4 ms·
We talked to the judicial conference of course. Honestly, it this was a long time ago at this point. We may have only offered to pay what it costs them to run
by DannyBee 10y ago
We talked to the judicial conference of course.
Honestly, it this was a long time ago at this point. We may have only offered to pay what it costs them to run it instead of revenue. It was definitely somewhere between those two.
(I realize there is a huge difference in those two numbers, but we were also idealistic and thought they might actually care about public access at the time. Look how dumb we were)
- nkw 10y agoInteresting. I have never been able to put my finger on if the resistance to opening pacer comes from the judiciary itself (judges fearing public scrutiny of the entire corpus of court filings) vs the Admin Office / IT wanting to maintain what is essentially a court-tech slush fund. Probably the reality is a little bit of both. I think the only way it gets fixed is with congressional action, so not holding my breath.
- DannyBee 10y agoFrom what i can tell, it's the latter, not the former. They are so underfunded otherwise they can't afford to give it up