comprametu ago

Great recap!

sufficientlydusty ago

WWG1WGA

srayzie ago

Good job! I flailed t and put it in Notables!

Red-Pill-NOW ago

Ive got someone 'awaymay45' making an elaborate case against the 'sealed indictments' list in the comments. Have you got any experience with this argument? To omit the list as a proof would not be good...

srayzie ago

Look thru their comments. It looks to me like he or she disagrees with everyone. Look at your upvotes compared to theirs. Obviously people aren’t agreeing with him. So just ignore him. People get paid to shill here.

Red-Pill-NOW ago

I get that, quite an effort to put into a shill argument. You've been around for awhile, have you looked into any of the specific arguments regarding the sealed indictments list? I've fended of a few myself but admit I lack the same evidence to defend it as they seem to lack in discrediting it. I always thought it's from a .gov site so it's a legit source but you know as well as me the mis and dis information is epic at this point. I'm leaving it but I wish I had the data to make a solid counter argument as to the legitimacy of those stats is all.

joeythew ago

ADD Voter Fraud in there as well. Though that's developing.

AnnaStrong1776 ago

https://youtu.be/6LXL0RnqIo8

Some election fraud /intel committee inquiries here Feat Trey Gowdy

Red-Pill-NOW ago

I'd love to but I need articles or congressional or legal acknowledgment to cite it as a concrete initiative, do you know of any?

AnnaStrong1776 ago

https://youtu.be/6LXL0RnqIo8 https://youtu.be/6LXL0RnqIo8

Some election fraud /intel committee inquiries here Feat Trey Gowdy

brandnewset ago

Nice work

awaymay45 ago

3.) Sealed Indictments now approaching 70,000 - When you consider 800-1,200 is the annual average, this is a KEY indicator.

This is completely inaccurate. The 70k number is not the amount of sealed indictments, it is the amount of EVERY sealed document in the court system (search warrants, juvenile records, petty offenses... everything). This is not even debated, as at the bottom of the chart in small letters, it says that the numbers represent 'proceedings'. They titled it 'sealed indictments' for clickbait, and to mislead people... it worked.

In addition to that, there is no proof that 70k sealed 'proceedings' is unusual. It only looks unusual because they are falsely comparing it to a study from 12 years ago, that examined an entirely different category of data.

For example, the '800-1200 SIs per year is normal' line was NOT the amount of SI's filed. That was the amount of a certain category of data from 2006, that included SIs within it. Furthermore that amount (1077) was only the amount STILL REMAINING SEALED 2 YEARS AFTER BEING FILED. The amount that was filed in 2006 could have been 100k for all we know.

When compared to recent history (2016), the 70k amount is normal.

In other words, the claim is completely bogus. This article explains it in detail:

https://wmerthon6.wixsite.com/website-1/home/comprehensive-analysis-of-the-50k-sealed-indictment-claim

4.) Mass Resignations - Since POTUS took office executive resignations (and other) have spiked (mostly by those in their prime) to nearly 6,000, resulting in unprecedented turnover.

The mass resignation thing really isn't noteworthy. It's not 'wrong' per se, but there is absolutely no evidence that shows the current tracked number (6k) is unusual.

There is no historical data to compare that number to, and the person that maintains the database even says the number is meaningless as a comparison. We could be experiencing LESS resignations this year, compared to others, for all we know.

The only data available is this report that examines US CEO resignations. There is less than a 4% difference over 2014, this year.

http://www.challengergray.com/press/press-releases/2018-october-ceo-report-2018-ceo-changes-surpass-year-end-2017-total

So it really shouldn't be used as evidence of anything. Anyone that researches it will find what I just discussed, and know that it is a meaningless statistic.

6chthomps ago

Ur a faggot

Red-Pill-NOW ago

I get your argument, especially regarding the mass resignation stat unavailability, but the 70k sealed indictment count on pacer.gov is a stretch for me. I have followed it from the 15k mark and you'll have a hard time convincing me that since Huber/Horowitz that rise from around 1k to 70k is a normal swing of "all sealed court documents" within any given period. (Can you imagine a nationwide count in 2006 of only 1077 TOTAL sealed docs?) Id be willing to say there are at least 70k sealed juvi docs alone! Also any contention someone set up a fake 'pacer.gov' In which to red herring us with a sad scheme is also dubious. Your response seems to make allowance for both theories being in effect simultaneously, but they really couldn't be as they would counter one another. It just doesn't add up.

awaymay45 ago

I wrote the first article I linked. I did extensive research on this using PACER, and by talking to the team that makes the chart. I sourced all the data in the article, so you can verify... I also included the discussions I had with the team that makes the chart. Their claim is provably false.

