Categories
Documents Legal, Laws, and Regs

Pssst: The law is for everyone

I confess here and now: I am a PACER junkie. For the uninitiated, PACER is the federal court online system.

I rarely go a day without looking for new court filings in the many court cases I follow. When a new motion is submitted, I’m in alt. Think how science fiction fans react to a new Doctor Who episode, and you get the idea.

There seems to be a misconception about legal filings, and the law. Contrary to popular myth, neither are for lawyers, only. Yes, you have to be a lawyer to practice law, but you don’t have to be a lawyer to be interested in the law or legal documents. You don’t have to be a lawyer to have an opinion on laws, or legal documents, either. You may misunderstand a decision, or misstate the importance of a case, but doing so is no different than misunderstanding any other decision, or misstating the importance of any other event. The art of law is no different than the art of philosophy, geology, history, or computer programming.

What happens in the courts has a profound impact on all of us. If Congress passes laws, and the Executive Branch implements these laws, it is the Courts that refine the laws—ensuring that the laws are applied consistently, and adhere to basic principles on which the nation is formed.

Think of law as a statue. Congress, acting on its own or based on the demands of the populace, decides it wants a new statue. If enough members of Congress agree, it writes up a specification for the statue, and provides funding to create it.

The Executive Branch of the government, via its agencies, takes these specifications and formulates a plan for creating the statue. Once the first draft of the plan is complete, the relevant agency submits the plan to the master architect/bean counter, otherwise known as the Office of Management and Budget. The OMB checks that the statue implementation plan is cost effective, and won’t piss off the master sculpture (i.e. the President). If the plan passes muster, the agency submits it to the people for comment. Commentary flows in that ranges from the sublime to the inane. How much impact the commentary has depends on any number of factors, including the impetus of creation, and which raw resource dealer has the best lobbyist. Eventually, the agency finalizes the plan and sends it and the raw materials off to the minions to create the statue.

Lo, and behold, here is the statue.

The law is art, and art is always in the eye of the beholder. The people may not agree with how the statue looks. One person may think its too crude; another may think it varies from the specifications too much; a third may deem it blasphemous and demand it be taken out into a field and blown up with dynamite. If one or more people are personally impacted by the creation of the statue, they may take their artistic disdain to the Courts.

The Courts take up the tools of the legal trade—a dainty chisel and fine sandpaper here, a blow torch there. They’ll hear the arguments of the people and the creators, look at the specifications provided by Congress and the finished work of the agencies, and within the boundaries that constrain their own activities (because it does no one any good to have a Mad Artist suddenly take a sledge hammer to a great piece of art), they’ll decide if the people are wrong, and the work is fine. Or they may decide that the people are correct, and the piece needs work.

It is the Courts, then, who refine the statue. Over time, they brush away the imperfections. Sometimes they may go a little too far, and a repair is necessary. Other times the Courts may disagree on artistic interpretation, or the people may disagree with the Courts, and a higher Court will either confirm an interpretation, or reverse it before any irrevocable action has taken place. Put that blow torch down, and back away slowly.

As time goes by, the statue—the law and its regulations and rules—becomes more rigid and less amenable to change. The legal people call it ‘precedent’ but we can think of it as Monkey Christ. If we sit around, twiddling our thumbs, waiting for some legal mind to suggest we might want to be concerned about this new law, regulation, or court decision, we may lose the opportunity to have input, and get stuck with a really ugly piece of work.

So I’m a PACER pusher, as well as junkie. I created a Documents at Burningbird web site to share my legal and other documents with you. I hope to get you hooked, too.

Categories
Documents

Swartz Update: An Inside Look at the Secret Service and FOIA

A quick update on the Aaron Swartz FOIA request.

There have been several court filings related to Wired magazine Poulson’s FOIA case, regarding the investigative material for the court case against Aaron Swartz. Poulson walks the talk on transparency, and provides links to all of the documents. I’m also preparing a docket sheet with links to the court documents. (Duplication aids transparency.)

One of the documents is a status report (PDF) filed by the Secret Service. In it, we see the state of FOIA requests within this agency. It gives us a good idea of how overwhelmed government agencies are with FOIA requests—especially after Sequestor cuts. The problem of overwhelmed FOIA resources is compounded by the fact that non-profits and other organizations will sue an agency if a FOIA request isn’t met within the 20 days.

