BA posted this in another thread:
There are valid reasons for letting the public use PACER (subject to the $0.08 a page fee), but not ECF -- namely the possibility for abuse and an interest to let the public view court files since they are public anyways.
Think about it -- in a normal case, the clerk accepts papers for filing. The clerk may choose to reject such filings -- I am dealing with a couple of high profile appeals in the Circuit Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, and you can bet that they can and do reject filings that are not in substantial compliance (I had one brief struck because one of the junior attorneys I am on the case with forgot the word certification on the last page -- luckily we had time to fix it).
Attorneys are expected to comply with the rules and things can be done to them that the pro se litigant need not worry about. Moreover, a court is more apt to strike a pleading from an attorney than a pro se litigant. While everyone is subject to Rule 11, everytime I sign a pleading, I very much put my reputation, and in some instances my ability to practice law on the line. If a pro se litigant files a frivolous suit, they might get hit with attorney fees, whereas if I do it, the possibility exists for discipline from the bar.
Imagine the pissed off pro se prisoner plaintiff (the WORST to defend against, because they are generally unintelligible, quote the bible, and talk about how Abraham will smite thee for not listening to them -- TRUE STORY FROM A PLEADING I FILED DEFENDING A POLICE CHIEF), serving several motions a day on the other side or otherwise screwing with the other side/the electronic filing system. Believe it or not, the clerk's office is an important filter with some of these litigants.
You also get into issues of registration, of providing a lot of passwords and what not for one time users and there are thus valid reasons for not giving pro se litigants access to ECF.
Megan now responds:
BA, the ECF battle has been fought and settled. I believe everyone involved learned something. The first thing I learned was that not all of the USDCs have their ECF up and running yet. I didn’t know that.
You claimed you did.
The other thing I learned is that some of the USDCs that are using ECF, are NOT allowing PS to use the system. That will surely change when someone challenges the policy, but until someone does, there ARE courts that are excluding PS.
Challenges the policy? 
God you are mental.
Arguing this point has been a frustrating endeavor ...
Yes, you have made it such.
do you now what it’s like to have people dismiss valid info just because it is coming from YOU???
I highly doubt he does. He makes sense Megan, you never have.
LOL Well, I broadened my knowledge on this issue so it was worth the aggravation.
LOL.
This is the beauty of reading on this site with an OPEN mind. It’s the beauty that makes the incredible amount of ugliness, tolerable.
It is not tolerable, in fact I think you are out of it mentally. You posted two years ago as if you needed advice about someone slandering you in a chat room, you then proceeded to attack almost every member of this forum. You went some where for two years, and I can assume it was a hospital. You then start reposting with your Inflated Ego ramblings.
You have serious mental issues Megan. "The beauty of this site"? "It's the beauty that makes the incredible amount of ugliness, tolerable"?
Seek help seriously. You are engulfed with this forum, and this forum does not like you, and you can't get your facts straight.
Learn Social Cues.
Paradise, who maintained till the end, “No court would even consider allowing a PS to use ECF” has learned that she was VERY wrong. Not that she is willing to admit it, but she learned.
I learned what? What I have been trying to tell you?
PS CAN and have been using the ECF in numerous USDCs for over a year, maybe two depending on the court.[/B]
TWO? Incredible. >>
Think about it -- in a normal case, the clerk accepts papers for filing. The clerk may choose to reject such filings –
The clerk’s jobs are secure! It’s just that now, instead of reviewing what came in the mail, they review what gets posted. They give each electronic filing the same scrutiny as always and they can delete a filing with the press of a few keys.
That contradicts all of your other ramblings.
Attorneys are expected to comply with the rules and things can be done to them that the pro se litigant need not worry about.
This is no doubt why some of the courts require a PS to get “approval” before they register them with ECF. Many of the courts require no such prior approval though because they realize, what the clerk giveth the clerk can taketh away...very quickly. There is little risk involved really. If the PS screws up any worse than the attorneys are screwing the ECF up, the clerk can simply take back the privilege. [/B]
Making up your own laws again? Your opinions are worthless.
Moreover, a court is more apt to strike a pleading from an attorney than a pro se litigant. While everyone is subject to Rule 11, everytime I sign a pleading, I very much put my reputation, and in some instances my ability to practice law on the line. If a pro se litigant files a frivolous suit, they might get hit with attorney fees, whereas if I do it, the possibility exists for discipline from the bar.
That situation is not changed at all by filing case documents electronically. A PS can’t file an original pleading electronically, because they can’t register with the system until they’ve had a case put on the docket.
I'll let BA deal with that one. God you love to argue.
As I tried to explain to Paradise,
You are not educated enough to explain anything to me, so get over your mental self.
the ECF is just replacing the US Mail.
No Megan, the ECF is not replacing the US mail.
Instead of mailing TONS of papers all over the place, you send the info everywhere it has to go digitally and only people who WANT a paper copy, print one out. It saves every one a LOT of time and money.
Are you the Court Spokesman? You tried to explain to me? Do you know what I do for a living? Nope!
>>Imagine the pissed off pro se prisoner plaintiff
Don’t quote me on this but I am pretty sure that prisoners are NOT allowed to use the ECF under any circumstances. At least, the various courts that I know of who allow PS to register, specifically state that prisoners need not apply!
>>Believe it or not, the clerk's office is an important filter with some of these litigants.
I believe you! Why did you just argue it then?
You also get into issues of registration, of providing a lot of passwords and what not for one time users and there are thus valid reasons for not giving pro se litigants access to ECF.
Take heart BA, PS do not get the same access that a licensed attorney gets. Their password only allows them to make changes to their OWN case. Everyone else is safe from the possibility of a crazed PS going postal on the system.
Take to heart? We already knew this Megan, it was you who did not.
Legal professionals are incredibly resistant to this change.
Say's who? You? Megan, you are to uneducated to make such a claim. You seem to forget your posting history..that surely proves you are ignorant.
I can imagine what it must have been like when they went from using typewriters to PC’s. But can anyone today imagine going back to the old typewriters? Progress can be good...it keeps us thinking.
Your head is spinning again.
Don't assume in anything you post that you have proven anything to me, if you do, I will cut you down. You are ignorant and uneducated and talk in circles to inflate your big ego. You have trashed people on this site from day one. You then try to kiss up in the most child like way's when you are wrong.
Look at this last post. IAAL is an attorney and look at how you respond. Your not in the legal field Megan, so stop pretending you are.
https://forum.freeadvice.com/showthread.php?t=196597
