Categories
Documents Legal, Laws, and Regs

An Open PACER

The costs associated with PACER has been an issue for some time. The late Aaron Swartz once downloaded 20% of the database (a figure later corrected to less than 1%) before the government shut down the server. Aaron did so because he believe that we should have access to the documents on PACER, and I agree with him, completely. I just wish he’d stayed around long enough to see me actually agree with him (something that wasn’t all that common in the distant past).

PACER is an access system. The costs are associated with accessing the documents, not having the documents. The documents are public domain. Trying to work our way around PACER is not a good exercise and isn’t really necessary either, because the documents don’t originate with PACER: people own these documents before they get tossed into PACER. The key is how to connect these documents to the world at large, without having to go broke.

The RECAP The Law is one effort to create an open PACER system. It uses a browser plug-in to download court documents whenever you purchase them on PACER. Unfortunately, though, there’s no simple way to provide court documents once already downloaded. Or to provide documents if you don’t want to use a cumbersome browser plug-in.

The Internet Archives is attempting to collect PACER documents, like it tries to collect other documents, but again, there’s no easy interface to upload documents.

The reality is that for all that PACER has an old fashioned interface, it is a simple, easy to use tool that functions well considering how often it is accessed. Most people who have great ideas about providing a free PACER either underestimate exactly how much they’re biting off, or they start out with good intentions, but didn’t get the support needed once people moved beyond the initial “We must do this!” stage. Typically, this occurs 1-3 months after an Event, whatever the Event is.

I find it unlikely there will ever be a single “Open PACER”, and frankly, one isn’t needed. We have a thing called a “search engine”. All we need to do is put our court documents online as PDFs, provide the proper label, and then let those who need the documents find us using sophisticated search tools. Simple, problem solved.

Well, except for the issue of getting the documents in the first place.

It has cost me well over $1600.00, and counting, to access the court documents for my book on the court battle between Feld Entertainment (owner of Ringling Brothers circus) and various animal welfare groups. This, just to access documents for two court cases, and a couple of small peripheral actions. One of the cases, the original ASPCA et al vs. Feld Entertainment, Inc., recently renamed to AWI et al vs Feld Entertainment, Inc, has over 621 separate document entries (and counting), many of which have 5, 10, or more attachments. That’s number of documents, not pages. The number of pages must be in the tens of thousands, or at least it seems so after so many months spent looking through all of them.

And not every document is even accessible by the public via PACER. If transcripts for status meetings didn’t appear now and again as attachments to other filings, I would have missed out on some of the interesting tidbits associated with the case. Then there are the background cases, most of which are either too old to have their documents in PACER, or have been sealed by the court (something that I really don’t approve of if the case is of general public interest).

Not long ago, PACER, supposedly in an effort to lessen the financial burden on those of us who are not lawyers (and can’t therefore pass on costs to our clients), changed its fee system. Judicial decisions are freely available, without charge. The cost per page has been increased to ten cents, but it’s capped at $3.00 if the document goes over thirty pages. Except for transcripts. If you want all pages of a transcript, well, be prepared to fork over the money.

If your PACER access comes to less than $15.00 a month, you’re off without a charge. Of course, I can blow past $15.00 in less than 20 minutes.

The system is an improvement, especially for the cases covered in my book, where the lawyers would toss in book length attachments on too regular a basis. It’s still painfully expensive.

The thing is, all of the documents in PACER are out there, typically stashed in some lawyer’s laptop somewhere. It’s perfectly legal for lawyers, legal assistants, law students, anyone with access to court documents to just post them online. Post them online, link them from a web page somewhere, and then let the search engines do the rest of the job. If the document is not sealed by the court, it is public domain, end of story (regardless of legal attempts to prove copyright on legal briefs).

My costs would have more closely resembled $3,000 if it weren’t for a couple of web sites that did just that. One has since taken down their documents, but Born Free USA still lists the court transcripts and documents for the initial ASPCA et al vs. Feld court case. I found them using Google, with a simple search. My costs would have been much less if some of the other groups associated with the court case just placed their court documents online. It wouldn’t have prejudiced the case. It wouldn’t ‘count against them’, in the courts. It would ensure that information is freely available the next time someone publishes an interestingly worded PR release.

That’s all we need. We don’t need a fancy new system. We don’t need a browser plug-in. All we need to do is put the court documents we have access to, online, and let the web take care of the rest.

