06cr128: Sealed v Sealed

It's never left my mind...

This is from a past article fron Truthout.org:

06-cr-128 can't be a May 12 indictment!!

A Democratic Underground commenter claims that, in the DC circuit, cases are assigned docket numbers in sequence. A sealed case still gets a number in sequence, but will be missing from the docket. And 06-cr-128, falls between two cases assigned numbers on May 16 and May 17. On the other hand, 06-cr-124 is similarly missing from the docket, and so likely sealed, and appears to have been filed between May 10 and May 12. Thus 06-cr-124 seems to be a candidate for a May 12 indictment of Rove. Here is an excerpt from that DU posting:

The criminal docket doesn't list a 06-CR-128; it's completely missing from the docket. This is typical for sealed cases in the DC courts. However, we can tell when it was filed based on the dates of the surrounding cases.

Here's the complete list of criminal cases filed in the DC district court from May 10 - May 23, 2006.

1:06-cr-00123-HHK USA v. MANSOER Filed: 05/10/2006 Office: Washington, DC
1:06-cr-00125-RBW USA v. DORIUS et al Filed: 05/12/2006 Office: Washington, DC
1:06-cr-00126-JDB USA v. ABDOULAYE Filed: 05/12/2006 Office: Washington, DC *
1:06-cr-00127-RWR USA v. CURRY Filed: 05/16/2006 Office: Washington, DC
1:06-cr-00129-RMC USA v. WASHINGTON Filed: 05/17/2006 Office: Washington, DC *
1:06-cr-00131-PLF USA v. HILLIARD Filed: 05/18/2006 Office: Washington, DC
1:06-cr-00132-EGS USA v. MANOR Filed: 05/18/2006 Office: Washington, DC
1:06-cr-00136-HHK USA v. GARCIA Filed: 05/23/2006 Office: Washington, DC

According to a Salon article :

Until earlier this year, sealed criminal cases did not appear at all in the public database of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, a practice that prompted protests from the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press , which said that 18 percent of the criminal cases filed in the court between 2000 and 2005 were essentially hidden from public view. In response to such concerns, the District Court altered its system earlier this year so that at least the existence of each sealed case is now noted in the public database. Under the new system, every sealed case appears in the database with the designation "Sealed v. Sealed" regardless of the caption the prosecutor might have used when the case was filed. Thus, contrary to the expert opinion included in the Truthout report, there appears to be no significance at all to the fact that case 1-06-cr-128 bears the designation "Sealed v. Sealed" rather than "U.S. v. Sealed."