>>35824
Well, I normally don’t like to blast what I find in order not to embarrass myself with stupid stretches, but it’s a balance between chasing leads vs making all one’s mistakes in the open. But, I tend to prefer a collaborative effort and success at solving something so I just share what I find.

I did find a couple of court cases in the Phillipines had a CA-J suffix but both were Supreme Court level cases. Not sure if that suffix is added to the original court case or not.

But Jim Watkins’s case does currently have a J-number on it which is currently only filed by a city prosecutor. In my US county said prosecutor’s aka city attorneys.

See attached cases- NOT RELATED to Jim Watkins’ case but which have CA-J suffix. It could be that Jim’s case, as I hear, could change status and be given another case number.

I am not saying I know anything about the Phillipine Judicial system. Just found these by searching “CA_J”.