Microsoft Word For The Legal Professional Quick Reference Guide: Fill & Download for Free

No, it won’t impact anything.The report is awkwardly written, poorly laid out, repetitive, and feels like a first draft by a kid trying to get into law school. It’s conclusions are lept to, he’s failed to provide context or link important evidence while discussing minutiae in great detail.Further, it massively overreaches it’s scope in many places. This was a “forensics” report, meant to discuss factual findings of the information security in place, as well as, I’d imagine, a process analysis. Instead it’s combative towards the defendants and goes so far as to make truthiness claims about defendant's’ statements.While he does glancingly address the primary reason for the errors, he doesn’t conduct any interviews specifically with the canvassing staff, even if he does mention conversations with them. Due to the conclusions he draws, this is essential…To be fair to the report, however, he does bring up some excellent issues:The machines weren’t up to date, patching wise. Based on how far out of date they were, this could have been a CAT 1 STIG finding (highest vulnerability)The fact that the audit logs were missing prior to the election is concerning, but likely explicable, and should be explainedIf they all use the same account, that’s also a concernThe fact that the USBs weren’t secured is a concern in operational securityFrom my understanding of the entire process, these concerns aren’t as bad as they seem for a few reasons:The central tabulation computer was “air-gapped”. It was not connected to a LAN or the internet.The missing audit logs happened before the election. So they're likely moot for any ballot switching tampering.The attempt to clear the logs was not an attempt to clear the logs.The election was over a month overThey still have the paper ballots, which the forensic analysis team didn’t have access too (also important since they weren’t able to actually test their theories)Some background first:No, Charles Austin Miller, this "audit" wasn't court ordered. The report was paid for by a guy who was disputing the results of a marijuana referendum in Central Lake to allow a marijuana retailer within city limits.[1] The judge ordered William Bailey could take images of the machines for analysis and then ordered the public release of the report (which I can’t find anywhere). The “audit” itself wasn't ordered.UPDATE: the actual official risk limiting audit was conducted over a seven hour livestream where the pubic was able to watch the bipartisan audit team hand count the ballots. In the end, Trump gains 11 votes over the machine count and Biden gained 1.[2]Let’s be clear: This wasn’t an impartial audit, it was an antagonistic consultant report, run by Russ Ramsland, a Republican operative also known for making more counterfactual claims in affidavits than factual ones…like mistating voter turnout rates in different districts and mistaking Michigan for Minnesota.He was hired by William Bailey to do the report. Bailey was angry because of a very narrowly passed local referendum asking if it was okay for a retail marijuana dispensary to open up in his town, Central Lake, located in Antrim County.I looked through most of the answers and while they talked about just how flawed Ramsland is, they didn’t really talk about where these figures and this statement came from. I’ll leave the ad hominems with those answers.Antrim County gained notoriety this election cycle after an initial erroneous upload on November 3rd said it was won by Biden. After a brief review they fixed the results to have it won by Trump by a 61% to 37% margin.[3] The reason for the mixup was an Election Definition wasn’t properly updated across all the precincts after one district’s local ballot changed in October.[4]Sheryl Guy, an Antrim County Clerk found the problem and corrected it on November 5th.Most of the report ignores that this happened to make it seem like something illegal happened. Only one portion of this report actually addresses the event that happened, however, it simply hand-waves it away, claiming this wasn’t what happened.On my expertise, I’m a systems administrator, and systems developer, and have worked on securing DoD systems for a decade, running security audits and securing these systems.So what is this Report actually saying?Update: Here is the report, https://www.9and10news.com/content/uploads/2020/12/Antrim_Michigan_Forensics_Report_121320_v2_REDACTED.pdfFor reference, here is the response affidavit filed from the Secretary of State: https://www.michigan.gov/documents/ag/SOS_Benson_Response_Antrim_County_710474_7.pdfAs laid out by the Washington Times they say he's claiming that 68% of the ballots that were run through the machine errored, causing them to be adjudicated and that no one oversaw the adjudication process. Further, he’s asserting that this error rate was by design, as in, Dominion engineered their software to fail at a rate of 68% so that people could then change who voted for whom. He leaps from this assertion to say that every county in Michigan that used Dominion machines should be de-certified ergo, every state that uses Dominion should be de-certified. (Yes, he does say this explicitly in the report).A quick summary of what’s wrong with this conclusion:The machines are all certified nationally by the EAC. A failure rate that high would raise some major red flags all over the place, it’s frankly shocking that it took this long for it to come to light…if it’s true. He’s also assuming the adjudication process is set up to change votes — the interesting thing is that he doesn’t even understand how this process works in Michigan.But I’ll cover all this in more detail in the analysis of the report below.So let’s look at the report, now that I have access to it.He starts with this conclusion:2. We conclude that the Dominion Voting System is intentionally and purposefully designed with inherent errors to create systemic fraud and influence election results. The system intentionally generates an enormously high number of ballot errors. The electronic ballots are then transferred for adjudication. The intentional errors lead to bulk adjudication of ballots with no oversight, no transparency, and no audit trail. This leads to voter or election fraud. Based on our study, we conclude that The Dominion Voting System should not be used in Michigan. We further conclude that the results of Antrim County should not have been certified.Having worked in IT and performed security audits I have to say that this declaration is vastly overstepping its scope and asserting legal remedies rather than sticking to the lane of an information security audit.Later he drops this bomb at point 22:Research is ongoing. However, based on the preliminary results, we conclude that the errors are so significant that they call into question the integrity and legitimacy of the results in the Antrim County 2020 election to the point that the results are not certifiable. Because the same machines and software are used in 48 other counties in Michigan, this casts doubt on the integrity of the entire election in the state of Michigan.OH, THAT’S WHY THEY’RE DOING THIS.It would have been stupid to overturn such a red county as Antrim, or most of the other counties that use Dominion. But if they got Wayne county…Trump would win Michigan. Trump would win Georgia because Dominion!Frankly, as someone who’s run forensic system audits, it seems like a tremendous overreach of the report to even suggest in such blatant terms that he should suggest to a county judge reviewing a city matter that not only should he overturn Antrim county, but also demand that all 48 counties decertify the results.He presents the different vote totals, one on Election day, one on the 5th, revised with numbers up for Trump and a count that took place on the 21st where Biden lost 1300 votes.Secretary of State Benson’s response clarifies the November 21st adjustment in her response to the report:On November 21, the Bureau of Elections received corrected official election results from Antrim County, which may explain why a user was in the election management system on that date.He boldly states:4. The Antrim County Clerk and Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson have stated that the election night error (detailed above by the vote "flip" from Trump to Biden, was the result of human error caused by the failure to update the Mancelona Township tabulator prior to election night for a down ballot race. We disagree and conclude that the vote flip occurred because of machine error built into the voting software designed to create error.As stated, the person who made the mistake, Sheryl Guy, has confessed this error and cleaned it up. After running the tabulation after fixing this configuration problem, the numbers were appropriate.No where in the report does it actually account for this tabulation problem. As I continue I’ll point out a number of places where he mentions November 6th as a problem date. November 5 was when the configuration was updated, but he doesn’t mention this event outside of alluding to the fact that this mitigation should have thrown off the security certification of the machines…which I don’t believe is the case. Certified machines have data updated all the time, an election definition correction would not invalidate the machine’s security certification.5. Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson's statement on November 6, 2020 that "[t]the correct results always were and continue to be reflected on the tabulator totals tape . . . ." was falseThis is another overreach of his report. The report was to analyze the security and tabulation of the voting machines, not as a lawyer trying to rebut the Secretary of State’s comments.The full paragraph he’s quoting says this:[5]The correct results always were and continue to be reflected on the tabulator totals tape and on the ballots themselves. Even if the error in the reported unofficial results had not been quickly noticed, it would have been identified during the county canvass. Boards of County Canvassers, which are composed of 2 Democrats and 2 Republicans, review the printed totals tape from each tabulator during the canvass to verify the reported vote totals are correct.She’s referring to the particular precincts in question. Each one was correct without error, the errors occurred when merging the results prior to the definition update on the 6th.6. The allowable election error rate established by the Federal Election Commission guidelines is of 1 in 250,000 ballots (.0008%). We observed an error rate of 68.05%.The FEC is in charge of campaign finance, he probably means the EAC. However, looking at the EAC guidelines I can’t find that figure mentioned anywhere. Voluntary Voting System Guidelines. Further, 1 in 250,000 is .0004%, not .0008%….but later on we find the issue: in J-2 he quotes the document and it turns out he’s been doubling the threshold, he meant to say 1 in 125,000.8. The tabulation log for the forensic examination of the server for Antrim County from December 6, 2020consists of 15,676 individual events, of which 10,667 or 68.05% of the events were recorded errors. These errors resulted in overall tabulation errors or ballots being sent to adjudication. This high error rates proves the Dominion Voting System is flawed and does not meet state or federal election laws. [SIC]9. These errors occurred after The Antrim County Clerk provided a re-provisioned CF card with uploaded software for the Central Lake Precinct on November 6, 2020. This means the statement by Secretary Benson was false. The Dominion Voting System produced systemic errors and high error rates both prior to the update and after the update; meaning the update (or lack of update) is not the cause of errors.The report filed doesn’t contain these logs, so we can’t tell what they are actually saying.The date referenced, December 6, is oddly thrown in there. These logs have dates on them so they could easily see what was going on and when. Without seeing more, the date is a red-herring and these errors that he’s referring to are most likely due to the update of the Election Definition. Referenced above.It is strange that he’d mention only Central Lake in this issue, as well. Yes, that’s where the lawsuit he’s addressing happened, but he has access to several machines down chain in the process.He also doesn’t specify when these errors occurred. In other words he says there were “15,676 individual events, of which 10,667 or 68.05% of the events were recorded errors.” and then he says “The Dominion Voting System produced systemic errors and high error rates both prior to the update and after the update”. How many occurred on each date?There are no examples of the verbiage of these error logs, so we cannot examine what they are. Depending on the system it could be anything. Further, there’s no interviews listed anywhere with anyone present who can attest to a large number of adjudications. This sort of thing would absolutely be noticed. There were only 15,000 ballots cast, which would be, as he said 10,000 adjudications. That’s a tremendous amount of work for a small county. There would be no way that they could complete adjudications on that many ballots in 2 days.Without providing these logs with analysis from Dominion and qualified third party experts, this central piece of evidence that they use is, while troubling, highly suspect as evidence of fraud or even machine error.It’s worth noting that ASOG has been involved in several election cases and hasn’t brought this to light in any of those, many of which involve Dominion tabulation machines.10. In Central Lake Township there were 1,222 ballots reversed out of 1,491 total ballots cast, resulting in an 81.96% rejection rate. All reversed ballots are sent to adjudication for a decision by election personnel.11. It is critical to understand that the Dominion system classifies ballots into two categories, 1) normal ballots and 2) adjudicated ballots. Ballots sent to adjudication can be altered by administrators, and adjudication files can be moved between different Results Tally and Reporting (RTR) terminals with no audit trail of which administrator actually adjudicates (i.e. votes) the ballot batch. This demonstrated a significant and fatal error in security and election integrity because it provides no meaningful observation of the adjudication process or audit trail of which administrator actually adjudicated the ballots.He really likes to say “Significant and fatal error in security.” He says it a lot in this report.I bring this part up because he is throwing a lot of terminology around without defining it, using “normal ballots” and “adjudicated ballots” and then throwing “reversed” in there (he bolded it).Without contextually defining what “Reversed” means, this is an absurdly high number. On top of that, an 82% rejection rate would be noticed. Again, this is a very red precinct. From the tabulation tape he provided a photo of, there would have to be something really wrong going on, and every team working on these adjudications were bipartisan…Someone would have noticed this error rate, but there’s no interviews claimnig this was the case.13. The linked video demonstrates how to cheat at adjudication:He literally added in a video from a guy on twitter called KanekoaTheGreat to show you that if there’s a single dishonest adjudicator there that isn’t observed and not working in a team, then they can change a ballot to justify voter’s intent.He also notes this:15. Significantly, the computer system shows vote adjudication logs for prior years; but all adjudication log entries for the 2020 election cycle are missing. The adjudication process is the simplest way to manually manipulate votes. The lack of records prevents any form of audit accountability, and their conspicuous absence is extremely suspicious since the files exist for previous years using the same software. Removal of these files violates state law and prevents a meaningful audit, even if the Secretary wanted to conduct an audit. We must conclude that the 2020 election cycle records have been manually removed.The major problem with this observation is noted in the SOS response (linked above):12. The report does not explain the basis for its assumption that Antrim County uses adjudication software or any evidence that adjudication software was actually used to change votes. It is not clear how this would even be possible in Antrim County, as adjudication software is used with the Dominion Image Cast Central (ICC) high-speed scanners, not Image Cast Precinct (ICP) tabulators. According to my understanding, ICC high-speed scanners are not used in Antrim County. Rather, adjudication is done by teams of election workers using the paper ballot when needed.The Report goes on:18. The Election Event Designer Log shows that Dominion ImageCast Precinct Cards were programmed with new ballot programming on 10/23/2020 and then again after the election on 11/05/2020.This note is bizarre. It’s been known since 11/5 that there was an issue with the election definition as linked above, that a ballot initiative was changed 10/23. But there were issues with a few of the precincts that required updating after 11/5.