EQUAL JUSTICE, PLEASE BRING STAMPS AND LEAVE YOUR SMARTWATCH OUTSIDE
A PINKERTON OPENS THE HOOD: THREE AFTERNOON RECEIPTS, A LATE-NIGHT DEFENSE FILING, AND THE QUESTION OF WHO GETS HEARD
At the courthouse entrance, according to Robin Devine’s account, the first question was whether she was an attorney. She said no. A security officer she described as a marshal told her she could not bring her smartwatch inside. She left and returned without it.
Then she delivered our three documents.
At 1:14 p.m. on Thursday, September 24, the Tampa clerk’s office stamped our case-management report and my disclosure statement received. At 1:15 p.m., it stamped my opposition to the defendants’ motions received.
At 11:12 p.m. Eastern, defense counsel Seth Kolton filed the defendants’ case-management report electronically as Document 97.
Nine hours and fifty-eight minutes after our report reached the clerk, theirs entered CM/ECF. When I checked, theirs appeared on the electronic docket and ours did not.
The watch had been dealt with. The papers were another matter.
That is where this examination begins: with a person who complied, a clerk who acknowledged receipt, and an electronic record whose visible sequence demanded an explanation.
THE CASE TRAVELED. MY FILING ACCESS DID NOT.
Our civil RICO case, Pinkerton et al. v. Reinhardt et al., began in Washington, D.C., and was transferred to the Middle District of Florida. I am both a plaintiff and the investigative journalist reporting on the underlying allegations. The defendants dispute those allegations. Their liability remains contested.
When we learned the case was being transferred to Florida, I feared that procedural obstacles would consume the time and energy needed to present the evidence. This episode fits the concern I had. Anticipating a problem does not prove its cause, but it certainly gives me reason to examine the machinery when the problem arrives.
My earlier article, “Equal Justice Please Bring Stamps,” described my sworn account of authorized electronic filing in this same lawsuit before the transfer. My renewed request described experience using CM/ECF and proposed case-specific, revocable access limited to my own papers.
The court could impose conditions. It could require training. It could revoke access for misuse. I proposed a probationary alternative.
Instead, I remained dependent on paper delivery and the court’s subsequent processing.
The familiar promise is that everyone gets a chance to be heard. The less advertised complication is that some people can place their papers directly into the electronic record while others must arrange delivery, pass security, obtain a receipt, and then watch for evidence that their words made it the rest of the way.
EFFICIENCY IS WONDERFUL WHEN THE INSTITUTION GETS IT
In Sheets v. Pribble, a July 28, 2025 order explained that the district was discontinuing its pro se web portal to realign resources and maintain efficiency. The court rejected that litigant’s demand to reinstate access. (ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov)
My earlier article reports that Magistrate Judge Christopher P. Tuite’s August 25 denial, Document 79, characterized my request in terms of efficiency and quicker dispatch and receipt, which it found insufficient to justify an exception.
Consider the allocation of inconvenience. Institutional efficiency helps explain removing a service. Individual efficiency fails to justify access through an available alternative. Printing, travel, delivery, and monitoring do not disappear. They move onto the citizen’s calendar and bank statement.
What a marvelous accounting method: transfer the expense to the person least able to control the process, then congratulate the institution on saving resources.
The distinction between the discontinued web portal and individual CM/ECF authorization matters. The district’s November 18, 2025 procedures preserve judicial authorization for a self-represented electronic filer in an approved case. The exception exists. The question is whether my application received an adequate, individualized evaluation. (flmd.uscourts.gov)
An exception that survives on paper should mean something when a person asks to use it.
TEXT-ONLY DOES NOT MEAN ACCOUNTABILITY-FREE
The renewed denial was a text-only docket order. There was no separate PDF attachment.
Let us be accurate: a text-only entry can itself be a written judicial order. Its format does not establish concealment. The operative words are still on the docket, available to preserve, quote, and challenge.
I do not expect a longer explanation. But the absence of a separate attachment does not mean there is nothing to scrutinize. The relevant question is whether the text supplied a legally sound reason for rejecting the request before the court.
A short order can be correct. A lengthy opinion can be wrong. Page count is no substitute for reasoning.
And an institution should not expect the people affected by its decisions to confuse brevity with an answer to an argument the order never meaningfully addresses.
THE RULEBOOK SHOULD SURVIVE THE TRIP TO THE BENCH
The attached article and my prepared Rule 72(a) objections reproduce the September 24 denial, Document 96, as invoking the “stringent and demanding standards” of Rule 60(b) insofar as my renewed motion sought reconsideration. They also report that the order adopted the reasons in Document 79.
My objection concerns the standard. The earlier filing-access decision did not end the lawsuit. My renewed motion invoked Rule 54(b), the framework for reconsidering nonfinal orders.