I have followed it from the 15k mark and you'll have a hard time convincing me that since Huber/Horowitz that rise from around 1k to 70k is a normal swing of "all sealed court documents" within any given period.

But what are you basing the assumption that 70k sealed documents in a year is unusual, on? Their comparison to the 1077 number? That is a blatantly false comparison. That was NOT the amount of sealed proceedings filed in 2006.

There is NO data available anywhere that says what a normal amount of sealed proceedings filed in a year should be. With that being the case, we are essentially dealing with a situation like the mass resignations: how can anyone say 70k is more or less than normal, with no real data to compare it to?

The best we can do is run the exact PACER searches on recent history (2016), and see how the numbers compare. On the districts where that has been accomplished -- including the most active ones, like CA and DC -- the evidence shows that this year's amounts are normal. (Included in the article.)

(Can you imagine a nationwide count in 2006 of only 1077 TOTAL sealed docs?)

Not entirely sure what point you are making here. 1077 was a specific case type (cr). The study reported 24,375 sealed proceedings in total. This was not 'every' sealed proceeding, like the 2018 team is counting, but it was the largest categories.

(And again, 24,375 was not the amount filed, it was the amount still sealed 2+ years after being filed.)

within any given sealed indictment you could have warrants for objects etc.

Just for clarification, a search warrant is not an indictment. It may be involved with a case where an indictment exists, but the search warrant itself is not part of the indictment.

Also any contention someone set up a fake 'pacer.gov' In which to red herring us with a sad scheme is also dubious. Your response seems to make allowance for both theories being in effect simultaneously, but they really couldn't be as they would counter one another. It just doesn't add up.

Not entirely sure of your point here. Are you saying that I am implying that the PACER data was faked? I'm not. I'm saying that the numbers themselves are legitimate, but they have been deceptively misrepresented through false comparisons and misleading terminology.

Here's another article I wrote that reveals the exact person that started the 60k chart. She didn't understand how to read the PACER search results, and started incorrectly calling EVERY document an indictment. It starts when she was reporting only 12. Her posts went viral, which caused others to join in, and they formed the team that makes the chart.

At some point they learned of their mistakes about the data, but they didn't correct them... they kept falsely reporting it. Legal experts correctly pointed out their mistakes at the very beginning, when there were only 33 being reported, but everyone in the Q community ignored it.

https://wmerthon6.wixsite.com/website-1/home/who-started-the-60k-sealed-indictment-claim

Read that and you will get a very good idea of the shenanigans that have been going on. It's a mixture of ignorance and willful deceit. Most of the people on the research team are simply ignorant of the data.

The issue is that it went unchecked for so long that it became a 'fact'. Everyone read the '1077 is normal' line, and because no one understood the details (and make no mistake, it is confusing to understand... it took me a long time to get it all straight), it simply became a 'fact'. It's not a fact. It is irrefutably false, using objective, publicly verifiable data.

Red-Pill-NOW ago

Don't get me wrong, I sense you are coming from a good place and have also done a lot of homework on this and I truly respect that. What continues to bother me is that we are looking at a spike in this 'sealed ____' Docs or indictments. IF we conclude the spike is organic to actual court processes and not fraud, then we still must account for the spike. In a country of 325 million people I find 70k to be a reasonable number for ALL (temporary) sealed court docs, yet we have witnessed a steady rise from far less than 10k. So my point is when we account for the spike, we must also in tandem qualify what variable driving it. If the spike is attributed to a rise in juvi record sealing, for example, then we must be able to show a bevy of non-criminal sealed juvi docs caused the spike.

For example, this spike did happen since Huber/Horowitz were impaneled with supposedly a team of 460 attorneys. Someone who believes these sealed docs are criminal indictments would now be able to correlate and reconcile the two. This represents a validation of said spike. If you acknowledge a 60+k spike occurred, then I need to know what precipitated it from your perspective. Either you need to account for why it was initially well under 10k before the spike, or for the spike itself.

IF in your argument you are saying (incompetent or fraudulent) anons have gradually, over the past year, bunched in groups of (all sealed cases) to (fraudulently) reflect a steady increase, (spike) then that's what I need to convince me with proof beyond innuendo. They either used real information (erroneously) or they are completely making up the increases that represent the spike.

