There’s not a whole lot of court employees in the average courtroom here in California. However, one of the most important court employees sitting in a courtroom besides the judge is usually the court reporter. We have said for some time that we’re alarmed by the notion of having to bring ones court reporter as opposed to having the courts provide court reporters in all court matters as a matter of routine. We’ve joined hands with court reporters statewide to push for changes that would keep court reporters in the courtroom and would push for any legislation that should do the same.
Court Reporters are the only credible form of checks and balances in a courtroom. While counsel can advocate, it doesn’t matter what counsel advocates if it’s not a part of the record but to be a part of the record, someone has to be keeping a record. This is the vital role that court reporters serve in the California Courts. While other states permit electronic recording of proceedings and electronic court reporting via something as simple as a desktop cassette tape player operated by a judge, sometimes inaudible recordings are simply not a credible record of proceedings.
Brought to our attention by the CJP or the commission on judicial performance was the proverbial other shoe. Without court reporting, it is becoming increasingly difficult for the CJP to carry out their responsibilities. It is for all of these reasons that we advocate and would promote legislation placing court reporters back in California Courtrooms as a requirement and not an option.
Related Attachments
Related articles
- No Court Reporters for Trials? (longbeachlpa.wordpress.com)
- Court Reporters – Becoming a Luxury Item? (merrill-lad-magazine.com)
- Budget cuts: L.A. County court system to lay off 350 employees (latimesblogs.latimes.com)
Judicial Council Watcher 
Jeffrey Golin
March 16, 2012
The other side of the argument will shock and surprise into disbelief many people who have not had the misfortune of witnessing first hand what we have experienced.
In a state probate and federal civil rights case in which we were required to appear pro se, certain influential public authorities knew they stood to face possible criminal liability if the facts in a number of hearings came out, transcripts of hearing were drastically altered by court reporters to help exculpate these entrenched state and municipal entities.
These were not just minor alterations or off-the-record comments, or two people talking over one another. There were no excuses for these types of alterations. These were not mere mistakes. These included questions and answers by the judge, for instance. Yesses were turned into Nos. Tirades by a federal judge exhibiting plain and outrageous bias were removed. All the alterations favored the state defendants and respondents, never the plaintiffs and petitioners. It occurred in a dozen state hearings and one federal hearing, before four or five judges. When we pointed it out to the reporters, they stood their ground that the record was accurate. Without a tape recording, there is no way to challenge them.
Others I have spoken to that appeared for themselves have reported the same experience. Only if you saw this first hand with your own eyes would you believe it, and many have. Lawyers I asked about this won’t discuss it, or have instructed me to not talk about it, because if you do it will make you sound nuts, and I can see why. But it happens. We know what we heard and said, what they said and the judge said, and it was gone. Since we found an able attorney several years ago, we do not see it happening anymore. Tape recorders are confiscated at the metal detectors, which makes you wonder what their real purpose is. Lady Justice’s scales have a heavy thumb pressing down on one side.
Who does it? That’s a good question, subject to conjecture. I doubt that any court reporters would have the authority or knowledge to direct such activity on their own. Judges, prosecutors, the defendants, who knows? The point is that by the courts’ preventing a private reporter from recording, and preventing tape recorders in the courtroom, there is no defense to this abuse of the record. No one wants to investigate this problem. Court reporting in this technological day and age is absolutely medieval. There has to be a better way. But there has to be a record of all the proceedings. Otherwise, appeals become impossible.
anna
March 16, 2012
That’s why daily’s and “real time” are so important. Phil Kay knew about this and requested both. That’s another reason why he “had to be taken out”,
While it is expensive, when you have real time they cannot do this.[believe me, the judges have a “real time” connection to the court reporter always, and read along as the testimony is created. That is how it is done] “Real time” is software that allows what the court reporter is transcribing to be read in real time. They are also known as “dirties”. They sometimes have names and a few word that cannot be deciphered. However, they cannot change the meaning of answers. . I’ve seen a judge ask a lawyer [when a witness was in the middle of answering a question, and giving damning testimony] to restate the question because he forgot the question, while he was actually reading along with “real time”. That
There was no way this judge forgot the question. Or could, he was reading it . He did it to throw the lawyer off, and save a defendant. The lawyer turned the incident back on the judge, and made him look like a laughing stock.
Daily’s are critical to a fair trial. You get them the very next day. They are not dirties, however, if you have the dirties, you can compare them, side by side. In addition, you can also request that the court reporter, give you disks, so you can load them on your computer, and pull up anything by doing a word search.
So, while the concept of court reporting maybe “medieval” the technology the court reporters use is not.
You want to scare the crap out of a dishonest judge, just ask for daily’s and real time,
Smart lawyers won’t even appear in chambers with a dishonest judge without a court reporter.
They truly are the gate keepers to an honest system!
So, Mr. Golin, I believe you, I know first hand that a judge did what you state, however, the ways I described above are ways to prevent what occurred to you.
If they won’t let you use their “real time” make a stink, and put in on the record. They cannot deny you dailies. So order them.
Jeffrey Golin
March 17, 2012
That is very interesting, Anna. I never heard of “dalies” or “real time” before. I believe you. Seems technology has gone down the wrong path in development, but look who’s running the show.
wearyant
March 16, 2012
No, Jeff, I don’t think so. You’ve got a back-story, don’t you? Court reporters are impartial and have no reason, inclination or energy to do what you’re suggesting. I sense a flavor or paranoia.
Jeffrey Golin
March 16, 2012
Wearyant. There are no paranoid facts. There are only facts. The paranoia comes when you disregard someone else’s facts because they disturb you and conflict with your utopian model of reality and your sense of comfort.
