Here is a copy of the Patten Docket . I think there are several missing documents. Are they too secret to even admit their existence? What stuff is that secret? Ask @DevinNunes. I think it keeps him up at night.
The other place I’ve seen this recently is in another Judge Amy Berman Jackson case. Paul Manafort.
I have been a Federal e-filer for about 15 years. In my experience, each unsealed “filed document” gets a blue hyperlinked docket number. It’s not perfect but that’s the norm. The court sometimes files a pdf document like an order or notice. Unless sealed that would get a blue hyperlinked docket entry. Court entries that do no have a pdf document associated with them like Minute Orders or docketing clerk comments to refile something, don’t have a number.
I admit DC is not a court that I have practiced before. Here is a page from the SDNY in the Zarrab case that shows how a sealed document can be shown even though it does not have a blue hyper linked docket number. It shows docket number 126 that is greyed-out and not an active pdf link. Page from Zarrab
The court system is not perfect and is a testament to garbage in garbage out programing axiom. But some stuff just can’t be explained by incompetence.
If I’m right about only filed documents getting a number in DC these documents are missing from Patten’s docket: 2, 12 , 13, 14, 15, 17, 19, 22, 23, 24, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34 & 35,
If I’m wrong about only filed documents getting a number, these documents are missing from Patten’s docket: 15, 24, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35.
I think I’m right and there are as many as eighteen missing documents. If I’m wrong there are as many as seven missing documents.
But one thing is 100% certain: There are documents missing from the Patten docket.
I don’t recall when I noticed it but based on several bits of evidence a while back I concluded that the DC court has been under attack. If I had to guess I would expect it is the Russians. But many folks would like a heads up on stuff coming out of that court. Perhaps they are air-gapping the docket by not even creating an electronic copy and they don’t even give it a number.
One thought on “Some thoughts about a clue in the Sam Patten case from a docket watcher. @maddow @lawrence @maddowblog”
re: Sam Patten. One of t h e b e s t legal researchers @SpicyMaddog offers interesting “receipts” in the following thread: https://twitter.com/SpicyMaddog/status/1115432085077078022