[blindlaw] Access to PACER

Tue May 30 18:53:13 CDT 2006

Hi,

Thanks to everyone who took the time to contribute their thoughts.  I fully
realize that everyone has to meet their responsibilities before they ask for
what they are entitled to, and that certainly includes blind lawyers, or
those who want to take part in the legal process.  If we ask for extra
privileges, we can be sure that we'll have to pay for them sooner or later.
To ask for free stuff because one is blind will imply the denial of an
opportunity down the line, simply because people will assume that you'll
want things for free all the time.  They will either resent you, or assume
that you're much higher maintenance than those who are not.

Having said this, my question is intended to discuss the merit of such a
proposition, especially with regards to government publicly maintained
information.

Before computers were around, doing legal research, in fact, doing any kind
of research would almost inevitably require having to read printed
literature.  The cost of a reader, therefore, was inescapable if the blind
person wanted to function on an equal level as his/her sighted counterpart.
This was even recognized by rehab, and blind students were often reimbursed
for such costs.  I also believe that some of these costs can even be
deducted on one's taxes.

With the advent of electronic access to information and advances in adaptive
technology, a blind person can take advantage of electronic material in the
same way his/her sighted counterpart can.  Lexis Nexis and Westlaw have
always charged their users for access to the information contained in them
whether they are sighted or blind, and one can never therefore argue the
need to exempt blind users from the required fees.  The case regarding these
services is clear cut, if you want the information, pay for it!  Lexis Nexis
and Westlaw are not tax payer funded, and hence they are entitled to make
money.  This also holds true for the phone companies.  In my opinion, free
directory assistance is not and has never been an entitlement, it's just a
courtesy offered by the telecommunication providers to their blind and
visually impaired customers.

The US government, to the best of my knowledge, has always made court
records freely available to US tax payers.  Anyone can go down to the court
house and request access to any publicly accessible information almost
always at no charge.  Charges are often encountered if the person needed to
print or photo copy information, but you can read as much as you want for
free.  This is not true if a blind or visually impaired person wanted to
access that information.  I doubt the librarian or the clerk would take the
time to help you locate cases, let alone read through them.  Since PACER is
a tax payer funded system, the standards of accessibility that apply to it
should be higher than those which apply to commercial companies.

If the only way to access court records was by going down to the court
house, then a blind person has to accept the fact that they have to use a
reader, with all the complications associated with having one.

Since the information is available in an accessible format, however, and
since the blind tax payer has already paid for his/her own access to that
information (and paid for the right of the sighted person to access it for
free), it seems to me that a blind person should have access to it under the
same terms a sighted person would have to the printed (and therefore
inaccessible) information.  The way I see it, PACER is a convenience for a
sighted user, one which can perhaps justifiably be cost based, but for a
blind tax payer, it is the only way he/she can access that information on
the same terms as his fellow sighted tax payers (I.E, without having to
incur additional costs because of his/her blindness).  I wouldn't mind
having to pay to print material from PACER, but being charged just for
running a search (without even viewing the document) seems to be a little
bit unfair.  I wouldn't even mind going down to the court house and using a
PACER terminal there and paying for PACER if I use it at home -- I think
that's fair, but to be charged, as a tax payer, for information which
someone who is not blind can access for free seems discriminatory.

Thanks and I look forward to more of your thoughts.

-----Original Message-----
From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
Behalf Of McCarthy, Jim
Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 8:39 AM
To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List
Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Access to PACER

My view is much like Elizabeth's on this issue.  The closest analogy that
comes to my mind is the free directory assistance DA blind people use to
get.  People often assume that a law required free directory assistance.  So
far as I am aware though, this is not true.  The baby bells were providing
that far before the ADA was even in play.  It probably did not take much
calculation to say, give them the calls for free rather than make very
expensive Braille phone books.  Not only that, but many of us would have a
pretty tough time really making good use out of a Braille phone book.
Finally, it is unlikely that a blind person would have a reader at the time
that she wanted to look up a particular number in the printed book provided.
Today, with deregulation, phone companies seem to be doing whatever they can
to deny free directory assistance, and lots of blind people are not happy
about it.  If they provided free DA because of a law, there would be
something upon which to ha!
ng the hat.