Remember, I did not present any opinions or theories about how these alterations occurred. I don’t know how they occurred. I just said they did. I did not engage in any speculation of facts that I do not have firsthand personal knowledge of. Your “flavor” is pure conjecture on your part. Not mine. Do not argue facts not in evidence.
wearyant
March 16, 2012
Put the facts in evidence and demand a hearing. Set out your beliefs and have a hearing. Get justice. You didn’t present opinions or theories about how these events occurred, yet you claim they occurred. Take the time, set it out and get your day in court.
anna
March 17, 2012
Wearyant,
Without an attorney ordering dailies, or requesting to be hooked up to their “real time” connection, there is no way to prove the the “transcripts” were altered.
While you may think a judge could never get a “court reporter” to “lose testimony” think again.
You have no idea how much power a judge has, let alone a dishonest one. Hell, I’ve even seen judges lie about what is written in an actual transcript. “What? who are going to believe me? Or your lying eyes.”
The only way one can avoid this is, how I described it above.
If the Court won’t have a court reporter their, according to CCP and CRC’s they have to give you 24 hours notice, so you can arrange to have one their on your own dime.
Judges have the power to order court reporters in their courtrooms, and case law says if they contest what happened in a proceeding, and they didn’t have it reported, that works against them.
Court reporters try their best, however, the only protection they have is if someone orders dailies, and requests real-time.
How a judge can force or coerce a reporter to change something is, after the fact.
When everyone has real time, there can be no changes, and the court reporter is protected from dishonest judges, as is the actual record.
anna
March 17, 2012
Sorry for the typo’s and grammatical errors.
Jeffrey Golin
March 17, 2012
Nevermind the typos, you’re making a lot of good sense.
Ronald Branson
June 3, 2012
Concerning so-called alterations by court reporters, I was thrown in jail over charges made in a so-called Minute Order that stated that I had appeared at an arraignment on criminal charges and entered a plea thereto. At this arraignment I was alledgedly “represented” by a Public Defender. When released from jail, I appealed the “so-called” charges upon which I was convicted, and found in the record a Minute Order that was totally false and fraudulent which presented an event of which I knew nothing about, was never noticed, was present, nor did I pled to any charges,
When I found this document, I contacted the Court Reporter listed within the Minute Order for a transcript of this so-called arraignment, and she informed me that there was no such event that took place. I asked her if she would sign a declaration supporting her statement, and she agreed, and did so.
I sought to impeach the fraudulent Minute Order pursuant to CCP 1916, which provides, “Any judicial record may be impeached by evidence of a want of jurisdiction in the court or judicial officer, of collusion between the parties, or of fraud in the party offering the record, in respect to the proceedings.”
The Appellate Department of the Los Angeles Superior Court decided that my impeachment did not comport with the record. Well, of course it didn’t! How can a impeachment of a record be in agreement with the record sought to be impeached? My impeachment was brought under CCP 1916, but what I found was it was the Appellant Department that was the “party offering the record, in respect to the proceedings,” and they were relying upon the record which relied upon the Court Reporter who signed the declaration that swore that no such arraignment and event happened.
So, were are we when the appellate court can use the fraudulent record that counters the Court Reporter whose name is being falsely used within the fraulent document? If Court Reporters cannot be believed or relied upon by the courts, then what? And what if I could had had no Court Reporter that could have testify under oath as to the falsity of this Minute Order? As it was, it did not matter, Court Reporter, or no Court Reporter, this fraudulent Minute Order prevailed. All I can say is that I am glad that I have the sworn declaration of the Court Reporter testifying that I was not arraigned on the criminal charges stated therein which I can hang on the wall.
Ron Branson
VictoryUSA@jail4judges.org
Blind Bulldog
March 16, 2012
We’ve been going without court reporters her for years, and worse yet, in the departments where child custody is decided.
JusticeCalifornia
March 16, 2012
I began the practice of law over 25 years ago, and have litigated many controversial cases that certain trial judges surely wish had not been reported. I have never experienced what Mr. Golin has described, in any of the many counties in which I have practiced.
I have the utmost respect for court reporters, 98% of whom I have found to be accurate, polite, professional, courteous, and willing to go the extra mile, at personal sacrifice, to get an urgent job done. More often than not, a case can depend upon the official court reporter, especially if you have to prepare a time-sensitive order after hearing, a statement of decision, or a writ– or prepare for the next day of trial.
I have dealt with audio recordings and video recordings and while they are certainly better than nothing, they are inconvenient, and what you get and when you get it is completely dependent upon the court from which you are trying to get it from. Further, trying to parse through hours or days of videotape to get what you want (as a judge, lawyer or litigant) is a waste of time when you can ask a reporter for an excerpt or flip through pages and find what you want in no time flat.
And we can all imagine what Cantil-Sakauye’s right-hand Judicial Council thug Kim Turner would do if she was in charge of such recordings. Oops, the machine was off, or malfunctioning, or our operator was out sick, or new, or the sound was off, or the tapes got chewed up or were otherwise accidentally destroyed, or were destroyed to “make space”, or were destroyed because they were non-essential hearings for which official records are not required. What a really terrible joke on all those who need an accurate and timely record of the proceedings.
Accuracy, reliability, neutrality, and access upon demand are essential components of any “official” record of court proceedings.
Jeffrey Golin
March 16, 2012
I have no doubt that what “Justice California” says is true, that he has practiced as an attorney for many years in these courts without any experiences like mine. Remember, I said these wholescale deletions of damning evidence in the record happened repeatedly while I was unwillingly representing myself, and since I retained able counsel it has not happened again. The friends I mentioned that experienced this as well were all appearing in court without attorneys. I also concede that this is probably a very unusual occurrance in the great scheme of things for most people, in courts that are corrupt in cases against state officials. But that it can happen at all is an outrage that undermines respect and confidence in our judicial system. Especially when it happens to vulnerable citizens who have not been able yet to retain attorneys for their cases.
