The model is RECAP before Free Law Project took over. It was backed by Princeton (which didn't spend much), had far fewer expenses (certainly no one got paid $9

The model is RECAP before Free Law Project took over. It was backed by Princeton (which didn't spend much), had far fewer expenses (certainly no one got paid $90K a year; it was a grad student project), and moved forward code-wise via the coding challenge my foundation sponsored which cost one-fifth as much. See https://free.law/2013/04/02/two-recap-grants-awarded-in-memory-of-aaron-swartz/ https://free.law/2013/04/02/two-recap-grants-awarded-in-memo.... The problem here is that RECAP may need money, but it is not being transparent about how it gets its money and is misleading users as a result. Mike has made deliberate choices about how he runs FLP. I run Think Computer Foundation and PlainSite, which does the same thing as CourtListener. PlainSite is financially self-sustaining. CourtListener is not. There are alternatives to FLP's new "model."