser printers along with binding kits. Make buck.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Hyman Rosen, Feb 19th, 2013 @ 4:48pm

    Supreme Court printing

    A bit of searching turned up at least these two services and who do this type of printing.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Feb 19th, 2013 @ 5:02pm

      Re: Supreme Court printing

      Greenspan's article mentions that:
      They asked how long the First Circuit and district court opinions were and based on the page length I provided them, quoted me a range of $1,800 to $1,900 to print my brief if I supplied them with all of the text ready to go. If I just handed them a stack of paper, it would be more.
      He was able to pull it off for about $500 (with significant effort).

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Pseudonym, Feb 20th, 2013 @ 5:06pm

        Re: Re: Supreme Court printing

        I mentally added my hourly rates to what he spent, and it came out significantly higher than $1900.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Wally (profile), Feb 19th, 2013 @ 5:17pm

    Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.

    Please don't get me wrong but because of the complaint about the paper requirement, Aaron Greenspan is an idiot. Standard legal documents are 9 and 1/4 inches wide for a specific reason. This is to conform to the fact that it takes 8 squares surround a smaller square to make an exponentially larger square from the square that is surrounded.

    Imagine the following are squares on a grid....

    o o o
    o o o
    o o o

    See how much easier it is to center a letterhead text on a 9 and 1/4 inch piece of paper?? It makes it much easier to read. Makes litigation and decision making much easier and speedier.

    The purpose of the length is the same, but the 12.5 inches allows for a half-inch margin at the top for the letterhead of the brief or motion.

    The 5.25 inch note card requirement only makes it even easier for you to get to the point of your defense and saves tax payers time and money rather than beat around the bush with your case....which is exactly what Aaron Greenspan doesn't want to happen. I think the way he sees it, he'd want to have the power to litigate as much as he wants and beat around the bush until he gets what he wants..

    The paper requirement standards he complains about are specifically made to allow for easier reading. The same standards help the US Supreme Court make quicker decisions.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Feb 19th, 2013 @ 6:18pm

      Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.

      ...am I missing some parameters here? Why is anything you described easier with 9.25" paper than 8.5"?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Feb 19th, 2013 @ 8:45pm

        Re: Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.

        Yeah, the fact that the government apparently is mathematically challenged.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Feb 19th, 2013 @ 7:13pm

      Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.

      "See how much easier it is to center a letterhead text on a 9 and 1/4 inch piece of paper?? It makes it much easier to read. Makes litigation and decision making much easier and speedier."


      Is this a Poe?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Feb 20th, 2013 @ 12:06am

        Re: Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.

        Not exactly, but you have to go into psychological influencing for that. I suspect that the reasoning is as follows:

        If you can centre the letterhead exactly, that implies a degree of precision in both your demeanour and your arguments, thus making it more likely that your arguments will be even heard in the first place.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      btrussell (profile), Feb 19th, 2013 @ 7:59pm

      Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.

      "The first thing to know is that the finished booklet must be 6 and 1/8th inches wide and 9 and 1/4 inches high."


      "See how much easier it is to center a letterhead text on a 9 and 1/4 inch piece of paper?? It makes it much easier to read. Makes litigation and decision making much easier and speedier.
      The purpose of the length is the same, but the 12.5 inches allows for a half-inch margin at the top for the letterhead of the brief or motion."

      Step away from the iprescription pad!

      Definition of PRESCRIPTION
      3
      : the action of laying down authoritative rules or directions
      4
      a : a written direction for a therapeutic or corrective agent; specifically : one for the preparation and use of a medicine
      http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prescription

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Wally (profile), Feb 19th, 2013 @ 10:02pm

        Re: Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.

        9.25 inches (wide) for the mathematically challenged is 9 and 1 quarter inches wide...when you are ping an outline, it helps the human eye track ones own hand writing or type faces.

        It's also likely used so that trolls like Aaron Greenspan cannot exploit the system with fake legal documentation. They ask for specific types of actual paper because the paper and ink and/or toner provided is filed and stored in an organized fashion inside a box 10 inch wide by 13 inch long (oh thats up and down for the stupid people out there who are desperate trolls) box....the papers' dimensions match the envelope they are stored in.

        For those less educated than I...or those who are quite educated wondering what the fuck I'm getting at...

        Now, due to some reason, these standards are set in place for the purpose of physical storage...just in case the wonderful technologies of this world that you trolls seem to enjoy misusing for blatant, uncalled for mockery of one's intelligence, breaks down. The paper has to be a certain type...the dimensions have to be different from a standard A4 type xerox paper (8.5x11 inches) basically for the simple task of long term storage. Simple as that.

        But I'm sure you and the other AC trolls who responded to my comment missed that fact as badly as Aaron Greenspan had....

        Mike Mandick I really am sorry, but Greenspan has no reason to complain. He's griping because he either lost his cases, and because he only wishes he came up with ideas and acted on them.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Feb 20th, 2013 @ 4:19am

          Re: Re: Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.

          Long term storage that is a good one LoL

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Feb 20th, 2013 @ 4:29am

          Re: Re: Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.

          Really rather full of yourself now aren't you

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Mr. Applegate, Feb 20th, 2013 @ 5:04am

          Re: Re: Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.

          A4 type xerox paper (8.5x11 inches)


          Um, hate to pick nits but A4 paper is 210mm X 297mm which translates to 8.26772" x 11.6929".

          A4 paper (8.26772" x 11.6929")!= U.S. Letter Size Paper (8.5" x 11")

          A4 is slightly narrower and slightly longer than U.S. Letter paper.

          Sorry, used to work in the paper industry. Many print drivers erroneously say something like "Letter(A4)" not because they are the same size, but because the printer will not detect a mis-feed due to the size difference.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Wally (profile), Feb 20th, 2013 @ 7:16am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.

            By hundredths of an inch??? Really??? You're going to pick at my argument because I used the North American standard of A4 paper...which is 8.5x11?

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Valkor (profile), Feb 20th, 2013 @ 8:17am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.

