Monday, May 26, 2025

Happy Memorial Day. Honoring Service to America.


Happy Memorial Day. The photos are of my family members who served in the U.S. Armed Forces. L to R, my mother Penny Gillespie, my brother Mark Gillespie, and me, Neil Gillespie, on the deck of the USS Thomas S. Gates at the commissioning ceremony August 22, 1987 in Philadelphia. 

My maternal grandfather John Diver (1896-1956) enlisted in the Army near the end of WWI. A baker by trade, he served four months as a cook to a Captain. John Diver was stationed stateside in Company 45, 153 Depot Brigade. Grandpa Diver was honorably discharged on January 4, 1919. My grandfather died the year I was born, so I did not know him. In 2015 my Uncle Jack told me John Diver's mother, Martha Diver, was Jewish. John Diver's father, Joseph Diver, was Irish Catholic. The 1910 census shows my grandfather was an orphan by then. After WWI John Diver was a baker for the Keebler cookie company in Philadelphia.

My Uncle Jack, John "Jack" Diver (1927-2017) served in the Navy during WWII aboard the USS Teton, an amphibious force command ship, during the Battle of Okinawa. Jack Diver was in Tokyo Bay on September 2, 1945 for the surrender of Japan. After his honorable discharge, Uncle Jack worked in Washington, D.C., as a representative for the Lathers Union now part of The United Brotherhood of Carpenters.  I witnessed first-hand how unions can benefit families and society. As I wrote previously, I believe it is time for a People's union to support nonlawyers who appear pro se in court. A People's Bar in order for nonlawyers to get a fair day in court as required by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and of Florida and the other states.

My father, Cornelius "Neil" Gillespie (1928-2002), was a Sergeant in the U.S. Army, stationed in Hanau, Germany (1951-1953) and stateside in the reserves until 1957. By the luck of a coin toss Dad was spared Korea. My father attended the Adjutant General’s School, Fort Benjamin Harrison, Indiana, where he was trained to use a computer for inventory control for the Army Corps of Engineers. Dad was honorably discharged January 3, 1957. My father worked for Keystone Insurance Company in Philadelphia (1946-1966) initially in the mail room, and in computer operations after returning from active duty. 

My parents met while working at Keystone, married in 1955, and moved to Levittown, PA. Dad was the data processing manager for Bayuk Cigars in Philadelphia from 1966-1975. (Honeywell 200 mainframe). When Bayuk moved its operations to Fort Lauderdale, Florida, my father left the company and stayed in Levittown, and worked for other companies in the Philadelphia area, as a programmer, computer systems analyst, a computer operator (IBM System/370 mainframe) and had non-computer jobs, including sales, and title clerk for my business, Kar Kingdom in Langhorne, PA. 

My brother Mark Gillespie (1958-2022) was a Sergeant in the U.S. Air Force (1976-1980) and trained on the AWACS surveillance plane. After his tour of duty ended, Mark worked for Lockheed Martin as an Engineering Project Manager. In Moorestown, New Jersey, Mark managed the Naval Electronics and Surveillance Systems (Surface Systems) for the Aegis guided missile cruiser USS Thomas S. Gates. The photo shows my mother Penny, Mark, and me, on the deck of the USS Thomas S. Gates at the commissioning ceremony August 22, 1987 in Philadelphia. Mark's career with Lockheed Martin later took him to Fort Worth, Texas, where he was a Project Manager on the F-16 Fighting Falcon

Mark's wife of 40 years, Jody, was in the U.S. Navy, trained as an aviation hydraulics mechanic. Jody was based in Beeville, Texas and Keflavik, Iceland for most of her tour of duty. Jody was in the Navy about a year ahead of the time Mark was in the Air Force, and got out of the military sooner than he did. Jody was from a military family. Her Dad's work for the military kept them moving across Europe and North Africa most of her childhood and teenage years. 

In 1974 I registered with the Selective Service System when I turned age 18, but was not drafted. Wikipedia notes, "Active conscription in the United States ended in January 1973, and the U.S. Armed Forces moved to an all-volunteer military except for draftees called up through the end of 1972." This coincided with the draw down of the Armed Forces preceding the end of the Vietnam War on April 30, 1975. In 1990 during the buildup to the Gulf War, I sought to enlist at the recruiting office on Germantown Avenue at North Broad Street and Erie Avenue in Philadelphia. This recruiting office was just a few blocks from my business on West Erie Avenue, Joe's Erie Ave. Auto Sales. After graduating from Penn a year earlier, I planned to enlist with my new degree and go to Officer Candidate School. But I learned an old injury to my right ankle prevented me from enlisting. In 1976 orthopedic surgery to repair a broken ankle left me with a large metal screw in my foot to hold the bones together. An attorney I consulted at the time thought I might successfully contest this disqualification, but my age was another issue. In 1990 I was age 34, with about six months left before I turned 35, the age limit to enlist at that time. 

Subsequently I learned a speech impairment affecting the ability to repeat commands is grounds for 4-F military medical disqualification. Also cleft lip or palate defects, unless satisfactorily repaired by surgery, can be 4-F disqualification. Traumatic brain injury from August 20, 1988 was also grounds for 4-F disqualification in appointment, enlistment and induction, although I was not accurately diagnosed at that time.  




Thursday, May 15, 2025

Letter to Kat Cammack PACER Fees Class Action

Letter to Kat Cammack PACER Fees Class Action

U.S. Congresswoman Kat Cammack
5550 Northwest 111th Boulevard
Gainesville, FL 32653

RE: PACER Fees Class Action
https://www.pacerfeesclassaction.com/

Dear Congresswoman Cammack,

As one of your constituents, this is my comment on a federal class action lawsuit against the federal judiciary over PACER fees, a matter not getting sufficient current coverage in the press.

PACER is an acronym for Public Access to Court Electronic Records, and is the electronic public access service for United States federal court (Wikipedia) documents. It allows authorized users to obtain case and docket information from the United States district courts, United States courts of appeals, and United States bankruptcy courts, but not the U.S. Supreme Court. The system is managed by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (Wikipedia) in accordance with the policies of the Judicial Conference (Wikipedia)(FJC)(28 USC 331) headed by U.S. Chief Justice John G. Roberts.

The case alleges the federal judiciary overcharged users of PACER by millions dollars, see:

National Veterans Legal Services Program, et al. v. United States
U.S. District Court, District of Columbia, Case No. 1:16-CV-00745-PLF
U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, Docket No. 2024-1757
https://www.pacerfeesclassaction.com/court-documents.aspx

I am a member of the class. I paid $976.56 to the federal judiciary for PACER fees during the time covered by the case, April 21, 2010 to May 31, 2018. The law firm MOTLEY RICE LLC represents the class, and represents me as a member of the class.

The Complaint alleges the federal judiciary violated the E-Government Act of 2002 (DOJ)(Congress) that authorizes PACER fees "as a charge for services rendered," but "only to the extent necessary" and "to reimburse expenses in providing these services." The Complaint alleges at Paragraph 28 "…the plaintiffs believe that the number of class members is approximately 2,000,000."

Two million victims in a case against the federal judiciary headed by Chief Justice John Roberts? I believe this shows the federal judiciary needs more oversight by Congress. (House Judiciary Committee) (Congressional oversight, Wikipedia)

The Complaint [Dkt. No. 1] alleges the federal judiciary limits PACER fee waivers, and targets those who cannot pay. One example appears at paragraph 25, page 12, and alleges:

25. The other example is from five years earlier, when private collection lawyers representing the PACER Service Center brought suit in the name of the United States against "a single mother of two minor children" who had "no assets whatsoever," claiming that she owed $30,330.80 in PACER fees. See Compl. in United States v. Deanna Manning, No. 07-cv-04595, filed July 3, 2007 (C.D. Cal.); Answer, Dkt. 12, filed Oct. 16, 2007. Representing herself, the woman "admit[ted] to downloading and printing a small amount [of] material from PACER, no more than $80 worth," which "would be 1,000 pages, actually much more than she remembers printing." Answer, Dkt. 12, at 1. But she explained that "[t]here is no way she would have had enough paper and ink to print 380,000 pages as the Complaint alleges," so "[t]his must be a huge mistake." Id. She concluded: "Our great and just government would have better luck squeezing blood from a lemon than trying to get even a single dollar from this defendant who can barely scrape up enough money to feed and clothe her children." Id. at 2. Only then did the government dismiss the complaint.