Categories
Critters Documents Legal, Laws, and Regs

The Dollarhite Rabbitry FOIA Results

A few years back I came across an article about the Dollarhites in Missouri and their little bunny business. According to the article, the Dollarhites only started raising bunnies to teach their son responsibility. It was, at most, a small, casual business.

In 2011, the Dollarhites were outraged to receive a notice of violation from the USDA, with a fine of $90,643. There was a lot of huffing and puffing about government overreach in the article, but I had enough experience with the USDA APHIS to know there had to be more to the story than was being told. I decided to file a FOIA request for all documents related to the case.

The USDA informed me that the investigation was still ongoing and they couldn’t provide me most of the documentation. They did, however, provide me a few documents, one of which I had already discovered for myself: that the Wayback machine had archives of the Dollarhite bunny selling operation as far back as 2006, not 2008, as the Dollarhites claimed.

Eventually the Dollarhites got Missouri politicians, including Claire McCaskill, to intervene on their behalf—something I wish politicians would not do, because this just leads to inconsistent applications of the law (a law created by Congress, I want to note). Especially when a little research on McCaskill’s part would have demonstrated other interesting documents associated with the case:

  • Rather than a casual operation, the Dollarhites were selling bunnies to a petting zoo in Branson, as well as a pet store. In one year, they sold over 4000.
  • An early investigative report notes Dollarhite was aware of AWA licensing, and gave the investigator the impression he was going to continue breeding and selling pet rabbits without a license (doc)
  • An investigator noted Dollarhite’s seeming hostility to regulation, as well as her safety concerns (doc)
  • An internal USDA memo expressing concern about enforcement in the case, considering the circumstances, in this case, most likely the publicity and Congressional interference (doc)
  • Another frank, interesting look at the USDA’s view of discussions with Dollarhite’s attorney, who seemed to be less than aware of how the government operates (doc)
  • A disturbing note sent by Dollarhite to the USDA (doc)
  • A very disturbing note sent to the USDA with an implicit threat (doc)

Among all of the more colorful documents are investigative reports, documented proof, as well as several settlement offers extended to Dollarhite that would have let him off without a fine as long as he agreed to stop selling bunnies as pets without a license—something Dollarhite didn’t note as frequently as he noted that $90,000 fine.

When the Dollarhites settled with the USDA, the USDA was free to fulfill my FOIA request, and I’m listing the documents here for others to access.

As I said earlier: there’s always more to these stories than what you see on the surface. Thankfully, the FOIA allows us to discover the missing pieces.

I wrote three articles on the Dollarhites:

John Dollarhite and his $90,000 fine

The Dollarhite Saga

Dollarhites: A saga that should end

Access a listing of the Dollarhite FOIA documents, individually, or as one document.

Categories
Critters Legal, Laws, and Regs

The benefits of publicly accessible records

It is not difficult to make a digital copy of an inspection report. Most modern printers that make copies now have the ability to scan the copies into a PDF just as quickly as you can make the paper copy.

There is no reason for any agency, Missourian or otherwise, to not have digital copies of all their records. Not only does having digital copies of inspection reports decrease the need for paper, but it also ensures reasonable access of the records, as well as backup in case of fire, flood, and other disaster.

I have no idea what kind of information system the Department of Agriculture in Missouri has in place. I do know that, considering the interest people have in inspection records, the organization could more effectively deal with requests if it just provided the information via a simple to use online system. The USDA caught on to the advantages of such a system a few years back, which is why we can access so much USDA information online.

In fact, it’s easier to access information about Missouri agriculture at the USDA then it is to access information at the Missouri Department of Agriculture.

One major reason to allow better access to inspection records and other data online is that this is probably one of the most effective ways of shutting down bad commercial dog breeders.

Since the USDA simplified the process of accessing inspection records, several breeders have given up their USDA licenses. Frankly, they didn’t like the fact that everyone they knew could see that they’re too lazy to clean up the piles of feces, or that their dogs are sick or injured and not given care. You can see their hostility to the new public exposure in their recent treatment of USDA inspectors.

In December, 2010, when inspectors arrived at the infamous Mar-Don Kennels, they were not met with openness:

We began the inspection and, after finding non-compliant items in the first section of the outdoor housing, the licensee became upset.