              Well, yes.
              Since you're presenting yourself as an expert on the nuanced usability of differing paper sizes, your credibility is based on how you present your knowledge of paper. You're talking about margins and eye tracking, and how that only works best on this one particular sheet size, and then you say "North American standard of A4".

              Sorry, no such thing. A4 is European and International. "Letter" is North American. There is no North American A4, and arguing that they're the same is like saying that Indigo and Violet are the same. You lose credibility that way.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                Wally (profile), Feb 22nd, 2013 @ 8:40am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.

                A4 is ISO standard and is roughly the same size as North American Letter paper...You can buy reams (500 sheets) of A4 in the US at any local office supply shop.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Mr. Applegate, Feb 20th, 2013 @ 10:11am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.

              By hundredths of an inch??? Really???

              Actually it is more like 2/10ths of an inch in width and nearly 7/10ths of an inch in height. Or an area difference of 3.17 Sq Inches, for the sheet.

              I used the North American standard of A4 paper...which is 8.5x11


              There is no such standard!

              A4 is a size based on "ISO 216" which comes largely from the German "DIN 476" standard for paper sizes.

              Letter sized paper is now defined as "ANSI A" (note the lack of a 4), though where the size originated is not known.

              And yes, I will pick at things that are factually incorrect. I will gladly debate opinion, or ignore grammar, but there is no debate on the facts and the fact is that there is no US paper size A4 (and there never has been) and A4 paper is not the same size as U.S. Letter ("ANSI A").

              I could pick at your argument for a variety of reasons, I chose to pick at what I know, not what I think or suspect.

              due to some reason, these standards are set in place for the purpose of physical storage...

              Your storage argument falls flat because nearly every standard method for storing paper in the U.S. (Envelopes, Banker Boxes, Filing Cabinets, ... are all based on U.S. paper sizes, and not some arbitrary size.

              For Instance a standard size for a "Bankers Box" is 10"H x 12"W x 15"D. This allows the same sized box to be used to store both U.S. Letter (8.5 x 11) and U.S. Legal (8.5 x 14) paper with folders or other dividers or tabs.

              If you don't have these facts right, what else do you have wrong?

              Now if you would like I would be happy to tear apart the rest of your argument, but you will have to pay me for my time as I am rather busy today. ;^)

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          btrussell (profile), Feb 20th, 2013 @ 6:44am

          Re: Re: Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.

          "The first thing to know is that the finished booklet must be 6 and 1/8th inches wide and 9 and 1/4 inches high."


          "9.25 inches (wide) for the mathematically challenged is 9 and 1 quarter inches wide..."

          Nope. Wrong again. 9 and 1 quarter equals 10 quarters or 2.5

          Let me spell it out for you:
          9.25 inches (wide) for the mathematically challenged is 9 1/4 or nine and one quarter.



          6 1/8 X 2 = 12 1/4

          Please explain for us mathematically challenged people how you get from 12 1/2 to 6 1/8? You may or may not include 1/2 inch margin you mentioned earlier.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Togashi (profile), Feb 20th, 2013 @ 11:25am

          Re: Re: Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.

          ...the papers' dimensions match the envelope they are stored in.

          Sorry, but am I just insanely confused (and mostly ignorant about paper), or are you arguing here that the paper needs to be bigger (9.25x12.5 vs 8.5x11) so that it fits in the envelope? In my experience the smaller something is, the easier I can get it into an envelope.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), Feb 20th, 2013 @ 2:46am

      Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.

      Standard legal documents are 9 and 1/4 inches wide for a specific reason. This is to conform to the fact that it takes 8 squares surround a smaller square to make an exponentially larger square from the square that is surrounded.

      You can put 9 squares on other forms of paper too.

      See how much easier it is to center a letterhead text on a 9 and 1/4 inch piece of paper??

      No.

      It makes it much easier to read. Makes litigation and decision making much easier and speedier.

      No. It doesn't.

      The paper requirement standards he complains about are specifically made to allow for easier reading. The same standards help the US Supreme Court make quicker decisions.

      You're seriously arguing that the length of the paper helps the Supreme Court decide cases faster? Really?

      It appears that most research into the subject actually suggests the sizes are (as suggested) completely arbitrary. http://lawlibraryblog.seattleu.edu/2011/05/04/ambiguous-the-history-of-legal-sized-paper/

      Also, if what you claimed was true (or made any sense) then the standard legal size would be 9.25 x 12.5, but it's not. It's 8.5 x 14. So, huh?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Ninja (profile), Feb 20th, 2013 @ 3:40am

        Re: Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.

        You know, an innocent bystander might confuse TD with a blog from some insane asylum when confronted with this specific discussion (I'm not criticizing you, just finding it funny that there's a discussion on the size of the paper and the ability of thinking faster).

        I'd say the guy is trolling to laugh a bit. And I admit I am laughing over all this insanity. I'll give him a 10/10 for this epic trolling and 100 extra internets ;D

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Feb 20th, 2013 @ 4:09am

        Re: Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.

        Is sad to say but I believe Mr Mike Masnick got pwned.

        Or I am not seeing how in this world somebody defending the size of paper with such a troll argument as "it makes for easier arrangement of logos thus making it easier to understand legal arguments" is anything but a tongue in the cheek statement.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Wally (profile), Feb 20th, 2013 @ 7:09am

        Re: Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.

        I promise you Mike that this was never meant as an attack towards you. I just ask that you try to keep an open mind. The paper standard Greenspan is asking for deteriorate faster than the type of paper demanded by the US Supreme Court. I promise you that the system set it up like that for easier storage in the average sized filing cabinet. Why I went into dimensions I will never know.

        You are buying into the gripes of a known copyright troll by agreeing somewhat with Greenspan. While I believe the rest of his complaint is totally legitimate, the one about the paper...isn't. The type of paper being asked for lasts longer due to the chemistry of the paper itself.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Chris Rhodes (profile), Feb 20th, 2013 @ 7:41am

          Re: Re: Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.