The flip side of my argument I concede is that there is virtue in traditional paper systems as we discovered in the cases of electronic voting system fraud and in computer hospital records, all deletions being illegal of course. It’s a lot harder to erase a physical object than a computer byte. Not impossible; just somewhat harder. There’s a reason they call it a “paper trail.” So infatuation with modern gee-whiz technology can be naive if not scrutinized.
But these reporting systems ARE medieval and the regulations need to be updated to include secure modern methods that are simpler and more cost-effective. The major reason that trials and depositions are so needlessly expensive and prohibitive to an average litigation budget is that they are so skilled-labor intensive. Developments are needed to bring the costs down for everyone. Silicon Valley, pay attention!
Jeffrey Golin
March 16, 2012
One afterthought to mention is that, for a IFP plaintiff, transcripts of hearings in a civil action are not free as are all other costs and as they are in a criminal matter.
Thus in a long cause civil matter such as ours, my outrageously decided case could not go up on appeal for review, because we were unable to cough up the high cost of transcripts. This resulted in a monstrous miscarriage of justice that has never been able to be fairly resolved. If more cost-effective methods were available for court reporting, not only would the state save money, and more accuracy could be guaranteed, but so would indigent petitioners in child custody cases and similar matters, where they often appear without attorneys, be empowered, and not reated as second-class citizens by our courts, being denied appellate review on the issues of law. The judicial system would be more accessible to all.
unionman575
March 16, 2012
I am not a CSR.
Here is my experience after 24 years in court: transcripts prepared from CSR’s in my court accurate.
Transcripts prepared from audio recordings include this phrase on every page “unintelligible”. That is not making a record.
After a 2 year “pilot” with electronic recording,, the court went back to a CSR.
URAfool
March 17, 2012
Unionman575 is right. The other thing they discovered is the software and devices refused to pay union dues.
unionman575
March 17, 2012
“Unintelligible”
unionman575
March 17, 2012
FYI-The folks that ran the electronic recording machines which produced “unintelligible” transcripts were Union & paid union dues.
Sometimes you speak without knowledge, but that’s OK in America the land of free speech. You are entitled you your opinion.
Jeffrey Golin
March 17, 2012
The letter by CJP’s Henley speaks of other states, such as New York or Utah, that somehow manage nicely to provide electronic recordings of proceedings. I frankly don’t believe “unintelligible” is likely to be the rule as you state if things are simply set up right. It’s hard to question a recording.. With California being the leading high tech state, there’s something wrong if we can’t do as well or better than Utah. And I think it would make the courts, and the appellate courts, equally accessible to all without regards to means. This was a point missed by Ms. Henley in her letter — access to Courts of Appeals.
Ron Branson
March 16, 2012
The above article is entitled, “Without court reporters our justice system is at risk.” If we had an honest judicial system, I would agree with this statement, but we do not have an honest judicial system. I would like to cite to a case in point, albeit, my own. Back In November of 2009 there came to be created a Minute Order that stated that I appeared at an arraignment, and entered a plea to the criminal charges. I knew nothing of this so-called arraignment, neither was I present nor did I enter a plea to any criminal charges. I discovered this information on appeal after I was released from imprisonment for my “crimes.”
My knowing full well that at least this Minute Order was a mistake of Record, I called the Court Reporter listed therein and was informed that no such arraignment took place, and therefore no transcript of this proceeding was possible to obtain. I asked this Court Reporter if she would sign a Declaration under Oath affirming this information. She so did, and I have been using this Declaration of the Court Reporter to impeach the Record according to Code of Civil Procedure 1916, “Any judicial record may be impeached by evidence of a want of jurisdiction in the court or judicial officer, of collusion between the parties, or of fraud in the party offering the record, in respect to the proceedings.”
I challenged the Appellate Judges sitting on the Los Angeles County Department Court of Appeals to contact for themselves the Court Reporter named in the Minute Order upon which they were relying for the truth that no such arraignment took place. They refused, only to say that the record before them did not comport with my argument that no such event took place. Obviously, an impeached record will never comport with the evidence proving it is false. That is like saying that a false record is true because it says what it says, and based thereupon, there is no such thing as a court record that can be impeached.
Based upon this reasoning, my so-called “conviction” was affirmed. I sought to carry the matter on up through the State Judicial System, but was blocked from doing so. I then brought action in State Court and the defendants defaulted in the action, and instead of defending in State Court, they removed the action to federal court where I was granted leave to amend the State Complaint into a federal one, using the Declaration of the Court Reporter as evidence of the fraud.
Then federal judge after federal judge recused themselves from the case not wanting to handle the matter. Finally, it got to the fifth federal judge who ruled, without any of the parties appearing in the case that he was dismissing the case, with permission to refile the case after I overturned the conviction in the State Court. Of course, this was impossible, as the federal complaint stated that there was no State Court conviction, which position was supported by the Court Reporter by Declaration.
I appealed this dismissal in Federal Court and within five days an Order was issued stating intent to affirm the dismissal. This, with only a Notice of Appeal, no record, no questions on appeal, and no Opening Brief. The intent to affirm became reality with absolutely no foundation whatsoever, and I filed my brief in the U.S.Supreme Court, where it has been accepted for filing, and is now pending.
Now back to the title, “Without court reporters our justice system is at risk.” The courts are not even accepting this argument, as they refuse to honor this Court Reporter, nor her Declaration. If the sworn Declaration of a Court Reporter is worthless, then based upon the very title of this article, then the Courts are worthless, as they are full of dishonesty. We shall see what the U.S.Supreme Court has to say on this point, as this is exactly what is now before them.
unionman575
March 17, 2012
Ron you have mail.
