Need further proof the institutionalized deck is stacked against us?
Your October surprise: “New York Times squares off against Bain Capital in federal court”:
U.S. District Court Judge Edward F. Harrington has given lawyers for Bain Capital three weeks to convince him that previously sealed documents in a long-running anti-trust lawsuit should remain out of the public eye.
A group of plaintiff shareholders filed suit in 2007, alleging that Bain and other major private equity firms had colluded to “rig bids” in order to drive down prices on companies under consideration for purchase.
For nearly five years, the parties filed most of their substantive pleadings under seal. But then The New York Times, represented by Robert A. Bertsche and Jeffrey J. Pyle, of Prince, Lobel, Tye, stepped in with a motion to intervene seeking to lift Harrington’s order.
Bain, co-founded by Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney, and the other defendants countered that any presumption of public access is outweighed by their private interests in retaining confidentiality.
But in a Sept. 14 order, Harrington told the companies they had not persuaded him that unsealing the materials would be improper.
“While the Complaint appears to contain information related to relevant business interests, the Defendants have failed to explain how the particular information that they have redacted causes specific and severe harm,” Harrington writes. “The Defendants at this time have only supported their position with general assertions of harm, which are insufficient to overcome a presumption of public access.”
If the defendants fail to meet their burden, the Times could succeed in ensuring the materials come to light prior to Election Day on Nov. 6.
While Pyle would not discuss the presidential angle, the Boston lawyer told Lawyers Weekly that Harrington’s order properly recognizes the importance of the public’s right to access judicial documents.
“Judge Harrington’s order makes clear that Bain and the other defendants have a heavy burden,” Pyle says. “They have to show that the information they want to redact is so competitively sensitive and that the harm is so great that it outweighs the strong and steady presumption in favor of public access. It is our position that they can’t do that.”
David H. Rich of Todd & Weld in Boston, who dealt with a similar public access question before the 1st Circuit, says the great weight of federal authority has come out against the sealing of pleadings such as complaints.
The fact that a defendant could suffer embarrassment if allegations become public is hardly grounds to keep court filings off limits, he says.
Just so we’re clear, this is the same NYT who wouldn’t print the Mohammed cartoons, but who would print leaked national security documents. So let’s just note for the record that, as I’ve been saying for a while now, the clean-up and restoration of this country needs to begin with the reclamation of language, followed by a complete reconsideration of the mainstream press and its “access.”
But beyond all that — because naturally, we’ll be told in solemn and serious tones the importance of such unsealings, etc. (I guess if you can’t find divorce filings to unseal, you go after what you can find, right Barry?) — what the Romney camp needs to do in response is either mount a furious defense, or else prepare to have the records unsealed simultaneous to very public, very constant demands that the LA Times release the Khalidi tape (which could shed light into the “accidental” “organic” nature of the “Arab Spring”); that Obama release the academic records he’s paid big money to keep hidden from view (which could, as with Elizabeth Warren, shed light on how a pot-smoking dude named Barry turned into an Occidental/Columbia/Harvard student named “Barack”); and that the Romney campaign switch gears away from “Obama the nice, incompetent President” to “Obama the sleazy Chicago thug pol run by a cabal of New Leftists, communists, and transnational progressivists who really meant it when he said he wanted to ‘fundamentally transform’ the US into something resembling the crumbling welfare states all over Europe which are themselves run by an entrenched and permanent ruling elite — a complete antithesis to the ideas of our foundings.
Of course, this won’t happen, because I’m convinced many in the GOP establishment don’t much care if Romney wins. A Romney loss assures permanent government control over health care, and essentially completes the transformation of the country into one where the central government controls the lion’s share of all power. Which pleases the status quo, who recognize that, likely in 2016 — with a Chris Christie / Jeb Bush ticket that has them salivating — they can finish the job off while removing the nonsensical Marxist ideology that unnecessarily pollutes the technocratic state.
They will manage the Rockefeller Republican paradise of supreme central power — throwing in low taxes and pro-business policies, while horsetrading on liberties under the guise of “health” or “the environment” or “the children.”
This is all happening, people. I know it’s hard to wrap your head around, but the miracle is that we’ve been able to stave such power lust off for so long. The Constitution has been our defense. But the incoherent linguistic and hermeneutic methods for “democratizing” interpretation and removing a text from the agency who produced it — all so we can pretend it lives somehow outside of human subjectivity — has reduced it to but a plaything for clever judges wishing to put a stamp on their “legacies.”
I hate to say it but it needs saying: we won’t have this country back, ever, the way it was. What we may have is a country very similar to the one our founders envisioned once enough people / states refuse to accept as legitimate the unconstitutional dictates of tyrants, in all branches of government, sold as “evolving” jurisprudence and legitimate constitutional legislation, when clearly on it’s face it is not.
Screw SCOTUS precedent. Screw stare decisis. The very idea that because someone somewhere made an awful decision, we can’t go back and rectify that — but must instead find ways around it, or else build on top of it — nullifies the Constitution and replaces it with ever-changing judicial oligarchies.
I didn’t sign up for that. And I know so because I live under the Declaration of Independence, not the “Legacy Doctrine of Hugo Black or John Roberts.”
Time for the TEA Party to get real.
(h/t RI Red)