[6]19. The only reason to change software after the election would be to obfuscate evidence of fraud and/or to correct program errors that would de-certify the election. Our findings show that the Central Lake Township tabulator tape totals were significantly altered by utilizing two different program versions (10/23/2020 and 11/05/2020), both of which were software changes during an election which violates election law, and not just human error associated with the Dominion Election Management System. This is clear evidence of software generated movement of votes. The claims made on the Office of the Secretary of State website are false.Updating the tabulation configuration doesn’t constitute a “software change”, which would be updating the systems after certification to use completely different software.Here is also another case of the report overstepping itself to jump from “an Election Definition update” to THE MACHINES WERE DESIGNED TO CHANGE VOTES! SHE’S LYING!The Dominion ImageCast Precinct (ICP) machines have the ability to be connected to the internet (see Image 11). By connecting a network scanner to the ethernet port on the ICP machine and creating Packet Capture logs from the machines we examined show the ability to connect to the network, Application Programming Interface (API) (a data exchange between two different systems) calls and web (http) connections to the Election Management System server. Best practice is to disable the network interface card to avoid connection to the internet. This demonstrated a significant and fatal error in security and election integrity. Because certain files have been deleted, we have not yet found origin or destination; but our research continues.Another strange one. He claims that because it has a network card, it’s a security risk.He provides no evidence that it was not disabled nor that it was ever plugged in.Because the intentional high error rate generates large numbers of ballots to be adjudicated by election personnel, we must deduce that bulk adjudication occurred. However, because files and adjudication logs are missing, we have not yet determined where the bulk adjudication occurred or who was responsible for it. Our research continuesOr you could have interviewed canvassing personnel. The county has always been very Red, and at least half of the people working were Republicans.But again, as per the SOS statement, it was hand adjudicated.Additionally, he oversteps the scope by assigning intention to the errors that occurred. It’s subtle, but important.He then resurrects his Venezuela Conspiracy theory by proxy, bringing up a Venezuelan Mathematics professor who devised a statistical approach to claiming that the election on Venezuela was rigged…and therefore this one in Antrim was too.He throws this in there:Dominion voting system is a Canadian owned company with global subsidiaries. It is owned by Staple Street Capital which is in turn owned by UBS Securities LLC, of which 3 out of their 7 board members are Chinese nationals. The Dominion software is licensed from Smartmatic which is a Venezuelan owned and controlled company. Dominion Server locations have been determined to be in Serbia, Canada, the US, Spain and Germany.Yes, Venezuelan immigrants to the United States started SmartMatic In the United States who are anti-Medura.As noted by Kevin Bryant in the comments:Dominion doesn’t use licensed software, it makes it itself, and has no connection to SmartMatic.Additionally, from SmartMatic (even if it’s irrelevant):And SmartMatic does not own any shares of Dominion.[7] And Dominion has no financial ties to SmartMatic.This is propagating misinformation and a long debunked conspiracy theory.For the process part of this, it’s important to note that Ramsland Did Not Have Access to the Ballots.Most of what he talks about sounds fishy, with “before” and “after” pictures of receipts printed out where the votes change significantly…but he didn’t get to examine the ballots to see what the issue was. His claim that 3 ballots were damaged and then “cured” (an election term that I think is used improperly) and then not counted, doesn’t fly right. Especially since the issue at question is the proposal to have a marijuana dispensary. That one lost one “no” vote between the election and recount.He doesn’t know why and the computer won’t tell him.As the tabulator tape totals prove, there were large numbers of votes switched from the November 3, 2020 tape to the November 6, 2020 tape. This was solely based on using different software versions of the operating program to calculate votes, not tabulate votes.Except that’s not what happened. The tabulation definition changed, not the software version.J-3 is nonsense, the only county in Michigan that uses ranked choice voting is Macomb county. It was certainly not enabled in Antrim.And again from the SOS report:In J.4 through J.6, the report suggests it is improper to divert write-ins for adjudication, but that is the only way those ballots can be counted – people have to look at the name written in on the paper ballot and determine who it should be assigned to.He concludes with a random excerpt of a script they ran without providing context.It is suspect that the computers hadn’t been updated in a few years. At the same time, based on the form factor of those “servers” they appear to be compact desktopsMaking me just guess here, that the SQL installed was a desktop or pocket version that was coupled with the voting tabulation software.On top of that, the machines were never on the network, as stated in the report — it’s updated offline and they use USBs to transfer the data to it, which mitigates most of the issues.6. Antivirus definition is 1666 days old on 12/11/2020. Antrim County updates its system with USB drives. USB drives are the most common vectors for injecting malware into computer systems. The failure to properly update the antivirus definition drastically increases the harm cause by malware from other machines being transmitted to the voting system.This is a concern, to be sure. You want to make sure this stuff is up-to-date…but again, when the chain of custody of the USBs is maintained, this is partly mitigated.However, one strange thing that jumped out at me concerning this report…He doesn’t anywhere state the OS versionHe doesn’t anywhere state the version of the Dominion software in useHe doesn’t anywhere state the SQL Server version in use.These are basic, basic, basic first steps in any forensic information security investigation.Especially since he’s claiming they’re out of date…It’s odd also that WSUS was run in 2019, yet he’s saying it’s 3 years out of date…a decent Security operation would link to evidence of when Microsoft put these patches out there.This quote here was very illuminating also,a user attempted to zero out election results. Id:3168 EmsLogger - There is no permission to {0} - Project: User: Thread: 189. This is direct proof of an attempt to tamper with evidence.Except that's not what that means. In many coding languages {number} is a placeholder for a variable. This error likely means that something completely unexpected occurred and requires a lot more context. It definitely doesn't necessarily mean that someone was trying to zero election results.My analysis is that he showed several random pictures for no reason whatsoever, like the servers, for instance, and a random picture from the Dominion configuration manager from the installation guide, not a screenshot from the server itself. here:This is from the Dominion manual, and is completely irrelevant to the machines themselves. Why would you not put in a screenshot to compare to the actual tabulation machine? He shows a picture of some sort of “log” that’s redacted claiming that votes were allowed to be changed without audit.However, the Secretary of State notes:The report does not explain the basis for its finding that “RCV or Ranked Choice Voting Algorithm” was enabled in J.3, or how the “enabling” RCV would have caused ballots not designed for or tabulators not programmed for ranked choice voting to be read and tabulated. Ranked Choice Voting is not authorized by the Michigan Election Law for use in federal or state-level elections.So this configuration was completely irrelevant.Additionally he says this:7. On 12/8/2020 Microsoft issued 58 security patches across 10+ products, some of which were used for the election software machine, server and programs. Of the 58 security fixes 22, were patches to remote code execution (RCE) vulnerabilities. [Image 11]:12/8 was over a month after the election…while it’s always good practice to keep a server up to date, the final ballot tabulation was posted 11/21 and certified…it's kind of asinine to expect them to install patches that haven't even been released yet. Also the server was air-gapped, so no one could connect to it remotely to execute codeThe picture provided is a complete red-herring. It has nothing to do with the relevance of a patch not installed that wasn’t released until weeks after tabulation was complete. Nothing at all.The fact that he felt the need to put those in there, but couldn’t provide the logs or pictures of the errors, or screenshots of anything else that is actually relevant is very suspect. It speaks of a lack of experience and lack of detail.The fact that he tried to assert legal solutions to perceived security issues demonstrates that the report was more political than professional.It was terribly assembled mixing up data, processes, and conclusions, randomly numbering paragraphs like this was a legal motion. It was repetitive. He dismisses out of hand the fact that they had to update the data definition software so that he can draw the conclusion that this was a machine problem and not a human one.I’m not a Michigan state or Antrim County or Dominion voting expert. I am an information security professional, and this report is a joke, for the most part, full of casual errors, like the 1 in 125000 error that he repeated twice while repeating the incorrect calculation twice as well as many grammatical errors.I’d agree that they should have a professional do an audit and they did find a few suspect issues at play, but nothing that would affect the election…Adjudications are normal and this was a red state.Footnotes[1] Audit of Antrim County Vote Tabulating Machines Continues - 9 & 10 News[2] Antrim County audit shows 12-vote gain for Trump[3] Antrim County election results investigated after red Michigan county turns blue[4] Antrim vote glitch: Expert shares how county mistakenly flipped from red to blue[5] False claims from Ronna McDaniel have no merit[6] https://www.michigan.gov/documents/sos/Antrim_Fact_Check_707197_7.pdf[7] https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-smartmatic-ceo-biden-team-d/fact-checksmartmatic-ceo-is-not-on-bidensteamsmartmatic-software-is-not-on-dominion-voting-machines-idUSKBN2801ZJ

