You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: As the left screams Trump intimidated a witness the democrats are attacking our free speech.
Society of Manufacturing Engineers (SME) was founded in 1932. They publish hundreds of educational books, etc. They copyright claim Infowars and Alex Jones videos. YouTube responds by terminating those channels. They also strike music that they have no relation to. Many people are talking about how their videos are removed. Comcast does it. Disney does it. Big corporations have been throwing copyright claims all over the Internet. Websites like YouTube submit to their false claims. Most of the claims are as honest as the 2019 Roger Stone trials or the Trump Impeachment trials. SME is terrible.
I've heard about false copyright problems on youtube, but it is the first time I've heard SME as an accuser. I don't particularly follow copyright issues. Youtube tends to purge infowars and Alex Jones for reasons other than copyrights, since big tech outright banned him at the same time.
I haven't made youtube videos in about a decade, and didn't deal with monetization. Last I heard users have 30 days to challenge these false accusations, although asserting defenses or ownership could prove difficult for the average person. Listening to a lawful masses video (Leonard French) on the topic, the copyright office does allow people to upload up to 500MB of data to register their own copyrighted video.
If SME is repeatedly and frivolously claiming content that is't theirs, and there isn't a plain and adequate remedy at law, and a petitioner is facing an irreparable injury (including loss of rights) or nuisance in the absence of the issuance of an injunction, it may be possible to enjoin youtube or sme in a court of chancery. Chancery dates back to the romans most for contractual matters for which there was no remedy at law, and this practice has continued to this date to protect jury trial rights-aside from the family courts that act without jurisdiction. In chancery there is generally no mechanism to recover monetary damages. Where the harm is in time and money, the matter sounds of tort (fraud most likely) and thus a plain, adequate, and complete remedy exists at law-so then chancery would not have jurisdiction and so no injunction against them. The problem with tort, unless you are say pewdiepie, is that it may cost more in attorney fees than the amount to be recovered individually, and there is always the chance a jury could side with them and you may have to pay their fees too. The only real way to be punitive [civilly] is to collect enough people who have been harmed and sick them with a class action suit.
Alternatively, there may be remedies in the criminal law (which would also invalidate chancery jurisdiction) and that would require determining what state, and ultimately what county, has jurisdiction, and the fraud statutes in that jurisdiction, and if an individual can swear out a warrant if local law enforcement refuses. It also requires identifying the person or persons behind the fraudulent conduct-which might prove be impossible unless youtube records such info (A failure of youtube to document proof, could reopen chancery jurisdiction over youtube). It could just be some guy from India being paid pennies to do some corporate bidding making a domestic prosecution less likely. Because the harm is likely interstate, the federal government may have jurisdiction also. Meaning they could be prosecuted both federally and locally. But it is up to the discretion of the USDOJ to prosecute at the federal level. But Given the last 25 years at the USDOJ, they are the very enemies of free speech corrupted with Biden [vawa] Bucks.
Perhaps there are administrative remedies available also (which must be exhausted prior to injuncti relief) also since the congress can regulate interstate commerce in which it becomes a question of how much do you want to dig through various federal agencies and their rules to try to find a needle in a haystack that may not exist at all. If an attorney charges $300+/hour, might be best to hit google yourself to try to find the needle, and research the d.c circuit for administrative rulings on any discovered legal theories to test their fitness. Then, after finding a potential match, discuss the theory with counsel.
lawful masses with Leonard french.
Thanks for the info on what people can do to counter legal corruption, etc. Now, personally speaking, YouTube terminated at least three of my YouTube channels as of 2019, this year. So, I deleted each video that would receive the copyright claims. Yet, they still terminated three of my channels. I love law. So, I didn't know about chancery. I love history. So, I love how chancery goes back to the Roman Empire. I may consider writing articles about some of these things in the future.
I am not a video content producer per se. But once youtube registers 3 strikes on your account, I guess that is their limit. Many censored people are moving over to bitchutte for a better experience, I don't know if bitchutte offers monetization. There used to be others that issued monetization, but I don't know if they still do. It is possible to store an entire video on the steem block chain spread throughout numerous 48k [after encoding] comment chunks, but that is anything but ideal at this point. Even if specialized video software engineers could load the 48k chunks individually for streaming purposes then they would still have to decode it.
