>>3473661

Datafag here…I appreciate your attempt to prove/disprove the count but your first statement is wrong…

WRONG

SEE PIC 1

glowing anon says, "This is a PACER search from a SINGLE district over only 5 months in 2015. It returned 1509 sealed proceedings." and "This shows that the 1077 claim is not accurate. In 2015, a SINGLE district returned more than that in only 5 months. "

Your search did not return "SEALED PROCEEDINGS" only…

Your search returned the TOTAL FILINGS FOR THE DISTRICT DURING THAT TIME PERIOD (SEALED & UNSEALED).

COUNTING ANONS ARE NOT USING THIS TOTAL COUNT/SEARCH RESULT…THEY ARE LOOKING AT ONLY CASES THAT ARE 'SEALED' IN THE RESULTS WHICH IS A LOWER NUMBER

SEE PIC 2 & 3 - ALASKA May 2018 as an example

GOTTA TRY HARDER, YOU'RE GLOWING

Sauce May 2018 Alaska data:

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1GjU5mobWXE4sckfs1InukHi9yX6MKiaq

>>3473827

>Question: Is there a time limit on sealed indictments needing to be unsealed? (i.e. 1 year)

In the interest of "speedy trials" there is a time limit set by the judge overseeing the sealed cases BUT they can be partially unsealed to fulfill the "speedy trial" requirement. If they are partially unsealed the appearance to us on the outside/on Pacer does not change - it still appears as a sealed case. The Defendant however get served a redacted copy in which they can work on settlements.

sauce:

http://vaquitamlaw.com/qui-tam-partial-unsealing-part-ii/

>>3473886

datafag again….you need to provide the breakdown of SEALED vs. UNSEALED breakdown of your 1509 search result. Right now your work is incomplete without showing your work and the make up of the 1509 search result (SEALED & UNSEALED CASES).

How much you spent on your PACER research is irrelevant to your argument. Your arguments fail until you show how many SEALED CASES in your 1509 count.

>>3473985

>I found the article compelling but not COMPLETELY accurate…

Don't post inaccurate posts faggot.