supporting the absolutley false, ludicrous proposition that the deletion of a day of the month from a PACER filing had some kind of legal significance

From memory, wasn't the problem the actual date on the Pacer which implied a "NEW PACER" for one which was considerably older?

As you correctly state on numerous occasions, interpretation of the law should be left to those conversant in the field, I humbly suggest that "analysis" should remain the preserve of those similarly conversant with that topic, as I am often minded how one found to have acted in "bad faith" was analyzed as having the highest integrity.

.

.

.

Be well