>>213911

No. Unless there are superseding indictments, that wouldn't happen. And superseding indictments come after the first one is unsealed.

One indictment == one or more unique defendants with one more more charges/counts for each.

>>213941

Please show an example of when that has ever happened, excluding concurrent state/federal indictments as this count includes sealed indictments at the federal level ONLY.

>>213978

Please point to where the same name appears under more than one indictment/case number.

>>214010

Yes, 27 defendants divided among 5 separate indictments.

>Please point to where the same name appears under more than one indictment/case number.

>>214035

Sure you can.

Find the original indictments in PDF form.

I'll wait.

>>214057

You're the one making the claim that a name can appear on multiple concurrent non-superseding indictments at the federal level.

>All you have to do is find two

I'm saying it doesn't happen (rarely, if ever)

>I would have to pull every indictment, ever, and OCR them all

Which of those sounds like an easier claim to prove?

>>214158

Here's one the normies can't argue

https://archive. is/QDh13#selection-3177.139-3177.202

>>214222

Here glowfag. Here's all their sources the last time they counted. Same group this second time around.

https://drive.google. com/drive/folders/1cC702ou3zm4VJICOI30EwaVCbbvYDQ5p

>>214255

Which ones have been unsealed? Please point to one.