tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7780506915370766082.post6839132555985125249..comments2021-02-26T12:02:43.366-05:00Comments on Managing Miracles: Policy for the Network Society: What Does It Cost to Provide Electronic Public Access to Court Records?Steve Schultzehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06607764551419013304noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7780506915370766082.post-88765713743804979722010-06-30T19:19:10.532-04:002010-06-30T19:19:10.532-04:00Regarding litigation, couldn't the Judicial Co...Regarding litigation, couldn't the Judicial Conference and the Administrative Office be named as defendants? Wouldn't it place the litigation square in the lap of the Supreme Court? Such a concept makes this mind spin.<br /><br />What I do know as a user of PACER and as a non-attorney is that PACER fees have precluded my ability to ferret out fraud wherein evidence is contained within thousands of federal court records. I argue that because of its pay wall, equal protection has been denied.<br /><br />The Judicial Conference could very easily solve this issue within its budget requests to Congress, e.g. create separate budget items to fund IT, CM/ECF, etc.<br /><br />The Conference's concerns over security via access, RECAP, etc. that I have personally heard from the courts and Administrative Office is dual-edged. The courts face much greater internal security issues, e.g. the courts' reliance upon IE6, then they do from that of a public repository.<br /><br />Regardless, Shultze, thanks both to you and Princeton, along with countless others for helping the small guy such as myself.<br /><br />And a final word to the federal courts ...for christ's sake, you are the federal courts and should set the standard and bar in all things and within things that the rest of us should always strive to achieve.thackerhttp://legalmorass.infonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7780506915370766082.post-41556118814192562472010-06-23T22:41:28.658-04:002010-06-23T22:41:28.658-04:00The "significant obligated balances" mos...The "significant obligated balances" most certainly did include EPA fees. This is self-evident from the fact that part of the solution they propose in that report is to begin spending EPA fees on non-PACER items. The carryover included other sources as well, but that does not change the fact that the carryover from EPA was significant, and it grew to $44.5m in FY 2008. Any ambiguity you perceive (which in any event my longer paper addresses) is made irrelevant by the fact that I provide clear and correct numbers. Nothing you're saying is new to me, nor does it demonstrate any "misunderstanding of the relationship between the JITF fund and EPA funds."<br /><br />Given that you evidently work for the courts, I'd encourage you to point to or provide additional data if it would alter the conclusions. So far, I don't see anything.Steve Schultzehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06607764551419013304noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7780506915370766082.post-70304299117339363792010-06-23T20:18:34.000-04:002010-06-23T20:18:34.000-04:00Steve --
No comment on where I work -- I like wor...Steve --<br /><br />No comment on where I work -- I like working there. An easy example of poor research (or maybe just summarization) in this article carries forward (no pun intended) the misunderstanding of the relationship between the JITF fund and EPA funds that has plagued most internet commentary on PACER funds (perhaps getting the most notice with Lieberman's letter). The "significant unobligated balances" do not refer to PACER revenues at all -- EPA funds account for about 12-14% of JITF funds from year to year (you do cover this better in the report). That's clear from the referenced document and would be more easily understood with some additional familiarity with the US Courts. There's no mention of the segregation of EPA funds or how they are alloted in comparison to other JITF funds. I wrote a bit more on Greg's blog entry (3 geeks). This sort of factual, yet inaccurate, stuff flows through most of the research that has been published on PACER and IT funding in the Courts.Schlomo McGillnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7780506915370766082.post-5796403949383702862010-06-22T22:15:47.141-04:002010-06-22T22:15:47.141-04:00Hey Schlomo. Here, as with your comment over on t...Hey Schlomo. Here, as with your comment over on the <a href="https://www.recapthelaw.org/" rel="nofollow">recapthelaw.org blog</a>, you assert bad numbers or analysis but give no explanation for what you think is wrong. I assure you the research goes well beyond mere googling (including consultation with congressional appropriators and conversations with the AO itself). The data comes directly from the courts, so if it's wrong then they've got a bigger problem.<br /><br />You seem to indicate that you have some inside view of the culture or budgeting practices of the Judiciary. Do you work for the courts?Steve Schultzehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06607764551419013304noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7780506915370766082.post-29731725347688830002010-06-22T21:58:05.722-04:002010-06-22T21:58:05.722-04:00I've read the paper together with the article ...I've read the paper together with the article above and, while there's a lot of good information here, there's so much misunderstanding of the budget process, the constituent parts of CM/ECF (including PACER) and the Judiciary's culture and structure that it's a bit frustrating. You could really improve your understanding of the Judiciary and the EPA initiatives through a short stint as a fellow (for example) at the Administrative Office. Have you ever tried to get a more accurate perspective than the source documents (which have some good facts mixed in with both deficient and abstruse explanations) might allow? Honestly, reading this stuff it comes off like something one might get from Google rather than research.Schlomo McGillnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7780506915370766082.post-11781013868252443602010-06-17T09:03:24.556-04:002010-06-17T09:03:24.556-04:00I think the courts are listening, even if they hav...I think the courts are listening, even if they have not yet been fully motivated to fix the problem. The more they hear from different constituencies about why the system should change, the more likely they are to do so.<br /><br />A suit against the courts is an interesting suggestion, but would be challenging. I also don't know if the right form would be a class action -- how would you define the class in a certifiable way, and how would you deal with the jurisdictional issues given that this issue spans every court? I imagine the hurdle of suing the Judiciary (especially for damages) goes above and beyond the existing hurdles of suing the government.Steve Schultzehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06607764551419013304noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7780506915370766082.post-3147909078810146212010-06-16T19:51:27.180-04:002010-06-16T19:51:27.180-04:00How can the courts be encouraged to fix this probl...How can the courts be encouraged to fix this problem?<br /><br />Do you think that a class action suit by PACER users against the PACER administrators would be feasible?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com