Rochelle
March 25, 2012
I was wondering if I could e-mail you a question about this situation please or you can email my inbox…jesusjamz777@att.net. Thank you. 🙂
Ron Branson
March 29, 2012
Dear Rochelle:
Please forgive my ignorance, but I have received in my inbox the following words, “Wow!! What an interesting, eye-opening, heartwrenching conversation I just stumbled through and I feel so blessed that I found this.”
Since these words were sent directly to my inbox, I am presuming that you meant for me to respond to you regarding my comment on the above article, “Without court reporters our justice system is at risk.”
I am very knowledgeable of the inside corruption and inner-workings of the Los Angeles County Superior Courts, and of the judicial system overall inasmuch as my contending for the truth in the law within the courts started back in 1982. My contention for the truth has led me up to the Supreme Court fifteen times.
Within your email is reference to your faith in the Word of God and in Jesus Christ, so I should point out that I am an ordained minister, having a calling by the Almighty to earnestly “contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.” Jude 1:3. Becasue of my faith in Jesus Christ, I have suffered much persecution for His Name’s sake. If you wish to communicate with me regarding the above article, or about the persecution of which I have endured within the judicial system because of my stand for Christ, I shall make myself available to respond. I responded in one court, “Your honor, I count it all joy that I have been put on trial for my faith in Jesus Christ, and like Job of old, I say, Though He slay me, yet will I trust in Him.” Job 13:15. Christ, the True Judge, shall soon appear, and there shall be weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth, Matthew 22:13.
“And when they bring you unto the …magistrates, and powers, take ye no thought how or what thing ye shall answer, or what ye shall say: For the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what ye ought to say.” Luke 12:11 & 12
CourtObserver
March 17, 2012
UnionMan575, I agree with you that transcripts prepared by CSR’s are generally pretty accurate. And as to Wearyant’s observation about Mr. Golin, and also in respect to Mr. Branson, I found http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1546369.html and http://www.lawlessamerica.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=541:ron-branson-on-lawless-america-show-sunday-november-20-2011-5-7-pm-et-&catid=120:news-reports&Itemid=222. Both appear to be “vexies” as they are known around the courthouse.
But, in order to keep costs down, and actually keep the CSR’s working, look at Pennsylvania and I think Florida. And some federal courts. The CSR’s have become transcribers. Fewer are needed because they don’t have to spend time in our courtrooms but their experience has been put to good use. There are recordings and they are extremely accurate. Lots of microphones. Everything gets picked up. The system doesn’t pay for transcripts and none are prepared unless they are needed, keeping costs down. Clerks monitor the recording equipment. All the transcripts that are prepared are electronic.
I heard about the experiment in Orange County with all this but it was blocked by court reporters because they saw the end of their dynasty. In the interest of keeping all of us working, perhaps it’s time to look at this again.
Ron Branson
March 18, 2012
I wish to respond to UnionMan: In respect to your comment, “There are recordings and they are extremely accurate. Lots of microphones. Everything gets picked up.” The problem in my case is not that we have a misunderstanding of what the record states, there simple was no such arraignment of any criminal charges, nor did I have knowledge of such event. In requesting a transcript, the named Court Reporter within the Minute Order informed me that no such event took place. At my request, I asked her to swear out a Declaration confirming this fact. She so did, and I possess the original with her signature thereon. These Appellate Judges refused to honor an impeachment of the Record, although it is required under CCP 1916, “Any judicial record may be impeached…”
In Federal Court, I sought to compel the Defendant Apellate Department Judges to produce a Notice and a transcript on which they relied in affirming the conviction, and they refused. I then proceeded with a Motion for Sanctions against then for refusing to co-operate in Federal discovery. That motion for sanctions was coming up before the Federal Magistrate to rule on, but before the hearing, the Federal Judge dismissed the case to cover for them so that they did not have to produce the evidence that there existed criminal charges on which a conviction could be sustained.
We are talking about pure fraud here, as stated by the U.S. Supreme Court, “That there must be notice to a party of some kind, actual or constructive, to a valid judgment affecting his rights is admitted, Until notice is given, the court has no jurisdiction in any case to proceed to judgment, whatever its authority may be…. it was in fact a mere arbitraty edict, clothed in the form of a judicial sendtnce.” Windsor v. McVeigh, 93 U.S. 274.
Jeffrey Golin
March 17, 2012
If there are no court reporters, or if reporters are prohibitively expensive, there can be no appeals, and if there are no appeals, a trial judge’s decision becomes the final word, and the judges know this, removing an important inhibitiion against abuse of discretion, knowing that they will not be reversed even if they make a totally legally unsound ruling. It places the trial judge in a position of absolute authority. It reduces the performance of every judge who understands this. This reduces the system of review to a sham.
anna
March 17, 2012
Unfortunately justice is not cheap.
California Justice left out one thing, it’s almost impossible to use an electronic recording to impeach a witness.
It’s a piece of cake with a daily, or even a dirty. A witness cannot read the transcript to “refresh his memory” if there is only a electronic recording. So, all of these people who are touting new ways of recording or preserving a record, are not trial lawyers, and don’t know the rules of evidence and how to get evidence admitted. [It’s not as easy as it looks]
Without court reporters there is no record, or in my humble opinion, any possibility of justice.
Unionman is right.
URAfool is not only unintelligible, his comment exposes his lack of experience of ever having used a transcript, in any judicial proceeding, and is further exposed by his pseudonym. His anti-union rants belong elsewhere.
Why do you think they took out Phil Kay.
He knew how to use a transcript, and protected the record, like no other, all for the benefit of his clients.
Three judges in San Diego hated him, for they were reversed, and colluded to have him brought up on charges in the State Bar after they had been disqualified.
The CJP was ready to go after these cretins, till Judge Horn pulled the fat from the fire.
So I find it hilarious that Henley wants transcripts, she never used them when she had them; or the commission, overruled her.
Good luck, Mr Branson!!!
P.S.