The published Eleventh Circuit decision in Hornady v. Outokumpu Stainless USA, LLC, issued October 11, 2024, distinguishes that framework from the standards governing reconsideration after final judgment. It recognizes broad discretion over nonfinal orders; it does not require every reconsideration motion to succeed. (media.ca11.uscourts.gov)
The distinction is consequential. If a court imposes the higher final-judgment threshold on a nonfinal access request, it may demand a showing the governing framework does not require. The earlier denial’s incorporated reasons must also be evaluated; correcting a citation alone does not necessarily determine the outcome.
But requiring the right analysis is hardly an extravagant demand.
In Watkins v. Fox, Judge Tuite’s January 2024 order cited authority treating reconsideration motions under different rules as generally subject to the same standard. Hornady came later and distinguished those standards. That sequence makes the legal question specific: how does the reconsideration analysis described in Document 96 comply with the subsequent appellate guidance? (ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov)
A citizen can be expected to read the rulebook. So can the official applying it.
THE AFTERNOON DID NOT DISAPPEAR
The receipt stamps establish delivery. They are not predictions of a future filing attempt.
Rule 5(d)(2)(A) provides for nonelectronic filing by delivery to the clerk. Rule 79(a)(2) requires papers filed with the clerk to be entered chronologically in the docket. Those requirements support an accurate record of the actual filing event, even when electronic entry occurs later. (uscourts.gov)
The rules do not expressly reserve the next three consecutive document numbers for three papers delivered together. Nor does a later document number alone prove misconduct. My demand is more fundamental: account for all three submissions and preserve their actual filing history.
A paper waiting to be scanned does not become a paper that never arrived.
The interval between our receipt stamps and Document 97’s electronic transaction is established. The exact duration of our papers’ absence requires the docket history. A processing queue may explain the interval. It does not eliminate the need for accurate entries or answer whether a decision was made while material opposition was unavailable.
If the explanation is ordinary administration, provide it. Identify the receipt, routing, processing, and entry dates. Identify any applicable restriction. Explain any continued omission after notice.
The institution asks litigants for evidence. Returning the request should not be regarded as a breach of etiquette.
THEIR CHECKBOX MET OUR WRITTEN OBJECTION
The reports are not interchangeable.
Document 97 checks the statement that “the parties” request a preliminary pretrial conference. Our report expressly states there is no joint request by all parties. It identifies objections and explains the Jenkins plaintiffs’ position separately.
Our report requests remote participation if a conference is ordered. It describes their California residence, displacement, medical limitations, and responsibilities caring for Timothy Jenkins’s elderly mother. It also explains how my work travel affects an in-person appearance.
Their report does not reproduce those circumstances.
These are human consequences concealed by the bland vocabulary of scheduling. A courthouse appearance can mean travel expenses, interrupted work, or arranging care for an elderly parent. A missing objection can make a contested demand look less contested than it is.
Document 97 is titled as the defendants’ report and acknowledges disagreement with ours. That disclosure matters. But it does not make every collective checkbox accurate or supply the substance of our missing qualifications.
Cooperation in a planning conference is not a blank signature on whatever the other side later requests.
Get Krstafer Pinkerton; Director of Investigations.’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
Our report says that explicitly.
THE RECORDS QUESTION WAS LEFT BLANK
The difference becomes even more concrete in the discovery provisions.
Their report checks “Yes” to the question about electronically stored information and leaves the requested description blank.
Our report identifies proposed subjects for investigation: Vantaca records; the transition from Resource Property Management to West Coast; export and import manifests; access permissions; administrator and audit logs; migration exceptions; and support tickets. It proposes preserving relevant metadata and producing native spreadsheets retaining formulas.
Those proposals do not prove deletion or wrongdoing. They identify ways to determine what happened.
One report acknowledges an issue. The other describes how to examine it.
For litigation involving disputed financial and association records, that difference deserves the judge’s attention. It concerns whether the parties will discuss the digital evidence needed to test their competing accounts.
An empty field is a remarkably concise discovery plan. Unfortunately, concision does not retrieve a missing ledger.
EVEN THEIR CALENDAR ARGUES WITH THEIR FORM
Document 97 proposes July 16, 2027, for dispositive and Daubert motions and November 1, 2027, for trial. Its own table states that those motions must be scheduled at least five months before the requested trial date.
July 16 to November 1 is 108 days.
Our report identifies the mismatch and proposes June 1 for those motions, with discovery completion on May 3 rather than defendants’ June 4.
These are proposed dates, not an entered schedule. The point is the internal inconsistency: the form’s instruction and the dates written beside it do not agree.
Apparently, the unrepresented litigants found time to read the sentence above the box.
The court can resolve the disagreement. It needs an accurate account of both proposals to do so.
THE DEFENSE HAD NOTICE OF OUR POSITION
Document 97 acknowledges my 6:24 p.m. email transmitting plaintiffs’ report and advising that it had been filed. The email’s time zone is not specified in the footnote, so I do not use it to calculate an exact interval.
