I asked a couple of breads ago, but I don't think there were many lawfags on at the time. Maybe one of our wonderful lawfags can help out because lawfagging is NOT my thing…kek.

Here's a reddit thread to "debunk" our sealed indictment tallies.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Qult_Headquarters/comments/95gc0f/debunking_the_claims_about_40000_sealed/

I don't know anything about Pacer so I don't know how those who are taking on this monumental task are doing their work. Here's part of what he says to "debunk" our claims, but since I don't know the process we use, I'm not sure how to refute it when someone asks me.

"So what’s the problem? First, those search results showing up on PACER aren’t just indictments, they’re court proceedings. That certainly includes indictments, but it also includes search warrants, records of petty offenses (like speeding tickets), wiretap and pen register applications, etc. For example, here’s the search page for criminal case reports from the Colorado district court, where you can see that “case types” includes “petty offenses,” “search warrant,” and “wire tap.” (There are other options as well if you scroll — although I didn’t take a second screenshot — like “pen registers,” “magistrate judge,” and finally “criminal.”) In the Q crew's instructions for conducting these searches (linked above), they specifically mention leaving all default settings except for the date, which means their search results will include speeding tickets and search warrants and everything else."

I know our anons are really smart so I'm sure we're not counting petty offenses. But could a lawfag give me more clarity on how the process works? I just put out a vid on the sealed indictments and then I found this so I'm sure I'll have to address it. I'd appreciate any help refuting this "debunk" if you wouldn't mind doing that for me. ThankQ for all your help!

>>2707887

That's what I'd think. Not nearly enough if petty offenses were included.

He also went on to say there aren't that many on dockets now, but that's an easy one to refute. The lawfags do a great job of noting that in the bottom text.

I'd like to know the process, though, if possible. It'd help me when it comes up.

>>2707684

Here's what he said about the 1077 figure.

"Finally, I want to talk about how many sealed “indictments” (court proceedings) are typical. Like I mentioned earlier, the Q crew is claiming that the total number was 1,077 in 2006, based on this paper from the Federal Judicial Center called “Sealed Cases in Federal Courts”. Here’s the thing… they’re wrong. This paper was written in 2008 and published in 2009; it makes it very clear that it is examining sealed cases filed in 2006 that were still sealed as of 2008.In other words, it doesn’t count documents that were sealed in 2006 but subsequently unsealed."

Again, lawfagging is not my strong suit. Wish it were. I actually read that doc with the 1077 number in it, but it's been a while back and I don't recall the part about it being about sealed indictments from 2006 that were still on dockets in 2008.

I remember seeing one article that "debunked" the number by the "not all of them are indictments" argument, but even if half of them are, that's still a massive amount of arrests coming up.

>>2708063

Nixon. Maggie Nixon.

>>2708110

Think it got slapped by twatter for being a parody acct. Had great content. Then got serious. Stopped twats altogether for a while. Too bad. Funny stuff.

>>2708094

Thanks. I'm sure it's been well-defended before (and Q confirmed is all I need). Just like to have ammo to use against normies as much as possible.