Improve PACER

1:51 pm PST, Nov 20, Art Neill, California
PACER is wholly inadequate. The way in which we make public records such as court documents available to the public reflects on us as a culture. Improve PACER and it will have many positive externalities on our democracy. Thanks for this petition!

2:28 pm PDT, Oct 31, Nick Norris, Mississippi

11:56 am PDT, Oct 20, Name not displayed, Florida
I would like to research a relative's case for him and don't think I should have to pay to do this.

10:04 am PDT, Oct 16, Barbara Schneider, Massachusetts
In the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, access to justice is a constitutional right guaranteed by Article XI of the state constitution's "Declaration of Rights": "Every subject of the Commonwealth ought to find a certain remedy, by having recourse to the laws, for all injuries or wrongs which he may receive in his person, property, or character. He ought to obtain right and justice freely, and without being obligated to purchase it; completely, and without delay; conformably to the laws." What is true regarding access to Massachusetts law should hold true for federal law as well. Pacer should be easy to use and readily available "without being obligated to purchase it."

4:51 am PDT, Oct 14, Alain Kelder, California

3:16 pm PDT, Oct 13, Augustine Papay Jr, New York
Augustine Papay Jr

4:48 am PDT, Oct 12, Paul Geiger, Oregon

8:17 pm PDT, Oct 8, Avery Morrow, Minnesota

5:50 pm PDT, Oct 8, Jennifer Chen, New Jersey

4:45 pm PDT, Oct 8, Nancy Sims, Minnesota
I was appalled, when I first started using PACER in law school three years ago, at the cost and the outdatedness of the interface and unusability of the system. It remains unusable, outdated, and prohibitively expensive for public use, but public use should be one of the main goals of a digital case tracking system. Please improve PACER.

4:03 pm PDT, Oct 8, Name not displayed, New Jersey

9:13 am PDT, Oct 8, Lars Johansson, Sweden
A system like Pacer should be a way for private citizens to more easily understand the law, not the other way around.

10:30 pm PDT, Oct 7, Mohit Gupta, California

10:26 pm PDT, Oct 7, Name not displayed, California

10:10 pm PDT, Oct 7, Name not displayed, California

9:11 pm PDT, Oct 7, Thomas Schluchter, California

8:48 pm PDT, Oct 7, J. Hemerly, California

7:00 pm PDT, Oct 7, Eric Rivas, Idaho
PACER information should be free.

11:57 am PDT, Oct 6, JA Carr, Arizona
PACER information is a public resource. This basic information access should be free to help improve Society.

1:58 pm PDT, Oct 2, Gene Kline, Pennsylvania
I am a pro se litigant in pending civil litigation. It is absolutely unfair that opposing counsel may review, upon demand, the case status, important deadlines, and docket information, while I as a pro se litigant cannot. This must be changed.

4:48 pm PDT, Sep 29, Name not displayed, Minnesota

8:17 am PDT, Sep 28, Tim Hallahan, California

9:40 pm PDT, Sep 26, Janet Alexander, California
PACER is supposed to provide "Public Access" to public records. It should be a free service of the federal courts, not a profit center.

9:59 am PDT, Sep 26, Roberta Morris, California
I use PACER in my law teaching. The interface is cumbersome and the costs are high. The information on PACER is public and should be publicly available. The question of authenticity is also very important, and one that most people don't even think of until it is too late. Thanks.

9:29 am PDT, Sep 26, Ticien Sassoubre, California

4:17 pm PDT, Sep 25, William Simon, New York

4:14 pm PDT, Sep 25, John henry Merryman, California

2:01 pm PDT, Sep 25, Name not displayed, California
The documents we access from PACER are critical to a wide range of important research here at the law school. Resources and time are diverted from other worthy education goals because PACER lacks the enhancements we seek (particularly for Depository Libraries). Thanks you for your consideration of this important matter.

1:28 pm PDT, Sep 25, Jeanne Merino, California

1:19 pm PDT, Sep 25, Michael Wara, California
PACER should be free to all. Its interface should be updated to reflect current state of the art for managing large public databases.

12:59 pm PDT, Sep 25, Jason O. Watson, California

9:45 am PDT, Sep 25, Suzanne Morrison, North Dakota
PACER should be freely accessed by everyone and made user friendly.

9:57 am PDT, Sep 24, Tracy Dickinson, California
PACER is not user-friendly and needs to be overhauled. All law students should have access to this resource.

