alleged altered transcripts II

The following are the minutes from my plea hearing held on June 19, 2013 :

Here is the Nevada supreme Court, see page 3, opinion regarding the statement, "Mr.Parris advised Deft. will waive any procedural defects" :

Where the Court's opinion, "Warenback would waive all procedural defects..." is restating the above quote, "Deft. will waive any procedural defects.". However, the Court goes on to say, "This claim is belied by the record."

So, the nsc is saying the minutes belie the transcript of the hearing (the "expanded" record). How is it possible that the nsc could come to this conclusion when it contradicts the plain language interpretation of the minutes?

The following is my attempt to explain the correct logic that the nsc used to arrive at this contradictory conclusion with the record of the hearing, from page 10 of the plea hearing transcript :

Where the Court asked, "...your lawyer says you're waiving any procedural defects. ...", my answer (to all 8 questions, " see alleged altered transcripts I") is "No. I know what I am doing."

Thus, " no", I am not " waiving any procedural defects" is the logical conclusion the nsc made from the transcript. It is then the nsc, would, by pure inference, conclude that defense counsel waived the defects for me???. All of which contradicts the minutes.

This contradiction is merely not some kind of error made by the court recorder's interpretation of the hearing, but suggests my allegation that such contradictory conclusion is a result of an altered transcript, where I have alleged that "waiving any procedural defects" was never mentioned at the plea hearing. Go to alleged altered transcripts III showing the all the instances where the mentioned "defects" was feloniously added into the record.

This basis of this allegation was stated in ecf 40, ground 4, page 8-A.

Go to the next alleged altered transcripts III