Here is link to unsealing of docket from the court records..there's a lot here
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6129073/69/united-states-v-christensen/
the defendants claim that the sealed document impacted issues presented to this Court
at the time it was filed. (Def.Mot.1) This claim directly contradicts this Courts previous
finding that the document did not have any impact on any ruling. (R.52) The defendant
was well-aware that this Court had stated that the document did not impact any ruling
at the time the defendant made his contrary claim
Ironically, on the same date the defendant requested this Court to unseal docket
entry #32 and requested permission to file its recusal motion under seal, the defendant
also filed docket entry #60 under seal. The defendant does not appear to have requested
or received permission under Local Rule 49.9(A) to file docket entry #60 under seal, nor
did he assert a legal basis for filing docket entry #60 under seal.
The defendants statements in docket entry #60 violate Rule 11s prohibition
against involving the Court in plea discussions. Therefore, the United States requests
that the Court strike docket entry #60 from the record and not consider it.
Moreover, typically a defendant is offered protections against any use of plea
discussions and related statements under Rule 11(f) of the Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure and Rule 410 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Arguably, the defendant has
waived those protections by submitting docket entry #60. The United States submits,
however, that not all of the factual representations and characterizations set forth in
docket entry #60 are correct and further submits that the filing is misleading due to
various omissions. Such a situation is addressed in Rule 410(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of
Evidence: The Court may admit a statement described in Rule 410(a)(3) or (4) in any
proceeding in which another statement made during the same plea or plea discussions
has been introduced, if in fairness the statements ought to be considered together. In
fairness, if docket entry #60 is not stricken, then it should be unsealed and the United
States should be permitted to file a response thereto, setting forth relevant and omitted
statements made during the same plea discussions.2
I stopping here but this is reading strong language to me...