Perfectly Proper
 

I received a copy of the transcript but my name has been deliberately misrepresented throughout -from "Kakoutis" to "Kakoutsis". On the surface, this appears to be an inadvertent error, but in fact, it is absolutely deliberate. How do I know? Compare the "offficial" transcript with what actually transpired in Justice O'Marra's court room, and that will be obvious; this is how the official transcript reads:

THE COURT: Just again for Madam Reporter, that case, Kakoutsis v. Singh, specifically, the parties Louis Kakoutsis the plaintiff, and Rajvir Singh and Don Park Inc. the defendants. This was in 2008. (page 8, lines 16-19, One of 2 separate segments with identical covers)

This is what the actual audio of the Hearing on November 9, 2011, reveals:

THE COURT: That case, Kakoutis, the plaintiff K-A-K-O-U-T-I-S and Singh, S-I-N-G-H, and Don Park Inc., which was the defendant in 2008.

As you can see, a creative revision has created the false impression that the correct spelling of my name was not known but that is clearly not true because every single letter was individually enunciated. The court transcript has been fraudulently altered to hide this simple fact.

The obsession to misrepresent my name has even kept it off the cover of the official transcript. According to what I received, the title which exposes the parties to the proceeding was represented as being "Sanjeev Rishi et al -and- Angela Traikos et al". The actual title of the proceeding is "Rishi et al v. Kakoutis et al", but that would denote the proper spelling of my name and it have been too obvious to use the deliberate, "Kakoutsis" misrepresentation in the body of the transcript if the name "Kakoutis" was listed on the cover?

The entire cover of the official transcript is a hatchet job because it contains the word "submissions" on 2 separate and identical covers. I did not order 2 separate segments of a single transcript. I ordered 5 copies of a full and complete court transcript regarding a single hearing, and it should have been delivered in a single binding WITHOUT the word "SUBMISSIONS" on 2 separate segments. Perhaps, I did not receive ONE properly titled, complete, unsegmented, unaltered court transcript because there were too many lawyers involved in fraudulently altering what was said on November 9, 2011 --each evidently worked on a separate segment.

I guess I was supposed to be so absolutely incompetent, throughout the November 9, 2011 Hearing, because, in the court transcript, I did not even demonstrate the simple, mental capacity to be able to correct my own name -is that the foolish intention of deliberately mispelling my name?

It is very clear that the transcript has been fraudulently altered to portray me in the worst possible light, and as I currently examine it, to my astonishment, the smallest segment, which is only 31 pages long and is bound in a separate cover, does not mispell my name. But if you compare page 11, from this section with the words that were actually exchanged, you will be amazed. This is how page 11 of the court transcript reads; the smallest of 2 separate segments with identical covers.

THE COURT: Mr. Kakoutis, I ask you to keep --

MR. KAKOUTIS: I'm sorry, Your Honour, I am very, very sorry.

THE COURT: Listen to me for a moment.

MR. KAKOUTIS: I understand.

THE COURT: What you are saying, by the way, is perfectly proper and I am listening to it --

MR. KAKOUTIS: I am sorry, Your Honour. This is very frustrating.

THE COURT: I am just saying, sir, the acoustics in this courtroom --

MR. KAKOUTIS: I understand.

THE COURT: --are better than most. I have been in a lot of courtrooms over the years. Some courtrooms are not very good.

This is what actually transpired in the courtroom with the foolproof acoustics:

THE COURT: Mr. Kakoutis

MR. KAKOUTIS: I'm sorry Your Honour, I'm very, very sorry.

THE COURT: No that's okay.

MR. KAKOUTIS: I'm very, very sorry

THE COURT: The acoustics in this courtroom

MR. KAKOUTIS: I understand

THE COURT: What you are saying by the way is perfectly proper and I am listening to you --

MR. KAKOUTIS: I am sorry Your Honour, this is very frustrating.

THE COURT: Well I'm just saying sir the acoustics in this courtroom --

MR. KAKOUTIS: I understand.

THE COURT: --are better than most. I've been in alot of court rooms over the years, and some court rooms are not very good.

If somebody did not provide this court reporter with a doctored tape of the proceedings, she has fraudulently altered the Judge's words, "No that's okay" to "listen to me", to create the false impression that the Judge is chastizing me for not listening to him. For some reason, unlike the other court reporter, she spelled my name correctly. It looks like each "segment" of the 2 part transcript I received (which is a strange presentation, to say the least) deployed a different method in effort to discredit me.

