THE IMPOSSIBLE LEGAL RESEARCH FEES OF THE USA
- Feb 1
- 5 min read
Updated: Mar 8
[ at the bottom of this page youll find links to the fee schedules of the courts and national archives and the rough of a story showing this is one of the least of the issues]
The United States has changed dramatically over its short history, the ideals the founders laid foundations for have come to fruition, while some of the concepts they understood and principles they professed were incongruent with the practices of the colonies and some colonies continued practices in clear unalignment with the intent, others were already in practice, One of the issues mentioned in the Declaration of Independence was access to the courts, the King had made it impossible for laws of importance to be implemented by the colonists and required great burdens to obtain innocence and
If you wanted to understand the history of our Nation, the practice and application of law after the colonist rose up against all the practices stated of the Declaration of Independence. If you wanted to understand what the founders, the colonists and their representatives understood as the rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"; as well as the rest of the entitlements the preamble to the Constitution details as the insurances... granted you would have quit a hard time, If you had a more pressing issue; such as a legal issue you believe the current law and precedent of the court was in clear violation of the Constitutional rights we posses... You would have a serious issue.
The issue is the current practice of the nation to make it impossible for the average American to do legal research.. Where the costs to do legal research in a single case can be hundreds and even thousands.. Where deprivation to access binding precedent and legal documents are matters where the recent and some sitting congressional government says cost is the burden of the people; not the government.
What it does is create a nation of people who don't know their history and can't exert their rights to properly steer their government away from other violations of the people's rights, A rights violation that permits the government to commit further violations of the people's rights.
Despite the courts having repeatedly stated access to the courts and information is a constitutional entitlement..
[ Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 (2004) access to courts is a fundamental right; Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371 (1971) administrative costs cannot justify blocking access to judicial processes; Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977) The government must provide meaningful access to the courts, and administrative burden or cost does not excuse noncompliance; M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102 (1996) resource strain or cost-saving can not justify denial; Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12 (1956) “there can be no equal justice where the kind of trial a man gets depends on the amount of money he has.”...
What all these cases should (and do) mean is reasonable accommodation must be made to ensure the facilities of the courts are accessible; that includes the historical precedent and court cases held in the state and federal records, It should mean free access to Pacer "the courts online depository of cases since 91 or earlier...."
But that's not what the Nation does, its not what the Judiciary did...
“In 1988, the Judiciary sought appropriations from the U.S. Congress to provide electronic public access to court records. However, Congress did not provide the funds and instead directed the Judiciary to fund the initiative through user fees.”
[This was one of the first acts of Nancy Pelosi — Ca; Mitch McConnell — Ky; Steny Hoyer — Md; Hal Rogers — Ky; Chris Smith — NJ ]..
Did the Supreme court tell them there was no issue, no, not that Im aware of and further there seems to be no record of the votes to determine who voted in opposition and who voted in favor, so no transparency...
But worse than passing a law that would make doing legal research then and today a feat that can cost hundreds to thousands of dollars to obtain a single cases relevant documents...
The courts already knew the congress had earlier ordered: Title 28 (Federal Court Fees) — Enacted in 1948 The authority for federal court fees — including retrieval, copying, and certification fees...
and Title 44 (National Archives) — Enacted in 1968 The core statutory authority for NARA’s reproduction and retrieval fees — including 44 U.S.C. § 2116 and 44 U.S.C. § 2307
These three laws together make the nations federal history impossible to retrieve and review... allowing the current courts perversions and deprivations of the people in the rules and procedures of the courts that make discovery to costly for the average injured person to perform and litigation to technical to allow the injured and uneducated and time lacking injured to obtain compensation by legal redress..
In sum our Nations courts by Federal design and lower court adherence have effectively eliminated our pledges professing of "justice for all (1892)"
If you want to argue for your constitutional rights, you can find lots of opinions even old ones all the way back to Marbury v. Madison (1803) A right without a remedy is no right at all; and ; “It is the duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”, [meaning a judge must give a complete ruling and a deficient ruling is an issue of judicial misconduct or a nesecary to record instance of or a clear showing of judicial disability.]
But you will not be able to review the docket entries the opinion came to its conclusion from, you will not know the specifics of the case beyond the opinions detailing and all this is to say, you will not know because the US government didnt want you to or didnt care or didnt understand the law to see they were performing one of the very practices the colonist detailed in the Decleration...
This is not the worst deprivation of the courts, it is minor in comparison to the fact the judiciaries of the state and federal civil courts in their current precedential and rules and procedures practices that make it impossible for the middle and lower class (the working class) the young, the unestablished and the old to obtain compensation for their injuries in the civil courts....
An article is in the works, but understanding it requires an understanding of info most people are never made aware of..., till then here are some of the issues
Early American courts (1789–1850) were not purely adversarial. (meaning the judges were not referees) They were active, interventionist, judge‑guided tribunals (similar to an inquisitor judicial system where the judge does not dismiss cases for technicalities, or rule in favor of clearly guilty civil violators because the plaintiff made a technical error or made a mistake in discovery or litigation in court) that:
corrected pleadings, (AMENDMENTS TO CLAIMS EVEN AFTER VERDICTS)
Judiciary Act of 1789, § 32 Required federal courts to permit amendments “at any time” and to disregard “defects of form.” Where even after a verdict a person could amend the claims in the pursuit of justice, Justice was the utmost priority of the early courts and this case shows that justice was the right of a plaintiff or a defendant even when technical errors were made because the merits of the claims and cases were what mattered not a judge clearing their docket... Matheson's Administrators v. Grant (1805)
showing early courts were merits‑focused and non‑technical.
depositions performed by court officials
questioned witnesses, (Judges on occasion still do this, but if I read and remember correctly, it was more than a right, it was a duty to ensure justice without delay)
allowed amendments at any time, Garland v. Davis, 45 U.S. 131 (1846)
and ensured cases were decided on the merits, not technicalities.
FEE SCHEDULES OF THE COURTS AND NATIONAL ARCHIVES:
District Court Miscellaneous Fee Schedule (#7 for paper dockets, anything older than pacer)
Comments