What this page is NOT

A list of corruption findings. A name match is not an allegation; a case appearance is not wrongdoing; even being a defendant in a civil suit is not necessarily evidence of misconduct. This is a research-lead aggregator: it identifies which flagged entities have a court-records footprint, so a journalist or citizen researcher can look up the specific cases on CourtListener / RECAP / PACER.

Phase 2 (planned)

  • Per-docket detail fetch to extract party role (plaintiff vs defendant vs interested-party).
  • Filter out high-noise entries (entities whose name is too common — e.g., 'Williams', 'City of').
  • Expand cohort beyond top-flagged subset to the full ~15K entity universe (multi-day paced run).
  • State-court coverage via Playwright on NV Sup Ct + 8th JDC Clark + 2nd JDC Washoe (#142).
  • Cross-tag with our existing Tier A-E1 detector flags so the strongest leads are entity-AND-flagged-AND-defendant-in-active-litigation.

Why this matters for accountability

Lawsuits are the strongest documented-public-record signal of misconduct. A statistical anomaly is a starting point; a contributor who is also a defendant in fraud litigation is a documented case the reader can read in full. Tier F (Found-in-Court) findings sit at the top of the evidence-strength ladder when present.