The licensee stated, “I’m done with this crap, I’m giving up, I’m surrendering my license”, and stormed away entering the house. We followed the licensee and waited for her to come out of the house at which time she said could not find it (her license). At that point, ACI Jan Feldman asked her to write a statement stating that she no longer wanted to be licensed and she stated, “I am not signing or writing anything without my lawyer, I am done with you.” ACI Jan Feldman then informed the licensee that we would have to consider this as a refusal and that we would send her a copy of the report by certified mail. The licensee walked away. At 10:42 am we left the facility in an expeditious manner.

Marsha Cox wasn’t “done with this crap” because she was tired of getting written up for violations. She’s been written up for violations for years. However, thanks to the USDA making her inspection records public, and HSUS listing her operation in Missouri’s Dirty Dozen, all the dirty little secrets about her organization have been made public, for the world to see.

When Inspector Feldman visited David and Gloria Still’s business in Purdy, Missouri, David Stills actually became verbally abusive:

As we began the inspection of the third building exterior, the licensee (husband) became angry and challenging. When a non-compliant item (holes dug by the dog under a ramp) was pointed out, Mr. Still made the comment dogs dig. I agreed with him and asked Mrs. Still if she had some gravel around to address the problem. I mentioned that due to the location and deepness of the hole by the ramp, it was possible for the dogs to become injured. Mr. Still became immediately indignant and challenged my statement. His tone and body stance became more aggressive and angry.

I turned to Mrs. Still and told her if he continued in this manner I would consider it interference of the inspection and we would leave. Mr. Still then said angrily, You can just leave. He yelled that he did not need us to sell their puppies. Mrs. Still just stood there. He made a couple of other comments with a tone and manner that were very angry. I explained to Mrs. Still that since Mr. Still was on the license we would be leaving and would consider this interference and a refusal to allow inspection. I told her I would send her the report with the refusal and interference and our findings up to this point by certified mail. Mr Still made several very angry comments during my conversation with Mrs. Still such as You don’t own these dogs and You don’t own this property. We left the facility at that point in time. We were unable to complete the inspection due to interference of the licensee and the potential risk to our safety.

Both Marsha Cox and the Stills are still licensed with the state, and I am in the process of pulling state records for both. I will be curious to compare state records with federal records.

Though Cox and the Stills are still licensed with the state, James Holtkamp is not. On August 24, 2010, during a USDA inspection:

The licensee was verbally abusive and threatening to the inspectors. The licensee refused to allow an inspection. The licensee was uncooperative and used profanity when yelling at the inspectors. The licensee physically grabbed at the inspector’s arm and the state highway patrol officer had to intervene.

I’ll still submit a Sunshine Law request for past records for Holtkamp, to ensure that he’s no longer an operating kennel.

There is a simple option if people don’t want to be inspected by the USDA or the state: don’t go into a business that requires these inspections. The problem is for the last several years, there’s been little or no exposure of these large scale commercial breeders. In the past, the inspectors have been too close to the people inspected, and the breeders got away with numerous violations and inadequate care of the dogs. Now, the USDA at least, and hopefully the MDA are becoming stricter about enforcement. More importantly, though, is the fact that the bad operations are being exposed.

The breeders are angry—no more dirty little secrets. Hopefully, angry enough to quit, and save the state and the federal government the time and expense of closing them down.

Categories
Critters Legal, Laws, and Regs

Koster’s Handling of Unlicensed Facility demonstrates failures in laws

Chris Koster, Missouri Attorney General, has published another press release about a court injunction against an unlicensed breeder. His office states that the breeder violates several ACFA regulations:

Koster said Shirley Gilbert owns Wolfgang’s Puppies and Gee Gee’s Yorkies, a commercial breeding facility in Aurora. Department of Agriculture inspections uncovered numerous violations of the Animal Care Facilities Act. Gilbert failed to provide clean, dry bedding and wind and rain breaks to protect the dogs from the elements; failed to keep food receptacles clean and sanitized; failed to collect and remove animal waste; failed to clean and sanitize the facility or to provide adequate space for the dogs; failed to provide housing that protected the animals from injury; and failed to provide adequate veterinary care to the animals, many of which had matted coats and one that had severe eye complications.

The Attorney General’s office states that he’s obtained a temporary restraining order prohibiting the breeder from selling dogs, but selling dogs without a license is a Class A misdemeanor. Why, on earth, was this woman not charged with a crime?

