dagblog - Comments for ""Ain't No Sunshine..." - opaque court records"

Texas voting records: $3,600

artappraiser — Thu, 21 Mar 2019 19:44:36 +0000

In reply to "Ain't No Sunshine..." - opaque court records

Texas voting records: $3,600 in fees (free in Ohio, one guy on thread claims):

It's a great day because today, 20 newsrooms all across Texas came together to purchase a prohibitively expensive public data set.

So what's the data set? We all pitched into buy the Texas Voter Registration Database, as well as voting history data from 2010, 2012, 2014 and 2016
— Matt Dempsey (@mizzousundevil) September 18, 2018

oh and this, my underlining:

artappraiser — Wed, 20 Mar 2019 21:46:52 +0000

In reply to This:

oh and this, my underlining:

Unfortunately, sometimes a little spotlight shuts down the whole system. In January, I found a search warrant related to a wide-ranging investigation into public corruption in the Los Angeles City Council. When I made my discovery public, the Central District of California essentially locked down all search warrants filed on PACER. Most, if not all, search warrants recently filed in the district are no longer accessible online. This action is against the spirit, and arguably the letter, of the legislation requiring that the public have ready access to court filings barring a court order sealing them.

The machine takes care of its own. They like it just the way it is, why should they change it? What are you going to do about it? Sue them? Letter of the law, spirit of the law, sure we'll be glad to debate that, let's go all the way to the Supreme Court.

This:

artappraiser — Wed, 20 Mar 2019 21:25:52 +0000

In reply to "Ain't No Sunshine..." - opaque court records

This:

....It was never supposed be this way. In 1991, Congress passed legislation to allow for “reasonable fees....The federal courts ignored Congress. PACER, which is run by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, instead substituted a broad and convoluted reading of the congressional intent so that it could charge for access far beyond what is allowed by Congress....

is a perfect example of why arta is an Independent, because while she is not Grover Norquist, she does not necessarily buy all Dem arguments about how a huge Federal government is always fine and dandy and is here to help us all out of the goodness of hardworking federal employees hearts...and can do all things better than for-profit organizations...

As I read more of the article, it reminded me sooo much of the NYC Democratic machine which two non-Democratic mayors could not uninstall and restart (Except most notably for Bloomberg's"call 311" and city website--both of which solved so many maddening Kafka-like systems for most citizens of NYC, though plenty remain. It was worth 8 years of his nannyism and prissiness and lectures just to get those two things. Gawd when I think of the NYC Parking Violations Bureau of the late 80's I still get nightmares, and the city tax bureas...aaaargh..nightmares, I'm telling ya, the memories are really bad, just hellish bureaucracy like a nice Midwestern girl could not believe existed and the monsters collecting taxpayer-paid salaries, I am still scared to go into a city government building, I might not come out whole.)

It is rare that anyone in civil service goes with the "intent" of the law as written by clueless legislators, they always manipulate it to their benefit as best they can. That's just the human condition.

Edit to add: Did have some experience seeing how NY State Supreme Court "works" as to civil matters the last few years. Basically, it's like everyone running the place is still living in the 19th century. Actually astoundingly so. It's all about whether the clerk knows and likes you... (psst. don't hire a lawyer that doesn't know his or her way around the "club" in the court you will be needing, might as well do it yourself if you do.)