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.
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.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.
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.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: aaron greenspan, lawsuits, rules, supreme court
Companies: facebook
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sounds like a good business model
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Supreme Court printing
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Supreme Court printing
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.
Is this a Poe?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
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.
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
[ link to this | view in thread ]
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
A quick Google search on "paper size led me there".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper_size
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper_size
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.
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?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.
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
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Name calling was a crime once upon a time :)
Have fun.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duel#Conditions
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/sbook-law.asp
There was even laws on how to brawl legally.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.
I used to think I knew what this term meant.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: saddle stitch
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.
Wikipedia: pwn (wikipedia is asking for donations would you help?)
Urban Dictionary: pwned
Youtube: Word of the Day - Pwned - YouTube
Know Your Meme: OWNED (PWNED)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: saddle stitch
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
No you didn't miss then.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: saddle stitch
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: 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..."
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Formatting requirements for court filings
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
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. 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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: saddle stitch
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.
Likely for larger margins, but the average filing cabinet vanilla envelope also has those dimensions. Once again, storage argument.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.
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."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Formatting requirements for court filings
The government should serve the people. That's why we have representatives, not rulers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Mansick....all is cool...we were all wrong.
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.
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.
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.
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. ;^)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.
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.
Except they don't actually ask for a paper type just a weight
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Formatting requirements for court filings
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?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.
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?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
He looked for the wrong paper!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
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.
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Mike Mansick....all is cool...we were all wrong.
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.
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.
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):
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.
Perhaps there is a lack of evidence to support your claims. Just a thought.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
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??? 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?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.
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?
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).
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
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."
Good job you got my point sir :-)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Supreme Court printing
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.
You were funny yesterday. This morning you are just boring.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.
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.
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.
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!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.
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.
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!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.
Are you really hoping to advance your case or convince anyone of your position this way? Or are you just enjoying venting your anger?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Perfect binding would be easier
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Perfect binding would be easier
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
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.
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
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Supreme Court Paper Size
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ohio Supreme Court paper size
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Screw over by US Supreme Court
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.
(b) The text of every booklet-format document, including any appendix thereto, shall be typeset in a Century family
(e. g., Century Expanded, New Century Schoolbook, or Century Schoolbook) 12-point type with 2-point or more leading between lines. Quotations in excess of 50 words shall be indented. The typeface of footnotes shall be 10-point type with 2-point or more leading between lines. The text of the document must appear on both sides of the page.
(c)
Every booklet-format document shall be produced on paper that is opaque, unglazed, and not less than 60 pounds in weight, and shall have margins of at least three-fourths of an inch on all sides. The text field, including footnotes, may not exceed 41/8 by 71/8 inches. The document shall be bound firmly in at least two places along the left margin (saddle stitch or perfect binding preferred) so as to permit easy opening, and no part of the text should be obscured by the binding. Spiral, plastic, metal, or string bindings may not be used. Copies of patent documents, except opinions, may be duplicated in such size as is necessary in a separate appendix.
(d)
Every booklet-format document shall comply with the word limits shown on the chart in subparagraph 1(g) of this Rule. The word limits do not include the questions presented, the list of parties and the corporate disclosure statement, the table of contents, the table of cited authorities, the listing of counsel at the end of the document, or any appendix. The word limits include footnotes. Verbatim quotations required under Rule 14.1(f) and Rule 24.1(f), if set out in the text of a brief rather than in the appendix, are also excluded. For good cause, the Court or a Justice may grant leave to file a document in excess of the word limits, but application for such leave is not favored. An application to exceed word limits shall comply with Rule 22 and must be received by the Clerk at least 15 days before the filing date of the document in question, except in the most extraordinary circumstances.
(e)
Every booklet-format document shall have a suitable cover consisting of 65-pound weight paper in the color indicated on the chart in subparagraph 1(g) of this Rule. If a separate appendix to any document is filed, the color of its cover shall be the same as that of the cover of the document it supports. The Clerk will furnish a color chart upon request. Counsel shall ensure that there is adequate contrast
[ link to this | view in thread ]
making things easier
We won't get started on the arguments as to why the United States, Liberia, and Burma are the only three countries that have not switched to the metric system.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
We solved the paper size dilemma!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Supreme Court printing
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Supreme Court
[ link to this | view in thread ]