There is a reason court reporters make transcripts of hearings.

An audio recording is a better record. But electronic records deteriorate faster than paper and become obsolete. Now that “paper” records are stored electronically by the courts, that reason is negated.

It is quicker to read than to listen. An hour-long hearing transcript takes about 20 minutes to read.

It is easier to “rewind” print than electronic communications.

The advantages to using the audio recording for a court record is that it is more accurate. It is harder to edit than a transcript.

Hopefully court reporters are always honest. But they are not.

I allege that Jana Perry in Searcy County Arkansas purposefully made two inaccurate transcripts in a case in which I was a defendant.

I asked to have the tape played back. Ms. Perry refused.

I asked Judge Susan Weaver to “settle the record” by playing back the tape in open court. She refused.

I made a Freedom of Information Act request for the recording. Judge Weaver refused to approve the FOIA request.

I need the record of the case as evidence in another case. So, I sent a subpoena to Jana Perry.

An assistant Attorney General wrote a motion to quash the subpoena for Ms. Perry. Your tax dollars at work. Ironically, one reason he gave was that producing a copy of the audio recording was a burden. How much more of a burden was writing the motion, the response and having the court read the response?

Why so secretive? You decide.

A. Judge Weaver does not like the sound of her own voice.

B. Jana Perry wants to drum up business, and there is not as much mark-up when emailing the audio. (This is one reason the AG gave in the motion to quash.)

C. Judge Weaver and Jana Perry are guilty of honest services fraud for purposefully making a false record of a case in which Judge Weaver transferred title to a property worth at least $200K from an unrepresented trust to a convicted felon and his attorney.

D. B & C.

***********************

Put your answer in the comments. Thanks.