No. 1David R. JohnsonDavid R. Johnson is lawyer specializing in computer communications. He is a Senior Fellow at Center for Democracy and Technology, and a former chairman of the Electronic Frontier Foundation.Johnson graduated from Yale College with a B.A. summa cum laude in 1967. He completed a year of postgraduate study at University College, Oxford in 1968, and earned a J.D.from Yale Law School in 1972. For a year following graduation Johnson clerked for the Honorable Malcolm R. Wilkey of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.Johnson joined Washington, D.C. law firm Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering in 1973, and became a partner in 1980. His practice focused primarily on the emerging area of electronic commerce, including counseling on issues relating to privacy, domain names and Internet governance issues, jurisdiction, copyright, taxation, electronic contracting, encryption, defamation, ISP and OSP liability, regulation, and other intellectual property matters.Johnson helped to write the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (1986) Johnson was active in the introduction of personal computers in law practice, acting as President and CEO of Counsel Connect, a system connecting corporate counsel and outside law firms, and serving the Board of the Center for Computer-Assisted Legal Instruction (CALI) and as a Trustee of the National Center for Automated Information Research (NCAIR).In October 1993, coincidental with the move of its main offices from Cambridge, Massachusetts to D.C., Johnson became a director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation.[2] In February 2005, while serving as the organization's Senior Policy Fellow, Johnson replaced founder Mitch Kapor as Chairman of the EFF Board.In the early 2000s, along with Post, Johnson was active in the re-organization of ICANN - penning several critical papers with Susan P. Crawford. In 2006 he collaborated with Crawford in the establishment of OneWebDay.From 2004-2009 Johnson held the post of Visiting Professor at New York Law School. In May 2009 he commenced a one year Senior Fellowship with the Center for Democracy and Technology.Writings• Law and Borders - The Rise of Law in Cyberspace co-authored with David G. Post, 48 Stanford Law Review 1367 (May 1996) (1997 McGannon Award)• The Life of the Law Online 51 N.Y.L. SCH. L. REV. 956 (2007) or First Monday, Issue 11-2.• THE ACCOUNTABLE NET:PEER PRODUCTION OF INTERNET GOVERNANCE w/ Susan P. Crawford, John G. Palfrey, Jr. (Aspen Institute) 2004No. 2Lawrence LessigLawrence Lessig is the Director of the Edmond J. Safra Foundation Center for Ethics at Harvard University, and a Professor of Law at Harvard Law School.Prior to returning to Harvard, Lessig was a Professor of Law at Stanford Law School (where he was founder of Stanford's Center for Internet and Society), Harvard Law School (1997-2000), and the University of Chicago Law School. Lessig clerked for Judge Richard Posner on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals and Justice Antonin Scalia on the United States Supreme Court.His current academic work addresses the question of "institutional corruption" roughly, influences within an economy of influence that weaken the effectiveness of an institution, or weaken public trust. His current work at the EJ Safra Lab oversees a 5 year research project addressing institutional corruption in a number of institutional contexts.Lessig has won numerous awards, including the Free Software Foundation's Freedom Award, and was named one of Scientific American's Top 50 Visionaries. He is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and the American Philosophical Society.Lessig serves on the boards of Creative Commons, MAPLight, Brave New Film Foundation, Change Congress, The American Academy, Berlin, Freedom House and iCommons.org. He is on the advisory board of the Sunlight Foundation. He has previously served on the boards of the Free Software Foundation, the Software Freedom Law Center, Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Public Library of Science, Free Press, and Public Knowledge. Lessig was also a columnist for Wired, Red Herring, and the Industry Standard.Lessig earned a BA in economics and a BS in management from the University of Pennsylvania, an MA in philosophy from Cambridge, and a JD from Yale. He has received honorary degrees from The University of Amsterdam, Athabasca University, and The Georgian-American University.Code is lawIn computer science, "code" typically refers to the text of a computer program (the source code). In law, "code" can refer to the texts that constitute statutory law. In his book Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace, Lessig explores the ways in which code in both senses can be instruments for social control, leading to his dictum that "Code is law."Legislative reformDespite presenting an anti-regulatory standpoint in many fora, Lessig still sees the need for legislative enforcement of copyright. He has called for limiting copyright terms for creative professionals to five years, but believes that introducing the bureaucratic procedure needed to renew trademarks, by making copyright need to be renewed for up to 75 years after this five-year term, would mean that creative professionals' work, many of the independent, would become more easily and quickly available.Free CultureIn 2002, Lessig received the Award for the Advancement of Free Software from the Free Software Foundation (FSF), and on March 28, 2004 he was elected to the FSF's Board of Directors. In 2006, Lessig was elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Lessig is also a well-known critic of copyright term extensions.He proposed the concept of "Free Culture". He also supports free software and open spectrum. At his Free Culture keynote at theO'Reilly Open Source Convention 2002, half of his speech was about software patents, which he views as a rising threat to both free/open source software and innovation.In March 2006, Lessig joined the board of advisors of the Digital Universe project. A few months later, Lessig gave a talk on the ethics of the Free Culture Movement at the 2006 Wikimania conference.Lessig claimed in 2009 that, because 70% of young people obtain digital information from illegal sources, the law should be changed.Net neutralityLessig has long been known to be a supporter of Net Neutrality. In 2006, he testified before the US Senate that he believed Congress should ratify Michael Powell's four Internet freedoms and add a restriction to access-tiering, i.e. he does not believe content providers should be charged different amounts. The reason is that the Internet, under the neutral end-to-end design is an invaluable platform for innovation, and the economic benefit of innovation would be threatened if large corporations could purchase faster service to the detriment of newer companies with less capital. However, Lessig has supported the idea of allowing ISPs to give consumers the option of different tiers of service at different prices. He was reported on CBC News as saying that he has always been in favour of allowing internet providers to charge differently for consumer access at different speeds. He said, "Now, no doubt, my position might be wrong. Some friends in the network neutrality movement as well as some scholars believe it is wrong - that it doesn't go far enough. But the suggestion that the position is 'recent' is baseless. If I'm wrong, I've always been wrong."Combating sexual abuseIn May 2005, it was revealed that Lessig had experienced sexual abuse by the director at the American Boychoir School which he had attended as an adolescent. Lessig reached a settlement with the school in the past, under confidential terms. He revealed his experiences in the course of representing another student victim, John Hardwicke, in court. In August 2006, he succeeded in persuading the New Jersey Supreme Court to restrict the scope of immunity radically, which