In addition, the press release details horrendous conditions for the dogs, but nothing, nothing, about rescuing the dogs or removing the dogs from what sounds to be extremely dangerous conditions. In an article in the News-Leader, we find out that the breeder is allowed to keep the 22 adult dogs and 12 puppies until the June 10 hearing…and possibly later.

Rather than make things better for dogs, the recent actions to gut Proposition B have left things in worse shape then what we had even before Proposition B. AG Koster, this is nothing to brag about.

If you agree, contact the Attorney General’s office, and tell Koster to do more than just file a restraining order when dogs lives are at risk.

Categories
Critters Legal, Laws, and Regs

S & S Family Puppies: “Good” and Bad News

CBS has announced that the Missouri Attorney General has closed down S & S Family Puppies in Milan, Missouri. S & S Family Puppies was the top of the list in the Missouri Dirty Dozen report.

I can’t find any official announcement at the Attorney General’s web site. Nor is there a history of this item being taken to court. In fact, the news may not be as good as it sounds, as noted in a comment to the CBS story (update Did find information on court case, and copy of consent decree, as noted at end of story):

WAIT. THE FACILITY IS SHUT DOWN BUT THE DOGS ARE NOT SAFE! THEY ARE JUST BEING MOVED. READ BELOW (from today’s HSUS email). It’s disgusting.

The Stephensons’ dogs, however, are not going to rescue groups or shelters where they could be adopted into loving families. Instead, the state is allowing them to be transferred or sold to other commercial breeding facilities. Forty of the dogs are scheduled to be sold to the highest bidder this Saturday at the Southwest Kennel Auction in Wheaton, Mo.

And because only the Stephensons were mentioned in the Attorney General’s statement, we suspect many of these dogs may be transferred to a second kennel operated by another family member, Brandi Cheney. USDA records list Stephenson and Cheney as co-owners of S & S Family Puppies. In fact, last year several aggrieved consumers sued Diana Stephenson and Cheney under the Missouri consumer protection law. The consumers alleged that Stephenson and Cheney sold them sick puppies but misled them into believing the puppies were healthy. A copy of the plaintiffs’ complaint was sent to Attorney General Koster.

Nevertheless, as detailed in our March 2011 Dirty Dozen update, Cheney recently obtained a USDA license for a new kennel, called Circle B Farms, which has also been cited for severe animal care violations.

Thus, the surviving dogs likely won’t have a chance at a better life, but merely a life in another puppy mill. This is unacceptable. Puppy mill operators who have repeatedly violated both state and federal laws should not be permitted to move or sell their surviving “stock” to other puppy mill operators. The dogs have already suffered untold trauma and should not be transferred to another breeding facility, especially considering that local and national animal groups are prepared to help these dogs. It’s time they find a loving home.

(Comment quote from a story at HSUS)

Southwest Auction is having a consignment kennel auction today, and if you look down towards the end of the page you’ll find, in small print, a listing for Diana Stephenson, the co-owner of S & S. I notice that, unlike other auctions, there is no note from the auction house about what a good breeder this breeder is; no testimony from the kennel vet. More disconcerting is that the number of dogs listed does not account for the number of dogs S & S had at their last inspection.

(Missouri MDA inspections)

I’m greatly disturbed to hear that the person listed as co-owner of S & S, Brandi Cheney, obtained new USDA and MDA licenses. The USDA inspections for this newly licensed kennel already show violations. Cheney has also sold puppies under another name, CC Puppies, with a different license, but the same types of violations. By the license fee Cheney paid for her newest license, she has a significant number of dogs, which supports the HSUS statement that all that’s happened is that the dogs have been shifted from one of the owners to the other, and this “victory” is nothing more than a sham.

(Note the reference to a second license in the recent USDA inspection report for S & S Family Puppies. Also note that both the Stephensons and Cheney have been sued by puppy buyers.)

update I did find a story on the court judgment. It is a consent decree, which means the Stephenson’s agreed to it. But look at the requirements: the facility is required to transfer dogs to another ACFA licensed facility. That’s it. Both Director Hagler and AG Koster brag about the outcome, but all that’s happened is that the poor dogs have been transferred from one puppy mill to another. This is not a victory.

Second update KMOV covers the fact that Stephensons can keep the profits from the dog auction. The story also mentions the fact that the breeders’ daughter is still licensed and able to “buy” her parents’ dogs.

A sham. A total sham. That’s what the “modification” of Proposition B is giving us: a mockery of a law.