Thanks for making a post on this. For those impatient to see some dramatic arrests, we need to wait until January 19, 2019 when Trump's executive orders re: military tribunals and grabbing assets of human traffickers goes into effect. The number of documents in association with federal indictments is now up to 50,000 and growing. This is simply astonishing. But these filings are in existing federal courts around the USA. .Can they be transferred to a military court?
and grabbing assets of human traffickers goes into effect.
The EO does only apply for people already named in the EO annex and foreign citizens who may be named at a later point. It does not apply to US citizens who are not already listed in the annex.
You are a lawyer, you should know. Please read the EO again. Thank you.
Sorry, I didn't want to be rude. I seem to be getting unnerved everytime the EO is mentioned.
Don't feel bad. I have tried in vain to make people aware of the same thing but they can't be bothered to take 30 minutes to actually look at the Executive Order themselves. They just keep spreading the fantasy.
And, I don't believe for a minute that pizzalawyer is actually a lawyer because he keeps spreading the baseless rumor that there are 50,000 sealed indictments. Many documents can be sealed that are NOT indictments. A few of them maybe indictments, but statistically speaking, most of them will not be indictments. Math works that way.
@Esotericshade: And you are not reading carefully either. I never once said there were 50,000 sealed indictments. I said 50,,000 documents related to sealed indictments. It is unclear from Pacer as to what filings constitute search warranta, arrest warrants, witness subpoenas, seizure of assets warrants, attendant to any indictment. I am not going to speculate what percentage constitutes an actual indictment.
Plenty of young bucks here still wet behind the ears getting hard ons when they think they can upbraid a lawyer. You look foolish to someone who is long in the tooth, I assure you.
@esotericshade: ow many times do you have to be told that there are 50,000 sealed documents related to sealed indictments. There is no way of knowing which doument is an indictment . One indictment might have a witness list of 5, another might have 100 attendant witness subpoenas. It makes no sense to keep the indictment sealed and all the search warrants, prejudgement asset seizure warrants open to the public for then we would know who is indicted. These filings are on the criminal side of the docket, the other side devoted to.civil.cases. The number of the filings far outpace anything we have ever seen before, so much so that I wondered if they concerned illegal immigrants. Because they are sealed , we can only speculate. There are several websites devoted to tracking these sealed filings which may interest you.
And how did you arrive at the conclusion that if I dont know about the sealed documents, then I'm not a real lawyer? You are growing younger by the minute. Do you say to a plastic surgeon that if he or she doesnt know about cancer treatments that he or she must not be a real doctor? You have absolutely no idea how vast the law has become and how specialized the lawyers are. Otherwise you wouldn't make such ridiculous statements.
How many times do you have to be told that there are 50,000 sealed documents related to sealed indictments.
I know that.
There is no way of knowing which document is an indictment .
That has been my point FROM DAY ONE. Which is why Q people need to stop spreading the false rumor that Trump and Q have 50,000 sealed indictments ready for military tribunals which will incarcerate a third of Washington D.C. and the Rothschilds. The whole fairy tale is beyond ridiculous.
You are immune from learning anything from me, so maybe these websites will help you.
This is the first time you ever said anything remotely lawerly, condescending prick. And if you are a lawyer, I can't believe that you would fall for the Q bait.
@Pizzalawyer, this happens about as often as a full solar eclipse, but it does happen: @ESOTERICshade is closer to the truth on this question, and the truth is actually even less encouraging than he suggests.
If you read this thread, you will see that the method used to count the sealed items was flawed from the beginning, and the standard used to judge what is "normal" for sealed items in the PACER system was badly flawed as well. The study that they cite is perfectly real and trustworthy, but they didn't read it carefully.
In a "normal" year (2006), PACER saw about 1,100 sealed indictments that were still sealed in early 2008. But it also saw more than 15,000 sealed magistrate judge proceedings and more than 8,000 sealed miscellaneous proceedings that were also still sealed more than a year later. That is, the total number of sealed documents in that year was at least 24,000 and could have been a lot higher. The correct standard of comparison is not "Wow, 5,000 sealed documents per month compared to 1,100 in a whole year!" That's comparing apples to oranges.
Now, more than a decade later, we are seeing about 4,500 to 5,000 sealed documents per month, which would be 54,000 to 60,000 for the year. However, most of that is probably magistrate judge proceedings or miscellaneous proceedings, coming from a federal system that has presumably gotten busier over time.
The group of volunteers who go through PACER district by district and add up the number of new sealed documents never track how many are unsealed. The current running total, 50,000 or whatever it is, is not actually meaningful. Judging by past practice, most of those documents have already been unsealed and weren't relevant to human trafficking to begin with. So we don't have a meaningful number.
I have cited the 5,000-documents-per-month figure in the past, but that was because I was pressed for time and placed excessive trust in the people who actually have access to PACER to read and comprehend the instructions. They didn't do that, and henceforth I think the 5,000-per-month number needs to vanish altogether. It explains nothing and proves nothing.
