jimgrisham.bsky.social
Humblebrag, pithy quote, self-deprecating joke. INFJ. Knight errant imposter. Raised: Waukegan, IL, U.S.A. Lived: Chicago, Norwich, Seattle, Summerville, Urbana
(also @JimGrisham on Twitter)
12 posts
69 followers
205 following
Conversation Starter
comment in response to
post
To be fair, the government is claiming something similar in _several_ cases.
(Nearly all of the 150+ current cases contain at least some ... dubious ... legal reasoning and/or have inconsistent factual records.
Unlike with private parties, there's little downside to losing for the government.)
comment in response to
post
... and here's an archived copy of ECF 70, "Notice of Filing of Exhibit List and Related Documents" from yesterday, 11 March:
web.archive.org/web/20250312...
comment in response to
post
The last e-mail alert on the Vought case came out an hour ago:
"Minute Entry for proceedings held 3/11/2025 before Judge Amy Berman Jackson. Evidentiary Hearing resumed and concluded. Matter taken under advisement. Defense Witness: Adam Martinez; Plaintiff Witnesses: Alex Doe and Mathew Pfaff."
comment in response to
post
Gwynne Wilcox v. Donald Trump (25-5057) - appeal at DC Circuit: ecf.cadc.uscourts.gov/n/beam/servl...
WILCOX v. TRUMP (1:25-cv-00334) - District Court, District of Columbia: ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktR...
(2/2)
comment in response to
post
In the meantime, here are direct PACER links for those cases (since the WayBack Machine versions are from Monday)...
NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION v. VOUGHT (1:25-cv-00381) - District Court - DC: ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktR...
(1/2)
comment in response to
post
It still requires a smartphone to sign up, right? (iirc, if the phone app isn’t used for 30 days, the desktop app stops working)
comment in response to
post
Was it the _repeated_ references to obtaining Ukraine’s “raw earth”, the b-movie mobster imitation, or the generalized lack of behavioral control due to missing his nap time that got your attention?
comment in response to
post
(Also, I'm not trying to argue that the fee structure is okay... fees could likely be reduced by at least an order of magnitude and still not be affected by the sociological factors that affect 'totally free' things.
Better still, the fees could remain the same for funding, but waiver caps raised.)
comment in response to
post
(As an analogy, consider how CourtListener.com is sometimes overwhelmed by unusual demand at times in early 2025 - they're doing the best they can and I'm not complaining about that.
E.g. it seems like it would it be a risk for official systems to be exposed to that same sort of situation.)
comment in response to
post
How has the balance of concerns varied in the past decade?
Today (in 2025), one could imagine AI web scrapers (et. al.) easily causing a 'totally free' PACER to be overloaded, to the point that courts and parties to active litigation could have QOS issues, right?
comment in response to
post
One of the recent government filings (it may have been the 'sanctuary city' case against Illinois) had line numbers in the margins... that consistently didn't line up with the text... on _any page_.
Better than no line numbers at all, but it seemed like quite the oversight.