Frank Raia's arraignment and (intriguing) Scheduling Order

Hoboken's political universe is paying close attention to the unfolding legal drama enveloping prominent politico Frank Raia. Some may be worried, others are just fascinated that our city's open secret has finally landed in a court of law.

So, yesterday Raia and his co-Defendant, Dio Braxton, were arraigned on charges named in the indictment.  The hearing lasted only 20 minutes; both plead "not guilty" and were each released on an $100K unsecured appearance bond.  In addition, the court filed several orders, including a Scheduling Order. Basically, the Scheduling Order is a procedural template for The United States of America v Francis Raia, Dio Braxton, should it continue to trial.  It included the following deadlines [emphasis mine]:

• "The Government shall provide all discovery required by federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(a)(1) on or before December 14, 2018."
• "The Defendant shall provide all discovery required by federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(b)(1) on or before January 7, 2019"
• "The Defendant shall file any and all pretrial motions, pursuant to Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 12(b) and 4 1(h), in the manner set forth in L. Civ. R. 7.1, on or before January 18, 2019; "
• "The Government shall file any response to the Defendant’s pretrial motions on or before February 4, 2019;" 
• "The Defendant shall file any reply on or before February 11, 2019;" 
• "Oral argument on pretrial motions shall be held on a date to be set."
• "..the Court shall, in consultation with the parties, schedule a final pretrial conference that will be held no sooner than two (2) weeks following the disposition of pretrial motions."
• "If appropriate, a trial date will be set at this final pretrial conference." 

As a layperson, GA imagines most of the Scheduling Order was boilerplate stuff, but...

A couple of things jumped out at me- they're underlined in red.

USA v FRANCIS RAIA & DIO BRAXTON SCHEDULING ORDER

The Order tells us that a conference was held prior to arraignment at which time parties "determined that this matter may be treated as a criminal case that does not require extensive discovery within the meaning of paragraph 3 of this Court’s Standing Order for Criminal Trial Scheduling and Discovery;" and the discovery schedule was agreed upon. 

And this:

"If there is more than one defendant named in the indictment, and if the Government intends to introduce into evidence in its case-in-chief a confession made to law enforcement authorities by one defendant that names or makes mention of a co-defendant, a copy of that statement or confession shall be disclosed by the Government on or before December 14, 2018."

Tick... tick... tick...

The clock is ticking on on wanna-be Flippers, or.... does the government already have this "one" confession? 

As a layperson, there must be all kinds of nuance in the above that I'm not getting.  

To me, it appears the government is confident in it's own case, and may have an ace up its sleeve.  Is their confident posture to pressure Defendants to flip on more parties not-yet-named in the indictment?   Or is this indictment the complete package? 

If it is the complete package, the government is missing an opportunity to put a blowtorch to the Mile Square's alleged vote-buying once and for all-- because its allegedly much bigger than 3 people indicted. It takes a village, as they say; other villagers (who will think they're in the clear) are still standing. Allegedly.  

And the City Council has set the table for the comeback of vote-buying by bringing back low turnout December run-offs.