My original response was along these same lines, if an appx 65k spike occurred, it must be accounted for. BTW I understand warrants are not indictments. But I think Im hearing you say the spike isnt indictments specific but all sealed docs. So if that's the case, why still the spike?

awaymay45 ago

For example, this spike did happen since Huber/Horowitz were impaneled with supposedly a team of 460 attorneys.

I want to add one thing. We dont know that anything unusual started when Huber was appointed, that just happens to be when the data collection started. For all we know, years like 2014 could have had 300k sealed proceedings filed.

It's all unknown because no one has EVER kept track of newly filed sealed cases, before they started doing it in Nov. 2017.

Even with the 2+ year old sealed cases from 2006... whose to say that year wasn't an anomaly, and that a typical year would have had 100x as many sealed cases filed?

The truth is that sealed cases is a TERRIBLE statistic to try and compare... there are far too many unknowns involved, as well as a COMPLETE lack of historical data available for comparison.

Red-Pill-NOW ago

Okay, fair enough, I'm just still not comfortable with a trend that has maintained for a year now, that is now held steady between 65-70k. I can't think of anything that would cause such fluctuations, even if you contend 300k could be a norm. I appreciate the effort and time you've put in, but having worked in the courts I dont think such a swing can't be arbitrary or within the norm.

awaymay45 ago

Just making sure you saw my other reply:

https://voat.co/v/GreatAwakening/2925556/15705025

As I explained in it, the 'swing' is an illusion. It only looks like a swing because they are comparing it to incomplete data from 12 years ago.

Compare properly to recent history, and there is no evidence of an unusual uptick in sealed cases this year.

awaymay45 ago

First of all, I want to thank you for a civil and intelligent discussion about this. Many people refuse to listen, and just yell shill over and over. Your approach shows that you are indeed interested in the truth, and aren't just saying that to say it, like many people do.

I find 70k to be a reasonable number for ALL (temporary) sealed court docs, yet we have witnessed a steady rise from far less than 10k.

This all hinges on where your starting point is. You say we have seen a steady rise from 'less than 10k', but I'm not sure where you are getting that number from. Is your starting point the 2006 data?

If so, the 2006 study found 24k sealed proceedings. That was not the amount filed, it was only the amount still sealed after 2+ years. Add in everything that became unsealed within 2 years, and that would be the true total.

Then you have to take into account the fact that it was 12 years ago. If you read in my first article, about mid-way through, there is a 15 district analysis that went back 10 years. It showed a steady increase in cases over time.

So the true comparison is 24k + all cases unsealed before 2 years + inflation of 12 years.

It's not possible for us to know this information, so it's not possible to definitively state if this year is unusual compared to 2006.

In addition to that point, I'm also saying lets just throw out all the stuff from 2006, and analyze recent history in PACER, using their exact search settings. That would yield a FAR more accurate comparison.

When I did this, I found no evidence that this year is experiencing unusual amounts of sealed cases. The amounts filed in 2016, in places like CA and DC, were essentially the same amount that we are seeing filed this year.

The conclusion is that we are not seeing a spike in sealed cases this year. It only 'appears' that there is a spike, because we are comparing the numbers to incomplete data from 2006.

Red-Pill-NOW ago

I get what you are saying. I had been watching Pacer.gov and thought I was witnessing a steady rise (of over 60k) to just shy of 70k. Hence my 'spike' verbiage. Now I don't know what I've witnessed. lol

DammitMan ago

Wow! Great work! I've sent this to the other platform, plus individually to some of my left leaning friends. Thank you!

Red-Pill-NOW ago

thanks Man! any help I can get for the final version is great

LadyDulcinea ago

Awesome work!

OyoooyO ago

What Lawrence doyle and and John moynihan said during that hearing aout CF not being a charity + confirmation FBI investigation is happening.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?455872-1/profit-organizations-politics

Red-Pill-NOW ago

done thanks

Red-Pill-NOW ago

cool Ill add it thanks!

4freedomsring ago

News today that Paul Ryan’s assistant rec’d Steele Dossier. Ryan appears today after mtg. w/ Trump( with tail between his legs) announcing DJT wants full funding of wall. Ryan is dirty/ Trump knows it.

Red-Pill-NOW ago

love it but not sure if it is a provable prosecuting vector

PtCPt ago

Somewhere in there needs to mention ChinaGate on the mass electronic chip spying/control of motherboads, cell phones, et al and which compromises many military devices. Hard to estimate the extent on this violation. Not to mention actual spies, like Frankenstein's 'driver'.