Its evidentiary value is simpler: defendants knew about our competing report before filing theirs. The clerk’s receipt independently supports my statement that it had been delivered.
That knowledge does not establish that counsel caused the docketing gap. It establishes that our position was available to them.
Their report therefore cannot substitute for ours merely because it was the submission electronically visible when I checked.
And if I insist on precision from everyone else, I must apply it to our papers. Our certificate of service lists automated ECF notification. That statement must be reconciled with the actual service method and any clerk-generated notice. Counsel’s acknowledgment of an email establishes receipt of an email; it does not establish automated ECF service.
An investigation that excuses every defect on its own side is an advertisement. Mine must withstand the same examination I demand of the court.
OPENING THE HOOD WITHOUT INVENTING THE ENGINE
This is how a Pinkerton opens the hood. I compare documents, identify contradictions, preserve receipts, and ask who performed each relevant act.
My investigative concern is that the combined effect of restricted filing access and delayed docket visibility gives the institution control over when my position becomes readily available in the electronic record. I suspect deliberate manipulation and want that suspicion tested against the handling history.
I do not possess an instruction directing a clerk to suppress these papers. Nor do these documents establish that Judge Tuite, Judge Jung, defense counsel, and security personnel coordinated their conduct. Their roles are different; responsibility must be traced rather than assigned collectively.
The word “propensity” cannot fill that gap. Calling a conclusion a “preponderance” does not weigh the evidence for me. I have to compare explanations, examine contrary facts, and identify what supports intent rather than merely showing opportunity or disadvantage.
That discipline sharpens the investigation. It tells me where to look next.
Who received the papers after intake? When were they processed? What entries were created? Were there instructions affecting these submissions? Was any ruling based on an assumption that no opposition existed? What happened after the discrepancy was raised?
Those questions are answerable without a confession and without a press release.
THE WASHINGTON RECORD DESERVES A COMPLETE ACCOUNTING
I consider the materials submitted in Washington deeply damaging to the conduct challenged in our lawsuit. The defendants dispute that assessment. The fact that evidence was filed does not establish that every allegation has been proved.
My concern after transfer is whether that record remains complete, accessible, and accurately identified.
That requires an attachment-by-attachment comparison: original docket number, exhibit number, title, page count, and corresponding location in the receiving court’s record. A broken link, an incorporated transfer packet, a restricted exhibit, and an omitted document are different conditions.
If something is missing, identify it. If it is elsewhere, identify where. If access is restricted, identify the authority. A citizen should not have to play archival hide-and-seek to determine whether an exhibit followed his lawsuit.
The court need not agree with my evidence to account for it.
That is exactly why the integrity of the record matters: it allows a claim to be tested through identifiable material instead of decided through competing descriptions of material nobody can readily locate.
THE FIGURATIVE ROPE IS THE PAPER TRAIL
When I say they took the bait, I mean that ordinary compliance produced a record against which institutional conduct can be measured. The figurative rope is a paper trail: a request, a response, a delivery, a timestamp, a conflicting representation.
There was no manufactured emergency. Robin brought the papers. She complied with security. She returned without the watch. The clerk stamped the submissions.
Her account does not establish whether attorneys were permitted to carry the same device. The policy would answer that question. Her account does establish the additional steps required of her before delivery.
Once she completed those steps, responsibility for processing the papers passed into the courthouse.
The public is entitled to ask what happened there.
ACCOUNTABILITY SHOULD NOT REQUIRE A BAR NUMBER
Readers do not have to accept my RICO allegations to recognize the public interest here. Today the person waiting for his papers to appear is an investigative journalist. Tomorrow it may be a worker, a disabled litigant, a caregiver, or someone contesting the loss of a home.
The question is whether a person using the required filing route receives a reliable record of participation and legally sound consideration of a request to use an available alternative.
A court can deny a motion. It can reject a claim. It can enforce appropriate restrictions. Its decisions remain subject to examination for what they say, what they omit, and what the record supports.
I am asking for an accurate docket, an explanation of the processing history, consideration of our actual positions, and evaluation of renewed access under the correct legal framework.
Those demands are ordinary. The burden of securing answers should be ordinary too.
Robin left her smartwatch outside. She brought our documents inside.
At 1:14 and 1:15 p.m., the court acknowledged them.
At 11:12 p.m., the defendants’ report entered electronically.
The institution can explain the interval. It can explain the denial. It can account for the record.
The receipt has already done its part.
SOURCE NOTE
This is first-person investigative commentary by a plaintiff in pending litigation. It does not represent a judicial finding of corruption, fraud, RICO liability, or intentional concealment. The observed absence of plaintiffs’ papers is the author’s account; the supplied materials establish receipt and the defense transaction time but do not include a contemporaneous complete docket snapshot.