          "You are buying into the gripes of a known copyright troll by agreeing somewhat with Greenspan."

          I say that same thing to vegetarians all the time. "Did you know Hitler was a vegetarian? You're buying into the eating habits of a known mass murderer by agreeing somewhat with his food choices."

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Mr. Applegate, Feb 20th, 2013 @ 10:29am

          Re: Re: Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.

          I promise you that the system set it up like that for easier storage in the average sized filing cabinet. Why I went into dimensions I will never know.


          Really? Funny most "average sized filing cabinet"[s] I know of are designed for 8-1/2" x 11" or 8-1/2" x 14" paper. Please show me a cabinet designed to hold 6-1/8" x 9-1/4" materials.

          The type of paper being asked for lasts longer due to the chemistry of the paper itself.


          Except they don't actually ask for a paper type just a weight
          He goes on to note that the Supreme Court even specifies the weight of the paper, but not the type (which makes a difference in understanding the weight), leading to confusion.


          Do you know how they figure a papers 'weight'? there are two methods "Basis Weight" and "M-Weight". M-Weight is simply the weight of 1000 sheets of paper of a given size.

          Basis Weight is more difficult to calculate and I won't go into it here, because the point is if they wanted acid free paper for long term storage they would have stated that, and evidently (as the article states) they don't.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          nasch (profile), Feb 20th, 2013 @ 10:59am

          Re: Re: Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.

          I promise you that the system set it up like that for easier storage in the average sized filing cabinet.

          Average filing cabinets are best at storing a random and never used paper size, rather than the two almost universally used sizes of paper in the US? You'll need a citation for that claim.

          The type of paper being asked for lasts longer due to the chemistry of the paper itself.

          He didn't mention that, do they require such paper?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Wally (profile), Feb 20th, 2013 @ 11:25am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.

            The differences between the Appeals circuit and the US Supreme Court of Appeals is that once the US Supreme Court makes a decision in an appealed case, it's final. The documents and proceedings of that decision have to be stored somewhere. Specifically that's the US National Archives.

            Considering how the paper is stored....extra weight means more storage space is needed. So a certain thickness is needed to keep the paper light weight yet durable.

            Now here's a kicker, to keep the paper in better condition, you have to store documents in a dossier for permanent storage. The Appeals Circuit doesn't need this because they don't make the final ruling, they only determine if your case deems review by the next highest circuit to be ruled upon. If or when your case *finally* gets to the USSC....they make the final ruling, so in the spirit of final, permanent storage....they require a certain paper weight, size, and type to conform to long term storage standards that would be different.

            I don't see how that's not sinking in.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Mr. Applegate, Feb 20th, 2013 @ 12:33pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.

              Considering how the paper is stored....extra weight means more storage space is needed. So a certain thickness is needed to keep the paper light weight yet durable.

              OK, so I did a little more digging and it looks like the minimum weight (I assume basis) is 60 lb (normal copy paper is 20 lb), so the paper they require is much heavier than standard paper, not lighter.

              they require a certain paper weight, size, and type to conform to long term storage standards that would be different.

              Wow! I wonder how the U.S Constitution survived all these years. I mean after all it isn't written on 60lb paper, it is written on parchment. If they are really concerned about document preservation it would seem that they would use a method that has been for centuries and use parchment (animal skins):

              Parchment has traditionally been used instead of paper for important documents such as religious texts, public laws, indentures, and land records as it has always been considered a strong and stable material. The five pages of the U.S. Constitution as well as the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, and the Articles of Confederation are written on parchment.

              The terms parchment and vellum are also used in the paper making industry. Parchment paper is made from cellulose fibers prepared from fir trees or plants such as cotton or flax. Paper can be made which mimics the thickness and smooth surface of parchment. The terms refer to the finish of the paper and should not be relied upon as an indicator of its long term stability.


              I want to see some cites from you that show the reasons you stated are the reasons for the seemingly arbitrary size and weight of the paper used to file to the U.S. Supreme Court.

              I don't see how that's not sinking in.

              Perhaps there is a lack of evidence to support your claims. Just a thought.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                Wally (profile), Feb 20th, 2013 @ 1:19pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.

                I'm sorry for guessing the reason for why it's so arbitrary compared to other courts in the US. Maybe it's because my state, Ohio, uses the same arbitrary size. Handle a dossier file and see what I mean. The fact that Greenspan never thought of it makes me proud to know that I have a logical brain. And given the average dimensions of a dossier file Mr. Applegate, it's as I've said many times....the typeface of the documents are still in standard US Letter Paper size...the purpose of the width is to prevent the obstruction of the text during photocopying. It does not take half a brain to think about how that works.

                Oh and did I mention I handled my brother's disability case against the State of Ohio when they denied his claims??? Yeah, had a lawyer and everything. Had a bound dossier case in accordance to federal court recording and archiving standards, took it out and measured it. Care to find how I can prove this without breaching confidentiality?

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  identicon
                  Mr. Applegate, Feb 20th, 2013 @ 1:52pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.

                  "the typeface of the documents are still in standard US Letter Paper size...the purpose of the width is to prevent the obstruction of the text during photocopying."


                  This is done on standard paper every day. They simply offset the margins (typically by about 1/4 - 1/2"), no special page size required.

                  By the way what happened to the easier to read, the way the eyes fall on the page argument?

                  "took it out and measured it. Care to find how I can prove this without breaching confidentiality?"

                  It's called "redaction" Look that up. Guess what court documents are public documents anyway (unless under seal). But you know a few photos with a well placed ruler should make the point for us (you can cover the text of the pages if you would like).

                  " Maybe it's because my state, Ohio, uses the same arbitrary size. "


                  So what court was this? You could also cite the filing requirements for the court in question. Kind of hard for me to find them since you have yet to say which court. Besides you are the one making the assertion, show us some shred of proof.