You would be shocked as to how judges try to nudge, cajole, attorneys to waive the requirement of a court reporter.
“lets have a free discussion, and we can summarize and memorialize it later” Bullshit!
Jeffrey Golin
March 17, 2012
I must object to one comment, Anna, because nostrums like “justice is not cheap” just don’t cut it. Unless we simply abandon the concept that justice is only for the rich and not for everyday people. What kind of society would that be? We recognize that it is not cheap and we equalize that problem by levelling the playing field for rich and poor alike by providing resources to moderate income people like transcripts. So I’m not impressed with that argument at all. The venerable maxim that the kind of justice a man gets should not depend on the size of his wallet must be respected. Think again, please.
URAfool
March 17, 2012
That’s right Anna, as we all know, one should only be pro-union on this website. “Look for the union label.” Here I found it. It is under the robes of the Alliance Judges!
anna
March 17, 2012
URAfool,
I’m so over union bashing… You owe the five day work week, 40hrs and a slew of other standards we now accept for granted, to the unions. Go crawl back under the rock you came from.
Yeah, your right. I work in the employment law area. I happen to believe that people have a right to a safe working environment, equal pay for equal work, etc.
Yeah, being anti-union has really brought around better working conditions.
Unionman, you must have the patience of JOB. Only the rules of etiquette, on this website, which I was so kindly reminded of when I got into it with some other troll on this website, keeps me from going off on URAfool.
Jeffrey Golin
March 17, 2012
…I meant to say, “abandon the concept that justice is for everybody and not only for the rich…” Sorry.
anna
March 17, 2012
If you think I like the fact that justice is not cheap you’re wrong. I actually put my money where my mouth is, and for my clients.
I’ve worked on landmark cases, and have bet the bank [my house] in furtherance of obtaining judgments in their favor, for civil rights violations, by spending huge amounts of money on transcripts. Unfortunately, that is just a fact if you work in the legal profession
Should this change.
You’re God Damn right!!!
However, that can only be done by the legislature, not the courts.
What the entire argument and focus of this website is to bring to the attention to the public and the legislature, that by spending the obscene amounts of money on CCMS instead of say,… providing court reporters, which actually create “records”, we have harmed our system of jurisprudence. So much so, that now the idea of “creating records” is now on the chopping block. Well, when that happens, you no longer have a justice system. So this entire debacle has not only cost the taxpayers billions of dollars, it has destroyed our legal system
Unfortunately the courts say the citizens of this state have a right to a minimum of justice, not the maximum, or best justice. That you have to pay for. Do I think that is despicable? You’re damn right!
Every case I’ve been involved with, the clients couldn’t pay to walk in the front door, let alone, the transcripts. [not including the additional fees for dailies] However, they, nor I,could afford to lose, because of not having a correct and accurate record.
Stating the obvious, “justice is not cheap” gives me no pleasure. But by lying about it, saying it isn’t expensive, or ignoring it, does not wave a magic wand and make it go away.
The biggest argument, and only argument that has any traction, against court reporters is that they are too expensive. Maybe so, but there is no alternative. Nor would I want there to be.
They work their asses off. When we order dailies, they work hard. When I ask for an expidited transcript I get my monies worth.
Just think, instead of creating a CCMS, which is nothing more than a spying vehicle for the AOC and the JC along with the CSC, some of that money went to court reporters and assuring that everyone had “real time” and dailies, we would have actually created a system that provided more access to justice.
However, that has never been the goal of the AOC/JC or HRH the first, and it clearly is not the goal of HRH the 2nd. NO matter what PR bullshit [mission statements] they publish.
Actions, [their theft] speak louder than words.
Jeffrey Golin
March 17, 2012
Anna, fascinating comments, as I realize what great stuff you’re made of here. I’m not disputing that justice is expensive, and like you I don’t like it a bit. I’m only suggesting that if you take away the record you have no appeal on the record possible, and then the trial judges become gods and their word is final. So maybe I’m being utopian but this should be a goal to find a way to make it cheaper by streamlining the reporting process in any technically fasible way it can be accomplished. And then this problem will become an opportunity in disguise.
I’m particularly piqued by your comments about the CCMS and how it’s a spying mechanism for the JC and AOC. Could you elaborate on that? How would that work for example, in an actual situation? Who would they spy on, and for what?
anna
March 17, 2012
All trial judges have great powers. Even with a record it’s an uphill battle to have them overturned.
That’s my biggest beef with the trial judges that write here. They claim they cannot take on the AOC/or JC.
However, they are the only ones that can sentence a person to death, enter a judgment, actually enforce an order, or incarcerate someone. All reviewing courts can do is determine if they abused their power, or didn’t follow the law.
I do understand their position, however, I think they lack courage. [I know that sounds harsh, and I do understand their caution]
In addition, you have to have people who work from the inside. Those who are in the judiciary, that write here, are doing just that.
Nathaniel Woodhull and some of the others have written about how and why CCMS is nothing more than a tattle tale system to alert reviewing courts of what type of cases are in the pipeline, and how the AOC when once alerted, puts pressure on the trial judges to rule in certain ways.
The big “drawing” point of CCMS was to create a system for judges to look at other orders made by other judges. As several judges have already noted, that’s improper. Trial judges are only allowed to consider the law and what is before them. Looking at another judges order until it is final or confirmed on appeal, is improper. It is not controlling law, and cannot be cited, and the facts that are before the other judge are not before this judge, or vice versa.
Ronald Geroge was brilliant at framing issues that “sounded” like he was doing this for the greater good, while all the time his only goal was obtaining more power, either through exparte communications, or dismantling our system of checks and balances.
CCMS being his crowning glory. Not to mention stealing money wherever, and whenever he could.