5:55 am PDT, Sep 24, Stephanie Willen Brown, North Carolina
As a librarian I find it hard to use -- and I have to teach journalism law students to use it too. It would be great if it could be simplified!

1:16 am PDT, Sep 24, Marjorie Lander, Connecticut

8:22 am PDT, Sep 23, Roy Sturgeon, New York
America is the world's richest country and prides itself on being democratic and following the rule of law. Free and improved PACER access would help make America an even greater nation.

6:57 pm PDT, Sep 22, Birgitta Dickerson, Massachusetts

4:17 pm PDT, Sep 22, Richard Breen, Oregon
Free access to Pacer , or in the alternative, a modest flat monthly fee would be especially valuable to law libraries who serve faculty, students and the public.

5:26 pm PDT, Sep 20, Name not displayed, Florida
Public Access to Court Electronic Records should be enhanced and improved by every possible means and effort.

8:44 am PDT, Sep 19, Richard Menna, California
From much personal experience as well as research, I know that "justice" in many courts (especially in L.A.), is frequently (usually/almost always ?) NON-EXISTENT. This is true for both criminal and civil matters. ******** Unfortunately, an incredibly large amount of the time, INJUSTICE is DELIBERATELY PERPETRATED AND/OR COVERED UP by improper record keeping combined with improperly restricted public access to essential court records.******* Like everything else, this situation benefits the biggest players, large corporations, government agencies, the legal profession etc. to the severe detriment of the general public. If you are reading this, YOU are probably part of "the general public". So are your family and friends. ****** Without effective public access to court records, the situation will continue to get worse. ******* Please add your voice and sign this petition.******** I would also like to thank the courageous law librarians who have made the effort to help correct the current unacceptable situation by starting this petition.********

