Tbis does not really mean that he did not plead guilty. Granted, he may have. But, from the error it could still be true. So now we wait and see if it pops up again with correct case number or corrected documentation. Thats an odd thing to have an error on.
Publishing the transcript was an error but I doubt that the content of the transcript, which was presented in the notice of correction as a sentencing hearing, was an error.
So if it was a sentencing hearing it was preceded by a conviction.
No… it doesn’t mean he pled guilty. She uploaded the incorrect transcript to the docket report. There’s typically one transcriber per judge. Both cases were heard by the same judge on the same day. Simple human error
The thing that makes me wonder if there's something more to this story is that the case that was alleged to be "mistakely" ascribed to a guilty plea/sentencing for Sussmann is that it's a J6 conviction of a Trump supporter.
This was a simple case of human error. Nothing to read into. Making wild assumptions discredits us. Each judge has their own transcriber. At the end of the day they file the transcript of each case the judge heard onto the docket. Sometimes, you’ll attach the wrong document to a case. She put the sentencing hearing transcript for Mariposa Castro on his case accidentally, caught her mistake, will withdraw the transcript, and file the correct one. NOTHING to read into.
Sometimes you can input a case and may be off by a number. 22-30456 vs 22-03456 will have you file incorrect docs to the case. There’s a number simple human errors that can occur.
It wasn’t the case numbers in this case. The transcriber was the same in both cases. She uploaded the incorrect transcript.
The clerk of courts caught it.
Apr 6, 2022. Notice of Error
It was docketed:
63 Apr 6, 2022
ENTERED IN ERROR.....TRANSCRIPT OF SENTENCING HEARING in case as to MICHAEL A. SUSSMANN before Judge Reggie B. Walton held on February 23, 2022; Page Numbers: 1-46. Date of Issuance:April 6, 2022. Court Reporter/Transcriber Lisa A. Moreira
Sussmann transcript was for a motion hearing. Castro was a sentencing hearing. Both filed on the same date by the same transcriber. Human error. I file docs all the time in pacer and have attached the wrong docs to cases myself. I’m usually sent an email to correct by the clerk. I withdraw then file the correct document. It happens.
TRANSCRIPT OF MOTION HEARING in case as to MICHAEL A. SUSSMANN before Judge Christopher R. Cooper held on March 31, 2022; Page Numbers: 1-49. Date of Issuance:April 6, 2022. Court Reporter/Transcriber Lisa A. Moreira,
TRANSCRIPT OF SENTENCING HEARING in case as to MARIPOSA CASTRO before Judge Reggie B. Walton held on February 23, 2022; Page Numbers: 1-46. Date of Issuance:April 6, 2022. Court Reporter/Transcriber Lisa A. Moreira,
Theory is one thing but if a post is made that doesn’t have some sort of info to back it, it’s called out. One of the reasons I choose this forum. Sensationalism isn’t sold here. You’re commenting on a post literally addressing misinformation/misunderstanding.
I think I'm just jaded from calling out posts that don't have any supporting information and getting attacked or banned as a result. Your experience must be different than mine.
Something I’ve learned is it isn’t necessarily what you’re saying, more of how you’re saying it. Looking for discussion or asking will get you much further. I’ve seen one person in particular who changed how they commented and his opinions are now respected.
Making sure this gets stickied to counter yesterday's sticky with this erroneous news. Fog of information war is real.
Tbis does not really mean that he did not plead guilty. Granted, he may have. But, from the error it could still be true. So now we wait and see if it pops up again with correct case number or corrected documentation. Thats an odd thing to have an error on.
Publishing the transcript was an error but I doubt that the content of the transcript, which was presented in the notice of correction as a sentencing hearing, was an error. So if it was a sentencing hearing it was preceded by a conviction.
Are we supposed to just take her word for it? Even erroneous entries have truth to them.
This is is a research board, so, perhaps you can answer that question
Hehe
Another great resource for the recent Durham drops:
https://technofog.substack.com/p/john-durham-michael-sussmann-and?s=w
Only thing that matters is HE PLED GUILTY to something, his credibility is gone
No… it doesn’t mean he pled guilty. She uploaded the incorrect transcript to the docket report. There’s typically one transcriber per judge. Both cases were heard by the same judge on the same day. Simple human error
I said pled guilty to something not necessarily this but guilty to something which hurts his stance
But he didn't plead guilty to anything...
