GAO is asking on the court docket to power New Mexico AG to cease the stone wall whether it is found and to offer solutions to questions on working with activists and activist teams

Reposted by state accountability and oversight.

CHRIS HORNER GAO, On the news

The EPA reveals the AGO’s claim that records are protected by “pending litigation,” a nondisclosure pact directly disproved by the New York Attorney General’s allegation to WSJ

Albuquerque, New Mexico, December 8, 2020 – Government Accountability & Oversight, PC (GAO) law firm and local attorney Pat Rogers filed a motion to compel litigation responses against a stonewalling New Mexico Attorney General Hector Balderas’ lawsuit after the inspection of Public Records Act (IPRA) on behalf of the Energy Policy Advocates (EPA) government transparency group. GAO seeks to end six months of AG office obstructionism and hide records of its work with outside parties, according to a document sent to a Michael Bloomberg-funded activist group that employed lawyers in Balderas’ office, that “pressure points are identified” Which legal disputes can most effectively influence politics? “

View post

AG Balderas has extended its refusal to publish public documents and information, kept its work secret and even signed contracts with outside activists, the Deliktsbar and other state AGs to advance private ideological, political and financial agendas. As noted in the EPA’s motion, the WG’s office has refused to provide bona fide responses and an appropriate privilege record, calling out to EPA lawyers why this is so: “This is a very confidential matter. “This claim is irrelevant, albeit meaningful, and the EPA is now seeking enforced responses and sanctions against the Balderas office.

As the application states:

The [IPRA] Motions relate to a multi-state campaign by certain attorneys general to coordinate the further development of a comprehensive private policy agenda. Although this campaign was carried out in consultation with outside activists and other parties, these AG offices disguise their involvement in so-called agreements of common interest. These common interest agreements themselves are withheld so that the plaintiff, the public, and the court need only trust the OAG that the details of these common interest agreements – which in turn are used to justify the withholding of quantities of public documents – are valid Agreements of common interest and are legally privileged.

Although the Balderas office alleges that the records listing this coordination are privileged due to impending litigation to be filed, the motion states, “The author, ringleader, and lead signatory of efforts to obtain discussions of lawsuits shield from federal climate regulations [New York Attorney General Letitia James] has just publicly denied that the parties have gone beyond such theoretical discussions and flatly admitted that there is no reasonably anticipated litigation. The defendant may point to the allegation that an absurdly broad alleged agreement of common interest protects the plaintiff’s records. “This New York James admission was featured in a Wall Street Journal story by reporter Tim Puko that ran just last week in an attempt to deny the reporter’s interest in the same machinations.

The application also states:

The defendant has relied on these secret agreements of common interest to withhold correspondence with and from outside parties and at least one power point presentation prepared by an outside activist while also withholding the agreements themselves. Both the alleged agreements of mutual interest at issue in this case and the correspondence with external parties, which the defendant continues to withhold, are of enormous public interest and of enormous importance to the light it sheds on the use of a critical public office and office Throw public funds to pursue and keep secret a private agenda, the actual work of the “quasi-public employees” involved and the details of the cooperation between the plaintiffs’ lawyers, the private partisan’s political donors, the ideological activists and the attorneys general.

In New Mexico, the AGO is expressly required by law to enforce the Public Record Access Act, but is now above the law it is required to enforce. In doing so, the AGO seeks to circumvent the citizens of New Mexico’s right to the sunlight of public disclosure by making self-serving arrangements to hide the secret operations from disclosure to the public.

As the EPA told the court, “The defendant also changed his practice of disclosing the identities of external parties for correspondence and reflexively, automatically and inappropriately began to withhold the names and identities of anyone outside the New Mexico Attorney General who was being copied The plaintiff has requested correspondence. “

This illegal behavior is committed in compliance with several nondisclosure covenants, one of which, the EPA has learned, provides that state AGOs play a supporting role for private crime companies that prosecute local authorities in litigation related to “climate damage”. This suggests that the details of the recordings were also shared with the Deliktsbar and others.

Other records, obtained from the EPA and hidden by the AGO, show a campaign with outside activists to force the country to do the equivalent of the “Green New Deal” through the courts[ing] Commemoration of an agreement to take judicial or administrative action to oblige the federal government or private parties to take action or to defend the right to take action to reduce or limit greenhouse gases. More specifically, it is an agreement to share information that can be used to do something against any public or private entity or bodies, under some authority and possibly the Clean Air Act or not, at some point, but definitely in Regarding greenhouse gases. As such, it is not only a parody of an agreement of common interest, but also a clumsy effort on a non-disclosure pact, which in this case is being implemented as a tool to notify allies of inquiries and as a plausible means of delaying or refusing to publish public records no agreement of common interest; This is an attempt to protect the New Mexico attorney general’s work from public scrutiny that violates public order.

“The public has the right to know how public dollars and the attorney general’s office are used to advance private political agendas and what contracts they are entering into on behalf of the public,” said Chris Horner of GAO. “The New Mexico AGO has engaged in illegal and often inept behavior to hide exactly what they are up to, what is what today’s stonewalling movement is trying to end for good.”

Government Accountability & Oversight is a 501 (c) 3 not-for-profit organization dedicated to providing transparency in the way public officials deal with energy, the environment and law enforcement

Like this:

To like Loading…

connected