3:19 am PDT, Sep 19, JOSEPH ZERNIK, California
BLESSED BE THE SOULS OF U.S. LIBRARIANS . Again they made a stand, where nobody else did! . 1. Pacer and CM/ECF should be considered prime examples of U.S. “Digital Pollution” . Instant Petition should help in generating awareness of a critical widespread problem - "Digital Pollution" - large computer systems in both government and public corporations, which were either never validated (logic-verified), and/or were fraudulent by design, and/or were corrupted over time. . 2. PACER and CM/ECF were never appropriately instituted with public notice and an opportunity for comment – albeit – they reflected a sea change in the U.S. Rules of Courts . The duality of PACER vs CM/ECF as docketing systems of the U.S. Courts, must be subjected to careful review. The construction and implementation of such dual systems required major resources, and in fact represented an entire revolution in the Rules of Courts. As such, such major changes in the Rules of Courts should have been generated in compliance with the Rule Making Enabling Act 28 USC § 2071-2077. . 28 USC § 2071 says: . § 2071. Rule-making power generally … (b) Any rule prescribed by a court, other than the Supreme Court, under subsection (a) shall be prescribed only after giving appropriate public notice and an opportunity for comment. Such rule shall take effect upon the date specified by the prescribing court and shall have such effect on pending proceedings as the prescribing court may order. However, such dual systems were established by the U.S. judiciary with no appropriate public notice and opportunity for public review and comment. Therefore, upon review, it may be ruled that such systems were established with no authority at all. . 3. Digital signatures by AO, as sought by the Petition’s authors, were the incorrect authority for authentication of records. Authentication requiredCertification by a Judge or a Party, for respective papers, and in both cases - Attestation by the Clerk. . The Petition was in error in the statement calling for AO’s digital signatures to be added: . “For verification and reliability, the AO [Administrative Office of the Courts – jhz] should digitally sign every document put into PACER using readily available technology.” . The digital signature of the AO would have no validity, and wouldn’t have contributed to the authentication of the records. . The U.S. Constitution, Art. IV §I declares: . Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other state. And congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof. . By the U.S. Congress Act of May 26, 1790, it is provided: . That the act of the legislatures of the several states shall be authenticated by having the seal of their respective states affixed thereto: That the records and judicial proceedings of the courts of any state shall be proved or admitted, in any other court within the United States, by the attestation of the clerk, and the seal of the court annexed, if there be a seal, together with a certificate of the judge, chief justice or presiding magistrate, as the case may be, that the said attestation is in due form. And the said records and judicial proceedings, authenticated as aforesaid, shall have such faith and credit given to them, in every court within the United States, as they have, by law or usage, in the courts of the state from whence the said records are, or shall be taken. . Relative to filing papers by parties, the hand signature of party or counsel of record on the paper was required as Certification, combined with the Certificate of Service, and the Attestation by Clerk was executed by the stamping “FILED” and endorsement by the hand of the Clerk. . Relative to entering orders – the hand-signature of the Judge was required as Certification, and Certificate of Service was either by Party of by Clerk, and Attestation was again – by “FILED” stamp and endorsement by clerk. . 4. The authentication of Court Records was already implemented - in CM/ECF, where public access was denied. However, the legal foundation of the method of implementation of the NEFs may be questioned. Moreover, the omission of the NEFs from PACER would likely be found upon review as abuse of rights, or even widespread fraud on the people. . Authentication of the records was already fully implemented by the Administrative Office of the Courts – in the NEFs (Notices of Electronic Filings) that were automatically sent to CM/ECF users upon any filing in a case. The NEFs were also attached to each and every record on the docket in CM/ECF, similar to the manner that Certificates of Service used to be enclosed to paper records. In CM/ECF, the NEFs appear under the “silver bullet” positioned in CM/ECF docket sheet on the left of the record ordinal number. Therefore, the NEFs replaced the Certificates of Service by Party, or Notices of Entry and Certificates of Mailing by Clerk, which were required in the paper dockets for each and every record to be deemed authenticated. There are two major inherent problems with the implementation as seen today: a. It eliminated the critical duty of a particular Clerk or Deputy as accountable for the authenticity of a given record. In other words, tradition of hundreds of years, established the integrity of the courts, at least in part, based on the checks and balances of the authorities of the Judicial and Ministerial arms of the Courts. It is not clear whether the Administrative Office of the Courts had the authority to affect such a major change in the structure of the court system, with no review or legislation. The problem can be to some degree related to the voting machines problem. The code of PACER was never open for public review. The personal accountability of the Clerks was discarded in favor of some confidential code. It is not an acceptable reasonable substitute, and it must be deemed suspect. Especially so, since upon review, it is likely to be deemed that the dual systems of Pacer and CM/ECF were not constructed by the judiciary in good faith. b. The implementation must be doubly deemed suspect, for the reason that all NEFs were eliminated from PACER. There is no reason, which would be even remotely related to the furtherance of justice, which could justify such system design. In plain layperson’s language it is likely to be called “Shell Game Fraud”. . The courts are unambiguous about the fact that the NEFs and the digital signatures encrypted in them per RSA, are the Attestations that determine the authenticity of the records. For example, in the Central District of California, the General Order 06-07 of the U.S. Courts, for the Central District of California states: J. A “Notice of Electronic Filing” is generated automatically by the ECF system upon completion of an electronic filing. The Notice of Electronic Filing, when e-mailed to the e-mail address of record in the case, shall constitute the proof of service as required by Fed.R.Civ.P.5(d). A copy of the Notice of Electronic Filing shall be attached to any document served in the traditional manner upon any party appearing pro se. 5. Dual systems, separate and unequal – where the courts assumed the authority to arbitrarily segregate parties. . Therefore, one can reasonably state, that PACER and CM/ECF were constructed as separate but unequal systems, and the U.S. Courts usurped the authority to arbitrarily segregate parties into one or the other. Pro Se filers, and practically all prisoners, were and are limited to PACER access, and as seen here – librarians and law students as well. . PACER users were deliberately handicapped – disabled from distinguishing authenticated, valid, and effectual court records, from such that were unauthenticated, invalid, and ineffectual. Concomitantly, the dockets were populated with abundance of unauthenticated, invalid, ineffectual records. . 6. PACER and CM/ECF may be deemed upon review as radical change in the Law of the Land and the U.S. Constitution – abolishing of the Common Law ACRIC (Access Court Records to Inspect and to Copy) Right . Furthermore, to ensure that PACER users remain ignorant and unable to discern the authenticated court records among those docketed online, the U.S. Court, with no recorded court ruling or Constitutional Amendment, effectively abolished the public’s ACRIC right, which the U.S. Supreme Court re-affirmed in Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc 435 U.S. 589 (1978), [the Nixon Tapes decision], as ”the common law right of access to judicial records”, also embedded in “First Amendment guarantee of freedom of the press”, “Sixth Amendment guarantee of a public trial,” and the Fifth/Fourteenth Amendment as part of the “fundamental demands of due process of law”. . The U.S. Supreme Court, in discussing such Right stated: “This privilege of the public to inspect and obtain copies of all court records… in the custody of the Clerk, is of long standing in this jurisdiction, and reaches far back into our common law and traditions. …the public has a right to inspect and obtain copies of ,,, judicial records.”… "[A]ny attempt to maintain secrecy as to the records of the court would seem to be inconsistent with the common understanding of what belongs to a public court of record, to which all persons have the right of access and to its records, according to long-established usage and practice."… . Nevertheless, recent attempts to exercise such right at the California Superior Court for the County of Los Angles, at the California Court of Appeals, 2nd District, at the U.S. District Court, Los Angeles, U.S. District Court, Manhattan, NYC, and U.S. District Court. Washington DC, as well as the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, demonstrated universal denial of such right, relative to inspection and copying of NEFs, with no explanation at all. . In some instances the excuse was offered that the NEFs were “administrative court records” and not “public court records”. That distinction must upon review be found to be a de novo invention. It was reasonably clear that the FRCPs considered the Certificate of Service as integral part of the filing, which was self evident: . FRCP, Rule 5(d)(1) states: (d) Filing (1) Required Filings; Certificate of Service. Any paper after the complaint that is required to be served — together with a certificate of service — must be filed within a reasonable time after service. . In sum: . It is entirely inconceivable how law students can review case law, or cases in general, for that purpose, with no access to the NEFs. The conduct of the courts must remain a total mystery to them. Likewise, it is entirely inconceivable how no lawyers, no legal organization, no law school faculty, protested this aberration or possibly even alleged perversion. It was left for the librarians to take the stand and guard our Constitution. . More on the subject can be found in the next couple of weeks under blog: http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/ Any comments are welcome. Joseph Zernik