had protected nonprofits that failed to prevent sexual abuse from legal liability.No. 3Steve ChabinskySteven Chabinsky served as Deputy Assistant Director and as the highest-ranking civilian position in the FBI's Cyber Division. In that capacity he helped oversee all FBI investigative strategies, intelligence analysis, policy development, and major outreach efforts that focused on protecting the United States from cyber attack, cyber espionage, online child exploitation, and Internet fraud. For over ten years, Mr. Chabinsky helped shape and draft many of the most significant US national cyber and infrastructure protection strategies, to include the Homeland Security Act of 2002, the National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace of 2003 and, in 2008, National Security Presidential Directive 54, which includes the Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative.Prior to joining the FBI, Mr. Chabinsky worked as an associate attorney in the law firm of Simpson Thacher & Bartlett in New York City practicing complex litigation including insurance and reinsurance contract disputes, class action product liability, and internal investigations. Mr. Chabinsky clerked for the Honorable Judge Dennis G. Jacobs (now Chief Judge) of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and holds his undergraduate and law degrees, both with honors, from Duke University. He has testified before the House and Senate, and is a frequent keynote speaker and guest lecturer. His ideas have been featured in print news media, he has appeared on radio and television, and he is the author of the article "Cybersecurity Strategy: A Primer for Policy Makers and Those on the Front Line," published in the peer-reviewed Journal of National Security Law and Policy. He is the recipient of numerous awards and recognitions, including the National Security Agency's bronze medallion for inspired leadership, the ODNI's bronze medallion for Collection, and the Rank Award of Meritorious Executive conferred by the President of the United States for unwavering leadership and sustained extraordinary performance. In August 2012, Mr. Chabinsky was selected as one of Security magazine's "Most Influential People in Security."No. 4Pavan DuggalPavan Duggal is one of the pioneers in the field of Cyberlaw and is Asia's leading authority on Cyberlaw. He is a practicing Advocate, Supreme Court of India and a Cyberlaw Consultant. He is the President of Cyberlaws.Net -, The Cyberlaw Consultancy which is Internet's unique and first ever consultancy dedicated exclusively to the new field of Cyberlaw.He is the Founder President of Cyberlaw Asia, Asia’s pioneering organization committed to the passing of dynamic Cyberlaws in the Asian continent. Cyberlaw Asia is engaged in the process of creating greater awareness about Cyberlaws in different countries of Asia.Pavan has been associated with UNESCO on Ethical, Legal, and Societal Challenges of Cyberspace in Asia and the Pacific. He is the consultant to United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP) on the Asia Pacific Conference on Cybercrime and Information Security 2002.He is Member of Nominating Committee of The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) . He is also member of the Membership Advisory Committee and Membership Implementation Task Force (MITF) of ICANN and is involved in the legal issues of At Large Membership of this global body.He is the Member of the Public Interest http://Registry’s.Org Advisory Council .Pavan is doing a lot of work in the area of Intellectual property rights in the electronic medium and in cyberspace. He is a member of the World Intellectual Property Organization Arbitration and Mediation Centre's Panel of Neutrals. He has acted as an arbitrator in various domain name disputes of the World Intellectual Property Organization.Pavan is the member of AFACT Legal Working Group of UN/CEFACT.Pavan has vetted and reviewed the e-primer on Cyberlaw prepared by e-Asean Task Force as an expert authority.He is the Cyberlaw correspondent for the Global Legal Publication JURIST: The Legal Education Network.He is advising the Controller of Certifying Authorities, Ministry of Information Technology, Government of India on issues concerning the Indian Cyberlaw namely, The Information Technology Act, 2000. He is also the Member of the IT Act Legal Advisory Group constituted by the Controller of Certifying Authorities.Pavan has also the credit of having done pioneering work in the field of Convergence Law. Pavan Duggal has testified before the Indian Parliamentary Standing Committee on Information Technology, on the Communication Convergence Bill, 2001.Pavan is the Founder President of Cyberlaw India . He has also founded The Cyberlaw Association. He is the Founder of Cyberarbitration, an online system of alternative dispute resolution.Being a prolific writer , he has authored three books entitled " Cyberlaw in India " , " Cyberlaw The Indian Perspective " and " Indian Convergence Law " . Pavan writes regularly, inter-alia amongst others, every Sunday his Cyberlaw column " Brief Cases " in The Economic Times.He has been invited as a distinguished speaker on various issues of Cyberlaw at numerous International Internet Fora, conferences and exhibitions like India Internet World, 1998, 1999 , 2000 & 2001 at New Delhi; E-biz-2000, E-BizIndia-2000, E-Governance Conference; Apricot 1999 at Singapore; and Regional Meeting of Infoethics (UNESCO), 2000 at Beijing.Pavan has been invited as a speaker on Cyber Terrorism at the 11th Annual AMIC conference in Perth, Australia. He was also plenary speaker at the Regional Seminar on the Root Causes of Terrorism and the Role of Youth organized by the World Youth Foundation on the subject of Cybercrime and Cyber Terrorism. He was invited by the Mauritian Management Association to conduct the first of its kind seminar on Cyberlaw in Mauritius in August 2002.Achievements [edit]He has been a member of number of committees namely:• The ICANN Nominating Committee representing the Asia Pacific region, 2003 and 2004.[3]• Membership Advisory Committee of The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN).[4]No. 5Parry AftabParry Aftab is an American lawyer specializing in Internet privacy and security law, and is considered "one of the founders of the field of cyberlaw". She is the Executive Director of wiredsafety, a volunteer organization dedicated to online safety. She was featured in Chris Hansen's book, To Catch a Predator. She created the StopCyberbullying Coalition to help address cyberbullying and digital abuse issues.She was appointed to the federal NTIA Online Safety and Technology Working Group (OSTWG) and the Berkman Center's Internet Safety Technical Task Force (ISTTF). Facebook appointed her to its Safety Advisory Board. She advises MTV as well..Aftab assisted the UN at its recent Cyberhate Conference. Aftab was one of 24 experts and industry leaders appointed to the Congressionally created NTIA Online Safety and Technology Working Group (OSTWG) in 2009. She was one of the 29 members of the Berkman Center's Internet Safety Technical Task Force (ISTTF). On April 15, 2009 Parry joined Diane Sawyer in the first town meeting on morning TV, on the topic of sexting. She keynoted the Children and ICT event held in Gijón, Spain as part of the EU Safer Internet initiative.In 2009, Parry Aftab created the StopCyberbullying Coalition to help address cyberbullying and digital abuse issues. The StopCyberbullying Coalition members include Facebook, AOL, Microsoft, Build-A-Bear, Procter & Gamble, Google, Yahoo!, Disney, Webkinz, the Girl Scouts of the USA, Buzz Marketing Group, MTV and others. Her work on sexting issues began in 1998 when a teenaged girl sent nude and sexual videos to a boy she liked. She is working with the families of the girls who took their own lives after their sexting images were used to harass them and were broadcast to their communities.Facebook appointed Aftab to its Safety Advisory Board. She advises MTV as well.Parry Aftab told the Minnesota School Board Association at their annual meeting in August 2009 that they need to address cyberbullying. She warned that they have to adopt a cell phone policy and enforce it.Following September 11, Parry Aftab's charity, WiredSafety, helped protect the families of those killed at the World Trade Center. She worked to help children worldwide get past the fear they felt following the attacks. She found a rescue worker who had worked at Ground Zero with his search and rescue dog, Servous. To help children understand the rescue dogs issue better, she wrote a children's story published on http://WiredKids.org.Awards and honorsIn June 2009, Aftab contributed to the United Nations "2009 Unlearning Intolerance Seminar" entitled, "Cyberhate: Danger in Cyber Space."In November 2010, "Mrs. Aftab [became] the 2010 New Jersey recipient of the FBI Director's Community Leadership Award (DCLA)"Works• Child Abuse on the Internet. Ending the Silence, Carlos A. Arnaldo, Ed., Chapter 21: "The Technical