His methods were truly Byzantine, hence my moniker for “Empress” Tani. The committees he set up, and the political intrigue that went along with them, once told and exposed, will go down in history as our biggest disgrace in the judiciary. So much for the accolades he bestowed upon himself.
anna
March 17, 2012
Sorry for using the word “confirmed”, should have read “affirmed” on appeal. Am really tired.
Have a great weekend, what’s left of it.
URAfool
March 17, 2012
Okay fellas, start the violins. Don’t forget Anna the union has also brought protection to the lowest common denominator. Thousands of court employee labor next to loads everyday who are protected by their unions. These less functioning employees are the ones who whine the most and cheat the system every chance they get. You know why? Because they know it’s impossible to get fired. Fellow employees hope these people get weeded out but oh no you have the union right there, no questions asked defending the person. Hey why try to be the best when you can’t get rid of the worst? Unions care about a heartbeat and the dues that comes with it. Representation at any cost. Unionman, ignore me all you want but deep down inside you know I’m right and that just eats at you. By the way Anna, the word is you’re, not your. Go ahead, go off, it might clear out some bile.
Judicial Council Watcher
March 18, 2012
Please don’t troll. If you have something to contribute, feel free to do so. If your purpose is to be a troll we’ll avail ourselves of the delete key.
URAfool
March 18, 2012
JCW. First of all thank you for being so polite in asking me to leave. I do appreciate that.
Also thank you for proving a point about this blog. Anna can call someone a F*#)*er, Unionman can say he wants to burn some certain court employees, people accuse people of crimes all the time on this site and “they are contributing” but heaven forbid I vent about the unions (and in a way many of my union paying co-workers would agree) and I’m the troll.
Seat down for this one: believe it or not, there are hardworking court employees who would think I “did contribute” something here but I guess this is not the right place to do it. The double standard is noted. Thank you for helping me understand who really is behind this blog. I will happily remove myself from this muddy pool. You won’t have to hit the delete button.
One Who Knows
March 18, 2012
UraFool –
Personally, I welcome you to this blog. It gives some insight to the thinking on the other side. Clearly, you are angry as are many on this blog for likely other reasons than you. You make alot of anti-union remarks and if you understood how unions work you would understand that union is synonymous with worker. And in this case, court workers. Earlier this year, there was a claim that the unions were just shills of the Alliance of Judges and now you assert that the Alliance is a wholly owned subsidiary of the unions. And this is a union-label blog. You’re wrong on both accounts. And even though I don’t like the union bashing because it’s wrong and it is tantamount to attacks on court workers who are suffering tremendously. I encourage to keep talking on this blog.
URAfool
March 18, 2012
Thank you OWK. More frustrated than mad. As opposed to attacking court employees I spotlight and honor those who work their a#$@s off while others slide/hide or even break the law knowing it is impossible to lose a job. I guess your right, although I hate to think it, I’m a basher or maybe a dreamer. I would hope union would be synonymous with quality, honest workers who deserve great respect but, alas, it’s just worker, period.
I wish the union held itself to a much higher standard when defending an employee. I think it would get more respect within its own dues paying ranks.
As for the Alliance, I do believe you got me correctly on that one. I think those in robes finally woke up and realized that legislators are going to listen to a union any day over some judges so in a sense, yes the Alliance is sign, sealed and delivered by SEIU and others. And when the dust settles on this one, don’t you think the unions should rightly get something back from the Alliance for all their hard work?
And finally as far as getting insight into “the other side” it might surprise you that my thoughts and those of others are on “this side”.
unionman575
March 17, 2012
Mr. Golin you have mail.
unionman575
March 17, 2012
Is this you URAfool? http://www.urafool.com/
My, my, my, you are a naughty little boy who shall be ignored.
One Who Knows
March 18, 2012
URAfool –
I understand merit and wanting colleagues to hold a high work ethic, it annoys everyone in every profession when some work hard and others loaf. Unions have a legal responsibility called ‘duty to represent’ whether the worker is stellar or a lazy, crazy piece of sh-t. And all employees are entitled to due process just like those in the judicial system. There’s a legal process and unions have the duty to represent workers through that process.
As for the Alliance of Judges and the SEIU, what you suggest is far too cynical and transactional. I am willing to bet there is no quid pro quo. But politics often creates strange bedfellows. This is a case of the workers and the bosses being on the same side and fighting to right some wrong that are destroying the judicial branch. And if collectively they win, then they have both gotten something – preserving services for the public and reinstilling some integrity back in to the branch.
URAfool
March 18, 2012
OWK. I appreciate and tip my hat to the way you present your side. I may not agree with you but I do appreciate your way of communicating.
Delilah
March 18, 2012
URaF,
Anyone who’s been around long enough knows that the ACJ stood up on its own, bravely and independently, having nothing whatsoever to do with being prompted or instigated by the unions. (For that, ALL trial court employees are eternally grateful.) Without the ACJ, the current level of scrutiny and pressure on the AOC would never have been achieved. It so happens, as mentioned somewhere above, that we believe in the same thing: No more courtroom closures or employee layoffs, and a shared desire to stop the bleeding; to democratize the JC and enforce transparency and accountability at the AOC, and yes! to see its budget and “workforce” reduced by about 90%. To use a famous phrase, you sound a bit “shrill and uniformed” on this subject, but maybe it’s cuz you’re new to this place and you’re obviously very anti-union for the reasons you’ve stated.
