[blindLaw] Bipartisan bill to make PACER free & 508 accessible: Open Courts Act of 2020, HR 8235

Fri Oct 9 20:55:23 UTC 2020

Can you send the e-mails of the congressmen and women to contact; these didn't look like e-mails

Sincerely,

Shannon Brady Geihsler

Law Office of Shannon Brady Geihsler, PLLC
1212 Texas Avenue
Lubbock, Texas 79401
Office:  (806) 763-3999
Mobile:  (806) 781-9296
Fax:  (806) 749-3752
E-Mail:  sbg at sbgaal.com
This email may contain material that is confidential, privileged and/or attorney work product for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.

-----Original Message-----
From: BlindLaw <blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org> On Behalf Of Sai via BlindLaw
Sent: Friday, October 09, 2020 10:33 AM
To: FOI-L at lists.ufl.edu; Blind Law Mailing List <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>; Surveillance Coalition <surveillance-coalition at googlegroups.com>; Privacy Coalition <Priv_coal at epic.org>
Cc: Sai <sai at fiatfiendum.org>; Brooke Schreier Ganz <reclaimtherecords at gmail.com>; Michael Morisy <michael at muckrock.com>; Mike Lissner <mike at free.law>; hi at mek.fyi; bnarwold at motleyrice.com; moliver at motleyrice.com; bbrown at rcfp.org; ssamberg-champion at relmanlaw.com; Brewster Kahle <brewster at archive.org>
Subject: Re: [blindLaw] Bipartisan bill to make PACER free & 508 accessible: Open Courts Act of 2020, HR 8235

Could y'all please help push this to pass before the session ends?

It'd be a shame if it died as a casualty of all the post-RBG / upcoming-election / COVID-19 craziness.

Convincing Congress, organizing awareness / action, etc. is very much not in my skill set — so if it's yours, please speak up & take the lead.

# Hashtag

#OpenCourts (based on the bill's apt name)

# Why you should act on the #OpenCourts Act

I know, it's not as momentous as the headline news these days. We've had a crazy year.

However: it's important, well written, necessary for transparency, bipartisan, judiciary-approved, uncontroversial, years overdue, & publicly unopposed* — and will have very extensive beneficial knock-on effects**.

It should be a high priority for everyone working on transparency or civil rights in US federal government, especially given the great benefit:effort ratio.

It should (AFAICT) be very easy to pass. It just needs attention from Congress.

* Possible opponents:
1. DOJ (their budget subsidizes it)
2. Westlaw, LexisNexis, etc (undercuts their core business of selling access to public judicial records).

It seems plausible to me that they're quietly lobbying against it.
I've not actually heard of any such opposition; please LMK if you have.

** Feel free to talk to me off-list if you'd like details. This ties in closely to long term research I'm currently doing on millions of court records. Literally dozens of important issues this'll shed light on, all are either first release or totally paywalled. Research partners wanted.

# Timeline

HR8235 was approved by the House Judiciary Committee on Sept. 15 — the day after it was introduced & referred.

There's been no action since.

<https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/8235> doesn't even show an event for it coming out of committee (only markup), though that's what they voted unanimously. Approved motion to move to House floor w/ recommendation to pass is at <https://youtube.com/watch?t=30804&v=PjPVspAQzwM>, at the very end.

I have no idea why. (If you're savvier than me & can interpret this, please LMK off-list.)

# Twitter & relevant congress members

My tweet is @ <https://twitter.com/saizai/status/1314568325066883072>
if you'd like to copy or RT:
> @RepHankJohnson @RepDougCollins @HouseJudiciary @RepJerryNadler 
> @Jim_Jordan @SenSasse @SenBlumenthal @LindseyGrahamSC @SenFeinstein 
> @SpeakerPelosi @SenateMajLdr Will you ensure the #OpenCourts Act (HR 
> 8235) passes this year? It's bipartisan & long overdue. 
> https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/8235

I chose that @ mention list based on relevance & seniority. But again, this isn't my skill area — so for your convenience, here are all the relevant Congress members, AFAICT. (This should be more or less ordered by seniority, except within the 2 members lists.)

Full House & Senate leadership
@SpeakerPelosi @ChuckGrassley @LeaderHoyer @SenateMajLdr @GOPLeader @SenSchumer

House Judiciary Committee
leadership
@HouseJudiciary @RepJerryNadler @Jim_Jordan @RepMGS

courts subcommittee leadership
@RepHankJohnson @RepMarthaRoby @RepLouCorrea

sponsors
@RepHankJohnson @RepDougCollins
* note duplicate: Johnson is both subcommittee chair & sponsor.

courts subcommittee members
@RepGregStanton @RepJeffries @RepTedLieu @RepTedDeutch @RepKarenBass @RepSwalwell @RepCohen @RepZoeLofgren @RepSteveChabot @RepEscobar @RepBenCline @GReschenthaler @RepAndyBiggs @RepMikeJohnson @RepSteveChabot @RepMattGaetz
* note: mind that there are 2 "Rep. Johnson" on the subcommittee — Hank & Mike.

Senate Judiciary Committee
leadership
@LindseyGrahamSC @SenFeinstein

courts subcommittee leadership
@SenSasse @SenBlumenthal

courts subcommittee members
@SenJohnKennedy @ChuckGrassley @SenJoniErnst @SenThomTillis @MikeCrapo @SenatorLeahy @SenAmyKlobuchar @SenWhitehouse @MazieHirono
* note duplicate: Grassley is also senate president pro tem.

Thanks!

Sincerely,
Sai
President, Fiat Fiendum, Inc., a 501(c)(3)

PS Non-gendered pronouns please. I'm a US citizen.

Sent from my mobile phone; please excuse the concision and autocorrect errors.

