(...FP'd by popular demand! - promoted by ctblogger)
As I've been working on these Citizens' Election Program posts (and one forthcoming on what a supplemental grant scheme would need to pass muster post-Davis v FEC), I've tried to do as much research and chase down as many original documents as I could. This has led me to PACER, the system by which the public can access electronic versions of most documents filed in the Federal courts.
PACER sucks. Not only do you need to sign up in a complicated fashion that requires either the immediate production of a credit card or waiting some period of time for a paper form to arrive in your mailbox (and, in my case, a call to the service desk where I talked to a very friendly customer service representative who was weirdly critical of my taste in sports teams), but you also have to pay per-page for every document -- including the search results that tell you whether or not there are any documents matching your request. To see if there have been any new documents filed in Green Party v Garfield, you have to pay 80 cents. A 100-page transcript will run you eight bucks, and there's no way to tell whether what's in it is what you were looking for before ponying up. And to go back to the list of documents will cost you another 80 cents. Ugh.
Anyway, as you can probably tell, I ran up a somewhat substantial bill in collecting all of this stuff, and if I'm the only person who ever has a chance to look at it, I'll cry. So I'm going to post up most of what I paid for, so anyone who's curious can flip through at their leisure. Consider it a mini-archive of liberated documents. You can see a list of files available in Green Party v Garfield here -- the first 403 documents -- and while I didn't get most of them, if there's something exciting that you know about that I missed, let me know and I'll consider letting the Feds spend a little bit more time with my credit card.
And, if you're interested in the somewhat obscure world of court document access policy, check out the RECAP site, a project (and browser plugin) to increase the availability of these kinds of files. Their front page has a lot of links to great resources and articles on the subject. |
Green Party v Garfield I
Supplemental Declaration by Jeffrey Garfield
Supplemental Declaration by Charles Sauer, Common Cause CT - Documenting lobbyist contributions and influence
Response to Motion to Compel - ACLU - Complaining about the request for documents by Common Cause and other intervenors, saying that an investigation into lobbyist business practices is inappropriate.
Response to Motion to Compel - attorneys for Gaffney Bennett and Jay Malcynsky
Letter - From intervenor-defendants on the motion to compel / subpoenas that the various lobbyists refused to honor.
Proposed motion to compel - From Common Cause/CCAG, to compel documents from various lobbyists.
Standing Letter - From the state, asserting that the Green Party lacks standing.
Motion to Intervene - The State Republican Party wanted to climb aboard to defend the honor of our brave men and women with lobbyist laminates. (Incidentally, their attorney in this case is now representing Foley in his case to block Fedele's supplemental funds.)
Opposition to Motion to Intervene - Common Cause and CCAG say that the GOP can't intervene because it's after the deadline to do so.
Reply to Opposition to Motion to Intervene - The state Republicans disagree.
Ruling on Motion to Intervene - Underhill prevents the CT GOP from joining the case.
Green Party v Garfield II
Decision (file via CTNJ)
Declaration by Stephen Narain, ACLU - Contains many spreadsheets of public finance participation in both CT and AZ.
Bench Trial Transcript of Donald Green, Yale professor - Gerber and Green do a lot of good, in depth, quantitative research on the efficacy of voter contact, and was testifying as an expert on whether minor parties could realistically qualify for full grants by gathering petitions.
Deposition of Jon Green, WFP Executive Director
Transcript of 12/9/08 Bench Trial - Lawyers and the judge debating over issues and evidence.
Transcript of 11/6/08 Status Conference
Transcript of 10/10/08 Summary Judgement Hearing
Defendants' Local Rule 56 Statement - The SEEC et al objecting to many of the assertions in the Green Party's statement of facts. Actually pretty interesting.
Bench Trial Transcript from 3/11/09 and 3/12/09, Part 1 - Part 2 - Part 3 - Part 4 - Part 5 - Part 6 - Part 7 - Part 8: This is the main activity after the Davis v FEC ruling from 2008, so the discussion is the most on-point to the upcoming case (which hasn't been referred to anywhere as "Green Party v Garfield III," but I detect enough of a pattern to feel comfortable calling it that below.)
2nd Circuit Court of Appeals Docket Sheet - PACER doesn't let you get original documents from the 2nd Circuit (or at least I can't figure out how to get them), but here's the tantalizing list of what's on offer if you care to truck down to the NYC offices of the court, including amicus briefs from Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Freedom Club PAC, the Arizona Taxpayers Action Committee, the Center for Competitive Politics, a failed attempt by Friends of Susan 2010 to file an amicus brief (the Green Party challenged the committee's ability to file), a notice that Blumenthal was going to personally present the oral arguments, and more!
2nd Circuit Ruling Part 1 - On the CEP.
2nd Circuit Ruling Part 2 - On lobbyists and contractors.
Green Party v Garfield III
Conference Memorandum - Laying out the timetable for the new case, which could potentially vary when the Second Circuit's order comes down. (Yes, they ruled, but apparently there's a document which the lower court needs to receive that is needed to initiate certain new injunctions or other kinds of proceedings. I don't understand what that's about, really, but they do talk about it quite a lot.)
Foley for Governor v SEEC
Supplemental Memo in support of ex parte motion for temporary restraining order - Foley's documentation about why he thought a restraining order was necessary.
Conference Memo for scheduling ruling on the temporary restraining order
Complaint - Foley's Federal suit for a permanent injunction and declaratory judgment against the SEEC, Fedele/Boughton, et al.
Fedele brief for the TRO ruling
SEEC/State brief for the TRO ruling - Quoted in my post from the other day.
TRO Ruling from Underhill (c/o Capitol Watch, who must have gotten a copy from one of the candidates' lawyers, as PACER doesn't have it and the AG's office and the District Court Clerk's office shut down for the day before the ruling was finished). |