IIRC, there's a how-to video from Adobe that explains how to redact properly as opposed to highlighting in black.
CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar
- Thread starter Richard Baker
- Start date
- Status
I should think the IRS in this case would be more like a stomach stapling. Good luck ever trying to eat so much at one time again.
Its the SEC and other agencies I think he should really be worrying about. Crowdfunding is ripe for examination. Of course with the haircutting some seem determined to do to regulatory agencies and consumer protection right now, those groups may have limited options to make this particular case their foray.
Last edited:
Well, it's a bit different on a Windows OS - and I'm sure there are multiple ways to accomplish it (IE seeing past the redactions).FWIW, anyone on a Mac can do this with only tools included with the operating system. The Preview application works just fine for copy/paste (though it's slightly wonky due to formatting). I checked because I was shocked that someone in the legal profession would make this kind of error.
I'm very curious as to who actually did the redaction. There's also an interesting question of liability (presuming that the court cares); does the submission of the document to the court count as "publishing to the public"? Or is it the court's systems that made it available to the public without any kind of safeguard? Dunno how that works.
I just wish I had time to read it all at the moment; all the good stuff happens when I'm overly busy.
As to culpability or possible sanctions/repercussions:
If the documents were filed and okayed for release to Pacer by the Court - that may be more on the Court itself then the attorneys. Also, IF W&S got to see the filings and raised no objection prior to them being posted in the form they were...
But, one way or another I guess we'll find out when either W&S or the Court itself files something further/makes a ruling.
Interesting yes, if W&S signed off on the electronic versions of the postings, one could say they had their chance to do due diligence on technical issues they otherwise would claim are "standard practise" L&L may have missed.
Did someone say, "Cache"?
(sorry)
Extended, or Expanded?
I have to wonder if its happening by laptop glow in that captain's chair on the empty stage floor with the lights out and everyone else gone home.
Indeed. You totally called it @muCephiIf we are going there, I did say a few pages back that the emails would land like an asteroid
You assume the documents were created directly in Adobe Acrobat. More likely they were created in Word and then directly converted to PDF. The latest versions of MS Word (2013 and 2016) will save to a PDF format that can be viewed/printed from Acrobat Reader.
Also if this is the video:
https://acrobatusers.com/tutorials/remove-and-redact-sensitive-information-from-pdf-files
^^^It's on the Acrobat site
If you check the comments - there are Acrobat users stating some Watermarks will make redacted text visible, etc. - so even the latest Adobe software isn't 100% reliable.
Because it appears Acrobat itself is just putting a colored layer over the text - it may be that any word processor (like Word) that can convert PDF files back into a text editable format may just consider that layer an art object or a background color; and those who know enough can remove/change such things to make the text it covers readable.
But again, it'll be up to the Court/Judge (assuming someone raises the issue) to decide if whomever did the redaction did what the Court would consider reasonable due diligence before releasing the info publically; and if they would be subject to any sanctions, etc.
@Noname Given
I'll take "assuming someone raises the issue" for 500.
Who is 'the defendant' & Winston&Strawn?
I'll take "assuming someone raises the issue" for 500.
Who is 'the defendant' & Winston&Strawn?
Interesting, thanks. Yet this feels a lot like a violation of civil rights and I think it may not go well for L&L. It seems pretty hard to argue that a top firm doesn't routinely manage this.
500? Come on - based on this particular subject that would be a 50 Jeopardy question.
The interesting thing here though - Alec Peters deposition was filed "Under Seal" meaning that after the cover page indicating the Exhibit ID - there was nothing else in the publically released information connected to that exhibit. Again, W&S could have asked for any financial data to remain "Under Seal" as well; so it may be the case that as long as L&L did what is considered a standard /acceptable court practice - they may be off the hook - but I'd expect the usual suspects to start claiming this was a cold and calculated attempt to destroy Alec Peter's "Business Reputation" - but IMO with a Bankruptcy and other questionable dealings that have been brought to public attention in the various 'business' circles Alec Peters is involved with it may not matter:
TLDR: You can't ruin someone's Public Business reputation when he's already done so himself (IE The Propworx bankruptcy and the fact he owed MGM a sizeable amount of money...) There's also the recent Propworx/Axanar 'mass-mail' debacle where Alec may have violated Federal law...
What is a Axa-marine Lemming?Your answer is a daily double:
We have a visual clue...
its as follows:
Your answer is a daily double:
We have a visual clue...
its as follows:
I'll bet 200
What is A Bad Idea?
Last edited:
I have a footnote with the source at the end of that paragraph: Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Section 3, Part C, p. 13, 11/16/16.
Here's the AxaMonitor summary of the defendants' motion for summary judgment. You'll recognize many of the arguments are repackaged from way back in Axanar's attempt to get the case dismissed. There's a twist now in how they address Judge Klausner's finding that the "locked script" was sufficient basis for the case to proceed.
- Status