Sorry, but that's life on the Internet. Check everything yourself if you want to be sure of something.
view the rest of the comments →
Pizzalawyer ago
Thanks for making a post on this. For those impatient to see some dramatic arrests, we need to wait until January 19, 2019 when Trump's executive orders re: military tribunals and grabbing assets of human traffickers goes into effect. The number of documents in association with federal indictments is now up to 50,000 and growing. This is simply astonishing. But these filings are in existing federal courts around the USA. .Can they be transferred to a military court?
think- ago
The EO does only apply for people already named in the EO annex and foreign citizens who may be named at a later point. It does not apply to US citizens who are not already listed in the annex.
You are a lawyer, you should know. Please read the EO again. Thank you.
Pizzalawyer ago
I didnt read it so thanks for educating me, I was being lazy.
think- ago
Sorry, I didn't want to be rude. I seem to be getting unnerved everytime the EO is mentioned.
ESOTERICshade ago
Don't feel bad. I have tried in vain to make people aware of the same thing but they can't be bothered to take 30 minutes to actually look at the Executive Order themselves. They just keep spreading the fantasy.
And, I don't believe for a minute that pizzalawyer is actually a lawyer because he keeps spreading the baseless rumor that there are 50,000 sealed indictments. Many documents can be sealed that are NOT indictments. A few of them maybe indictments, but statistically speaking, most of them will not be indictments. Math works that way.
Pizzalawyer ago
@Esotericshade: And you are not reading carefully either. I never once said there were 50,000 sealed indictments. I said 50,,000 documents related to sealed indictments. It is unclear from Pacer as to what filings constitute search warranta, arrest warrants, witness subpoenas, seizure of assets warrants, attendant to any indictment. I am not going to speculate what percentage constitutes an actual indictment.
Plenty of young bucks here still wet behind the ears getting hard ons when they think they can upbraid a lawyer. You look foolish to someone who is long in the tooth, I assure you.
ESOTERICshade ago
Just because something is sealed does not mean it is an indictment and as a lawyer you should know that, bro.
Pizzalawyer ago
@esotericshade: ow many times do you have to be told that there are 50,000 sealed documents related to sealed indictments. There is no way of knowing which doument is an indictment . One indictment might have a witness list of 5, another might have 100 attendant witness subpoenas. It makes no sense to keep the indictment sealed and all the search warrants, prejudgement asset seizure warrants open to the public for then we would know who is indicted. These filings are on the criminal side of the docket, the other side devoted to.civil.cases. The number of the filings far outpace anything we have ever seen before, so much so that I wondered if they concerned illegal immigrants. Because they are sealed , we can only speculate. There are several websites devoted to tracking these sealed filings which may interest you.
And how did you arrive at the conclusion that if I dont know about the sealed documents, then I'm not a real lawyer? You are growing younger by the minute. Do you say to a plastic surgeon that if he or she doesnt know about cancer treatments that he or she must not be a real doctor? You have absolutely no idea how vast the law has become and how specialized the lawyers are. Otherwise you wouldn't make such ridiculous statements.
ESOTERICshade ago
I know that.
That has been my point FROM DAY ONE. Which is why Q people need to stop spreading the false rumor that Trump and Q have 50,000 sealed indictments ready for military tribunals which will incarcerate a third of Washington D.C. and the Rothschilds. The whole fairy tale is beyond ridiculous.
This is the first time you ever said anything remotely lawerly, condescending prick. And if you are a lawyer, I can't believe that you would fall for the Q bait.
SoberSecondThought ago
@Pizzalawyer, this happens about as often as a full solar eclipse, but it does happen: @ESOTERICshade is closer to the truth on this question, and the truth is actually even less encouraging than he suggests.
If you read this thread, you will see that the method used to count the sealed items was flawed from the beginning, and the standard used to judge what is "normal" for sealed items in the PACER system was badly flawed as well. The study that they cite is perfectly real and trustworthy, but they didn't read it carefully.
In a "normal" year (2006), PACER saw about 1,100 sealed indictments that were still sealed in early 2008. But it also saw more than 15,000 sealed magistrate judge proceedings and more than 8,000 sealed miscellaneous proceedings that were also still sealed more than a year later. That is, the total number of sealed documents in that year was at least 24,000 and could have been a lot higher. The correct standard of comparison is not "Wow, 5,000 sealed documents per month compared to 1,100 in a whole year!" That's comparing apples to oranges.
Now, more than a decade later, we are seeing about 4,500 to 5,000 sealed documents per month, which would be 54,000 to 60,000 for the year. However, most of that is probably magistrate judge proceedings or miscellaneous proceedings, coming from a federal system that has presumably gotten busier over time.
The group of volunteers who go through PACER district by district and add up the number of new sealed documents never track how many are unsealed. The current running total, 50,000 or whatever it is, is not actually meaningful. Judging by past practice, most of those documents have already been unsealed and weren't relevant to human trafficking to begin with. So we don't have a meaningful number.
I have cited the 5,000-documents-per-month figure in the past, but that was because I was pressed for time and placed excessive trust in the people who actually have access to PACER to read and comprehend the instructions. They didn't do that, and henceforth I think the 5,000-per-month number needs to vanish altogether. It explains nothing and proves nothing.
Sorry, but that's life on the Internet. Check everything yourself if you want to be sure of something.