>>213955

>>213950

I keep hearing pacer.org but it's not only a pay-for-results site, but it's also not user friendly for people outside of legal profession. I've seen a few people claiming they paid the fee and came up empty handed, either due to user-inexperience or lack of actual results, not sure which.

I want to believe this 10K is legit, but I've yet to see it demonstrated via YT or elsewhere by an experienced legal-anon. Would gladly pay the fee for someone to capture a demonstration.

>>214046

This could easily be put to rest by those claiming they've done the research and have verified the 10K. How hard would it be to have an experienced legal-anon make a demonstration video using PACER to locate even a couple hundred of these sealed cases and put it on YT? Would that not go viral?

I've been asking this for weeks to those on FB and TW making these claims, yet nothing but crickets…

So until then for me this has not been properly sauced.

>>214443

Last I checked 12/30 was today, not (Thu)