Jim
Guest
|
Authored by Jim on Aug 6, 2015 15:05:48 GMT
Everything gets charged, but if your total bill is less than $15 in a quarter, it is waived. You should also install the RECAP browser extension: www.recapthelaw.org/Whenever you find something on PACER, the extension will upload the results to a public archive. For example, since I "paid" $1.50 for the docket listing yesterday, the public copy here was updated a few hours later: archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.utd.17917/gov.uscourts.utd.17917.docket.htmlThe extension will also link you to publicly available copies when available. Jim
|
|
|
Authored by wayneborean on Aug 7, 2015 12:16:11 GMT
Everything gets charged, but if your total bill is less than $15 in a quarter, it is waived. You should also install the RECAP browser extension: www.recapthelaw.org/Whenever you find something on PACER, the extension will upload the results to a public archive. For example, since I "paid" $1.50 for the docket listing yesterday, the public copy here was updated a few hours later: archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.utd.17917/gov.uscourts.utd.17917.docket.htmlThe extension will also link you to publicly available copies when available. Jim I remember PJ saying that some things on Pacer were free - but that was 4-5 years ago, and since I've spent the last ten years eating legal opiates, my memory isn't what it used to be. Wayne
|
|
|
Authored by cpeterson on Aug 29, 2015 4:17:49 GMT
OK, I got tired of waiting, so I went to the Federal Court and demanded to know what's going on.
(Well, actually,... I did get tired of waiting.
And I did go to the Federal Court.
And I did... request some help on using PACER. [Did you know that if you go to the courthouse, it IS free? As long as you don't print anything, anyway. Looky look by the hour, take paper and pencil, or give up 10 cents per page for printing - but you really do get to see what you're spending your money on first.]
And I looked up the "attorneys" link on case no. 2:03-cv-0294-DN, and found a very long list of people, none of whom were Jason Cyrulnik.
And I didn't actually demand to know what was going on, but I did ask a clerk how to find out if someone has been admitted pro hac vice on a particular case. And I found out that a good way to do it is to ask a clerk.)
Answer to my demand: No. On this particular case, J. Cyrulnik has not been admitted. He was on SCO v. Novell, but is not (so far) on SCO v. IBM.
And when you ask what happens if an un-admitted lawyer files documents on a case, the clerk's eyebrows go up. Way, way up; a kind of "I haven't been this not-bored all day" look.
So, she checked out some things.
No, this isn't a problem, she says. Docket #1158 is OK, because it was filed by Brent O. Hatch, who is a member of the bar for this court. It's OK for someone else to write the filing, the clerk tells me; just as long as the filing is signed by an admitted lawyer.
And, on the attached letter, that's OK, too. It's just an attachment to the filing, so comes in on its authority.
So I asked what an un-admitted lawyer can't do. Well, he can't be in court, the clerk tells me. Then corrects herself: he can be in court, and he can sit with the other lawyers, but he can't speak on the case. Unless the judge asks him. Anyway, he can't make motions or objections or otherwise litigate. Unless directed by the judge. Actually... the judge can pretty well do whatever he wants.
Except for filing documents. The way into the Docket was made by the Clerks, and the Clerks keep it. No mortal lawyer may enter here without the Mark of the Bar in his palm, and on his forehead, a drachma on his lips, and a fee on his Visa card.
We track that, said the clerk. (Meaning the admissions, not my hyperbole.)
Without further ado, BSF / Jason Cyrulnik's letter to Judge Nuffer.
Wow. Way to lay down the law on them Nazgul. I'll just repeat one sentence: Yep. Asking SCO to not use the 78 paragraphs of stuff under seal is unacceptable. Once you realize that is what they're after, IBM's response - even taken through BSF's skew - is pretty understandable. Just stand there and watch a tumbleweed blow by.
Everybody's watching everybody, nobody's making the first move... SCO pretending they don't realize they just egged themselves...
Or maybe the Judge doesn't remember those were sealed? Or maybe SCO has a nefarious plan we're not seeing yet? Or maybe IBM didn't take it seriously? All of my scenarios should result in somebody doing something.
I'm still tired of waiting.
|
|
|
Authored by wayneborean on Aug 30, 2015 8:29:23 GMT
I'm puzzled. Obviously SCO is trying to do something. But why?
