highly suspicious statements made by Mr. Parris

From ecf 22 exhibit 12, page 11 :

Where Mr. Parris stated, "She never said: He's pimping me out.", I allege that only could be a conclusion Mr. Parris made after reading statements made by Amanda. I allege this is an error made by Mr. Parris that supports my allegation about the existence of Amanda's statements.

Next, Mr. Parris makes a very suspicious statement about the voicemail, from ecf 22 exhibit 13 page 11 :

stating, "whether it was a voicemail or what have you but on that recording, I believe it was a voicemail." Is Mr. Parris questioning the integrity, validity of the voicemail?? What could Mr. Parris possibly mean by "I believe it was a voicemail"? I allege Mr. Parris is aware of the alleged fraud with the voicemail and makes his concerns known in the record. I allege he is creating a form of immunity if there ever would be a hearing on the recordings and transcripts. My allegations regarding transcript fraud is made at alleged statements made by Amanda.

From ecf 22 exhibit 13 page 8 : to

From above : "...we could all understand a lay person not fully appreciating how broad the definition of kidnapping is here in Nevada. ..."

And from page 19 :

"... because kidnapping is, again, more broad in Nevada than most lay people would think it would be..."

Here, Mr. Parris made the indications that Nevada has a different take on the kidnapping law than other states. Go to legal theory waiving procedural defects fictitious charge that supports what Mr. Parris is referring to.

From ecf 22 exhibit 13 page 17 :

Here, I allege Mr. Parris is referring to Amanda's criminal case when he stated, "...-not to castigate the victim but she certainly had her own struggles...". Although, Mr. Parris could have made this conclusion based on the mother's statements.