Customize

Sparrow Transcripts (!)

Discussion in 'Anon Sparrow' started by tikk, Jun 23, 2011.

  1. Chipshotz Member

    My eyes are bleeding. What a great read.
    Thanks to Sparrow, Keys, Lester and all the video anons.
    • Like Like x 3
  2. Anonymous Member

    Wall of text. Please refrormat.
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Anonymous Member

    Go Brian Mandigo!
    • Like Like x 3
  4. Zhent Member

    Good news. I have finished my OCR transcription and format reseting of the first day:

    http://www.mediafire.com/file/bx49h61ovk07sd2/Sparrow-transcript_04-28-2011_R1.doc

    Its now a plain formatted, fully searchable Word document, 204KB, 14484 words.

    For anyone else interested in doing the other days, its a few hours of tiresome work. Better then manually transcribing the whole thing though! I will post raw OCR's for other days in a moment so others can join in on the transcription effort.

    If anyone is just starting out reading, please read from the above document so you can check for any obvious errors/problems.

    EDIT: Note: The referenced page numbers in the document are now null, as the document has halved in pages due to reformatting.
    • Like Like x 9
  5. tikk Member

    You're confusing some gentle, non-binding advice the judge gave for a precedent. It's not. Judges say lots of things that are aren't legally meaningful. There's even a term for it: dicta. If Sparrow acted the same and wound up before the same judge on the same charge the judge is entirely aware that his previous admonishment, if you can call it that, holds no sway. I read it as friendly advice because he probably saw this entire thing as a huge waste of time and didn't want to repeat it.
    • Like Like x 11
  6. xenubarb Member

    Key was on the hunt so hard the transcriptionist hadda ask him to slow down when he was closing in on one of Kim's fabrications. I like that in a lawyer.
    • Like Like x 2
  7. adhocrat Member

    So the question was...
    Listen to my question...
    I'm trying to make this perfectly clear...
    Can you focus on the question?

    Scilons don't know from TR 3. Lawyers do.
    • Like Like x 5
  8. Anonymous Member

    Jeff is the prosecutor not the judge. Unless you are talking about the poster. As far as the court of public opinion, the cults reputation is shit and the public I have seen in Sparrows videos shows immense public support.
  9. Anonymous Member

    Jeff Jacobson..the person being replied to.
    And my comment stands.
  10. Anonymous Member

    No I am not. I totally agree that this is non binding.I was pointing out that thing in my original post, sorry if there was any confusion on that. I also would agree that Sparrow winning is a total rebuke of the allegations, at least where it counts. Instead of posting another wall of text I would just say try to find my first post on this.
  11. Anonymous Member

    Please just reformat the text. I like- just can't follow. :)
  12. xenubarb Member

    All bets would've been off in Riverside, LA, Clearwater. As it happens, the cult doesn't really have a lot of power in Washington DC, except the power of lies. Hell, they're used to that in DC!
    • Like Like x 2
  13. subgenius Member

    oh please, i know of instances where careers were made by principled stands, which at first resulted in severe repercussions
    jaded is jaded
    it has been and is different in many instances in many places
    there are lawyers and regular people all over the world taking principled stands despite the consequences
    i thought that was the point of us being here
    in fact most involved in project chanology are risking some type of social suicide by the stand and actions they're taking
    a blanket statement that no one anywhere ever should take a stand (i know you didn't say that overtly) is not helpful or accurate
    if an ada took a stand to abide by his or her oath there are remedies for a wrongful termination because of that
    all it takes for evil to triumph is for "good" people to do nothing
    its an insult to all those who have done something to suggest that its suicide to do something
    i am disappoint
    even assuming your premise, it doesn't address the issue that its a violation of the code of ethics and oath to pursue a case one doesn't believe is warranted
    under fact and law, a violation of which one could lose their right to ever practice their chosen profession
    which was my point

    I was also trying to give the poor ada the benefit of the doubt over whether he was pursuing a case he didn't feel was arguable
    I would prefer to attribute his actions to stupidity than malice, absent evidence to the contrary.
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Anonymous Member

    MY COMMENT STANDS TOO :)
  15. Zhent Member

  16. adhocrat Member

    • Like Like x 2
  17. Anonymous Member

    That is much easier to read. Thanks Zhent
  18. Anonymous Member

    I don't believe he bought into it. He said, iirc, that even if he believed that, the prosecution still hadn't made out a case of stalking. This is basically a way to slam the door shut on any argument that an incorrect factual assumption by the judge tainted the case. That also explains why the judge, who clearly was somewhat baffled by the case even being brought, cut the state all the procedural slack in the world. They had nothing to appeal even unsuccessfully. You can't appeal rulings in your favor that you asked the court to do.

    If they even tried to make an appeal like that, the defense can just point out, look, the judge let them do X, Y, Z, every ridiculous, idiotic thing they asked to do. They're just sore losers who brought a loser case and lost. They have literally nothing to complain about. They got more than a fair shake but their case was a shit case, and they'd have to have been either stupid or corrupt to bring it (I suppose they could be both).
    • Like Like x 4
  19. AnonLover Member

    'k - thats me /slowpoke and late to the transcript party
  20. JohnnyRUClear Member

    "I1andigo" (page 4)

    thanks so much... will read all ASAP

    P.S.: "Better than" ;-)

    ETA: "the church of scientologist" (page 5)

    ETA2: "ask them where David Miscavige wife is. David Miscavige is apparently the current lead of the Scientology." ...WTF?? Who accidentally all the grammar here?