Response: Blocking, Filtering and Rating the Internet", pp. 135–140 (2001)ISBN 92-3-103728-5 ISBN 978-9231037283• Inocencia en Peligro : Conviva con sus Hijos y Protéjalos Cuando Naveguen por Internet (2001) ISBN 970-10-3297-7 ISBN 978-9701032978• The Parent's Guide to Protecting Your Children in Cyberspace (1999) ISBN 0-07-135752-1 ISBN 978-0071357524• Parents Guide to the Internet: And How to Protect Your Children in Cyberspace (1997) ISBN 0-9660491-0-1 ISBN 978-0966049107• Servous The Rescue Dog (online, undated)[14]No. 6S J TubrazyS J Tubrazy ‘Shahid Jamal Tubrazy’ is practicing lawyer in banking recovery laws and cyber laws from Pakistan. He is managing partner of sjtubrazy & co a law firm locates in Lahore Pakistan. He is professor of cyber laws in reputed law colleges. He has conducted various seminars liaison with FIA (NR3C) a law federal enforcement agency Pakistan. He is pioneer to lay down the basic foundation ‘cyber jurisprudence’ and also interpret it exhaustively.Works / PublicationValidated Cyber Law Definitions by SJTubrazyCyber Jurisprudence , Quantum Computing, Cyberspace, Cyber lawyer, Cyberwill, Digital Afterlife , Digital Death, Digital Inheritance, Digital Will, Digital Property, Digital Assets, Clouding computing, SJ Tubrazy lawyer, cyber advocate, internet lawyer, internet advocate, internet lawyer, computer lawyer, Pakistan, Digital Worth, Digital Ownership, Online Legacy, Digital Vault, Digital Storage, Internet Transfer, Web Legacy, Web Death, Web Storage, Web Ownership, Web Footprint, Virtual Death, Virtual Property, Virtual IdentityBooks1. Manual of Cyber Laws in Pakistan. (2013-14)2. The Investigation for Fair Trial Act 2013. (2013-14)3. Electronic Transaction laws in PakistanPractice and Procedure ( 2013-14)4. Electronic Fund Transfers laws in Pakistan,Practice and Procedure Up to Date Commentary ( 2013-2014)5. Uniform Domain Name Disputes Resolution Policy (Comprehensive Commentary with relevant WIPO decisions) (2013-14)6. Prevention of Eletronic Crimes Ordinance (commentary) (2007-08)7. Uniform Domain Name Disputes Resolution Policy (Commentary with WIPO decisions) (2006-07)Awards1. Awards of Merits (PLC+FIA)Concepts1. Cyber Jurisprudence2. Cyber Execution.Wok for Public Interest1. Writ Petition for enforcement of Section 12 of Electronic Ordinance 20022. Case Against Goolge & Bing for search results pornographic images for non-pornographic terms 'HOT'No. 7John P. BeardwoodJohn Beardwood is a partner of the firm, engaged in a corporate/commercial practice, with an emphasis on outsourcing and procurement, technology and privacy law related matters. John is regularly listed among the world's preeminent internet and e-commerce lawyers in Who's Who Legal - The International Who's Who of Business Lawyers where, in addition to being referred to as "an authority on outsourcing" in the guide to Internet and E-Commerce Lawyers, he is identified as being both one of the two most highly nominated Canadian lawyers in the guide, and one of the ten "most highly regarded individuals" globally; and is also included as a leading lawyer in the Internet & e-Commerce chapter of Who's Who Legal: Canada 2010. He is listed inChambers Global – The World's Leading Lawyers for Business 2010, for Information Technology. He is consistently recognized in The Best Lawyers in Canada for information technology law, and highly recommended as an outsourcing practitioner in thePLC Which Lawyer? Yearbook and in the PLC Outsourcing Handbook. His biography is included in the Canadian Who's Who.John is Co-Chair of the National Technology and Intellectual Property Practice Group; Co-Chair of the National Outsourcing Practice Group; and Vice-Chair of the Privacy and Information Protection Practice Group.Honours and Awards• Chambers Global 2011-2013 for Information Technology• Canadian Legal Lexpert Directory 2010-2011 for Computer & IT Law• Who's Who Legal Guide to Internet & e-Commerce Lawyers as being one of the ten "most highly regarded individuals" globally• Practical Law Company's Cross-border Outsourcing Handbook 2010 and Which Lawyer? Yearbook 2008-2009 as "Highly Recommended" for Outsourcing (Canada)• International Who's Who of Internet and e-Commerce Lawyers in 2008-2009• Best Lawyers in Canada 2008-2013 for Information Technology Law• National Post's "Best Lawyers in Canada" 2007-2008 for IT lawNo. 8William "Terry" W. FisherWilliam "Terry" W. Fisher is the WilmerHale Professor of Intellectual Property Law at Harvard Law School and faculty director of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society. His primary research and teaching areas are intellectual property law and legal history.In his book Promises to Keep: Technology, Law and the Future of Entertainment (Stanford University Press 2004), Fisher proposes replacing much of copyright and digital rights management with a government-administered reward system. Under such a scheme, movies and songs would be legal to download. Authors and artists would receive compensation from the government based on how often their works were read, watched, or listened to. The system would be funded by taxes.Fisher is one of the founders of Noank Media, a private enterprise similar in many ways to the proposal of Promises to Keep. Noank licenses and distributes digital content by collecting blanket-license revenues from internet services providers and distributing revenues to authors and artists based on the size of their audience.Fisher was among the lawyers, along with his colleague John Palfrey and the law firm of Jones Day, who represented Shepard Fairey, pro bono, in his law suit against the Associated Press related to the iconic Hope poster.[3]An alumnus of Amherst College, Fisher received a law degree and a Ph.D. in the history of American civilization from Harvard University. He was a law clerk to U.S. Supreme Courtjustice Thurgood Marshall.Prof. Fisher is currently teaching an online version of Copyright law course on edX to a group of selected students.No. 9MARVIN AMMORIMarvin Ammori is a leading First Amendment lawyer and Internet policy expert. He was instrumental to the adoption of network neutrality rules in the US and abroad–having been perhaps the nation’s leading legal advocate advancing network neutrality–and also instrumental to the defeat of the SOPA and PIPA copyright/censorship bills.He is a Legal Fellow with the New America Foundation Open Technology Initiative and an Affiliate Scholar at Stanford Law School’s Center for Internet & Society. He also heads a law firm and consulting practice, the Ammori Group, whose clients include leading Internet companies and nonprofit organizations. The Ammori Group’s site includes a longer bio and some kind words about his work.Before starting the Ammori Group, he was a law professor at Nebraska, where he led a program working with U.S. CyberCommand to educate the military’s first generation of “cyberwar” lawyers. His main academic contributions have been in First Amendment theory and doctrine. He left academia to return to Washington, DC, to be a participant again, rather than a spectator, in shaping public policy to advance innovation and free speech.Before being a law professor, he was a leading advocate for civil liberties and consumer rights as the head lawyer of Free Press. In that capacity, and as the lead lawyer on the seminal Comcast/BitTorrent case, he was perhaps the nation’s leading lawyer on network neutrality, the nation’s most debated Internet policy issue and amongst the nation’s most important recent policy debates. During 2007 and 2008, he was a technology policy advisor to the Obama campaign and to the Presidential Transition.He is also a Term Member of the Council on Foreign Relations and a member of the Council’s Term Member Advisory Committee. He is an Affiliate Fellow of the Yale Information Society Project, an advisor to the University of Michigan’s Michigan in Washington Program, and collaborates with Stanford’s Center for International Security and Cooperation.He graduated from Harvard Law School, taught on fellowships at Yale and Georgetown law schools, and earned his undergraduate degree from the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor. He loves ice cream.Works / PublicationsCan the FTC Save Uber?Author(s): Marvin AmmoriTaxi commissions are crushing disruptive transportation apps. Marvin Ammori discusses in this Slate article. Read more » about Can the FTC Save Uber?The Conversation: Time to Mobilize for CyberwarAuthor(s): Marvin AmmoriPROTECT IP Act (S.968) and Stop Online Privacy Act (H.R.3261)Author(s): Marvin AmmoriFirst Amendment ArchitectureAuthor(s): Marvin AmmoriNo. 