A Status Call, On The Rio Grande / Land Razor Wire Torture Cases Was Held Yesterday. USDC Judge Alia Moses Has Gone Back To "Shadow Docketing" The Matter: Plainly Unlawful.

Again, we the people have the right, nation-wide, to know what the federal courts -- and federal judges, particularly -- are doing in our name. Doubly so, where different (state v. federal) parts of the government mechanisms are on both sides, in the matter. Who indeed will watch. . . the [official] watchers?

After we complained to her clerks in 2023/2024, she made almost all of this docket public, on PACER. Because that is what the clear black letter Supreme Court law requires of her.

But yesterday, at this status hearing, she reverted to her old, lawless ways (as the Trump-controlled government decides what to do about the fact that there are now private individual plaintiffs who've alleged injuries from lacerations to drownings -- and so, Trump/Noem and Abbott cannot just agree among their MAGA controlled selves to dismiss it, as they had hoped). Here's that:

. . .Proceedings held before Chief Judge Alia Moses: Docket Call/Status Conference held on 9/9/2025 (Court Reporter Adria Casillas.)(dd) (Entered: 09/10/2025)

Note: You do not have permission to view this document. . . .

[My missive draft, from 2024:]

[Addressed to USDC Chief Judge Moses, USDC WDTX]

. . .My [entirely pro bono] clients recognize that the court has myriad other demands on its time and limited staffing resources, but absent a documented showing of unreasonable administrative burdens (and a two page order, published at the same moment, makes it plain that this is no administrative burden!), the public’s right to contemporaneous access to judicial records cannot be overcome. See, e.g., Courthouse News Serv. v. Planet, No. CV 11-08083 SJO (FFMx), 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105197, at *62 (C.D. Cal. May 26, 2016) (“to the extent Planet might argue that such a practice would have been cost-prohibitive or unduly labor intensive, she has not quantified the cost. . . nor has she detailed the additional labor that would have been required)....

Absent such evidence, the Court cannot ‘articulate facts demonstrating an administrative burden sufficient to deny access.’”) (citation omitted), aff’ in part rev’d in part, 947 F.3d 581, 597 (9th Cir. 2020) (holding that “Ventura County’s no-access-before-process policy bears no real relationship to the County’s legitimate administrative concerns about. . . efficient court administration”); see also United States v. Valenti, 987 F.2d 708, 715 (11th Cir. 1993) (holding unconstitutional the district court’s maintenance of a dual-docketing system, where certain docket entries were visible only to the parties, and expressly rejecting the argument that unsealing would bind the court to a “formal procedure that is unduly burdensome”).

Specifically, a status / scheduling order in this matter has entered by the court just now (ECF Doc. No. 138, 09/10/2025) but remains entirely invisible to the public. Of course, while redactions for trade or governmental secrets (and sensitive, personally identifying information) would be normal, there has been no such effort made, on the part of the court. It seems court staff sua sponte designated ECF Document No. 138 “restricted access”.

Based on my review of the ECF record in this matter, it would seem no public court order -- whether in writing or issued orally from your bench -- has set forth the findings required by the First Amendment, prior to the removal of this judicial document from the record. See, e.g., Oregonian Publ’g Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 920 F.2d 1462 (9th Cir. 1990).

However, rather than waste more of the court’s resources and time, I have chosen (as a non-party member of the public, and at this point, non-intervenor) to simply write to you directly, and copy counsel for both sides on this. I am hopeful the lawyers will prepare and file a redacted version, as required by long-standing, uncontroverted black letter First Amendment law (which applies, even -- perhaps surprisingly to you -- in the Western District of Texas). To be clear, this need not (and perhaps should not) require my filing as an intervenor, in your courtroom -- to be placed on any public docket, as it sensibly ought to be resolved without need for appearances in the record, on my clients’ behalf. . . . Please prepare and publish a redacted version of Document No. 138, before Monday, September 29, 2025. Kind regards. . . . /s/

Well. . . as I say, this won't do. That is not cricket, at all. Here's (above, in green text) what I'll send on to her chambers tomorrow -- when I get a free half hour to clean up the draft and update it.

Now you know. Onward, sad -- but resolute. What has become of my country. . .? Colorado school kids and reprobates alike, dead from gun violence. . . . Damn.

नमस्ते