    ETA3: "MR. KEY: -- by any scientologists. THE COURT: Hold on a second." This should be split into two lines.

    ETA4: "I'll let -- the prejudiced by the fact that he's going to say about what about to say." WTF grammar again?

    ETA5: "MR. KEY: It's not a tenet, it's a policy. It was by L. Ron Hubbard who was apparently a scientologist, the guy who wrote this science fiction book, and..." Oh no... now I'm not getting ANY sleep. I'm going to be LOLing all night!! Ahahaha... I can just picture the faces in that room then...... hahahaaaaaaaaaaaaa

    Three words, Key:
    191201551Asamurai.jpg
    • Like Like x 3
  21. Zhent Member

    Nice ones, fix'd

    Thats the court reporters problem, or maybe that was actually what was said. In any event I am keeping all the original transcription problems.

    Hurr I see what you did thar, good thing I am not a court reporter.
  22. JohnnyRUClear Member

    That's fine, but... wow. Is this normal for a court reporter, or is this a sloppy one?

    ETA: "then they to have make something up." No way he said that. This transcript is sheepfucked.
  23. Actually in The Netherlands there has been a case where the prosecuter and the defense asked for a case to be thrown out but the Judges disagreed and dragged it out for a long time not wanyting to admit they were wrong.
  24. And just as I finished reading this threadful of win, Rick Astley started playing on the radio.

    Even The Rick wants to celebrate the awesome
    • Like Like x 6
  25. almost 50 million views

  26. Ann O'Nymous Member

    FTR I am working on 05-02-11 (mentioned on a previous post). Finished one fourth of it.

    When will court reporters be obliged to provide a document made on a computer ? The latter doesn't need to use electricity, but, based on experience, it helps.
  27. Anonymous Member

    A. Yup

    A. Yup

    A. Yup

    A. Yup

    lol
  28. tikk Member

    I admire your convictions but I'm telling you how District Attorneys offices actually work based on my knowing many attorneys who work in such offices. Maybe the ADA here is ultimately a bad person for not quitting his job upon realizing the case was a dog but he'd have been fired and another attorney would've taken his place. Weak cases are brought all the time--this is merely the one that has your attention. Your problem is with reality though and accordingly, you are likely in for a long life of disappoint.
    • Like Like x 3
  29. Anonymous Member

    Yeah...this is really a pretty minor case with limited ramifications to throw your career away on.
    • Like Like x 1
  30. subgenius Member

    tell that to sparrow
  31. subgenius Member

    I am well aware of how DA's offices work.
    There is even a joke/saying in them (Grisham apparently repeats it) that you are not a good prosecutor until you have convicted an innocent person.

    Not talking about weak cases. The hypothetical was a non-case.

    And if it wasn't for disappointments I wouldn't have any appointments.
    Moving on.....
  32. anonsparrow Member

    FWIW, Key told me that the DA most likely inherited this case that noone else wanted and that he, too, probably would have gladly passed it on to someone else given half a chance.

    Key told me not to take it personal and that he's actually a very nice guy. (And he really was super cool to me whenever proceedings were on pause. He was beyond cordial and even let me use his computer speakers throughout the trial. It was a nice piece of cooperation on our parts when it came time to switch speakers back and forth and manage a tangle of wires each time.)

    After the trial was over, I was talking with my lawyers in the hallway for about thirty minutes when I saw the DA heading toward the exit. Tom Key called out to him and walked over. They talked for a few minutes about an unrelated matter.

    But at the end of their discussion, the DA told Tom that when he was walking into court that morning, a sparrow shit on him and one of his exhibits. He said he knew it was a bad omen. LOL!

    So yeah.. Good guy. Bad case. Evil cult.
    • Like Like x 33
  33. Diablo Member

    The sparrow was a bit confused...the bird probably thought is was moxon!
    • Like Like x 5
  34. JohnnyRUClear Member

    "I see you're videotaping me? What do they say? They say, oh, we need that for, what, for the liable case."

    Great, we got the court reporter who not only transposes and drops words left and right but doesn't even know basic legal language.

    This is really sad. I've had no respect for legal beagles for quite a while now, but at least the person writing it down could get it recorded correctly -- or so I thought.

    BRB revising opinion of humanity downward, again.

    ETA: "It's Kim Renee Belotte, K-i-m, Renee, R-e-n-e-e, Belotte, B-e-1-o-t-t-e." 1 --> l (page 12)

    ETA2: "A. We are here because I have had a person stalking me.

    Q. And who is that person? Brian Mandigo.

    Q. And do you recognize that person in the courtroom today?" missed a transition between Q and A (page 17)
  35. lostatsea Member

    I noticed this, too. It burnnnned.
    • Like Like x 1
  36. anonsparrow Member

    I think what many people here fail to realize is that transcriptionists work long hours of exhausting drudgery. Under these conditions they're libel to make mistakes. Just have to deal with it.
    • Like Like x 11
  37. i like your train of though there missy!
  38. lostatsea Member

    ICWUTUDIDTHAR
    • Like Like x 2
  39. subgenius Member

    being human, that's guaranteed
  40. subgenius Member

    You can't make up this stuff.
    Truth stranger than fiction.
    • Like Like x 3

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors

Close

Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins