Think I got it, PJ, but thanks for the nitpicking, I need the help.

Are the plea agrmts being ’buried’ from electronic viewing and viewing in person? Or just via the toobz?

Thanks. If it weren’t for PACER my workload would take 3 or 4x what it does now. We save tons of time and client money b/c of it. I’m emailing now.

If something truly needs to be sealed, it gets sealed from everyone. Sealing off only the internet access makes it sound as if someone has an agenda other than the smooth functioning of the judicial system.

Hidden agendas? Who could have anticipated . . .

Am I missing something here? Suppose the government ends access to certain plea agreements via PACER. The agreements would still be available to local individuals who could then scan them and post them, right? So what does this have to do with privacy or protecting law enforcement investigations?

This policy seems to be directed at inconveniencing those who are interested in how our justice system is working. Unless, (as they tried in the Kontogiannis case) they plan on having secret hearings and filing the pleas under the names of unknown prosecutors. That way nobody even knows to walk in and ask for the documents.

chrisc – That is a good point; however, I would guess that you eleiminate literally 95-98% of the prying eyes if you eliminate PACER access. We are the problem to them.

I think it is appropriate to voice concern over the approach to whittle away the openness, though I am a triffle on the dilettante side when it comes to Pacer, refusing to spend one EDI dime on a KB of downloaded posturing be it plea or bargain agreement. My view is the bargains, although ostensible fonts of court overseen insider leakery, nevertheless tend to result in incriminating evidence selectively deployed to protect some identities; but they reveal a lot about strategic maneuvering, as they did for instance in the special prosecutor’s development of the witness strategies in the Libby matter; I wondered even there, in retrospect only, how many cooperation deals Fitzgerald made or if those were genuine plea bargains; maybe FBI was first to offer plea bargains in some of the early evidence gathering phase. But the newsmedia organizations which have scanty scruples likely would join the call for less information available for the realtime insight of the many cybersphere writers who sometimes go so far in advance of the courtroom advocates that the web arrives many places long before the protagonists’ counsel, and at least at first glimpse on a pro bono basis; though there are amenities and residuals for the blogworld, it takes a lot of research and conferencing to arrive there. I think the internet is helping build leadership as well as community in that regard. Media are in a pinch to maximize profits just now, and like telcos some opt to attempt to slow the modernization process in order to maximize former profit centers. A conservative lawyer teacher at a Republican law school, ivy league, had a comparable idea earlier this year: prohibit law profs from obtaining tenure; I supposed the idea was to restrain the freedom of lawyer professors blogging or even to constrict the limits of classroom speech and law journal investigations. The Republicans must figure they have developed a sufficiently numerous cadre of law profs and sitting judges to attempt to limit the rewards of open courts and free thinking law professors. Proponents of two of the aforementioned ideas include Brian Tamanaha and MLederman; easy to guess which supported which theory. I read an interesting article last week about the endgame presidency, which stated Bush already has an ample team of regulatory experts at work devising ways to make the suppression of information and reversal of environmental safeguards remain long after he has left office. The tale reminded me of the attempt to create even more secrecy in the courts. Avoiding Pacer as I do, unless the generous Bashman provides a passthrough free link, or some other kind soul does, following the DeLay gerrymander of TX in 2005 was an arduous chore. Fortunately, there were many hard working people on the internet involved, and information surfaced, although slowly in the Republican atmosphere around that time.

NO charges against Chiquita Execs will be pursued by DOJ

BGRS and others: the following information will give you a better idea of what is going on here. There are a couple of groups that are systematically culling information on agents and informants from the electronic service for the Federal courts, PACER. The primary one appears to be known as â€whosarat.comâ€. As I suspected above, the primary impetus for this was the DOJ, not the judges that constitute the advisory board. Bottom line is that there are less restrictive methods, most of which already exist, to eliminate this problem on specific cases where it is really a problem. Although there is some merit to the general concern behind this effort, the proposal here is extreme overkill and clearly, at least to me, is aimed at shutting down people like EW as much as it is aimed at shutting down â€whosarat.comâ€. I think letters should focus on the public’s right to know, need for transparency, and the public interest in being able to see what the government is doing in the public’s name, especially with the clear evidence of political manipulation that has come to light from the US Attorney scandals. the Kontoginnis case you have been reading about here is a prime example. At any rate, here is the more complete info:

Request To Limit Access to Certain Documents in Federal Court Criminal
Case Files