On the subject of unions, flip side: If there are lazy employees who hide from work, their supervisors should be taking positive action to warn them and whip them into shape, escalate into perhaps writing them up, and then discipline them and start making a case, rather than shuffling those people around and/or letting their behavior slide just cuz it’s easier than doing one’s job as a supervisor or manager. But that requires effort in itself. If a manager/employer takes the time to start documenting that an employee is a willful and irredeemable slacker, then, if action is taken against him/her, even though the union has a duty to represent that worker, maybe the employer could make its case properly and prevail. But I have no respect, either, for lazy or reluctant managers that don’t call out employees that shirk their duties or are repeatedly negligent or derelict in their work. That does nothing but reward bad behavior, erode morale, and push more work onto good, hard-working employees — like you or me — who have to pick up the slack. So maybe employers should use more care and discretion in choosing quality people to promote into supervisory positions and willing to do THEIR jobs, instead of sometimes promoting lazy or incompetent yes-people or lackeys, instead. We’ve all seen plenty of that, too.
But whether you’re pro- or anti-union is really not the point here. and I don’t think people want to see this thread get hijacked much further on that subject. Just my opinion.
Long live the ACJ, JCW, the Trial Court Bill of Rights, and Unions!
URAfool
March 19, 2012
Nate and Del, I hear you, I applaud your communication and will leave so not to hijack the profound writings of others on this blog who are keeping “on topic” with the words like f*&$#ers, court whores, and “let’s burn people!” I know, you don’t have to tell me, they are just frustrated and will be okay when they’re the next leaders.
JusticeCalifornia
March 17, 2012
Sorry to be a broken record but. . . .
Lawyers and litigants need a good judge, a good court clerk, and a professional court reporter.
Judges need a good court clerk, a professional court reporter, and good lawyers (or pro pers with a lot of help) appearing before them.
wearyant
March 17, 2012
That’s right, JusticeCalifornia, that’s the foundation of the working trial courtroom. Everything else (make-work garbage thought up by the AOC on the beleaguered taxpayers’ dime, which are actual impediments to justice) is just unneeded window dressing.
unionman575
March 17, 2012
You are correct Justice Califorina.
FRL Texas Court Reporters
May 7, 2012
You couldn’t be more right about that.
Nathaniel Woodhull
March 18, 2012
URA,
Unlike certain others residing within the confines of the Crystal Palace, most all of us here welcome anyone who wishes to express their heartfelt beliefs regarding the state of Judiciary. JCW has demonstrated that anyone may participate and respectfully make their points in this forum, without censorship.
I disagree that the Board members of the Alliance are tools of, or have been bought and paid for my the leadership or membership of SEIU. The founding members of the Alliance have been expressing their concerns regarding the need to democratize the Judicial Council, and the abuses and excesses of AOC administrators since the enactment of State Trial Court Funding; which resulted in the birth and expansion of this mega-bureacracy at 455 GGA.
Personally, I do not wish to become side-tracked in an argument about whether or not SEIU leadership does or does not effectively represent the needs of our court employees. Many courts employees are represented by several unions, including SEIU and the Teamsters. In our current economic climate, any union is unlikely to have significant impact on decision-making within the Judiciary for many, many years to come; unless it is to decide the manner in which employees will be laid off.
Bottom-line, the lack of professional management within the Judicial Branch at the State level; i.e. Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye and her trusty side-kicks Vickrey, Overholt and Patel, have put us in an unnecessary place where countless hundreds of excellent employees have either lost or are about to lose their jobs. This really isn’t rocket-science. I expect to work within a professional organization and in a manner in which I can deliver a quality product to those whom employee me, that is the taxpayers of the State of California. For a decade before State Trial Court Funding my colleagues and I were able to attain this goal. We listened to those whom we serve and collaboratively worked to develop countless progressive and creative programs that met the needs of our electorate. Post 1997, I have seen a bureaucracy grow by over 600 employees, many of whom are engaged in “make-work” tasks. Every six months Judicial Council forms are churned, taking easy to understand and follow five page forms and turning them into incomprehensible fifteen page forms with multiple attachments. The only ones profiting form this are the attorneys employed to create them and paper companies and printer manufacturers upon whose products we print these forms.
“The House That Ron Built” was laid upon a single foundational premise; prior to 1997 the state trial courts did not work and it was necessary for the JC/AOC to tear everything down and build into an image seen by HRH-1 and now HRH-2. Things actually worked pretty well before HRH-1’s coronation and I believe they would work pretty well now if the budget for 455 GGA was reduced by about 90%.
Wendy Darling
March 18, 2012
Thank you, General Woodhull, for so eloquently stating the thoughts of many here.
Long live the ACJ.
JusticeCalifornia
March 18, 2012
It is the job of official reporters to report the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, about what transpires during court proceedings.
That is why bought and paid for court whores like Tani’s right-hand thug Kim Turner refer to court reporters as “pains in the ass”, and make court reporters number one “budget reduction” targets.
If anyone wants to observe the frailties of audio recordings, review the sometimes (conveniently) unintelligible raw transcripts of judicial council meetings.
versal-versal
March 18, 2012
Woodhull and Wendy your insights are both outstanding. Like many here I think all points of view should be welcome, thats what makes us different from HRH 1 and HRH 2 and the “insiders” they have surrounded themselves with. The movement to democratize the JC and restore financial priority to the trial courts is a big tent. The common denominator is service to the public. Those of us who have been around awhile know that long before Ronald George crowned himself as King we in the local trial courts did a really nice job of serving our communities. The myth he pulled off was that the trial courts were broken. They weren’t. He rode that myth all the way to creating one of the largest and most bloated governmental entities ever created, the AOC. He then without constitutional basis started making edicts big and small to control every facet of judicial branch management. Without doubt he convinced our former Governor to appoint HRH 2 to be CJ without a through and complete evaluation process. She in turn has lauded the “house that George built” and has refused to communicate with anyone offering a dissenting viewpoint. She has further refused to change course on the CCMS mess and won’t entertain any discussion about governance reform. The effects of this arrogance are layoffs , vast reductions in service to the public and the waste of huge amounts of taxpayer dollars. Thus, it is only natural that people who care about the public we should be representing and serving have come together to voice opposition to the continued failing regime that has darkened the hallways at 455 Golden Gate Ave .
lando
March 18, 2012
We need a constitutional amendment to reform the Judicial Council and the CJP. At the same time we need to organize a campaign to recall HRH 2. We need all of your ideas to be set forth as to how we can accomplish these goals. JCW please set up a new topic re this so all can weigh in on how we can best effectively reform our branch and end the tyranny and waste that exists at the Crystal Palace.