                  If an entire state uses this oddball size then surely there are places to buy the paper ready made. Oddly, while I can find boxes, mailers, and even meat packing in that size I can't find paper. (It could exist, but I have never heard of it and I have worked in the industry.)

                  One of the firms I consult for is a law firm that does some work in the federal court system, and these are requirements they haven't heard of either and they have practiced in many states, including Ohio. They having binding equipment on-site, still not finding that odd size though.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, Feb 20th, 2013 @ 2:07pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.

                    So if that's the case...why are you or anyone taking Greenspan's word as fact in the matter. Seems like Wally's point is that Greenspsn is a goon who was denied an appeal where he was caught copyright trolling.

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      identicon
                      Mr. Applegate, Feb 20th, 2013 @ 6:36pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.

                      Did I say I was taking Greenspan's word for it?

                      You can find the US Supreme Court Rules here:
                      http://www.supremecourt.gov/ctrules/2010RulesoftheCourt.pdf

                      The rules for filing start on page 41 Rule 33.

                      This all started because Wally made claims that were factually incorrect concerning paper size. He has gone on to exclaim that he has great knowledge about the reasons for the odd sizes (many and varied reasons), and now claims that Ohio uses this same odd size. I am simply asking for some proof. He can cite the court documents (as I just have) or not. The choice is his.

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      •  
                        icon
                        Wally (profile), Feb 20th, 2013 @ 9:03pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.

                        Yes, but I was basing those claims off of what Greenspan had complained about...once again you missed my point :-D

                         

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  btrussell (profile), Feb 20th, 2013 @ 2:23pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.

                  "....the typeface of the documents are still in standard US Letter Paper size..."


                  Carreon


                  "Oh and did I mention I handled my brother's disability case against the State of Ohio when they denied his claims??? Yeah, had a lawyer and everything."


                  Oh! You did already.


                  "...took it out and measured it. Care to find how I can prove this without breaching confidentiality?"


                  No. Although I'd wager 9 and 1 quarter, or 2.5 inches.

                  But I am curious as to what typeface is "standard US letter paper size?" Arial? Comic Sans MS? People like me, less educated than you, need to know.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    icon
                    Wally (profile), Feb 20th, 2013 @ 2:45pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.

                    So what's the space in which the letters are held??? You're still missing the point, an AC got my point pretty clearly.

                    "So if that's the case...why are you or anyone taking Greenspan's word as fact in the matter. Seems like Wally's point is that Greenspsn is a goon who was denied an appeal where he was caught copyright trolling."

                    Good job you got my point sir :-)

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    icon
                    Wally (profile), Feb 20th, 2013 @ 3:14pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.

                    Paper letter size is roughly 8.5x11.75 inches. That portion of the size that you write on is technically where everything is supposed to be. I mean really on Royal Standard (thank you Aussie Geoff :-) ), the only reason you need it is to allow space for binding where the portion of the 8.5 inch by 11.75 inch letter paper-sized document can be written on, is easily photocopied. Now in spite of my terminology mix up (note unlike you I am man enough to admit mistakes), my point still stands.

                    Hard to explain this simply so here's the best I can do:

                    Let's consider that Greenspan is actually telling the truth here. I'm talking North American paper standards. I don't think you ever used a brads tac. Once again the dossier envelope, commonly called a "file", contains case information...which is why it is a "dossier" (doss-ee-ay).

                    So as I have stated before, it easier to store Royal Standard paper in a dossier file because it is LIKELY indexed and/or alphabetized in the US National archive.

                    Your and Mr. Applegate's house of straw man just got blown down.

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      icon
                      Aussie Geoff (profile), Feb 20th, 2013 @ 6:49pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.

                      I don't think you have got the entire point yet so ..... you would not print directly on Royal paper as it is, could you imagine a document where the pages are 20" x 25"?

                      You could fold it 3 times you get 8 sheets of 10" x 6-1/4" paper, cut along the fold lines and then print on them. This size is called "Octavo" size.

                      What printers do is lay out the Octavo pages on sheets of Royal paper, print them, fold them and then bind and trim them which reduces the dimensions to 9-1/4" x 6-1/8".

                      I am going to leave laying out the pages on the obverse and reverse sides so that when the paper is folded the pages are in the correct order as an exercise for the reader (read masochist).

                      So the self printer needs the following:

                      1) A desktop publishing program that recognizes "Royal" paper and knows how do create and lay out "Octavo" size pages on it. I doubt many, if any, commonly used DP programs would fit this bill - so a large print-shop application.

                      2) A printer capable of printing "Royal" paper - can you imagine the size and cost of a printer that can print 20" x 25" paper?

                      Note: I am assuming that Royal paper is still a common standard size that is readily available in the US, otherwise he is going to need to pay for specially cut paper.

                      He should of saved himself the time, money and trees and paid the quoted price. If he was determined to do the job properly himself the printer alone would have cost him more than having the printing outsourced, let alone a commercial grade publishing/typesetting program to accompany it.

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      •  
                        icon
                        Wally (profile), Feb 20th, 2013 @ 9:15pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.

                        I honestly like your explanation on typeface and print better than mine. Royal standard may be a custom cut. Most office supply stores here in the US only sell standard A4 Xerox paper (aka Letter Paper....they seem different due to the fact that decimals are rounded when converting mm to inches).

                        In my opinion, if you want to present your case to the US Supreme Court, it's a suit and tie affair. You need to spend extra money to do it, but the better your presentation, the likelier you'll get a ruling in your favor.

                         

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        •  
                          identicon
                          Mr. Applegate, Feb 21st, 2013 @ 5:54am

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.

                          "Most office supply stores here in the US only sell standard A4 Xerox paper (aka Letter Paper....they seem different due to the fact that decimals are rounded when converting mm to inches). "


                          No! They are different because they are both cut from larger sheets of paper that start as a different size! There is no "Rounding Error".

                          Might I suggest a little reading:
                          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper_size

                          The link contains information on ISO A, B, C as well as ANSI sizes and even the Royal size, which is apparently what is used to create the odd booklet size used by the US Supreme Court.


