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.
Today the DC Court of Appeals handed down a decision in a case that addressed the power of the district court to consider factors beyond the limited factors in Fed. R. Crim. P. 6 (e) that covers grand jury secrecy to make grand jury material public. Trump appointee Greg Katsas, hailing from Don McGahn’s old firm, Jones Day, was a deciding vote in the 2-1 decision. Here is a copy of the DC Circuit 6(e) Opinion
If you fail before a three judge panel in a federal appeal you can apply to have an en banc rehearing before a larger en banc panel. It’s rarely granted but because of the topical importance I’d bet that somebody is already drafting the en banc request.
But don’t be concerned, Trump playing footsie with the Russians gives the district court the power to allow Adam Schiff, pursuant to Rule 6(e)(3)(D), access to all the counter intelligence materials for certain and likely everything in the record, because it’s all related to the Russian counter intelligence investigation.