Comments on: The Courts Have an Embarrassingly Bad Web Presence

By: Final Hearing on Google Books Settlement on February 18—But Not On Web?

Final Hearing on Google Books Settlement on February 18—But Not On Web? — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 05:28:37 +0000

[...] here, but… why should I? The judiciary can’t even handle making their PDF documents easily accessible! So it’s possible that they’ll surprise us, but I doubt it. And if courtroom practice [...]

By: Phentermine 37.5 90 ct no prescription.

Phentermine 37.5 90 ct no prescription. — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 22:44:31 +0000

Phentermine 37.5 90 ct no prescription....

Phentermine 37.5 90 ct no prescription....

By: Phentermine international.

Phentermine international. — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 10:14:31 +0000

International phentermine....

Buy phentermine international rx....

By: backlinks

backlinks — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 14:27:26 +0000

nice post, thanks for sharing

By: TPW 43: Public Access to Court Records | The Technology Liberation Front

TPW 43: Public Access to Court Records | The Technology Liberation Front — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 19:59:19 +0000

[...] TLF’s own Tim Lee, who’s written about the problems with PACER , the arcane and expensive system by which court documents are [...]

By: sjschultze

sjschultze — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 18:06:32 +0000

Video of the talk will be posted soon, and I'll see if I can get the slides posted in PDF form as well. The problem with PACER is not just that it's unwieldy but that it prohibits third-party innovation of the sort innovation that several of Tim's colleagues recently described in their paper, "Government Data and the Invisible Hand". Peter Martin has a more PACER-specific paper called "Online Access to Court Records." Peter Winn has a great forthcoming paper also called "On-Line Access to Court Records" that delves more into privacy issues. Winn speaks about his work in this video.

For what it's worth, the states might be starting down the slippery slope of closed-door fee-based access, as they begin to experiment with the PACER (aka CM/ECF) system themselves.

By: MikeRT

MikeRT — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 17:45:39 +0000

They have all of that money to throw at pork and welfare programs, but cannot afford to modernize court IT systems. Just like Bush had $500B to spend on prescription drugs, but not $100M to hire 10,000 new border patrol agents for the southern border (which, ironically, we REALLY need if you've been paying attention to the state of Mexico).

By: Seth Cooper

Seth Cooper — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 16:52:42 +0000

Yes, PACER is an uwieldy system. Thanks for mentioning that paper. I look forward to reading it.

Unfortunately, the systems in many state courts is far worse. I've visited the web sites of all or most all state high courts and while there is a lot of variation, some are just awful. In many states there's just about nothing there in terms of what cases the courts are considering for review, what cases the courts have accepted for review, or when the courts will hear arguments in cases they've accepted.