                          "..., but the better your presentation, the likelier you'll get a ruling in your favor."


                          Right, because we all know the US Justice system was to be based on how "pretty" your presentation is, rather on the content of the presentation and how it relates to, you know, the law!

                           

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      identicon
                      Mr. Applegate, Feb 20th, 2013 @ 7:24pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.

                      There is no straw man, I am directly challenging your claims, I did not run off on some tangent and build a straw man.

                      I am still waiting on you to cite the formatting specs for your Ohio Courts that use this same formatting as the US Supreme Court, I even posted a link to the US Supreme Courts rules for you.

                      And while your at it since you CLAIM that what ever oddball size you are claiming is in use (sorry lost track of them all) and all the various reasons (lighter, smaller, fits in storage better...) go ahead and cite something that says that size, weight, assembly is the "easier to store", index and alphabetize in the US National Archive.

                      That said I think Aussie Geoff is onto something with the Royal Paper Size folded into a booklet and trimmed. However, none of that has ANYTHING to do with any of your assertions and in fact does more to disprove them because it shows where the size likely originated, and that has absolutely nothing to do with making the document easier to read or storing the documents easier or better (and any other claims you have made) as you have asserted over this thread. Now I am even less likely to believe you without valid cites.

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      •  
                        icon
                        Wally (profile), Feb 20th, 2013 @ 9:08pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.

                        I already explained Aussie Geoff's comment. I'm sorry that I cannot break client confidentiality in the case is was working on to prove how witless you are.

                        At least Ausie Geoff gave me facts in stead of "I work for Lawyers, I handle legal documents all day" straw man arguments. He was also kind enough to explain it to me without insulting my intelligence.

                         

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        •  
                          identicon
                          Anonymous Coward, Feb 21st, 2013 @ 12:21am

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.

                          I already explained Aussie Geoff's comment. I'm sorry that I cannot break client confidentiality in the case is was working on to prove how witless you are.

                          Marginally curious how merely pointing to evidence of Ohio's common usage of this size paper breaks client confidentiality? It seems like Mr. Applegate is asking for perfectly reasonable citations to multiple claims on your part.

                           

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        •  
                          identicon
                          Mr. Applegate, Feb 21st, 2013 @ 4:56am

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.

                          I already explained Aussie Geoff's comment

                          There was no need to explain his comment, it laid out pretty plainly where the size originated from and showed, to my mind, pretty conclusively that all of your assertions have nothing to do with the reasons for the specs required by the US Supreme Court.

                          "I'm sorry that I cannot break client confidentiality in the case"


                          Whatever! If he was your brother and had council (assuming you aren't and attorney, and he not your client), then he wasn't your 'client' and you can't break 'client confidentiality'.

                          Regardless, citing the rules for the courts you claim use the same specs as the US Supreme Court would not violate any such confidentiality, even if it did exist.

                          Similarly, citing evidence to support your numerous claims about the reasons for the odd specs required by the US Supreme Court would not violate any confidentiality with anyone.

                          Both the rules for filing with a court and any specs required for storage in the National Archives are matters of public record. There is no secrete society, no confidentiality to break. So cite them so we may all learn from your near infinite wisdom.

                          "...in stead of "I work for Lawyers, I handle legal documents all day"


                          I never said that. I said I consult for, I never claimed to handle legal documents all day long (in fact I don't, my brother does, and I can ring him up if you like). I did say I asked them (even ones that are members of the Ohio Bar) about the specs you claim are used there and they had not heard of such specs for any courts they had filed in.

                          I have given you quite a number of facts. I have explained where you were wrong at every turn, and asked repeatedly for you to cite some evidence of your that your claims are true and factual. You have, thus far, refused to do so.

                          I don't believe you can cite those facts, because I don't believe they exist.

                          TL;DR
                          Put up or shut up.

                          With this, I am done!

                           

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          •  
                            icon
                            Wally (profile), Feb 21st, 2013 @ 7:39am

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.

                            Look Blue...I am legally bound not to break HIPA laws in my state. Notice I haven't given my brother's name.

                            Just because you work in a lawyers office as a consultant (which by the way is not a lawyer), I don't expect you to understand the practices of my attorney.

                            I want you to cite the law firms you "work" for as a measly little gopher consultant.


                            Oh look.....I just asked you to prove your own claims. In stead of your TLDNR bullshit and providing me with a link I already provided, you will notice that you're nothing but shit.

                            Maybe you're failing to read about ANSI standards and not ISO......ANSI stands for American National Standards Institute.....since the US Supreme Court is in the United States of AMERICA.....which in plain language should indicate it's not an international standard. One would assume that ANSI C and ANSI D paper size standards...but as Ausie Geoff explained thoroughly, the smaller dimensions as individuals are 1/8 of the entire Royal Standard, which is in fact 20x25 inches.

                            Once again, logic prevails over your pitiful excuse for a brain.

                             

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            •  
                              icon
                              nasch (profile), Feb 21st, 2013 @ 8:35am

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.

                              Once again, logic prevails over your pitiful excuse for a brain.

                              Are you really hoping to advance your case or convince anyone of your position this way? Or are you just enjoying venting your anger?

                               

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      icon
                      btrussell (profile), Feb 21st, 2013 @ 2:38am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.

                      "Now in spite of my terminology mix up (note unlike you I am man enough to admit mistakes), my point still stands."

                      You were funny yesterday. This morning you are just boring.

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      •  
                        icon
                        Wally (profile), Feb 21st, 2013 @ 7:17am

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.

                        You're admitting to trolling there.

                         

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        •  
                          icon
                          nasch (profile), Feb 21st, 2013 @ 8:37am

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.

                          You're admitting to trolling there.

                          I don't think telling you you're being boring is trolling, it's just his opinion. Personally I agree, I think you and Applegate both got very boring and I mostly stopped paying attention, but I'm not trolling either. :-) And of course you have no obligation to entertain us, so by all means continue your argument if you like. I know I've engaged in some boring arguments on TD.

