What court dockets or public‑records databases list filings associated with Lisa Noelle Voldeng?
Executive summary
The available reporting identifies Lisa Noelle Voldeng primarily as the Substack user who posted audio purportedly from “Sascha/Sasha Riley,” but it does not cite or point to any court dockets or public‑records databases containing filings filed by or about Voldeng herself [1] [2] [3]. Multiple outlets emphasize that the audio and related claims remain unverified and that the publications presenting them offer no corroborating court records or law‑enforcement filings [1] [2] [4].
1. What the reporting actually documents about Voldeng
Contemporary coverage consistently locates Voldeng in the role of a Substack publisher who posted audio and narrative material labeled as testimony from an alleged survivor; her Substack presence and some author notes are directly cited in the reporting [5] [6], and several news outlets identify her as the person who shared the tapes [7] [3].
2. What the reporting does not document — no court dockets cited
Crucially, none of the supplied reports link Voldeng or the posted audio to an identifiable court docket, criminal indictment, or civil filing; outlets explicitly note that the allegations in the recordings have not been authenticated by courts or law‑enforcement agencies and are not reflected in public court records cited by journalists [1] [2] [4].
3. How reporters frame the absence of formal filings
News coverage frames the materials as social‑media and Substack‑circulated content lacking corroborating documentary evidence: several pieces reiterate that the tapes and the names contained within them are circulating online but are not part of any verified court case or official indictment as reported by mainstream outlets [1] [2] [3].
4. What the sources do show about alleged supporting records (and their provenance claims)
Voldeng’s own posts make claims about possession of records and audio masters and refer to documents such as military court‑martial records and FBI reports in the narrative she published [6], but the mainstream reporting scrutinizing the postings notes that those claims are presented by the blogger without the independent documentary verification that would tie them to court dockets or public‑records databases [2] [4].
5. Alternative viewpoints, agendas, and why the absence of dockets matters
Observers in the reporting offer competing takes: some readers and commentators treat the audio as potentially credible and demanding of investigation, while other analysts and journalists warn that the material lacks corroborating documents and could be misused or mischaracterized in partisan debates; news pieces explicitly caution that names appearing in the recordings do not equate to formal charges or filings in court [1] [2] [4], and that the provenance and authentication of records claimed by the publisher remain unresolved [6].
6. Conclusion and limits of the record presented
Based on the material provided, there are no cited court dockets or public‑records databases listing filings associated with Lisa Noelle Voldeng in the reporting reviewed here: outlets identify her publication activity on Substack and relay her claims about holding records, but they do not present or reference any corroborating filings in courts or public‑records repositories [5] [6] [1] [2] [4]. The sources reviewed do not document searches of specific dockets or databases nor do they assert that such searches turned up filings tied to Voldeng, so the absence of reported filings in this coverage should be treated as a limitation of the present reporting rather than definitive proof that no filings exist.