>>5487201 (lb)
>Pacer – Would the transcripts from the El Chapo trial be here?
Don't know. But get yourself a free pacer account, and check the Eastern District of NY for this case:
Criminal No. 09-0466(BMC)
USA v. JOAQUÍN GUZMÁN LOERA
Also, a lot of the El Chapo docs / court filings are available on the 'net. Just search "JOAQUÍN GUZMÁN LOERA" and filetype:PDF
Absolute BS. Hussein is not, and never was, a "Constitutional lawyer." He was a guest lecturer at U Chicago law school, never hired as a professor, and never handled a Con law case. He graded papers at U Chicago, and taught seminars (based on Alinskey) on "community organizing." He had 3 summer gigs at various firms, none of whom would hire him because he was incompetent. While at Harvard, he was the law review "president," not the Editor. "President" is a Law Review titular position only. He was elected to it because they wanted a token black. He never wrote a single Harvard Law Review article.
FISC Rule 17 – no hearing required, no in court presentation of evidence required. Just "may" require it, but it's optional.
https://www.fisc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/FISC%20Rules%20of%20Procedure.pdf
Rule 17. Hearings.
(a) Scheduling. The Judge to whom a matter is presented or assigned must determine
whether a hearing is necessary and, if so, set the time and place of the hearing.
(b) Ex Parte. Except as the Court otherwise directs or the Rules otherwise provide, a
hearing in a non-adversarial matter must be ex parte and conducted within the Court's
secure facility.
(c) Appearances. Unless excused, the government official providing the factual
information in an application or certification and an attorney for the applicant must attend
the hearing, along with other representatives of the government, and any other party, as
the Court may direct or permit.
( d) Testimony; Oath; Recording of Proceedings. A Judge may take testimony under
oath and receive other evidence. The testimony may be recorded electronically or as the Judge may otherwise direct, consistent with the security measures referenced in Rule 3.
Just went to the Middle District of Florida, and it seems like they're way behind in their Pacer data. They've got PDF reports available, by quarter. The case volume is ginormous.
Check here:
https://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/analysis-reports/federal-court-management-statistics
Do the same for the other Pacer-underreporting districts and it should be similar. Go to their actual websites. Federal Court Management requires them to keep stats, they likely just aren't getting them uploaded to Pacer.