                           

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          •  
                            identicon
                            Mr. Applegate, Feb 21st, 2013 @ 9:08am

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.

                            As I stated this morning. I am done. Wally has refused to cite anything to support any of his many varied and ever changing positions. He has now resorted to personal attacks to 'prove his case'.

                            Frankly, I am kind of upset that I allowed myself to be drawn into his pile of dung. I tend to get really irritated when people are factually incorrect, and will call people out on it, especially when there is no ambiguity. I am fairly certain that I was trolled, I didn't realize it till this morning. Hence the "TL;DR Put up or shut up. With this, I am done!". I have extracted myself from the dung heap, and I don't intend to return.

                             

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            •  
                              identicon
                              Anonymous Coward, Feb 21st, 2013 @ 4:47pm

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.

                              Yet you still miss everything he says. You demand proof of something he is not legally obligated to divulge..... I am sure if you had gone the same route of explanation the Ausie Geoff would have in trying to prove Wally wrong....I am quite sure Wally would have got the picture....

                              But no...you had to be an ass and keep him going...by the way, you haven't provided any links to back up your claims as to being a consultant...I am still waiting.

                               

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                              •  
                                identicon
                                Mr. Applegate, Feb 22nd, 2013 @ 4:39am

                                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.

                                Wally did not ask for proof I was a consultant, he asked for my clients, and I quote "I want you to cite the law firms you "work" for as a measly little gopher consultant."

                                In point of fact, I never said I was a legal consultant, I am not. I am a Computer Systems Consultant. The law firms I work for (or any of my other clients) have absolutely zero bearing on either my claims or his. I am certainly not going to divulge my client list to him or anyone else. It simply isn't relevant. In addition he stated it in a derogatory way and only after I said I was done discussing this with him. Furthermore there is nothing I could cite to prove who I consult for, what would he accept, copies of checks? It would just be my word, for something that doesn't matter anyway.

                                I provided Wally with a lot of proof, I provided links to information that showed A4 and US Letter are not the same size, which he continued to state after that. I provided a link to the US Supreme Court rules. I provided information about the basis weight of paper and showed that 60lb paper is noth lighter than 20lb paper.

                                Wally has provided ZERO proof for any of his claims. Every time someone shot down one of his claims he would shift his position while still claiming he is Mr. Wiz Bang know it all.

                                Wally is not legally obligated to provide links to proof that Ohio uses the same standards as the US Supreme Court. However, not doing so shows that he is not being honest. I spoke with attorney who files in the state of Ohio and they aren't aware of any such requirements. He made the claim he should back it up. I don't believe he can, because I don't believe it is true.

                                It is totally laughable that he first claims he can't cite the rules regarding filings due to "client privilege" then when that is shot down it is due to "HIPA[sic]" laws. By the way it is HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act). Somehow a law to prevent the release of medical records is supposed to prevent him from citing the rules regarding filing legal documents in a court he will not name.

                                I said it before and I will say it again. If you make a factual claim you should be prepared to back it up. I did, he did not.

                                End of Story

                                 

                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          •  
                            icon
                            Wally (profile), Feb 21st, 2013 @ 4:54pm

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.

                            Oh I have no intent on trolling nasch :-). I am susceptible to being trolled at a subtle level as Mr. Applegate has shown.

                            He claims to have been a legal consultant and then cited that I am wrong because "he said so". nasch you were never really considered a troll.

                             

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, Feb 21st, 2013 @ 1:10pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.

                  I live in Ohio, too, and I have to say that using that for a cite is pretty peculiar. This state is, in its own way, more backward than most other states.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, Feb 21st, 2013 @ 1:13pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.

                  Oh and did I mention I handled my brother's disability case against the State of Ohio when they denied his claims???

                  Interesting... Since the State of Ohio doesn't determine disability. That's handled by the circuit court out of Indiana when it has to go to a judge, and is usually done via teleconference.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                Aussie Geoff (profile), Feb 20th, 2013 @ 1:33pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.

                The dimensions are not arbitrary, just archaic, Royal paper size. Royal is an old (read ancient) English paper size. I used to work in the printing industry but I and the printing industry (except the US obviously) have moved on.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Wally (profile), Feb 20th, 2013 @ 7:10am

        Re: Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.

        Weren't those the dimensions put out by Greenspan himself???

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Wally (profile), Feb 20th, 2013 @ 7:22am

        Re: Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.

        On a further note, please ask your lawyer why there is a reason for the highest circuit in the US Supreme Court asks for a certain paper size.


        Besides, I wouldn't be surprised if Greenspan tried to outright claim Aaron Swartz's works as his own after he dug around for enough information.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Wally (profile), Feb 20th, 2013 @ 7:29am

        Re: Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.

        "9 and 1/4 inches is a strange number when it comes to page length. Most of us know paper (so long as we're not in Europe or Asia) as being 8 and 1/2 inches wide by 11 inches high, commonly referred to as "Letter" size paper. If you take a standard sheet of Letter paper and fold it over, you get a booklet that is 5 and 1/2 inches by 8 and 1/2 inches. For the Supreme Court's purposes, that for whatever reason doesn't work. (Interestingly, the dimensions of the printed text block easily fit on a Letter sheet of paper, so Rule 33.1 could be said to be designed to mandate slightly bigger margins, and nothing more.)"

        Likely for larger margins, but the average filing cabinet vanilla envelope also has those dimensions. Once again, storage argument.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Jay (profile), Feb 19th, 2013 @ 6:07pm

    That really is a lot of insanity for old standards...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    That One Guy (profile), Feb 19th, 2013 @ 7:17pm

    And this is why you make carefully check if someone has an extreme case of OCD before letting them write the rules for anything.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Nina Paley (profile), Feb 19th, 2013 @ 7:59pm

    saddle stitch

    Oh yeah, also the filings are encouraged by the Court to be bound together with a specific stitch: saddle stitch.

