what the report they produced has - and is intended to have - is propaganda value, because many of these debates are mostly fought in the public arena. you may often have situations where the police are technically correct, but did something morally wrong. that is the purpose of bringing in this "citizen committee".

so, for example, let's say you had a situation where a white cop is accused of roughing up a black man. the cop may not have actually broken the law, but the situation looks bad. so, what you do is get a committee with some black people on it to say the cop didn't break the law. then, the report gets circulated to media, which is where the debate is actually happening.

in my scenario, i actually have a real legal argument because the cop actually really broke the law. i'm not making a moral appeal, and trying to gain concessions by appealing to public opinion. in fact, i don't really give a fuck about what popular opinion is at all. what i care about is the narrow, legalistic interpretation, which the citizen committee was completely incapable of even beginning to understand.

so, by actually having an actual case, i fell through the cracks of a system that is designed to manipulate the media.

when i file the judicial review, the request will be to put aside the citizen committee's analysis as irrelevant because the proper basis of review was correctness. we're not going to argue with them. we're going to just completely ignore them, as though they don't even exist - because, in context, they actually shouldn't. so, we're going to have the judge look directly at the initial report and carry through with the review that the citizen committee was incapable of doing.