Exactly… it was the transcript of the motion hearing.
So we know he commits crimes Nd is capable of admitting guilt. Almost there.
Eh, when I saw it last night I felt it was coms before she said it wasn't real.
I feel the same as I did then, it's coms...
Case in point:
https://electrek.co/2022/04/07/tesla-ceo-elon-musk-met-biden-administration-ev-charging-mary-barra-auto-leaders/
Interesting turn around for not even being named and now at a meeting. Maybe it was signal he's playing ball with them now, who knows.
I wouldn't trust him.
The thing that makes me wonder if there's something more to this story is that the case that was alleged to be "mistakely" ascribed to a guilty plea/sentencing for Sussmann is that it's a J6 conviction of a Trump supporter.
Mariposa Castro conviction
This was a simple case of human error. Nothing to read into. Making wild assumptions discredits us. Each judge has their own transcriber. At the end of the day they file the transcript of each case the judge heard onto the docket. Sometimes, you’ll attach the wrong document to a case. She put the sentencing hearing transcript for Mariposa Castro on his case accidentally, caught her mistake, will withdraw the transcript, and file the correct one. NOTHING to read into.
This is a different judge, than is hearing the Sussmann case being prosecuted by Durham, however.
I’ll try to pull up the docket report to really see what’s going on. From the Twitter thread, if you look in comments she re’d the correct case.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1511823658884476938.html
Sometimes you can input a case and may be off by a number. 22-30456 vs 22-03456 will have you file incorrect docs to the case. There’s a number simple human errors that can occur.
Castro case #: 1:21-cr-00299
Sussmann #: 1:21-cr-00582
US v. Castro Docket
US v. Sussmann Docket
Not saying Dawson is right and Margaret is wrong, but those case #s aren't anything alike from where I'm sitting.
It wasn’t the case numbers in this case. The transcriber was the same in both cases. She uploaded the incorrect transcript.
The clerk of courts caught it.
Apr 6, 2022. Notice of Error
It was docketed: 63 Apr 6, 2022 ENTERED IN ERROR.....TRANSCRIPT OF SENTENCING HEARING in case as to MICHAEL A. SUSSMANN before Judge Reggie B. Walton held on February 23, 2022; Page Numbers: 1-46. Date of Issuance:April 6, 2022. Court Reporter/Transcriber Lisa A. Moreira
Sussmann transcript was for a motion hearing. Castro was a sentencing hearing. Both filed on the same date by the same transcriber. Human error. I file docs all the time in pacer and have attached the wrong docs to cases myself. I’m usually sent an email to correct by the clerk. I withdraw then file the correct document. It happens.
TRANSCRIPT OF MOTION HEARING in case as to MICHAEL A. SUSSMANN before Judge Christopher R. Cooper held on March 31, 2022; Page Numbers: 1-49. Date of Issuance:April 6, 2022. Court Reporter/Transcriber Lisa A. Moreira,
TRANSCRIPT OF SENTENCING HEARING in case as to MARIPOSA CASTRO before Judge Reggie B. Walton held on February 23, 2022; Page Numbers: 1-46. Date of Issuance:April 6, 2022. Court Reporter/Transcriber Lisa A. Moreira,
You must be new here.
Theory is one thing but if a post is made that doesn’t have some sort of info to back it, it’s called out. One of the reasons I choose this forum. Sensationalism isn’t sold here. You’re commenting on a post literally addressing misinformation/misunderstanding.
I think I'm just jaded from calling out posts that don't have any supporting information and getting attacked or banned as a result. Your experience must be different than mine.
Something I’ve learned is it isn’t necessarily what you’re saying, more of how you’re saying it. Looking for discussion or asking will get you much further. I’ve seen one person in particular who changed how they commented and his opinions are now respected.
Yeah, I get downvoted for asking for sources. Not sure how else to do that. Too many people here do not want the truth, they just want their truth.