    Actually "saddle stitched" just means "stapled." A saddle stitcher is just a long stapler; they were quite common in the pre-internet world of 20 years ago, when we made minicomics and 'zines instead of blogs.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Feb 20th, 2013 @ 4:38am

      Re: saddle stitch

      Clearly the saddle stitch makes for easier reading and thus faster rulings.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Feb 20th, 2013 @ 4:47am

        Re: Re: saddle stitch

        Could you imagine the supreme court judges having to organize that amount of paper by hand?

        Apple should just gift the supreme court with tablets so all that loose paper is not a problem anymore they just swipe their fingers and find that one page, if the arthritis let them.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Wally (profile), Feb 20th, 2013 @ 7:26am

      Re: saddle stitch

      In my day we called those Brads nails.... :-)

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Wally (profile), Feb 19th, 2013 @ 10:20pm

    Oh and more evidence Greenspan is doing it for self-recognition and seeking the recognition of others and attention...

    A quick Google search on "paper size led me there".


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper_size

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Wally (profile), Feb 19th, 2013 @ 10:21pm

      Re:

      * "paper size" led me here...


      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper_size

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Ben Bishop (profile), Feb 19th, 2013 @ 11:31pm

        Re: Re:

        I didn't see anything there that corresponded to
        6 and 1/8th inches wide and 9 and 1/4 inches high
        or did I miss it?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Feb 20th, 2013 @ 4:48am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Did you fall for it?
          No you didn't miss then.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Wally (profile), Feb 20th, 2013 @ 7:12am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Try looking at the dimensions of a filing cabinet some time....

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Wally (profile), Feb 20th, 2013 @ 7:24am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Shouldn't that be a red flag to Aaron Greenspan's statements then?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Valkor (profile), Feb 20th, 2013 @ 9:06am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            No, it's not a red flag.

            http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/supct/rule_33

            The whole gripe is related to the "Booklet Format" paper size, which is the apparently unique 12.25" x 9.25" paper folded and bound into a 6.125" x 9.25" booklet. The fact that this size is not used for ANY other purpose than Federal Court filings are the problem.

            Hopefully, that clears up confusion regarding margins, centering, readability, grids, and standard document storage.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Wally (profile), Feb 20th, 2013 @ 10:27am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Yes it does....thank you. But there is a reason why the dimensions are there. I explained it a bit below but I'll shorten it here. Thank God I have a brother on disability...otherwise I would not know the reason behind all this.

              We were all wrong and I was only half right.

              Basically it saves space. You have an extra inch on the side margin. The dimensions on type face of the document allows for standard US letter or type A4 paper sizes to be printed. That extra inch and a quarter on the side for the paler itself is there so it's easier to bind the documents to a dossier using a trio of brads staples (kind of like a nail, only you poke a hole and then separate a pair of tabs thus holding the pieces of paper together) without obstructing the view of the 8.5 inch x 11.75 inch type face when you wish to photocopy it in a xerox machine..


              The length allows for a picture to be clipped to a document.

              I just realized in writing this that its not only convenient for storage, but also the dimensions concerning length also are quite convenient for clipping photos and side notes above the type face. Once again, photocopying is a snap, and as most modern photocopiers can do, you can zoom the image out to standard letterhead sized documents, or easily digitally back them up.

              Greenspan is only bloating in his complaint.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Paul Alan Levy (profile), Feb 20th, 2013 @ 7:03am

    Formatting requirements for court filings

    All courts have detailed formatting requirements for documents filed in the given court -- slightly alleviated in those courts where filing is exclusively digital, but even there courts have stringent requirements. Sop, I am not sure it makes sense to single out the Supreme Court in that regard, especially because, as you rightly point out, review in the Supreme Court is discretionary and, as a result of the accession of a majority of Republican justices, the Court has severely reduced its docket and takes only a tiny fraction of all cases presented for review.

    It is true that the rules about printed booklets make it hard for professional printers who don't specialize in Supreme Court brief-printing to comply, but you can comparison shop for less expensive printers (Public Citizen certainly does), and in the end when the cost of Supreme Court counsel is taken into account, the added cost of printing is just a drop in the bucket.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Valkor (profile), Feb 20th, 2013 @ 8:53am

      Re: Formatting requirements for court filings

      See, that's missing the point. The fact that there are byzantine rules in other courts does not make the Supreme Court's rules less byzantine. The grotesque cost of legal procedures does not justify adding on a mere "drop in the bucket" for unusual printing for no apparent reason. Courts operating in their own separate world that requires a printing company to "specialize in Supreme Court brief-printing" violates the egalitarian spirit that this country was founded on. If only a small legal class of people and a small legal class of businesses have access to the legal system, is it serving the nation and the citizens, or is that an indicator that it is drifting away from its purpose? Rules for the sake of usability, efficiency, and order are helpful. Rules for the sake of rules are not.

      The government should serve the people. That's why we have representatives, not rulers.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), Feb 20th, 2013 @ 10:57am

      Re: Formatting requirements for court filings

      Sop, I am not sure it makes sense to single out the Supreme Court in that regard

      Standard operating procedure would imply a standard. Why should the Supreme Court have different standards for filing cases than the rest of the Federal Appeals Courts?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Wally (profile), Feb 20th, 2013 @ 10:08am

    Mike Mansick....all is cool...we were all wrong.

    Ok, let me explain this is no attack to you personally. I know it seems I came close to being Bob there for a moment. Please hear me out and please tell me what you think of this.

    There may be a very specific reason for the odd sizes that the US Supreme Courts demand. It took a lot of fiddling around with a dossier. I just happened to have some left over paper from my brother's disability case...Ohio uses the same standards.

    The reason for the extra width of paper...9.25 inches = 9 1/4 inches... ( or whatever the hell they demand you use ) is that three-ring binders take up a lot of space. A lot of these Supreme Court cases are stored in the ever expanding national archive. The paper size still has the print confined to standard US letter paper or Type A4 Xerox paper (choose your poison). So why the weird dimensions??

