On The Rights -- Of The People, And Free Press -- To Know What Their Courts Do, In Their Names: The Chicago v. Bovino/Noemite Actions...

There will be a hearing tomorrow, in the able USDC Judge Ellis' courtroom, on releasing to the public and press, most of the hearing materials from October 20, 2025 -- when Greg Bovino likely lied under oath, in a sealed hearing about whether (and why) he personally threw tear gas canisters at peaceful but loud protesters in the Little Village neighborhood of Chicagoland.

We have now all seen the video, and the still photos. And the body cam feeds, from his minions.

To be clear, USDC Judge Ellis did not have access that evidence (of his lies) when she closed the courtroom, but subsequently -- upon seeing it -- she imposed sanctions on Bovino (now up on appeal). Given that yesterday, he was apparently the commander in charge when Renee Good (a 30-something year old poet and mother of three) was murdered. . . this becomes vitally relevant -- to his fitness to serve at all, in any capacity of law enforcement (and correlatively, to avoid a Derek Chauvin-style prosecution, and jailing -- in due course, in Minneapolis). Here's the latest:

. . .Plaintiffs [Block Club Chicago] disagree with the [Noemite / Bovino] constrained view of the materials necessary for the public “to understand judicial decisions, and to monitor the judiciary's performance of its duties.” Goesel v. Boley Int’l (H.K.) Ltd., 738 F.3d 831, 833 (7th Cir. 2013).

The Seventh Circuit has made clear that the public has a presumptive right to access any materials “that affect the disposition of federal litigation.” In re Specht, 622 F.3d 697, 701 (7th Cir. 2010). This is not limited to documents that are “cited by the Court in a judicial opinion” or “presented to the Court by any party for the purpose of seeking or opposing judicial relief.” Dkt. 322 at 2 (Defendants’ Response to Media Intervenors’ Position). . . .

Particularly given the public importance of those materials and considering that the government has not identified any secrecy or privacy interest in any of the materials made public so far, Plaintiffs believe that the Defendants should make public all materials that could “conceivably aid the understanding of” the Court’s decision-making in this case. City of Greenville v. Syngenta Crop Prot., LLC, 764 F.3d 695, 698 (7th Cir. 2014). . . .

Onward, resolutely, to [hopefully, a better] tomorrow.

नमस्ते