10DAVID LEVINEDavid Levine is an Assistant Professor of Law at Elon University School of Law and an Affiliate Scholar at the Center for Internet and Society (CIS). Aside from the copyright and fair use areas for which CIS has become known, Dave's research interests include the operation of intellectual property law at the intersection of the technology field and public life, intellectual property's impact on transparency, and the impact of copyright law in the arts. Currently, Dave is researching the use of trade secrecy's inevitable disclosure doctrine and intellectual property law's impact on public transparency.In addition to the publications below, Dave has been quoted in articles in newspapers including the Los Angeles Times and appeared on CNBC, spoken at several intellectual property and cyberlaw conferences, and testified before the Library of Congress' National Recording Preservation Board. Dave also hosts an interview talk show on KZSU-FM (Stanford), 90.1 on the dial, entitled "Hearsay Culture" where he interviews people involved with technology. The show airs from 5 to 6 PM PST on Wednesdays, and is available by live stream here, by iTunes podcast here, on CIS' podcast feed here, or on the Hearsay Culture website feed.After earning a bachelor of science degree from Cornell University’s New York State School of Industrial and Labor Relations in 1994, Dave was the Legislative Aide for the Hon. Sandy Galef, New York State Assemblywoman; additionally, he was the volunteer Field Director for the New York State chapter of the Concord Coalition, with which he remains involved. During law school, Dave was a summer extern for the Hon. Adlai S. Hardin, United States Bankruptcy Judge in the Southern District of New York.Upon graduating from Case Western Reserve University School of Law, Dave practiced law in Manhattan as an associate in the litigation departments of Windels Marx Lane & Mittendorf LLP (formerly Lane & Mittendorf LLP) and thereafter Pryor Cashman Sherman & Flynn LLP. At Pryor Cashman, Dave worked on a variety of cases in the intellectual property and technology litigation fields for several entertainment and fashion industry clients. Dave was an Assistant Corporation Counsel for the New York City Law Department, Office of the Corporation Counsel. In 2005-2007.

Research. I am by no means very worldly, but a scholar by nature and training, a little inquiry can take you a long way. Research is obviously important if you are writing non-fiction, but writing convincing fiction requires research as well. I often start with Wikipedia. Note that word start? Wikipedia has a lot of good stuff, and if you already have a feel for something it can be a good reminder for terminology, issues, etc. If the subject is important, not just a throw away line, I will check other sources. Here is an article I wrote for our local writers group:Article is available with clickable links at William Culbertson (blog entry under Writing).Research for WritingFiction WritersWhy would you need to do research for fiction? Isn’t fiction just made-up stuff? The characters, situations, and action may be a creation of your fevered imagination, but the story takes place in a setting. A fictional story can be set in either real places or imaginary places.Real Places. If you are writing about a real place, do your homework! Make sure you have either travelled there or study maps, travel guides, etc. so you know the area. You have to be informed about the area you are writing about. Nothing will damage your credibility as an author or turn a reader off more quickly than making an obvious mistake in geography.Fictional Places. You can create an entire fictional world, country, city, or crossroads village from your own imagination. That means you have to be ready to make up names, describe the geography, interpret local customs and lore... How much creativity do you have left over after you create the plot and characters?Print Resources (Forms of many of these are also available on line)Plot Ideas and Story Starts: Do you need an idea to get started?Newspapers. Daily articles, the daily police log, trial reports, advice columns, etc., have ideas for conflict.Plot summary collections like Masterplots. You don’t want to rewrite Gone with the Wind or Hamlet, but a plot idea is a plot idea.Mythology and tall tale collections. You don’t want to rewrite Jason and the Golden Fleece or Paul Bunyan, but a plot idea is a plot idea.Benet’s Reader’s Encyclopedia, (Five editions so far), Harper & Row. An encyclopedia of world literature including writers, synopses of works, characters, etc.Encyclopedias Trite? Sure. With access to the internet you can google a question or use Wikipedia for a quick answer, but a good set of encyclopedias has a lot to recommend it. Encyclopedias contain a little (or a lot) of information on just about everything. The material has been compiled, vetted, and written on a consistently accessible level. For writers needing just a bit of information to make a reference reasonably accurate, encyclopedias are perfect. Even if you are writing non-fiction, an encyclopedia entry can get you started. In the internet age, sets of encyclopedias show up at garage sales—cheap.Encyclopedia Britannica (Now online) The world’s most trusted reference source. Last print edition published in 2010.Encyclopedia Americana (Now online) Once of the largest encyclopedias. Last print edition published in 2006.Colliers Encyclopedia Last edition 1998. Purchased by Microsoft, its contents are now part of Encarta.The New York Public Library Desk Reference, (several editions). A single volume with wide-ranging, concise, and accurate information for a quick reference check. (e.g. in the Alphabets and Words chapter there is a list of commonly misused words–I went to church to “prey?” or I put a “For Sail” sign on my house?)Word References Think you know what a word means, but you’re not sure? My character is angry, but isn’t there a more colorful word I could use?Dictionary: A classic source for definitions. Consider consulting an unabridged dictionary. Alternate meanings and word derivations can be a big help. Additional idea: I have used archaic forms of a word as a basis to create names for characters and objects.Thesaurus: Finding alternate, more colorful or more specific words can help your writing. However, be sure you know exactly what the word means before you use it! Different words have different shades of meaning. You want to make sure you get the exact denotation and connotation you want. Some thesaurus-based errors can be unintentionally hilarious—embarrassing for an author.Rhyming Dictionary loon… moon… June… croon… tune… soon… Walloon… baboon… Writing poetry is hard enough. If you need a rhyme, a rhyming dictionary can help.Books of Quotations Sometimes you want to include some wise or witty words someone else has said. Check exactly who said it and exactly how they said it. In a fantasy world, I have paraphrased a quote from our world to make my character sound profound (or, if I twist it, profoundly stupid).Chronologies and Timelines If you are writing historical fiction, a list of what was going on in the world can help make your work seem more realistic. It may also give you plot/subplot ideas.Making Characters Real To make characters come alive, they must show emotion. Suppose your character is angry. How do you show your readers the character is angry rather than telling them?The Emotion Thesaurus: A Writer’s Best Friend, Angela Ackerman & Becca Puglisi, 2012. Look up anger, and you’ll see a list of physical signals (flaring nostrils, sweating...), internal sensations (grinding one’s teeth, muscles quivering...), mental responses (irritability, poor listening skills...), cues for acute, long-term anger (explodes over little things, ulcers...), cues of suppressed anger (false smiles, headache…). They list 75 emotions. By the same authors:The Positive Trait Thesaurus: A Writer’s Guide to Character AttributesThe Negative Trait Thesaurus: A Writer’s Guide to Character FlawsBody language There are many books on body language which can help you show your character communicating their inner emotions.Names Finding the right name makes it easier for me to write the character. It helps me lock-in the identity I am creating.The Writer’s Digest Character Naming Sourcebook, Sherrilyn Kenyon, Writer’s Digest Books. 