The Department of Justice has asked the Judicial Conference to
restrict public Internet access to a specific type of document: Plea
agreements in criminal cases, which may disclose the fact that the

defendant in the case is cooperating or has cooperated with law
enforcement investigations. The ease with which the public is able to
both retrieve federal court case information from electronic case files
and redistribute it electronically through the Internet has raised
concerns about whether the Judiciary’s policy of allowing access to all
unsealed plea agreements provides a sufficient measure of safety for
those defendants cooperating with law enforcement. Certain private
parties or organizations have compiled lists setting forth names,
locations, and descriptions of alleged cooperating witnesses and have
posted them on the Internet. Some have expressed concern that wide
dissemination of this information may facilitate or encourage
retaliation and/or witness intimidation.
The Judiciary is requesting comment on its policy of providing
public Internet access to all non-sealed plea agreements in electronic
criminal case files (described further below). This policy has been in
effect since November 2004, but only came into play in any particular
local court level when that court adopted an electronic case files
system, typically at some point between 2005-2007. To assist it in
considering the issue, the Judiciary welcomes comments on this policy,
including, but not limited to, the question of whether the policy
should be changed to prohibit public Internet access to plea agreements
or other documents in the criminal case files that identify a person
cooperating with law enforcement. These plea agreements and documents
would still be available for public inspection at the courthouse.
Additionally, the Judiciary seeks comments on how it could otherwise
meet the need to balance access issues against competing concerns such
as privacy and personal security.

How To Submit Comments

All comments should be received by October 26, 2007 and must
include the name, organization (if any), mailing address, and telephone
number of the commentator. All comments should also include an e-mail
address and a fax number, where available, as well as an indication of
whether the commentator is interested in participating in a public
hearing, if one is held. The public should be advised that it may not
be possible to honor all requests to speak at any such hearing. Any
such hearing may be recorded for broadcast.
The electronic submission of comments is highly encouraged.
Electronic comments may be submitted by e-mail to
[email protected]. Comments may be submitted through the

U.S. Postal Service to The Administrative Office of the United States
Courts, Court Administration Policy Staff, Attn: Privacy Comments,
Suite 4-560, One Columbus Circle, NE., Washington, DC 20544.

[FR Doc. 07-4415 Filed 9-7-07; 8:45 am]

pdaly – No. In fact, it does not appear that there has been a decision made to have a hearing; the last substantive paragraph idicates â€if one is heldâ€. My guess is that the DOJ made a big push on Chief Justice Roberts and that is why we are where we are at. Now, your question has caused my only semi-active brain to figure something else out. Anybody forwarding mail, email or regular, should indicate their desire to attend the hearing (can include the proviso â€assuming I am able†so not misleading court with unqualified intent). The more people evidencing not only their strong belief, but also their desire to attend if they possibly can, will really jolt them as to how strong public opinion is on this. A sentence saying that should there not be room for you to be accomodated in appearing, or if you are unable to physically attend, that you would like the opportunity to submit a written or electronic statement. Leave yourself an out because most really won’t be able to attend when the time comes, but let them know that it is important enough that you want to try.

g’morning.
Anyone still there? thanks pdaly and as always bmaz. Although there are good and usable points in the comments, if the non-lawyers write and say open access is good for transparency that is available in the blogosphere will we not be giving them the evidence they need to say that the open access is serving non-professionals with only a ’casual’ interest in the cases and documents on line? That is, those who are emailing and who do not have PACER accounts?

Can anyone propose a way of saying how they have helped on do one’s civic duty or gain a greater understanding of workings of justice?

deadline 10/26–although in my business, gov. systems tend to crash from over use on deadline day.

so I am still open to any suggestions of to the report of the existance of a webpage with some template letters.

And although it may be OT, I will reports if I hear of any in the future.

BSR

I wasn’t very clear about Tommy K in my post or in my emailed comments. But I think it is the best example. So you might say something like:

Using online access, bloggers Marcy Wheeler, Laura Rozen, and TPMM, have followed the Thomas Kontogiannis plea deal (and the Wilkes cases) closely. Kontogiannis’ deal is of particular interest to citizens because 1) it occurred in a case that DOJ was alleged to have tried to impede and 2) it appears that Kontogiannis’ crimes greatly outweigh the assistance he has given the federal government. Thus, it is the kind of case that ordinary citizens ought to be able to scrutinize, to assess whether our justice system is making appropriate charging decisions. Eliminating online access to such filings would raise the costs of such scrutiny beyond the point where it would be accessible to average citizens.

Another suggestion as to content for comments to the committee:

Continued open access will help repair the nation’s confidence in the Justice Department so egregiously wounded by the incompetence and willful malfeasance of AG Gonzales.