Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly said FACA âis likely unfamiliar to even seasoned legal practitioners.â
WTF? Ask ANY fed who has ever had to convene a meeting of a federal advisory committee, and all the interest groups that expect certain protocol to be followed and they will ALL say they know about FACA and how much trouble they can be in if they donât adhere. Once again, ignorance is the excuse that gets these fuckers off the hook when itâs not ignorance at all but rather deliberation obfuscation.
Why would the public need to be in the meeting? Just because itâs corrupt?
âis likely unfamiliar to even seasoned legal practitioners.â
As a lawyer myself, I can tell you that would infuriate me. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Period.
As for the rest of her opinion, it actually isnât that bad and clearly leaves open the possibility of revisiting the issue. Still, I have to wonder WTF she was thinking even making that stupid comment about nobody knowing about that law. Thatâs some ragtime shit right there.
âŚa transparency statute that Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly said âis likely unfamiliar to even seasoned legal practitioners.â
So, let me get this straight. The judge is arguing that if a law is little known, it basically doesnât exist?
I sure hope that the party bringing suit has a legal response to this.
âDefendants, in a declaration submitted to the Court under penalty of perjury, have represented that prior to the July 19 meeting, they will make publicly available: (i) the agenda for the meeting; (ii) public comments received by the Commission via its email account within a reasonable time in advance of the meeting; and (iii) âother documents that are prepared for or by the Commission,ââ Kollar-Kotelly wrote. âDocuments âprepared for or by the Commissionâ invariably must include documents that will be âused and discussedâ at the July 19 meeting.â
So are the agenda and the other documents, including those records related to a June 28 phone call referenced in the article, going to be posted more than 10 minutes before the meeting starts? Since July 19th is TOMORROW, one might think that âwithin a reasonable time in advance of the meetingâ would be more than a few hours.
True, but she basically listed things they should do that would have been required by adherence to FACA, so I donât get it. Either you comply or you donât and are subject to litigation. Iâm not a lawyer but was on the fed side arranging compliance with such sunshine laws. Departments and agencies [used to] take this seriously. Plus, she has basically told the rest of rumpsâ administration that they donât have to comply with FACA.
Does she know the law about ratfucking?
Correct me if Iâm wrong, but I understood it as her listing things they were doing or said they were going to do, not just âshould.â In other words, I think she found it was sufficient for the FACA, or at least purported to be, and is giving them a chance to complyâŚor hang themselves by not following through on what they were promising to do. Her annoying aside about the obscurity of FACA really had no bearing on the decision, but it still reveals that there was some brain damage rattling around in her head while making her decision.
Kind of ironic I supposeâŚher claiming that the sunshine law is itself obscure and in the shadows. WTF.
Well, hereâs one legal official President tweetythumbs is unlikely to declare unfit due to heritage or a âso calledâ judge.
though itâs not clear whether, before the Federal Registry announcement, anyone knew their feedback would be made public alongside sensitive contact information
Of course the public individuals didnât know, but the govât officials who exposed their personal contact information certainly knew and likely knew that those individuals will now be open to harrassment, intimidation and doxxing from the Trump brigade.
I suspect you have read the opinion, sniffit, but I think the statement about the obscurity of the law was merely preliminary and contextual to the questions before the court, and really had no import as to her ultimate decision. In context, itâs not as bad as the article makes it seem:
âAlthough the Commissionâs affairs have drawn substantial public attention, the legal issues involved are highly technical, implicating the jurisdiction of this Court and its ability to afford judicial review for Plaintiffâs claims, and requiring a finegrained analysis of a federal lawâFACAâthat is likely unfamiliar to even seasoned legal practitioners.â
And I do think the judge makes it pretty clear that the Commission must comply with FACA, but since this was a motion for a preliminary injunction and a TRO she did not find the Commission (yet) out of compliance, at least at this point. If I recall from some of the Bush Administration problems, this is a pretty good judge. And I suspect she will not hesitate to hold the Commission to the letter of the law, however obscure it may be.
The Pence/Kobach voter suppression commission has zero credibility. All Democrats serving on it should resign and avoid being associated with it.
Thanks
Thanks robâŚvery helpful. She fired a warning shot, which is not clear to my untrained eye.
Barring the public is strange when you consider Natalia Veselnitskaya and Rinat Akhmetshin have been invited to tell the panel how Russia thinks our election processes can be improved.