"Their claim is provably false. The numbers are mostly accurate, but they are not unusual. They are using a flawed study from 2009 (which uses data from 2006), that uses a different methodology than they are using, to compare their results to. This is misleading, and embarrassingly so when you search PACER for recent history.

They claim 1000 sealed proceedings per year is normal out of all 94 districts COMBINED. This is ONE district over only FIVE months, in 2015… it returned 1500 sealed proceedings. This search was made using their EXACT methodology in PACER.

https://i.imgur.com/um7iNN7.png

This is proof that their '1000 per year is normal' claim is false. Additionally, there is no evidence that the numbers we are seeing are unusual.

I have spent nearly $100 researching this in PACER, and I have spoken with the 'research' team that is maintaining the document. I have more proof if needed. Feel free to ask questions."

"Well, let me set the stage with some background. First off, even though you might 'think' they are legal experts (I've heard some people describe them as lawyers/paralegals), they are not. They all appear to just be random Q supporters, who are heavy social media users. Several spam memes non stop on twitter.

Some highlights:

One of the people who is listed at the top of the document wasn't aware that you could search back more than 90 days on PACER. This blew my mind, because you can go back 10 or 15 years.

The person that maintains the spreadsheet that keeps track of the unsealed cases, doesn't have a PACER account.

The 'expert' of the group rebutted my argument at one point by presenting and discussing a sealed criminal case. The case she presented had 'cv' in the case number, which right away tells you it's a civil case, and not criminal. Most shocking though, was that it literally had the plaintiff/defendant named on it… which obviously wouldn't happen if the case was sealed. The fact that she thought this was a sealed criminal case does not speak highly of her 'expertise'. She was embarrassingly wrong. When I pointed this out, along with providing full unsealed docket information from the case, I got no response."

>>3445718

"

The point I was basically raising with them, was this: Why use a flawed study with 12 year old data, that uses a different methodology than you do, and is easily proven inaccurate, when you can just search recent years in PACER using your EXACT methodology.

Their rebuttal was initially to repeat the statements that I was rebutting. I dont think several of them really understood the 2009 study, but they were stubbornly attached to it. I showed one person 4 years of recent PACER data of only 15 districts that had a combined 'minimum' of 8000 sealed proceedings every year. Her response was simply 'well I'm sticking with 1077'. This was the person that didn't know you could search back more than 90 days.

Their only real 'defense' that the expert gave, as to why they would reject recent PACER data, but accept the 2009 study, was that it's because they are only interested in cases that are filed as sealed, and not those that are retroactively sealed.

The reasoning behind it, is this: They believe the secret investigation is filing cases that are already sealed at the time they are filed. If we compare this years count to prior years, the prior years may have a ton of cases that were filed unsealed, but eventually became sealed. Therefore we wouldn't be able to tell if the recent activity is unusual.

The problem with this, is that the 2009 study they are using for comparison ALSO INCLUDES retroactively sealed cases. In the 2009 study, they analyzed data from 2006… so they were looking at cases that were filed 2 years prior, and there is ZERO way to tell if the cases that showed up sealed, were sealed at the time they were filed.

When I finally whittled them down to this fact, all of a sudden they said the conversation was a waste of time, and they stopped responding. Basically, they could not provide a valid reason why they would not accept recent PACER data for comparison."

"I went further and re-analyzed some of their data. Part of their argument was that sealed cases would go UP over time, as more and more un-sealed cases became sealed, which would skew the data. I looked at a district they had analyzed back in Nov., and ran it again 8 months later… the number of sealed cases had DROPPED by 43. The number of cases that became UN-sealed was more than cases that became sealed… which makes sense, if you know how the system works. This is basically proof that their skewed data theory is not accurate… if anything, analyzing data from recent years would be skewed IN their favor.

Technically even THEIR data may include retroactively sealed cases. They run their reports at the end of each month… so they have no way of knowing if the cases were sealed at the time they were filed, or at some time later in the month.

That's all just an aside, though, because as I pointed out, the 2009 report contains retroactively sealed cases. Because of this, there is literally NO reason not to use recent PACER data for comparison. When you consider all the other factors (different methodology, 12 year old data, provably inaccurate), it becomes even more apparent why the 2009 study is such a poor comparison tool.

Basically they are cherry picking data that supports the secret investigation theory.

Strictly in terms of numbers:

The largest analysis I have seen so far is of 15 districts over 9 years. It observed a 26% increase in sealed cases in the time period Oct.-Feb. between this year and last year. The previous record for that time period was 24% back in 2010. So that increase is basically normal. The historic trend is an increase of cases, as well.

Bottom line: Without a full analysis of all 94 districts in recent years, no one can definitively say there IS or ISNT anything unusual happening. However, based on the data we do have, it appears that the numbers are normal."

>>3445728

"I am no legal expert, but I have spent a ton of time and some money researching this. I was very surprised that they couldn't defend their position better, especially to someone like me with no real experience. I am now trying to 'red pill' people with the truth on this, to use their catch phrase. Searching forums and social media to share my research, so that this lie can stop.

Normally I wouldn't go this far, but I am really disturbed at the level of animosity/allegiance I am seeing with this movement.

I have screenshots of the conversations, and additional research data.

Final comment: This doesn't prove that Q is fake, or that there isn't a secret investigation into the cabal. All this does is show that the claim about the 50k indictments is not accurate.

Edit: Wow, that's a lot of text. Like I said, this is the first time I have tried to summarize it. It's so complicated, it's hard to shorten it. Hopefully it makes sense, and is useful. Share it everywhere. I'm not perfect, so challenge me if you see something that isn't accurate."

>>3445718

>>3445728

>>3445736

Response to this?

>>3445740

>>3445761

Looking for a response to this:

https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-qanon-claims-there-have-been-51k-sealed-indictments-filed-this-year.t10021/

>>3445783

I trust the plan, looking for an informed response, this is what people are sharing around now.

>>3445813

https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-qanon-claims-there-have-been-51k-sealed-indictments-filed-this-year.t10021/

Not me, looking for a response to this that people are sharing around on social media.

>>3445844

Not helpful thou is it, we can't inform / debate Q without responses to this sort of thing. Hand waving things away is what they do to Q followers \o/

>>3445856

You're not clever and I am not your enemy.