I suspect we'll see one incredibly annoyed judge.
|
|
|
Authored by wayneborean on Sept 10, 2015 14:38:25 GMT
Just checked Groklaw. No new filings listed.
|
|
|
Authored by cpeterson on Sept 11, 2015 15:55:48 GMT
|
|
|
Authored by wayneborean on Sept 11, 2015 17:24:38 GMT
|
|
swmech
Veteran Member
Posts: 152
|
Authored by swmech on Sept 22, 2015 22:02:36 GMT
I think the Honorable Judge Nuffer's Vizzini imitation needs work... I keep looking over at Groklaw to see if any new filings have been added, but there's nothing new over there since SCO's self-righteous whine in 1158. I find it hard to believe that Judge Nuffer would let a 7/20 deadline slide for two months without comment, but I don't have Pacer access (or, to be more honest, I don't have the foggiest idea what I'd do with it, sigh...). Has there been any activity out there at all?
|
|
Jim
Guest
|
Authored by Jim on Sept 23, 2015 15:20:15 GMT
Date of last filing is still: 07/23/2015
|
|
|
Authored by wayneborean on Sept 23, 2015 16:26:50 GMT
I think the Honorable Judge Nuffer's Vizzini imitation needs work... I keep looking over at Groklaw to see if any new filings have been added, but there's nothing new over there since SCO's self-righteous whine in 1158. I find it hard to believe that Judge Nuffer would let a 7/20 deadline slide for two months without comment, but I don't have Pacer access (or, to be more honest, I don't have the foggiest idea what I'd do with it, sigh...). Has there been any activity out there at all? The anticipation is killing me. Wayne
|
|
swmech
Veteran Member
Posts: 152
|
Authored by swmech on Oct 12, 2015 19:15:59 GMT
The anticipation is killing me. Wayne And it 's just getting worse. Nothing new on GL after 1158. I find it odd, even a bit worrisome that a) Judge Nuffer would be so adamant in his statement that 7/20 is the deadline for the parties' responses and then let it go for months without a response of his own, and b) that IBM would let 1158 become the de facto "official" response by not filing their own response that says "umm - SCO? You missed a few details there..." C'mon, parties - I'm turnin' blue holding my breath, here.
|
|
|
Authored by cpeterson on Oct 16, 2015 0:29:40 GMT
Yesterday I happened to be up in midtown so I went to the Federal Court building to check again. Normally, the security folks ask what you're there for as you go through security; they didn't yesterday, maybe they've seen me enough to start making assumptions.
Anyway - the Court is still there; Judge Nuffer is still there; he still has an active case load. (And, I suppose, an inactive case load as well.) But, sure enough, there's nothing new on SCO Group v. International Business Machines, 2:03cv00294.
So, that means that nobody wants to make the next move, because ___________. (You fill in the blank - I've tried, and all of my ideas are known to be wrong already.)
|
|
|
Authored by wayneborean on Oct 16, 2015 8:56:30 GMT
Yesterday I happened to be up in midtown so I went to the Federal Court building to check again. Normally, the security folks ask what you're there for as you go through security; they didn't yesterday, maybe they've seen me enough to start making assumptions. Anyway - the Court is still there; Judge Nuffer is still there; he still has an active case load. (And, I suppose, an inactive case load as well.) But, sure enough, there's nothing new on SCO Group v. International Business Machines, 2:03cv00294. So, that means that nobody wants to make the next move, because ___________. ( You fill in the blank - I've tried, and all of my ideas are known to be wrong already.) Because it'll bring on the ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE!
|
|
swmech
Veteran Member
Posts: 152
|
Authored by swmech on Oct 16, 2015 19:47:43 GMT
Because it'll bring on the ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE! Given how long this case has been "dead," that's not entirely implausible...
|
|
MSS2
Guest
|
Authored by MSS2 on Oct 20, 2015 22:01:01 GMT
Yesterday I happened to be up in midtown so I went to the Federal Court building to check again. Normally, the security folks ask what you're there for as you go through security; they didn't yesterday, maybe they've seen me enough to start making assumptions. Anyway - the Court is still there; Judge Nuffer is still there; he still has an active case load. (And, I suppose, an inactive case load as well.) But, sure enough, there's nothing new on SCO Group v. International Business Machines, 2:03cv00294. So, that means that nobody wants to make the next move, because ___________. ( You fill in the blank - I've tried, and all of my ideas are known to be wrong already.) Because the Utah court has decided that the whole case is stupid, and a complete waste of time? And therefore the Utah court has decided to simply stall, until the bankruptcy court does what it should have done *years* ago and close down SCO? I can wish, anyway...
|
|