The Poulson court case is different, in that he was denied access to the documents, and the agency didn’t respond to the appeal. But I know of several lawsuits filed by organizations just because the agency (typically the EPA) hasn’t responded in 20 days.

We have to remember that transparency comes with a cost. I’m not saying the results aren’t worth the costs, but we can’t pretend that all of this open goodness doesn’t come without a price tag.

From the document:

The United States Secret Service (“Secret Service”) employs less than 1,800 nonoperational personnel service in administrative positions. The Freedom of Information and Privacy Acts (“FOI/PA”) Office of the Secret Service, when fully staffed, recently had eleven (11) personnel who are assigned to redact and process FOIA requests, including reviewing documents to determine what, if any, information should be withheld under the FOIA. Due to government-wide budgetary reductions, the Secret Service FOI/PA Office was forced to cut two staff positions which has left the FOI/PA Office with only nine personnel that are assigned to redact and process FOIA requests.

The Secret Service is currently processing three other voluminous FOIA requests which require the full-time, exclusive attention of two of the agency’s nine FOIA processors [emph. added] In the case of one of these two requests, the FOIA processor has been working on it, full-time, for two years. This leaves seven FOIA processors to complete the remaining FOIA requests which come to the office.

In fiscal year 2012, the Secret Service FOIA/PA Office received approximately 1,595 FOIA requests. To date, for fiscal year 2013, the Secret Service FOI/PA Office received approximately 1,138 FOIA requests. The Secret Service FOI/PA Office, in one week, from July 15 – 19, 2013, received 234 additional FOIA requests. To date, the Secret Service FOI/PA Office has 1,001 pending FOIA requests.

One FOIA request that requires a full time employee for two years. Time to dig around and see which FOIA request this is.

Categories
Documents Legal, Laws, and Regs

Initial Complaints from the Cantaloupe Listeria Outbreak Court cases courtesy Marler Clark

Bill Marler, of Marler Clark, has posted links to court complaints the law firm has filed because of the Cantaloupe Listeria outbreak in 2011. This was one of the most significant food illness outbreaks of modern times.

I could wish more law firms would post their legal filings, especially those at the state level that are difficult to access outside the state. Yes, most of the documents are legalese, but many court filings are plain, factual descriptions of events of importance—without embellishment and opinion. Many court documents reflect historically important decisions that can have a significant impact on our society.

Court documents can also contain subtle humor, eloquence, as well as brilliant examples of wit and logic.

Categories
Critters Documents

Several new filings in Front Range Equine Rescue et al vs. USDA horse slaughter inspection case

update

One of the new plaintiffs in the case, listed in the amended complaint, is The Foundation to Protect New Mexico’s Wildlife. It was formed by former governor Bill Richardson and Robert Redford.

Well, now, this might generate some evening news coverage.

There has been a flurry of filings in the Front Range Equine Rescue et al vs. USDA court case. Most of the filings have been from those seeking to intervene in the case, including the state of New Mexico (for the plaintiffs) and the Confederated Yakima Tribes (for the defendants). Other companies wanting to open horse slaughter plants have also sought to intervene, and the list of plaintiffs has grown, considerably.

The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, and the USDA has filed an opposition to the preliminary injunction.

Relevant documents have been uploaded for your access.

Categories
Books

New books, new writing experiences

I have been working on two books the last several months. Well, one is more of an interesting writing project than a book.

O’Reilly has created an online writing tool and online book reader, named Atlas and Chimera, respectively. The online writing tool, Atlas, currently uses AsciiDoc to annotate the text, though I believe it is undergoing user interface changes in the future.

I excerpted out several sections from the first edition of the JavaScript Cookbook, updated them, and then added live examples via the use of JS Bin (access the book online). Adding the live bits actually impacted on the writing. There was something about embedding live code that connected me to the reader, and my writing style became more relaxed—more comfortable. Additionally, it connected the code samples and the writing more closely. I found myself drilling just a bit more into the code than I had done before, in order to understand more fully exactly why the code worked the way it did. Having a working example of the code right in the writing, altered both.