    It turns out that when you store a dossier in a filing cabinet, it is imperative that the papers stay where they are. The use of three brads staples to bind the dossier as a book like a three ring binder saves space. The extra inch or so in width is to allow the text to be unhindered and unobstructed from view when the documents inside the dossier are bound to it. That's just the width.

    The extra length in standard legal documents is simple....foot notes or photos to attach to the documents (note the close dimensions for note cards being similar to that of the average 5x7 photograph).

    In essence it is only for preservation so that the decisions can be referenced by others.

    In the tech world, redundancy is a beautiful thing. It allows for fault tolerance in case part of a system fails. Storing the documents in that way in a dossier allows for a redundancy in case technology breaks down.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Feb 20th, 2013 @ 12:19pm

      Re: Mike Mansick....all is cool...we were all wrong.

      OMG I was wrong you are actually serious.
      Stop it now while you have a chance, you are just have gone halfway to the room of shame.

      The only real reason for that size of paper is because like all government institutions it would be expensive to actually change that size and retrofit storage facilities to accommodate new or different sizes, that is the only good reason for it end of story, that crapoula about how easy it makes or notes etc are all just silly assumptions, yes it may be easier, it may be a lot of other things the thing is, in 2013 with electronic paper in color you can have digital fillings that don't actually use paper and would take a lot less storage space, if it need to be stored one could store the digital bits in microscopic grooves that could be recovered later and those grooves could be made on anything that last a thousand years and not paper.

      Here is a good example of how physical storage could be done. (You will like this one since is on Apple hardware)

      http://www.diyphotography.net/photographs-of-apple-team-found-in-25-years-old-macintosh -se

      Hackers reverse engineering old Apple hardware found photos on the roms of a 25 year old Mac SE.

      See there, actual historic documents where stored in roms back in the day and are still around for people to find it and read it. Not to mention that metals store a hell of a lot better than paper, the size of the bits is so small that you could possible store all the data by decades in single microchips, that means a thousand microchips for each millenia or if you wan redundancy 10.000 microchips for each millenia.

      So no there is not a good reason to not modernize that system and start migrating it to something modern and more useful, durable and secure.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Aussie Geoff (profile), Feb 20th, 2013 @ 11:08am

    He looked for the wrong paper!

    He should have got some "Royal" sized paper. It is 20"x25" paper, that when folded to make 8 pages gives you pages that are "Octavo" (6-1/4" x 10") - they are 6-1/8" x 9-1/4" (after binding and trimming).

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 21st, 2013 @ 10:00am

    Perfect binding would be easier

    I agree that the rules are insane, but I don't know why Greenspan chose saddle-stitch when perfect binding was an option. Perfect binding doesn't require booklet-printing the document or imposing the pages. It also simplifies the paper size problem because most laser printers will accept custom paper sizes that are less than 8-1/2 x 11.

    1) Cut standard letter size sheets to 6-1/8 x 9-1/4. Most print shops will cut reams of paper to a custom size for a small fee and can probably source the right paper too.

    2) Set up the document in your word processor with custom paper size set to 6-1/8 x 9-1/4.

    (3) Print double-sided (can be done manually if your printer doesn't duplex).

    (4) Using a simple perfect binding press made from scrap wood, glue up your stack. Examples of home-made presses abound on Google and YouTube, some as simple as paint stirrers and bulldog clamps. For Supreme Court writs, I'd suggest investing the less than $20 and 1 hour needed to make a proper press.

    (5) Wait for glue to dry, then apply more glue and attach cover. (The cover is actually the "hard" part because you need to add space for the spine.)

    There are a number of glue options, including professional-grade thermal glues available in strips (use a standard iron), but a lot of home binders use white glue. This process is detailed in at least a dozen videos that are easily found through Google.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Wally (profile), Feb 21st, 2013 @ 4:51pm

      Re: Perfect binding would be easier

      Well honestly, in spite of all this exposition on paper size, the fact that Perfect Binding would have saved a lot of money and time (not to mention is a lot more durable)...I simply think Greenspan is bloating much a do about nothing....he is known for griping when he doesn't get his way (ask Mark Zuckeburg about that).

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    mlm76tex, Feb 25th, 2013 @ 10:32am

    Supreme Court Paper Size

    I filed a petition with the US Supreme Court about 15 years ago. I was told at the time that the reason for the odd size of the pleading was that long, long ago, the robes of the Justices had pockets, and this smaller booklet would fit into those pockets. Seems a lot more credible of a reason than what I have been reading here.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Clyde Adams III (profile), Feb 27th, 2013 @ 8:38am

    Ohio Supreme Court paper size

    The Supreme Court of Ohio requires filings on letter-sized (8.5 x 11 inch) paper.
    http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/SCO/jurisdiction/default.asp
    http://www.supremecourt.ohio. gov/LegalResources/Rules/practice/rulesofpractice.pdf

    "A4 is ISO standard"
    Nobody said it wasn't.
    "and is roughly the same size as North American Letter paper"
    And a cow is roughly the same as a deer. A4 is about 0.7 inches longer. Speaking from experience, it is a pain putting A4 documents in a US binder; I had to trim the pages.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Terry, Dec 27th, 2013 @ 3:46pm

    Screw over by US Supreme Court

    Back in 2008 I was representing myself in a case against my former employer , i.e. large company with a great deal of connections in DC area. I submitted a brief that was not rejected but I was required to use rule 33.1. I am not a lawyer and non did I have the funds to really submit under rule 33.1. However somehow I was able to find the funds to hire a printing company that provided this service in DC area but it was not cheap when it was all said and done $15,000.00 dollars later. To not even have the supreme court look at the case. That is wrong it did not have to be put into books bound and submit 40 copies to just the supreme court plus others around 50 copies for what? There is something wrong with this and as a person who had been screwed by my lawyers this was totally wrong and makes a shame of our court system. Following the rules does not work.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This