On Sun, Sep 20, 2020, 17:02 Sai <sai at fiatfiendum.org> wrote:
>
> I've read the text in full, and I think everyone should take action to support this.
>
> Anyone doing public interest related litigation, and literally all legal research related to US Federal cases, should be substantially benefitted.
>
> Full details below. In short, enacting the bill would mean that PACER 
> (where all US federal court records are kept), within 2-3 years, has 
> to 1. add full text search (totally absent now except in third party 
> products), 2. be 508 compliant (major plus for blind people & computer 
> based bulk data research), 3. be centralized (right now it's run 
> separately by each court), & 4. be 100% free to everyone;
>
> 5. in the meantime, have a minimum billing threshold of $25k/quarter 
> in the meantime;
>
> and
> 6. limits filing fees to be proportional to dollar amounts at issue, with total exemption for pro se & poor (IFP) litigants — and double billing DOJ to help fund it.
>
>
> * I have one reservation: it totally exempts prisoners from benefiting. That's in line with the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act, which imposed a lot of restrictions on prisoner litigants. I don't think this is fair or just… but it's the status quo, not a worsening, and probably open to legal challenge on that basis anyway.
>
>
> Feel free to forward this etc however you see fit. I'd appreciate a CC & an email with link to any resulting posts, action, etc.
>
>
> # Details
>
>
> Open Courts Act of 2020, HR 8235
>
> <https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/8235>
>
> All most relevant sections are excerpted & summarized below (by me).
>
> Markup: <https://youtube.com/watch?t=30804&v=PjPVspAQzwM> — starts at 
> 8:33:26 (near the very end); most of the video is totally unrelated
>
>
> Cosponsors:
>
> Rep. Doug Collins [R-GA-9]
> * (202) 225-1605
> * House Judiciary Committee Democrat #5
> ** Courts, IP, & Internet subcommittee #1 (chair) Rep. Hank Johnson, 
> Jr. [D-GA-4]
> * (202) 225-9893
> * Judiciary Republican #2
> ** subcommittee #3
>
> Judiciary committee: (202) 225-3951
> Courts subcommittee: (202) 225-5741
>
>
> # Bill text excerpt & summary
>
> SEC. 2. MODERNIZATION OF ELECTRONIC COURT RECORDS SYSTEMS.
>     (a) Consolidation.
> … [AOUSC & GSA] shall establish, maintain, and operate … one system for all public court records.
> …
>             (3 & 4) [ Must include info from, and comply with, 2002 
> E-Government Act § 205 ]
>
> …
>     (c) Data Standards.--
>             …
>             (2) Requirements.
> …
>                     (B) incorporate a widely accepted, nonproprietary, 
> full text searchable, platform-independent computer-readable format; …
>     (e) [ deadline: 2 years after enactment, plus one year it GSA asks 
> for an extension ]
>
>
>     (f) Funds for Establishment, Operation, and Maintenance of Modernized Court Records System.--
>             (1) Short term access fees to fund establishment of modernized court records system.--
>                     (A) [ amend 28 USC 1913 note to say AOUSC can ONLY charge fees over $25,000 per quarter ]
>                     (B) [ any exceeds can be used per 28 USC 612(a) ]
>                     (C) [ effective immediately on enactment ]
>
>             (2) Filing fees to fund operation and maintenance of modernized court records system.
>                     (A) [ re-amend the same USC note to delete the 
> above, together with the entire previous paragraphs a & b, and say
>
> (a) AOUSC can charge fees, per 28 USC §§ 1913, 1914, 1926, 1930, & 1932, only as necessary to maintain the new PACER:
> (1)(A) based on amount of use
> (1)(B) based on amount of damages claim & case complexity
> (1)(C) counterclaim fee allowed
> (1)(D) not at all for pro se & IFP litigants
> (2) proof of claim/interest for FRBP 3002 & 3003 based on amount 
> involved
>
> (b) use limited to Judiciary Information Technology Fund, 28 USC 
> 612(c)(1)(A), for new PACER's costs
> (c) fee schedule must be reviewed every 3 years
> (d) exceeds can still be used per 28 USC 612(a) ]
>
>                     (B) [ effective at the same time as the new PACER 
> above, ie 2 or 3 years after enactment ]
>
>
> SEC. 3. PUBLIC ACCESS TO ELECTRONIC COURT RECORDS SYSTEM REQUIREMENT.
>
>     (a) [ everything on PACER is free, starting on the same 2/3 year 
> start date ]
>
>     (b) [ AOUSC can add a 5 day max delay before public access, for 
> some categories of records, subject to N&C and automatic 3 year 
> expiration unless renewed per above, "based on a determination of a 
> specific and substantial interest in restricting the public right of 
> access to court records" ]
>
>     (e) Funding for Public Access to Modernized Electronic Court Records System.
> [ amend same USC note to add that funds for the 100% free PACER access will come from:
>             (1) billing DOJ equal to their PACER access fees, with inflation
>             (2) if that's not enough, filling fees, under the same 
> rules / limits as the post-launch version of fees above ]
>
>
> SEC. 4. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
>
>     Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to--
>             (1) affect the filing fees or other filing procedures for prisoners; or
>             (2) abrogate, limit, or modify the requirements [ in 28 
> USC 1915, the IFP statute ]
>
>
> SEC. 5. DIGITAL ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS.
>
> [ all of this must be Rehab Act § 508 accessible ]
>
> Sincerely,
> Sai
> President, Fiat Fiendum, Inc., a 501(c)(3)
>
> PS Non-gendered pronouns please. I'm a US citizen.
>
> Sent from my mobile phone; please excuse the concision and autocorrect errors.

_______________________________________________
BlindLaw mailing list
BlindLaw at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/sbg%40sbgaal.com