Blog

Without any explanation (there surely couldn’t be any), PACER announced, that “as of August 10, 2014” (two weeks ago), it would be deleting an unknown number of records from various courts:

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit	Cases filed prior to January 1, 2010
U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit	Cases filed prior to CM/ECF conversion
U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit	Cases filed prior to January 1, 2010
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit	Cases filed prior to March 1, 2012
U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California	Cases filed prior to May 1, 2001

PACER started rolling out in various courts in 2001 or so, and by 2005 was in virtually all courts. We are talking about the deletion of perhaps a decade worth of data.

Simply stunning, and brazen. That information is lost to the ages, as there will now be now way of extracting it. Does PACER have plans to delete data from other courts, without notice? I’m sure there are countless groups that would be willing to store the data, indefinitely. After all, it is public data about public records. Unbelievable.

 

Update: On Twitter, A reporter suggests that they didn’t “prioritize backwards compatibility” and there was a “system integration issue.” So down the memory hole they go.

File this post under First World Problems. Often, after buying a fare on United, I will receive an instant option to pay cash to upgrade to Business Class. The cost can be as low as $75, usually somewhere between $100 and $200, and sometimes as high as $700. Sometimes, especially on an early morning or late-night flight, I’ll pay the fee, but usually if it is less than $200. But, if I pass on that instant option, and try to upgrade at a later time, it usually costs more. For example, on a recent ticket I bought to Sacramento, it gave me the instant option to upgrade for $200. A few days later, it was $240.

The other option would be to upgrade with points. For the Sacramento ticket, it cost 15,000 points. What’s better? To spend 15,000 points, or spend $240. I have lots of points to burn, so I used points. But assuming I didn’t. You can buy 1,000 miles for $35. 15,000 miles costs $564. Granted, it is not a direct comparison, but in this case it would probably be better to pay the $240 in cash, rather than burn 15,000 miles, which equates to roughly $564. It may even be possible to buy a one-way ticket for under 15,000 miles, and the cost of that ticket would probably be more than $240.

That’s about right:

Echoing at a soft and constant volume across the nation’s collective conscious, the ambient, unending background hum of modern American life reported today that an armed gunman remains at large after opening fire on innocent bystanders. “Community members are advised to shelter in place,” stated the incessant, low-level white noise of death counts and missed warning signs emanating steadily from all directions, which confirmed that a vigil honoring the victims of the shooting will be held Thursday. “There were maybe five, six shots one after the other, and everyone started panicking. The gun was obtained legally. You never think that something like this could happen in your town.” The ceaseless, droning din of day-to-day existence in the United States went on to add, “lockdown, grieving families of the victims, troubled young man, AR-15, mental health system, senseless, took his own life, unsuccessful legislative efforts.”

See The Shooting Cycle.

An adaptation of my article, Gridlock and Executive Power, will grace the cover of the September 8 issue of National Review. The article, behind a $.25 paywall, is available now. Here is the introduction of The Gridlock Clause.

Since 2010, when the Democrats lost their majority in the House and their filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, President Obama’s ability to pursue legislative changes has ground to a halt. Headline after headline blares that the “do-nothing Congress” has enacted the fewest laws in decades. But that gridlock hasn’t halted the president’s plans to implement his policies. In fact, he claims it has strengthened his power to act alone — if Congress won’t act, he can, and will.

President Obama routinely cites Congress’s obstinacy to his agenda as a justification for engaging in a series of executive actions that suspend, waive, and even rewrite statutes. His frustration is understandable, but his response is not justifiable. Brazenly maneuvering around the lawmaking function of Congress is an affront to the constitutional order.

There is nothing new about congressional gridlock. It is perhaps worse than ever today, but partisan impasses are not novel. There is also nothing new about presidents’ creatively reinterpreting the law in order to justify executive policies. What is new is the relationship between these two factors — invoking gridlock as a justification for redefining executive authority. This disruptive constitutional philosophy poses a threat to our separation of powers. It establishes a precedent for this and future presidents to permanently blur the lines between the executive and legislative prerogatives.

On the cover, the President is aptly erasing the “Take Care” clause from the Constitution. Indeed.

Today we will provide an introduction to buying and selling homes, and go over the contract of sale.

All of Texas’s standardized sales contract forms are available here. You may wish to take a look at the Texas Real Estate Commission Residential Sales Contract, which we will go over in class.

The lecture note are here, and the live chat is here.

The site of the first case, Licari v. Blackwelder, is in Westport, CT.

[googlemaps https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q=westport,+ct&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Westport,+Fairfield,+Connecticut&gl=us&ll=41.141472,-73.357905&spn=0.078224,0.152607&t=h&z=13&output=embed&w=425&h=350]

 

The Texas Statute of Frauds provides:

Sec. 26.01.  PROMISE OR AGREEMENT MUST BE IN WRITING. (a) A promise or agreement described in Subsection (b) of this section is not enforceable unless the promise or agreement, or a memorandum of it, is

(1)  in writing; and

(2)  signed by the person to be charged with the promise or agreement or by someone lawfully authorized to sign for him.

(b)  Subsection (a) of this section applies to:

(1)  a promise by an executor or administrator to answer out of his own estate for any debt or damage due from his testator or intestate;

(2)  a promise by one person to answer for the debt, default, or miscarriage of another person;

(3)  an agreement made on consideration of marriage or on consideration of nonmarital conjugal cohabitation;

(4)  a contract for the sale of real estate;

(5)  a lease of real estate for a term longer than one year;

(6)  an agreement which is not to be performed within one year from the date of making the agreement;

(7)  a promise or agreement to pay a commission for the sale or purchase of:

(A)  an oil or gas mining lease;

(B)  an oil or gas royalty;

(C)  minerals;  or

(D)  a mineral interest;  and

(8)  an agreement, promise, contract, or warranty of cure relating to medical care or results thereof made by a physician or health care provider as defined in Section 74.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code.  This section shall not apply to pharmacists.

The Texas Enacted Uniform Electronic Transactions Act provides:

322.002-
(8)  “Electronic signature” means an electronic sound, symbol, or process attached to or logically associated with a record and executed or adopted by a person with the intent to sign the record.

322.005-
(b)  This chapter applies only to transactions between parties each of which has agreed to conduct transactions by electronic means.  Whether the parties agree to conduct a transaction by electronic means is determined from the context and surrounding circumstances, including the parties’ conduct.