Barr/Trump “Star Chamber” Police Commission Slap Down, Completed Tonight: NAACP’s Completed 100% Win, In DC… G’night!
February 24, 2021

Welp, that’s game — set — and match. The level of distain evinced, here — for well settled law — by AG Barr and Tangerine. . . was simply jaw-slacking. But now it is over, completely. We will indeed shortly read all of the secret dealings undertaken, and the secret militarized policing thrusts the “star chamber” sought to advance, against her own citizens. Without any of her ordinary citizens having the basic right to give input on the moves toward. . . budding fascism.

Deplorable. Here is the cogently-reasoned opinion, from Judge Bates.

. . .[T]he Court concludes that defendants must disclose documents submitted to the Commission or any Commissioner, or through the Commission’s official channels, for consideration by the full Commission — even if not ultimately provided to all Commissioners. Additionally, defendants must disclose any document authorized by Commissioners and represented as having been prepared on behalf of the full Commission—even if some Commissioners did not see the document. Such documents were clearly “prepared for or by” the Commission even if, for whatever reason, they were not “made available to” some Commissioners. . . .

In particular, the Court agrees with LDF that defendants cannot categorically withhold public comments not provided to the full Commission. Such comments were surely prepared for the Commission and submitted for its consideration. The Commission directed members of the public, including LDF, to submit comments to the Commission’s email account. See Dixon Decl. Ex. A [ECF No. 25-26] at 1 (stating that comments “must” be submitted to [email address]). LDF, like others who submitted public comments, “had no way of ensuring that its public comment was shared with each Commissioner to consider as intended or just a handful of Commission members.” See Mot. to Compel at 9–10. The fact that a gatekeeper withheld certain comments from some Commissioners does not immunize those comments from public disclosure. Similarly, defendants must disclose other materials sent to or from the Commission’s official email account that comport with the Court’s understanding of Section 10(b).

The Court also agrees with LDF that defendants must disclose documents in which the Commission solicited input from specific third parties in preparation for hearings — if authorized by at least one Commissioner and represented as being sent on behalf of the entire Commission — and any responses sent for consideration by the full Commission. . . .

[Finally,] the Court concludes that the Commission’s working groups are themselves advisory committees subject to FACA. Accordingly, the Court will order defendants to disclose documents that were “made available to or prepared for or by” the working groups. . . .

So ends the lawless time of Barr’s “Star Chamber.” Onward.

नमस्ते