The Introduction section from Dkt. No. 148, Plaintiff's Revised Motion For Preliminary Approval Of Class Settlement, paragraphs 1 and 2, state:

In the history of American litigation, this case is unique: a certified class action against the federal judiciary. The plaintiffs challenged the fees that the judiciary charges for access to records through its Public Access to Court Electronic Records system, or PACER. They sought to vindicate a single claim: that the judiciary violated the law by charging fees that exceeded the cost of providing the records. And they sought one form of relief: refunds.

After more than six years of hard-fought litigation, the plaintiffs have now secured a historic settlement under which the government must reimburse the vast majority of PACER users in full—100 cents on the dollar—for past PACER charges. The settlement creates a common fund of $125 million from which each class member will automatically be reimbursed up to $350 for any PACER fees paid between April 21, 2010, and May 31, 2018. Those who paid over $350 in fees during that period will receive their pro rata share of the remaining settlement funds. Any unclaimed funds after this initial distribution will be allocated evenly to all class members who collected their initial payment (subject to the caveat that no class member may receive more than the total fees that she paid). In addition to this remarkable monetary relief, the case has spurred the judiciary to eliminate fees for 75% of users going forward and prompted action in Congress to abolish the fees altogether.

The case settled on March 20, 2024 for $125 million; $100 million reimburses PACER users for fees they paid over eight years, and $25 million for Attorney's Fees, Costs, and Service Awards.

On March 20, 2024, U.S. District Judge Paul L. Friedman entered an Opinion [Dkt. No. 169] that Granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval of Class Settlement and for Attorney's Fees, Costs, and Service Awards [Dkt. No. 158], and entered the Final Judgment and Order on Final Approval of Class Settlement, Attorney's Fees, Costs, and Service Awards. [Dkt. No. 170]. 

On April 30, 2024 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit docketed appeal number 2024-1757 filed by Appellant Eric Alan Isaacson, a member of the California bar since 1985, according to his website, Law Office of Eric Alan Isaacson, https://www.ericalanisaacson.com/

The PACER Fees Class Action website, Court Documents page, shows the final appeal briefs were filed in December 2024. 

So now we await for the Federal Circuit's ruling on the appeal. Given Mr. Isaacson's position, I would expect him to appeal any adverse ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.

This case was initially commenced April 21, 2016, and is still in litigation almost 10 years later.

The federal judiciary violated the E-Government Act of 2002. The federal judiciary ignored the will of The People, through their Representatives in Congress who enacted the E-Government Act of 2002. If this case ultimately goes to the U.S. Supreme Court, how can the Court, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, rule on this matter given the federal judiciary's conflict of interest? And what about Chief Justice Roberts' conflict of interest as head of the Judicial Conference? Judges are not supposed to rule on their own cases. The Code of Conduct for United States Judges, Canon 3(C) Disqualification, would ordinarily apply, but not to justices of the Supreme Court. Since November 13, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court has its own Code of Conduct.

The Senate Judiciary Committee released the findings of its 20-month investigation into the ethical crisis at the Supreme Court, including the results of committee subpoenas. A Press Release December 21, 2024 is attached. Links to the full report and appendices appear below.

The federal judiciary has been criticized, and the PACER Fees Class Action is further evidence that the criticism is justified. I believe its time for Congress to abolish the fees altogether.

Sincerely,
/s/
Neil J. Gillespie
2801 SW College Rd, STE 3
Ocala, FL 34474-4430        

Cc: Nicole Chaney, Attorney at Law, nchaney@motleyrice.com
Motley Rice LLC, pacerlitigation@motleyrice.com

An Investigation of the Ethics Challenge at the Supreme Court - Report Only

An Investigation of the Ethics Challenge at the Supreme Court - Appendices Only

Enclosures; signed privacy act form for Neil J. Gillespie

Appendix of PACER News Stories, 2012-2016