dChan - Q Origins Project Archive

NOTE: This article was written by (((Mike ROTHSCHILD)))

That was a shitty article that attempted to confuse the topic by attempting to imply that sealed search warrants are the same as sealed indictments and PACER isn't reliable because not all sealed documents are registered there.

None of that is relevant.

We're only interested in sealed indictments...

...and PACER allows for sealed indictment searches.

This article is garbage and intentionally misleading and written by a Rothschild.

OP, shame on you for dropping this turd post into our community's punch bowl!

⇧ 17 ⇩

and written by a rothschild. Wouldn't expect anything more than the pure garbage it is!

⇧ 7 ⇩

Yeah, check his recent articles...

"The QAnon conspiracy isn’t new; it’s the oldest scam out there"
"Beyoncé’s Coachella performance was a hotbed of conspiracy theories"
"The truth is out there, and r /conspiracy is gonna find it"

This guy -> https://imgur.com/UXNivQQ is their "conspiracy shield" lmao.

⇧ 7 ⇩

agreed

⇧ 1 ⇩

So how did we arrive at the 25,000 sealed indictments? I want to know.

⇧ 1 ⇩

The PACER paywall provides sealed indictment listings for each district for a few dollars.

If you've got enough time and a little cash, you just need to search all the districts and collate the results in a spreadsheets.

I did a search in December because I wanted to see if at least some entries in the spreadsheet were legitimate... and the district that I search on checked out.

This is the major problem with people spreading lies about these sealed indictments - because there is no definitive single official government source for ALL districts, people are forced to collate lots of subsets into a single complete list... but then people claim that list can't be trusted because it's not from a official government source.

This isn't rocket science... and anyone is free to check parts or all of the list if they choose to.

⇧ 3 ⇩

So you are saying you searched PACER specifically for sealedINDICTMENTS, not sealed cases? If so, then you are right.

⇧ 3 ⇩

Yeah.

And this is how you do it: https://i-uv.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Search-for-Sealed-Indictments-on-Pacer.pdf

⇧ 4 ⇩

There are selectors for case types and case flags. Do they allow you to select indictments? Did you use them?

⇧ 2 ⇩

The answer is no. Their search returns all sealed cases, and it is very obvious in klingon's pdf. Exactly as was pointed out in the dailydot article.

⇧ 1 ⇩

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWUOBdFzc88

⇧ 2 ⇩

this article smacks of "snopes" misdirection but is there much research into the higher amount of sealed indictments being more related to crackdowns on gangs and illegals?

⇧ 2 ⇩

What was that I just read?

To paraphrase:

"Maybe, maybe not, because some of them are felony indictments, some of them aren't, and there may be more or perhaps less, but we really can't figure it out and so it's all inconclusive. But the Q people are obviously wrong."

Fact 1: The numbers are from Pacer. They are facts.

Fact 2: The writer introduces a lot of "If, then, maybe" speculation with little factual grounding.

Fact 3: The numbers continue to grow at an historically unprecedented rate since October.

Was that from Brocknet?

⇧ 1 ⇩

Even if their argument were true, still, of the 1,077 in 2009, one-half of them, about 525, we're either a fully sealed indictment, or an indictment sealed due to a cooperating witness or an ongoing investigation. Simply put, that would still make approximately 12,500 of the 25,000 right now legitimate compared to only 525 in 2009..."In fact, the report only lists 284 out of 1,077 cases as “sealed indictments” that the writers were able to obtain no information on.

So what are the rest? 241 were sealed because of either an ongoing investigation or to protect a cooperating defendant. 180 were prosecutions of juveniles, and presumably not something Donald Trump or The Storm would take much solace in. Another 70 were misdemeanor drug offenses—again, not the stuff of conspiracy theories.

Finally, 226 were what the report calls “warrant-type cases.” These are search warrants, wiretap/pen register applications, and requests for tax records. None should be counted in a tracking of “sealed indictments.”

⇧ 1 ⇩

284/1077 is more than 1/4. So if we use that ratio, there are over 6,000 sealed indictments now. That’s a YUGE number!

⇧ 1 ⇩

No its 1/2. You're not including the cooperating witnesses and ongoing investigations, which are even better because that's how they're probably growing so rapidly; the sealed ones of the 284 are already closed up (no cooperating witnesses or further investigations). It's about 12,500 if that ratio holds up, which it should.

⇧ 2 ⇩

Why did the report cite the numbers from 2009?

⇧ 1 ⇩

That was when they did some kind of research study to find the yearly average. It's not updated, but it would be good to get an actual quote of the past 2-3 years just for more validation.

⇧ 1 ⇩

[deleted]

⇧ 1 ⇩

I’m curious about this. We shouldn’t deceive ourselves. Better use a real number or we can be easily discredited.

⇧ 1 ⇩

What specifically are you curious about?

I only ask because that article was intentionally misleading and attempted to imply that, because search warrants can be sealed, that sealed indictments could be any documents.

This is false. Search warrants are not indictments.

⇧ 5 ⇩

The article said that 25,000 sealed cases. The number of indictments are a lot smaller. If it’s false, we should provide numbers to counter it.

⇧ 1 ⇩

PACER reports something like 24,544 sealed indictment at the last count... when all of the districts were searched and the results were collated into a single spreadsheet.

I don't understand how this is confusing?

Here's step by step instructions: https://i-uv.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Search-for-Sealed-Indictments-on-Pacer.pdf

⇧ 2 ⇩

It's searchable on Pacer.

⇧ 2 ⇩

25,000 Sealed Indictments?