Most official court documents are copies and scans. Not original text files. Go read from another comment about how the “court reporter” website gets these document images. They aren’t getting the original filing.
When you submit a brief you usually submit it in physical form following the standards set by the court and you deliver it to all appropriate parties. If the court requires a digital submission from the filing party it is going to be an original digital copy. There is no logical reason to rasterize then scan. And no court would require that process if it is likely to damage the original content. Just think.
Trust me.
There is no reason for the originating party to use an optical scan when they have the original digital copy.
Anytime I have to OCR a scan at work, I get the same thing. It’s a mess. And obviously the website that released it isn’t going to go through and correct all the errors which is what you have to do after you OCR something. A complete mess.
The Michigan filing is a formatting mess due to this. No way did they file it that way.
And it’s not court reporter website, it’s court listener. So they are the ones who pulled and have it out there. Go read the Michigan one. You’ll see all thr massive formatting issues and such.
Most official court documents are copies and scans. Not original text files. Go read from another comment about how the “court reporter” website gets these document images. They aren’t getting the original filing.
When you submit a brief you usually submit it in physical form following the standards set by the court and you deliver it to all appropriate parties. If the court requires a digital submission from the filing party it is going to be an original digital copy. There is no logical reason to rasterize then scan. And no court would require that process if it is likely to damage the original content. Just think.
Trust me.
There is no reason for the originating party to use an optical scan when they have the original digital copy.
This was not released by the parties to the suit. This was released by a website that pulls scans. Let me go find the comment. Happy Thanksgiving.
BTW the website this is hosted on is literally her website. Go to the home page.
K Gotcha. More plausible. Though I have never seen these types of artifacts in digitized scans.
Anytime I have to OCR a scan at work, I get the same thing. It’s a mess. And obviously the website that released it isn’t going to go through and correct all the errors which is what you have to do after you OCR something. A complete mess.
The Michigan filing is a formatting mess due to this. No way did they file it that way.
https://thedonald.win/p/11QS7dT9IH/x/c/4DpKmcWm91J
And it’s not court reporter website, it’s court listener. So they are the ones who pulled and have it out there. Go read the Michigan one. You’ll see all thr massive formatting issues and such.