As for Pacer, I am left with a choice.  I can hire a reader, that is what
blind lawyers always did before and go to the library.  As the original
author suggests, I may be able to get assistance of the law library to pull
documents, though that might be questionable.  If I do not want to do either
of those, I can look the material up on Pacer and pay the fee.  This fee is
attributed to anyone who uses that service to find cases so it is not
discriminatory in my view.  Many would probably find it cheaper and more
convenient to pay the fee to Pacer than to take a reader to the library, a
person who would be paid by most lawyers because we need the information and
volunteer readers just would not work.
Jim McCarthy

-----Original Message-----
From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org]On
Behalf Of Elizabeth Akinola
Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 8:46 AM
To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List
Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Access to PACER

My take is that if everyone who uses PACER has to pay a fee to use the site,

blind users should not be granted a waiver unless they have to do something 
extra to have the same kind of access that everyone  else has to the 
information on the site.

If you are a blind attorney  needing to do legal research, you should have 
been trained in law  school to use Lexis  and/or Westlaw.  Lay people use 
findlaw all the time--or even google; you just need to type in a couple  of 
phrases on the subject of your  research and something is bound to come up!

If you can't do findlaw or google, maybe visit the  law library or the 
courthouse and ask for assistance  from the reference librarian or court 
clerk.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Zuhair Mahd" <zuhairmahd at accesstojobs.com>
To: <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 6:44 PM
Subject: [blindlaw] Access to PACER

>
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> I am filing a law suit against the federal government pro se, and am
> therefore involved in a lot of legal research.  You can read more about it
> here <http://cbs4denver.com/topstories/local_story_118094508.html> , and 
> you
> can watch the video here
> <http://www.accesstojobs.com/blog/video/news4lb.wmv>  if you like.
>
>
>
> I am sure you're aware of PACER
> <http://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov/cmecf/dc/civil/response/01_welcome.html> ,
> the federal government's web site allowing access to cases in federal
> courts.  Pacer charges $0.08 for each document you search for, whether you
> actually download it or not.
>
>
>
> As you are no doubt aware, a sighted person can view court records in 
> paper
> format in law libraries and at the court house.  This is not practical for

> a
> blind person, since he/she has to hire a reader, and thus be subject to 
> the
> time and efficiency restrictions associated with that.  Also, the 
> government
> is obligated through the ADA to provide equal access to documents 
> regardless
> of a disability.  Therefore my questions are as follows:
>
>
>
> 1. Can a blind/visually impaired person apply for a waver of PACER
> fees, since that would be the only way he/she would access that 
> information?
>
>
>
> 2. Has that ever been a subject of discussion amongst blind lawyers,
> those who are on their own or belonging to advocacy organizations?
>
>
>
> Are there any accessible free alternatives to PACER?
>
>
>
> 3. Is there such thing as an efficient research methodology for a blind
> person which takes advantage of electronic resources, and is this as
> effective as conventional legal research methods?
>
>
>
> Thanks and all the best.
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
> <skype:zuhairmahd?call> My status
> Get Skype <http://www.skype.com/go/download>  and call me for free.
>
>
>
>
> Zuhair T. Mahd
>
>
>
> Z.M Consulting
>
>
> Tel: +1-720-240-4803
>
> Fax: +1-928-493-5762
>
>
> zuhair at accesstojobs.com
>
> http://www.accesstojobs.com <http://www.accesstojobs.com/>
>
>
>
>

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

> _______________________________________________
> blindlaw mailing list
> blindlaw at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw
> 

_______________________________________________
blindlaw mailing list
blindlaw at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw
_______________________________________________
blindlaw mailing list
blindlaw at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw