Since our opposition to the closing of public law libraries, which was restricted by West Virginia Code to begin with, Mr. Canterbury has been less than truthful with the public. It now appears that in trying to change the statute that he already violated, he is now being less than truthful with our Legislators as well.
Most recently, Mr. Canterbury is quoted as stating that while he has received over a thousand opposition emails, “out of the 1,300 I received, only six were from within West Virginia”. See the State Journal article, Bill to determine law libraries’ future advances to WV Senate. (http://www.statejournal.com/story/16901093/bill-to-determine-law-libraries-future-advances-to-senate)
This is odd, because the Change.org petition, Stop the Closing of West Virginia’s Public Law Libraries, alone, has twenty (20) signers from West Virginia. (https://www.change.org/petitions/stop-the-closing-of-west-virginias-public-law-libraries)
As the originator of that petition, I know that it is set up to send those signatures to Mr. Canterbury. So, why can’t he come up with the accurate count?
Add that to the other online initiatives, such as Thousand Kites campaign, Save Public Law Libraries (http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/6220/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=9505), which only allows signers from within West Virginia, and it seems Mr. Canterbury’s numbers are way off.
It also seems that Mr. Canterbury is indicating that all things in these closing law libraries can be easily obtained online. This is untrue. At first he claimed that they were online free. This is completely untrue. But now, he is telling us that they are available free or at a monthly fee. Well, the truth is that subscriptions to legal research materials come at a very high price to the general public, and Mr. Canterbury’s continued false statements are unacceptable from someone in such a highly regarded position within our Supreme Court of Appeals.
He claims in The State Journal article, “The libraries originally were established so that the smaller firms could compete against larger firms,” but what about meaningful access to the general public, our citizens?
Then to top it off is the last quote, “Three of those were from the same family, but there is no law library in their county.” Perhaps that is the precise point!