2:00 pm PDT, Sep 18, Jeff Hamilton, Utah

1:57 pm PDT, Sep 18, Joe Banana, California
Court corruption is furthered by this ridiculous "system", and what's with the dual system in LA? One for the public, one for the judges? We, here in California, wish someone would take a look into the corruption in our superior courts. SBX2 11 is a good place to start, especially the "retroactive"immunity for criminal activity, such as bribe taking.

12:48 pm PDT, Sep 18, William P. Allison, Texas
PACER is critically important for criminal defense lawyers and especially panel lawyers who historically have little or no access to discovery and therefore must rely on public documents as an important part of discovery. Given the enormous geographical size of some federal divisions, improvements in PACER not only make due process more meaningful to poor defendants, it should save taxpayers money in both travel and in time spent simply collecting the building blocks for the effective defense of a case.

11:30 am PDT, Sep 18, Shannon Marich, Oregon

5:17 pm PDT, Sep 17, John Golden, Texas

4:04 pm PDT, Sep 17, EJ Hurst II Attorney at Law, North Carolina
I concur particularly as to free access to depository libraries and to law schools generally. With a model similar to that used by Westlaw - students caught using free services for commercial purposes are sued for full costs of the services, and then have to explain it all to the school and on Bar applications - the AO has a weapon against the foolish few while helping to train our future colleagues. One also has to believe that the additional input will help to improve PACER, and CM/ECF.

11:51 am PDT, Sep 17, Name not displayed, New York

8:59 am PDT, Sep 17, Mechele Dickerson, Texas
Having easier access to PACER would greatly enhance my research.

8:08 am PDT, Sep 17, Terry Simmons, Nevada

6:03 am PDT, Sep 17, Robert Moss, New Jersey
The fees are generally not so bad, but law libraries need serious caps on their charges.

5:57 am PDT, Sep 17, John Duran, Utah
As a Paralegal, access to this research tool would be a great help to the legal profession. (Research professionals)

1:17 pm PDT, Sep 16, Jason Eiseman, Connecticut

12:32 pm PDT, Sep 16, Katherine Porter, California

11:35 am PDT, Sep 16, Rachel Little, Texas

6:14 am PDT, Sep 16, Charlene Cain, Virginia

11:47 am PDT, Sep 15, Bernard Black, Texas

11:24 am PDT, Sep 15, Thomas Kearney, California
I devoutly believe that enabling simple, free and open access to these documents will improve legal scholarship by giving students and scholars increased access to the nuts and bolts of legal proceedings.