Credit is due constant reader Bob Kamman, Esq., for pointing out a seemingly innocuous request by Ch J Patrick J. (“Scholar Pat”) Urda in Capitol Places II Owner, LLC, Historic Preservation Fund 2014 LLC, A Partner Other Than the Tax Matters Partner, Docket No. 16536-23, filed 6/12/26.
Unhappily, the DAWSON Genius Baristas have posted this order in a format wherefrom I cannot cut-and-paste, but possibly their reason in this case is made clear in the text.
Could someone have tinkered with the language of a Supreme Court opinion? Check out a trusted version of 464 US 386, at p. 391. Then compare with Order, at p. 1.
The refrain of the Mexican folksong first quoted at the head hereof may be the answer.
Taishoff Law 
There are some free Adobe tools that allow codebreaking, converting pdf to text. The results are imperfect, but here are relevant snippets:
“Our review of petitioner’s papers reveals an ostensible disconnect between its purported quotations of Supreme Court cases and those cases as printed in the United States Reports. Specifically, the Court has been unable to locate the following quoted passages from petitioner’s opposition: [quotes from pleadings] . . .
“ORDERED that, within seven days, petitioner shall submit a copy of the Badaracco opinion (from the United States Reports) highlighting the portions quoted in its opposition. If the quotations are not from Badaracco, petitioner shall supply a copy of the case quoted (from the United States Reports or equivalent reporter should the case not come from the Supreme Court) with the relevant passages highlighted.”
“Ostensible disconnect” – Chief Judge Urda is not the first to use this phrase, but I have found only a few others and none before 2014.
LikeLike