I resent the obsession to butcher my character through the zeal to challenge listening skills that are well advanced in any researcher like myself. Clearly, the Judge did not complain about my alleged failure to listen to him as the fraudulent alteration suggests, he was merely making a comment about the acoustics in the courtroom.

Some of the fraudulent alterations documented by the court reporter who spelled my name correctly are extremely bizarre and I include them here to let the reader/listener make sense of them. They are remarkable in scope, and anybody with an ounce of intelligence ought to be astounded.

This is how the official court transcript reads:

THE COURT: Mr. Kakoutis, this might assist you. As I take what you are just saying is, that as a result of the accident that you were in --you suffered a very serious accident which you know we are not here to deal with the facts, I appreciate you are not going to get into the facts of that because they don't matter here in the legal sense.

MR. KAKOUTIS: That's right.

THE COURT: As I understand it, you were diagnosed as having -- one of the consequences was that you were diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder.

MR. KAKOUTIS: Yes Sir.

THE COURT: And as I understand it, and this is helpful to me. I'm trying to understand. The defence in that case retained Dr. Margulies to counter or to question whether you in fact --

MR. KAKOUTIS: Exactly.

THE COURT: That helps me.

The actual audio, and you can listen to it yourself, reads as follows:

THE COURT: Well, Mr. Kakoutis, as I understand it, maybe, this might assist you. As I take what you are just saying is, that as a result of the accident that you were in, it was a very serious accident, and you know, we're not here, hold on, let me finish sir, I don't want you to interrupt me,

MR. KAKOUTIS: I'm not interrupting you sir. I'm just listening.

THE COURT: Okay. I understand that you were involved in a very serious accident and you know we're not here to deal with the facts, I appreciate you are not going to get into the facts of that case, they don't matter here in the legal sense.

MR. KAKOUTIS: That's right.

THE COURT: But as I understand it, you were diagnosed as having, one of the consequences was, diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder.

MR. KAKOUTIS: Yes sir.

THE COURT: And as I understand it, now this is helpful to me. I'm trying to understand it. The defence in that case retained Dr. Margulies to counter or to question whether in fact you had (PTSD).

MR. KAKOUTIS: Exactly

THE COURT: Very good, that's very good, that helps me.

I do not think it is fair to blame any court reporter for this deliberate misrepresentation, the responsibility is clearly in the hands of the silly motivations of silly lawyers and they need to be disciplined, disbarred or, if justice is appropriately served, incarcerated for this grotesque obstruction of justice.

The astounding thoroughness of every fraudulent alteration is mind boggling. For example, when I tried to get Justice O'Marra to consider my costs submission, this is how the exchange actually went:

MR KAKOUTIS: Okay. And with all due respect, Your Honour, I cannot see a single reason, that would make a reasonable person do what Mr. Laski is asking for. I don't know, I am really ---and you know, when I told you that I wanted to give you my costs, my costs, can I read something from it?

THE COURT: No.

MR KAKOUTIS: Okay

THE COURT: And when I say that, I'm not going to hear from Mr. Laski.

MR. KAKOUTIS: Alright, that's fine...

This is how the fraudulently altered, official transcript reads:

MR KAKOUTIS: Okay. And with all due respect, Your Honour, I cannot see a single reason, that would make a reasonable person do what Mr. Laski is asking for. I don't know, I am really ---and you know, when I told you that I wanted to give you my costs, my costs, can I read something from it?

THE COURT: No. I'm not going to hear from Mr. Laski on costs.

MR KAKOUTIS: Okay

THE COURT: And when I say that, I'm not going to hear from Mr. Laski on costs.

MR. KAKOUTIS: That's fine...

This fraudulent alteration may appear to be insignificant to somebody who does not understand the law, but it's all about the obsession to evade the responsibility of litigation costs. You see, at the Hearing, Mr. Laski said that he did not charge his client a single penny for this motion, he did it all "for free" so Mr. Laski's client cannot recover ANY costs. I am the only one who is entitled to costs in this matter and a fraudulent alteration seeks to obscure this simple fact.

Finally, to put fraudulently altered passages in some understandable context, I enclose 4 pages of the transcript, which were, in the words of Justice O'Marra "perfectly proper" --aside from the subtle alterations which were supposed to shift the focus to my so-called deficient listening skills. Needless to say, the extreme obsession to manufacture negative criticism is quite transparent and it explains every fraudulent alteration.






NEXT: More  


 


   

 


 

 
 
messages

 
 
Do you trust this man?

 
 
 
BACK TO ZEN