25,000+ First names and surnames, their meanings, and more organized by country/area of origin. This type of guide can help you find the right sounding name for other ethnic groups, cultures, time periods, etc.Baby name guide books. There are many of these. A search for “baby names” in Online Shopping for Electronics, Apparel, Computers, Books, DVDs & more’s bookstore returned at least a hundred pages of hits. A quick count showed 29 of the first 30 responses were purely baby name reference lists.Adventure and Survival Guides: How do you start a fire? What snakes are poisonous? What plants are edible? How should a character defend against a knife attack? How can you make a bow and arrow from scratch? Even if you haven’t been there/done that yourself, your characters need credible response to the tribulations your plot throws at them. Here are some examples of reference books from my own library that can help. (Hint: I found most of the titles on the remainder tables at Barnes & Noble.)FM 21-76 US Army Survival Manual, Dorset Press.Tom Brown’s Field Guide: City and Suburban Survival, Tom Brown, Jr.SAS Survival Handbook: The Ultimate Guide to Surviving Anywhere, John Wiseman, Collins.Special Forces Unarmed Combat Guide, Martin J. Dougherty, Metro Books.Professional Guides: If your character commits a crime, do you know police procedures for investigating a crime? What types of evidence does an investigator look for? How does an officer arrest and book a suspect? If your character gets ebola, do you know the symptoms and standard treatments? What can cause amnesia? While writing about what you know is good advice, sometimes first hand knowledge is not possible (or desirable).Police Procedure & Investigation: A Guide for Writers, Lee LoflandOrder in the Court: A Writer’s Guide to the Legal System, David S. MullallyForensics: A Guide for Writers, D. P. LyleThe Merck Manual, (various editions). (The source for information on diagnosing and treating medical disorders.)Personal Interviews: Interview professionals in a field. Get a doctor, a police officer, a nurse, a teacher, or any experienced person telling war stories about their line of work, and you could have some golden material for plots or characters. At the worst, you will spend some time making the other person feel good by giving them a chance to talk about themselves. They will think highly of you for asking.On the InternetMuch of the above information, plus. . .Plot Ideas and Story Starts: I need an idea to get started.Writers Blank Page Eliminator - get your story started (Plot ideas, story starts, tips, etc.)Plot Generator (Sort of a choose your adventure type plot generator by genre. Fill in some names, descriptive adjectives, jobs, etc. and it generates a plot outline.)Story Starters, Creative Writing Ideas for Fiction (Links to story starter sites plus other creative writing ideas)Pinterest Collection of media “pins” sorted into a variety of categories including collections of links to writing prompts and other inspirationsNaming Helps: What name should I give to a character or place?Popular Baby NamesBabyNames.com - the #1 source for baby namesCharacter Naming Resources (Links to about three dozen internet naming resources)Namator - online name generator (Fantasy names)Fantasy name generators. Names for all your fantasy characters. (Fantasy names)http://nine.frenchboys.net/fantasyplace.phpFantasy Name Generator (One of my favorites for generating a variety of names)Random Name Generator (A name generator for different nationalities, mythologies, time periods, etc.)Get a whole new identity at the Fake Name Generator (Generate a detailed fake idea for different nationalities)World Building IdeasFantasist.NetSeventh Sanctum: the page of generators - random tools for art, gaming, writing, and imagination.http://abutterflydreaming.com/2009/02/06/100-medieval-careers/ (If you are writing epic, medieval fantasy, what are some careers your characters could have?)Fantasy Worldbuilding Questions - SFWA (Science Fiction Writers of America list of questions to help you create your own world—on paper)Writing Roulette: All the Generators You'd Ever Want, Part 1 (Generator for a wide variety of ideas, plots, names, etc.)mythology, folklore, and religion. (Encyclopedia Mythica: An internet encyclopedia of mythology, folklore, and religion)Source for free clip art images: Need a cover? Illustrations? There are many sources for this, but they must indicate the art is in the public domain or royalty free before you can reproduce it for your own use without paying. (The other reality is that you tend to get what you pay for.)All Free Original Clip Art (One example)Non-Fiction ResourcesSource MaterialsPrimary Source: Accounts by people who were there, saw what happened, and wrote it down. Examples might be an interview with the person, diary entries, court testimony, minutes of meetings, a transcript of the words of an interview (not the article the interviewer wrote about the interview). This is the real deal. This is what people saw, heard, smelled, and felt—or at least, what they said they saw, heard, etc. This is the best source for finding out what really happened. The disadvantage is that primary source material can be hard to find. It’s often in archives, sometimes well cataloged, but sometimes not. It can be quite voluminous and take a long (long, long) time to get through. It can also contain a lot of information not germane to your topic.Secondary Sources: These are books and articles written about your subject by people who were not there or did not play a significant part. A secondary source interprets, analyzes, and otherwise builds on existing information. A secondary source can be good material especially if the author(s) used primary sources and used them well. However, even the best secondary sources are subject to the authors’ interpretations and biases. Published books and articles have usually been vetted to some degree by the publisher before they go to print. If it is an article you find on the internet, you must validate the source. Respected organizations like the Smithsonian or the New York Times have a vested interest in maintaining their credibility. If you find it on “Bob's Webpage,” you might want to verify the information from another credible source.For Local HistoriesNewspaper ArchivesLocal newspaper archives are a good place to start. These records can be found in local libraries or archive centers. Much, but not all, current material is available in searchable, digital format. Many newspapers have their back issues recorded on microfilm or microfiche. Be prepared to sit at a reading station and look at page after page of these film records. Sometimes an article or a whole page is obscured or missing. Murphy’s Law is in full force—the missing information was your key reference. Before microfilm? Well, a few of the old bound editions of newspapers with their delicate, yellowed pages still sit, moldering away, on back shelves.Company and Business ArchivesMany businesses keep copies of all their promotional materials, press releases, board minutes, etc. These files can be voluminous and time consuming to evaluate. If you are researching a company which has been bought out or merged into another, you may be out of luck. Usually one of the first things to go are the old company’s records.Journals and DiariesMany people keep diaries of their lives. This can be a gold mine for someone writing a book about that person. A diary is a good source of personal chronology and a clue to what the person was doing and thinking. However, diaries are usually very self-serving documents. Fact check, fact check, fact check and try to find first-hand accounts of other persons interactions with your subject. Diaries of people living in an area you are interested in can also provide information about what was happening in the area and times when your subject was there even if you subject is not mentioned specifically. Diaries and journals can be archived at local libraries or archive centers. (Personal note: If you keep a personal journal, this can be an invaluable source of information and anecdotes for a book about organizations you were a member of.)Online Data Bases Good sources of primary data as well as quality secondary sourcesNational Archives: National Archives | The history of our nation in documents, photos, and other records. This site has links to many other sources of information including several subscription services which are free through this site.Census Bureau: Census.gov Has facts figures and demographics of the United States through the years. The information is both collective, “What was the total population of Ohio in 1860?,” and specific, “Who lived at 233 S. Walnut, Bryan, OH in 1940?” If you are writing about a particular person, you can find who their next door neighbors were.Genealogy: Genealogy, Family Trees & Family History Records and other genealogical websites You can find the relatives of the person you are writing about as well as tracing back their origins. This data base requires a subscription, but it is free through the National Archives site.CIA’s World Fact Book: Central Intelligence Agency In its own words, the CIA’s website “marshals facts on every country, dependency, and geographic entity in the world. We share this information with the people of all nations in the belief that knowledge of the truth underpins the functioning of free societies.”OhioLINK: Homepage | OhioLINK Ohio’s academic library consortium has a wide array of academic journals, data bases, etc. available. This service is typically free through public libraries and colleges and universities in Ohio.Other Data Bases: Many are subscription based, some offer article abstracts for free and charge for the complete article, others are free or offer a free trial subscription.Readers’ Guide to Periodical Literature Index of general information magazines and periodicalsWelcome to LexisNexis - Choose Your Path Legal and businessEducation Resources Information Center AcademicList of academic databases and search engines - Wikipedia …and Wikipedia’s compilation of academic databases.