You may rarely hear things about a court of chancery these days. All states except delaware have unified their court of law and chancery so they are heard in the same courts. Today, you'll often seen a state (or federal) rules of civil procedure covers the rules for chancery. "Chancery" may be seen from many different names: chancery; equity; injunction/injuncti, and: restraining order. Despite the merging of the courts there is still a jurisdictional wall that separates them, and that wall exists to protect our jury trial rights-and that is seen in the 7th amendment as to civil cases, and one can presume article 3 of the constitution for federal cases. Eugene Volokh and I [on twiiter, back when I had an account] disagreed about whether this applies to the states through the 14th amendment; I would argue it does, and he provided no authority to the contrary. It isn't to say that he wouldn't argued that position. You'll see the arguments in favor of my position inherited from the simplified rules of equity themselves.
You will often see 3 simplified, 4 at the modern federal level and in some states, to invoke chancery jurisdiction. 1& 2. That a moving party faces an irreparable injury in the absence of the issuance of equity, but is likely to succeed on the merits of it's issuance. 3. That there must be a balancing of interest. 4. And it must not to contrary to the public interest. You'll see other things not often expressed in these simplification. To invoke a constitutional challenge you often have to serve a state attorney general of the government unit. An irrepararable injury must be real, and not just the apprehension of injury. That a case can be dismissed for mootness the moment the problem has been remedies outside of court. I am sure there are many more, entire books have been written on the subject, But going back to the first two rules, when there exist a remedy in law or in many cases nature (averting the eyes to an unwanted mailing or throwing it away) then equity doesn't have jurisdiction. That said, When there exists an adequate and complete remedy at law, then, aside from petty offenses where there is no jury, the defendant is expected to have a jury trial[-less he waives it for a bench trial]. Even in a petty offense, a prosecutor would have meet a higher burden of proof to meet than a petitioner in equity. So there is also an inherent due process issue when chancery attempts to replace the criminal law as is happening in our modern family court star chambers (the original house of stuart star chamber was also a court of Chancery).
-https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=205
-with two footnotes. If you can't read the image, click the link above.
Unfortunately, our own USDOJ working for feminist/Marxist agents, are instructing trial judges to dissolve this jurisdictional wall and they also advocate for ex parte injunctions against speech-in defiance of scotus rulings as applied to the klan against ex parte injunctions against speech on due process grounds. Despite the wall being a contracts I subject, the judges (often really bad attorneys who turn to a state's welfare system by sitting on a bench) ignore the law and do the USDOJ and by extension feminist bidding. As a result, we are in the present danger of letting the courts of chancery swallow up all of our constitutional and natural rights-and people have been disappeared and tortured due to these courts for expressing political ideas just like the original house of Stuart star chamber.
Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter on equity to Phillip Mazzei in 1785 that goes into greater details about its application in England, He too warned that chancery could swallow up the then common law in England, and notes that some state legislatures have opted to do without such a court. But also noted that they would inevitably return.
Walls:
I value walls. So, I've not heard of this kind of wall before but it makes sense. I also don't know much about the 7th amendment for example. I should study them more. we make money on Steem, on this website, Steemit.
Dtube Video
So, you can upload videos to Dtube and make some money from it.
Ignoring Laws
You mentioned something and that makes me wonder how often lawyers and judges may ignore the constitution and certain laws. I'm not a lawyer and yet I do spend time thinking about the law.
Vietnam
I was teaching English in Vietnam for five years to 2017 and I spend some of my time studying Vietnamese law. While living in Saigon, I was extending my visa with no problem.
Visa Extensions
I would make new visas and extend them again and again until I was suddenly unable to extend a visa in 2015. So, I began trying to figure out what happened. So, that took me down a path of trying to understand some of their laws.
Travel Agencies
I started reading about how it seems that travel agencies are required to educate their customers as they are buying visas. However, in reality, it seems to me that a travel agency actually gave me the wrong kind of visa. I was asking for one kind and they told me that I should get a different kind.
Wrong Visa
Long story short, I believe they persuaded me to get the wrong kind of visa. At the time, I didn't really know that. I believe that they broke the law. But I didn't really want to go to court to fight that. I don't have that kind of money or time.
Trials
Well, I guess I don't enjoy courtrooms. I'm more interested in educating other people who may go to court or whatever the case might be.