When I write the second edition for the JavaScript Cookbook, I’ll be using Atlas. I genuinely believe it helps me be a better tech writer. And who doesn’t like live embedded examples?

The use of Atlas also gives writers so much more control over the book. When Node finally hits 1.0, I’ll be using Atlas to update my Learning Node book to incorporate errata, as well as changes that have occurred because of the formalized Node release. It’s a fix of the existing edition of the book, rather than putting out a new edition. Owners of digital copies of Learning Node will be able to access an upgrade for free. Now, this is the way tech books should be written and published. Sometimes you don’t need a whole new edition, you just need to tweak the existing book.

We authors can also see what the book will look like when it’s finished, as we write it. We can publish to Chimera, or to .mobi, ePub, and PDF. Now I can see for myself when lines of code are too long, or if I’ve crowded too much code into too small a space. I like this. I like this a lot.

Publishers just don’t seem to understand that writers really do want more say in the production of our books. We want more control over the process. Times are changing, and the days when an author gave up control over the book as soon as it began the print process, are over.

My hope is that O’Reilly will jump into the self-publication world by expanding Atlas for non-O’Reilly press books. It needs to provide a way to customize the CSS, or at a minimum, pick book layout themes. It also needs to provide a way for self-publishers to charge for publications—with O’Reilly taking a cut like other self-publication venues do. Lastly, it needs a way to import and export ePub content from tools such as Sigil. This last one is important, as it allows a person to go from online to offline and back again.

O’Reilly knows freelance graphic artists, tech and copy editors, and book production people. It has the facilities to connect self-publishers with the professionals who can, for a fee, help polish a work. And O’Reilly could do well, I think, by charging the same for self-published books that Amazon and others charge, and with a minimum of risk.

It would need to ensure that people know that these books are not O’Reilly books, and haven’t gone through the O’Reilly production process. That’s the only risk I see if O’Reilly expanded into this new and extremely vibrant branch of the publishing industry. However, Atlas has facilities for a person to start their own press. I haven’t tried this piece out, but it does seem to fit into my Atlas/Chimera wishlist.

I see all the scaffolding in place, so I’m hoping O’Reilly dips the corporate toe into the do-it-yourself publishing waters. No sharks, only minnows with nubby teeth.

Speaking of self-publication, the second book I’m working on is my first self-published work. Some of you know about it; many of you do not. I don’t have my Small Books web site up and running yet for the formal book page, so I’m just going to tell you about it, sans marketing.

The book is named “Ringling Brothers: The Greatest Show in Court”. It came about when I read a news story a couple of years back about Feld Entertainment, owner of the Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey Circus, suing various animal welfare groups under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act—otherwise known as RICO.

There are some news stories that stop you in your tracks, and a circus suing organizations like the ASPCA and HSUS for racketeering was one such story for me. What on earth could happen that would culminate in a lawsuit accusing animal welfare groups of racketeering? I mean, we don’t automatically group the ASPCA in the same category as, say, Whitey Bulger and the Gambino Crime Family.

“You better take care of them cows or you’ll sleep with the fishes”, doesn’t exactly sound like a line from a detective novel or Al Pacino movie.

So, I started digging. I found that the RICO case was based on another 10+ year court case where several animal welfare groups sued Ringling Brothers under the Endangered Species Act for the circus’s treatment of elephants.

Hmm. “You better take care of them elephants or you’ll sleep with the fishes”, still doesn’t sound like a line from a mob movie.

What I found about both cases, the state of the law protecting elephants in this country, the unfortunate malleability of RICO, and Feld’s other rather colorful court experiences fascinated me enough that I kept digging. Digging, which led to me downloading thousands of pages of court documents, transcripts, and exhibits. After supplying the DC district court with at least five new computers and a printer in PACER fees, I decided to turn these interesting, but complicated, court cases into a book. Just for good measure, I’m also throwing in a little history about elephants in circuses in the US.

Definitely not a book on JavaScript. Not even a book about JavaScript, sleeping with the fishes.

I am both terrified and incredibly excited about “Ringling Brothers: The Greatest Show in Court”. If I can control my dithering and fussing, it should be on digital bookshelves this fall. When I can pummel my Small Books site into shape, I’ll post a link to a more formal introduction to the book.