Skip to main content

Law 1: Force Information Disclosure

Overview​

This page sketches a policy concept sometimes described in the research corpus as “Law 1 – Force Information Disclosure.”
It is not legal advice, and it does not assume that any particular agency or official has acted unlawfully.
Instead, it summarizes ideas from commentators who believe that high‑profile cases like the Charlie Kirk shooting highlight gaps in how quickly and how fully key records are shared with the public.

The basic goal is to explore how laws might:

  • Encourage timely, responsible disclosure of critical records (for example, medical‑examiner findings, ballistics summaries, relevant video, and certain investigative timelines), while
  • Protecting due process, ongoing investigations, and personal privacy.

Problems this proposal is trying to address (as described)​

Across compiled research notes—drawing on public sources such as social‑media posts and videos by commentators including Candace Owens and investigative accounts like Project Constitution (@ProjectConstitu), as well as articles from outlets like The Grayzone and the Daily Mail and publicly available legal documents— citizen‑investigators repeatedly point to issues such as:

  • Limited access to core records – Autopsy details, ballistics information, and full camera footage are often withheld for long periods during active cases. This is standard in many jurisdictions, but some observers argue it fuels speculation and distrust, especially when the incident involves a public figure and public property.
  • Confusion about what exists and what was preserved – Notes in the corpus raise questions about whether certain videos were deleted, whether microphones or other physical evidence were collected, and which security or surveillance systems were active.
  • Uncertainty around flights, drones, and specialized equipment – Commentators discuss aircraft tail numbers, alleged drone activity, and security technology. They argue that clearer rules on when related records can be summarized or released would help clarify what actually happened.
  • Questions about “lost” or altered evidence – Some entries call for laws that would require agencies to document when evidence is destroyed, altered, or cannot be located, along with who authorized those actions.

These themes are presented here as concerns and claims, not as adjudicated findings about any specific actor.

Core ideas for an information‑disclosure law​

Commentators in the corpus suggest that a transparency‑focused law for serious incidents (such as public shootings or suspected assassinations) might include provisions like:

1. Clear categories of information​

Create defined categories of records with tailored rules, for example:

  • Forensic and medical summaries – High‑level descriptions of wound paths, bullet types, and key medical findings, released on a schedule that does not compromise ongoing prosecutions and respects the family’s privacy.
  • Ballistics and trajectory summaries – Non‑technical summaries of weapon type, approximate shot direction, and number of rounds, once experts have completed their initial work and evidence integrity is secure.
  • Video and digital evidence logs – Catalogs that indicate what camera systems, drones, or other devices recorded relevant footage, whether those records still exist, and which agency holds them—without necessarily releasing all raw files immediately.
  • Operational and decision‑making timelines – Basic timelines of when major investigative decisions were made (for example, which agency took lead, when gag orders or sealing orders were obtained, when certain searches were conducted).

2. Timelines and triggers for disclosure​

Instead of leaving disclosure entirely to ad‑hoc decisions, a law could specify:

  • Default release points (for example, after charging, after a preliminary hearing, after a verdict, or after a fixed period if no charges are brought), with limited, reviewable exceptions.
  • Expedited disclosure mechanisms when there is intense public interest or when misinformation is clearly spreading, subject to court oversight.
  • Automatic review of nondisclosure decisions by an independent body (such as an ombuds office or judicial panel) after a defined period of time.

3. Duty to log missing or destroyed evidence​

Several bullet points in the research notes suggest requiring government agencies to keep a publicly accessible log (with redactions where necessary) when:

  • Evidence is destroyed as part of normal policy (for example, after a retention period).
  • Evidence cannot be located or is accidentally lost.
  • Physical sites are altered in ways that may affect later forensic work (for example, resurfacing or construction at an incident site).

Such a log would not assign blame by itself, but it would create a transparent record that can later be reviewed by courts, legislators, or independent commissions.

4. Strengthened public‑records procedures​

Commentators also discuss strengthening public‑records laws (such as GRAMA in Utah or FOIA at the federal level) by:

  • Clarifying response timelines in high‑profile cases.
  • Providing for narrowly tailored redactions instead of broad denials.
  • Creating appeal processes that are fast enough to matter while the public is still engaged.

Safeguards and limits​

A recurring theme in the corpus, and in broader debates about transparency, is that information‑disclosure laws must be paired with safeguards, including:

  • Protection of due process – Disclosure should not poison jury pools or undermine a fair trial; courts may need authority to stage disclosures over time.
  • Respect for families and victims – Graphic material, especially medical images, may require consent‑based or summary‑only release to avoid re‑traumatizing loved ones or turning victims into public spectacle.
  • Security considerations – Certain technical details (for example, specific counter‑drone capabilities or intelligence methods) may need to remain classified, even if high‑level summaries are possible.

Any “Law 1” style proposal would need to balance these factors carefully.

How this connects to other pages​

This conceptual law ties into other reform‑oriented topics:

  • Law2 – ideas about autopsy and medical‑examiner transparency in light of recent legislation.
  • Politicians – how voters might evaluate officials' records on transparency and oversight.
  • Fix Overview – broader summaries of reform themes that have emerged from the research corpus.

All of these pages describe ideas and claims advanced by commentators; they are provided here to organize discussion about possible reforms, not to accuse specific individuals or institutions of wrongdoing.