Red-Pill-NOW ago

I'd love to, but we need others to focus on the stuff happening in front of their eyes

bamadeplorable420 ago

WELL,,,,I can not red pill on FB ,,cause I am in jail for 3 days for saying something they did not want to hear....

Red-Pill-NOW ago

...Dude, I permanently lost my fb page, they executed me

Q-sent-me ago

Sounds like you were already in progress! :)

Patriot222 ago

Thank you Patriot. This is a worthy effort. It's really damn hard to red-pill even the most intelligent of friends without sounding like a paranoid nutcase. We should also track red-pilling techniques to zero in on which are more effective and continued refinements...

Red-Pill-NOW ago

yeah thats what im trying to do but damn

Patriot222 ago

Primary Prosecution Vectors. Need to add election fraud sting operations. First the Jeff Sessions vacancy election in Alabama. Second, the entire mid-term election with special focus on a small number of counties like Broward where rampant fraud was a certainty. Third, run-off elections following the mid-terms. Marked ballots, Full weight of NSA watching every move.

noybgdi ago

And this election meddling... "Democratic operatives created fake Russian bots designed to link Kremlin to Roy Moore in Alabama race" https://www.foxnews.com/politics/democratic-operatives-created-fake-russian-bots-in-alabama-race-designed-to-link-kremlin-to-republican-roy-moore

Red-Pill-NOW ago

Awesome, THIS is what I need! but can we show its moving along in MSM coverage or scheduled for hearings? If it's in the hearsay realm they'll just factor it as political mud sling material

cosmopolitan ago

Fantastic summary of the evidence we already have. Well done, Patriot.

This really puts the size of this massive operation into perspective.

Fast trial - death penalty.

Red-Pill-NOW ago

thanks! any links to support would be appreciated! Id love to find a graph depicting the increases in sealed indictments, resignations, and trafficking arrests since POTUS took over.

OyoooyO ago

You could start with that

https://qmap.pub/analytics

Red-Pill-NOW ago

Thanks but that library would be like building a haystack just to find a few specific needles.

Walk1 ago

Its time to expose the liars and get them thrown in the jail.

VOALTRON ago

The cult is spelled NXIVM.

Red-Pill-NOW ago

roger that, on it

TRFBYTrC0mmies ago

Isikoff admitting that much (should be all) of the stupid dossier is false. Steele admitting, under oath, he was hired by HRC/Fusion to contest the election results in the event that crooked lost, and thank God she did.

Red-Pill-NOW ago

got it, thanks I'll add

Red-Pill-NOW ago

I'll add Steele and Fusion to the Clinton server vector thanks

TRFBYTrC0mmies ago

Any or all of the very specific executive orders. The obvious social media bias, not to mention the repeated times they’ve been caught selling our info. The satanic symbolism and rampant pedo throughout the Vatican/Cath Church (though that might freak someone out who hasn’t at least begun their awakening).

Red-Pill-NOW ago

I agree with all, thanks. I think this list should be limited to discernible evidences that show POTUS is bring the DS to justice. That is the argument we nned to make and on which others can be made, to include the validity of Q.

TRFBYTrC0mmies ago

You’re right. My bad brother, I get a little carried away sometimes. I’ll stick to provable, documented facts.

Blacksmith21 ago

Unprecedented resignations of GOP Members of Congress

MSM's treatment and handling of Q as a debunked theory - yet ZERO in MSM have publicly asked the question of POTUS & Co.

Conversation between Lindsey Graham and Kavanaugh re trying civilians under UCMJ.

Red-Pill-NOW ago

All in the secondary evidence list right?

Blacksmith21 ago

Link to Kasich's comment "it's only been a week since M****n has been put to death...".

Red-Pill-NOW ago

you and I get it was a slip, but I think it may be too circumstantial to red-pill others, they'll say it was a mistake.

Red-Pill-NOW ago

lol yeah

Red-Pill-NOW ago

Okay guys, ANY correction, addition, modification, is sincerely appreciated. This isn't about my ego so let it fly, this is about devising a tool that helps us A.) red-pill the lost, and B.) bolster the sometimes weak confidence certain MAGA have among us. Clear, concise, air-tight and supported facts can and will do this, and I hope this template will be our primary argument tool going forward.

Zadim ago

Wasn't the aircraft a 757 not a 747?

Red-Pill-NOW ago

yup changed it

Red-Pill-NOW ago

If you could find me a local/MSM link to the actual event Id be most grateful