> One might imagine that these secret $250M bail sureties
There are no secret $250M sureties. The $250M sureties are his parents. The other sureties were to be, per the original order, for a lesser amount not specified at the time.
> "Without prejudice" seems to assume the government might oppose the redactions at some point in the future. What are the chances of that.
Since the motion has to be filed by 1/12/2023, its not a really broad “some point in the future”; given this was done on th hearing and the motion doesn’t seem to have been available much, if at all, in advance, I would assume that the government heard it, saw no immediate reason to object, but asked the court for a short period to review and consider if there were issues that weren’t apparent.
> The very purpose of the motion is “to keep secret” the sureties
Its to keep secret the two additional, lesser-amount sureties that were required in the bail order, not the two $250M sureties who signed at the time of the bail order. Redacting the names of the latter at this point would be somewhat pointless.
There are no secret $250M sureties. The $250M sureties are his parents. The other sureties were to be, per the original order, for a lesser amount not specified at the time.
> "Without prejudice" seems to assume the government might oppose the redactions at some point in the future. What are the chances of that.
Since the motion has to be filed by 1/12/2023, its not a really broad “some point in the future”; given this was done on th hearing and the motion doesn’t seem to have been available much, if at all, in advance, I would assume that the government heard it, saw no immediate reason to object, but asked the court for a short period to review and consider if there were issues that weren’t apparent.
Probably fairly low probability.