A public-ethics scandal or a public-health scandal are the two conclusions available on this record when it is measured against the governing legal tests.  One hundred and twenty-one of those authorities are collected at Thread 3 [Here], and they were before the Court in a sealed record the public has never been permitted to inspect.  As for the evidence, the shareholder, +9,000% billing, procedural, and visual evidence is plain to anyone.  What the Court has consistently done is conceal the evidentiary path—and its application against those legal tests—behind unconstitutional sealing orders, while publicly recharacterizing that same path in terms that pathologize the subject.  The public is shown the characterization, but denied the record required to determine whether that characterization is true.  The premise appears to be that the public will defer to institutional authority because it cannot see the evidence for itself.  Yet, if a 72-page brief the Court itself described as “extremely, extremely comprehensive” is later characterized as rife with “incomprehensible jargon,” what legal test justifies concealing it from the public eye?  Courts adjudicate evidence; they do not adjudicate what the public is permitted to think about evidence it has been forbidden to see.  If the record can withstand scrutiny, openness should vindicate the Court’s characterization.  If it cannot, secrecy cannot substitute for scrutiny under law.  Why, then, have courts broken the rules on secrecy?  The 6 threads offer a reason.