Wendy Darling
March 18, 2012
The only “problem” with the trial courts prior to HRH 1 was an inconsistency in funding from county to county. Some counties treated the trial courts as the step-children of county funding. Other counties, not so much. As for the actual trial court day-to-day adminstration and operations, nothing was broken; the trial courts were under excellent leadership from their respective elected judges, who, in turn, hired highly qualified and dedicated court administrators and staff. To the extent there were problems, they were addressed, and resolved, efficiently and internally.
WIth Ron George’s “reorganization” and empire building, trial court funding went from at times being the step-children of some counties, to almost universally being the Stepford Children of judicial branch funding. Speak with One Voice, or you’ll be locked in a closet, or worse, until you learn to drink the Kool-Aid.
Under the Trial Court Unification Act and the Trial Court Funding Act, trial courts became “divorced” from their respective counties. It’s now time for the trial courts to get divorced from their Stepford replacement – the AOC.
Long live the ACJ.
versal-versal
March 19, 2012
Your insights are always awesome Wendy. Many thanks . When the Judicial Council is democratized I will host a party for you and all the other great contributors here . Have a great week !
lando
March 19, 2012
Not to beat you to the punch Versal but I will schedule that party if any of the following four things happen before democratization of the JC : 1. 1208 passes and gets approved by the Governor 2. HRH 2 resigns . 3. J Mc Connell and J Horn are removed from the CJP. 4. J Bruiners admits he has lied all along about CCMS. And like Versal, I wish to thank everyone here for all their great contributions to restoring justice to California.
Mark
March 19, 2012
I think the a recent study of digital recording options from Iowa appears to be well prepared and thoughtful http://www.iowacourts.gov/wfdata/frame9830-1152/File56.pdf
Delilah
March 19, 2012
Any post where “court reporters” become the topic, either in the subject or in the comments, inevitably devolves into a discussion by some of how CRs should be eliminated and replaced with audio recording. It’s always just a matter of time. This classification of court employee will always get attacked on an additional level than any other. High-quality recording equipment may suffice in courtrooms that don’t normally require transcript production; but those who understand, if you want a quality written record and transcript, realtime, dailies, readback to you or a jury, all done by one single court employee, a live record that doesn’t need to be sent to an outside source in order to produce a written transcript, also understand the value of a court reporter in the courtroom.
http://www.sunbeltreporting.com/sunbelt-blog/bid/62926/Why-Texas-State-District-Courts-Switched-Back-to-Using-Live-Reporters
anna
March 19, 2012
Delilah,
Your comments couldn’t have been more accurate. I never meant to have a discussion re: unions. I just wanted to be clear that this wasn’t a site for the virtues or evils of unions.
As you say, those who understand, what court reporters actually do, and those who use transcripts for trial work, whether it be to impeach a witness, have read backs, or write motions during a trial, couldn’t do without you. Just as those who are in trial couldn’t do without the clerks in the court room.
As a person who has worked in the legal world, I can’t say enough about the clerks and court reporters.
I’ve seen every argument, re; court reporters, and the only one with traction is the expense.
Without your unions, our court system would not work. Why? They would have done away with you.
While expensive, I personally believe that the price of the truth is never to high.
And, court reporters make sure that can happen. When you think about it, it actually is a small price to pay for having the truth documented.
FRL Texas Court Reporters
March 20, 2012
“Court Reporters are the only credible form of checks and balances in a courtroom.” This sentence is a perfect summary of this issue. People have suspected for years that court reporters would become obsolete. The only way to obtain an accurate and high quality transcript is to employ an experienced court reporter. Enough said.
Rochelle
March 25, 2012
Wow!! What an interesting, eye-opening, heartwrenching conversation I just stumbled through and I feel so blessed that I found this. I am a young, fresh, fired-up certified court reporter and a certified medical transcriptionist in the cancer field with some of the latest technology in both fields. It is amazing to know that there are so many sides to all of this and in my state, where we are a poor depressed economy with 2 cities that are always in the top 5 for most murders per capita, there are not a whole lot of positive attitudes that I encounter. There are some exceptions, but you get my drift. Great place to type crime and cancer, but I love my God and let the Holy Spirit be my guide and my source for my worth. Staying prayed up all the time and praying over the cancer/crime stories I deal with is how I cope….praying my way through it. 🙂
There is so much injustice and dishonesty, along with greed, false witness, and deceit that sometimes I wonder why I am on this path. I am one of those people that will find a way a laugh, turn a negative into a positive, and at the end of the day or morning (if I work and research all night), analyze and seek why I had to go through that and what can I learn. Can I fume and complain or pray and seek direction on next move? I’m not going to lie and say I haven’t been faced with making the wrong decision, which would greatly benefit me financially, to sell out for money and greed.
I’m not here to debate law or technical difficulties. I just wanted to say THANK YOU for all the information that my peabrain just processed! I just took more in I think here than some of my dang classes I’ve had to pay for. I love the study of words, usage, systems, and THE TRUTH. If that makes me financially poor in this world to do an accurate job ALL the time at my best, and even if digging down rabbit holes costs me precious time, I know I am spiritually rich and will be blessed forever in ways money can’t buy. The Truth will be brought to the Light in time.
Isaiah 33:
Live right, speak the truth, despise exploitation, refuse bribes, reject violence, avoid evil amusements. This is how you raise your standard of living! A safe and stable way to live. A nourishing, satisfying way to live.
Peace and blessings to you all.
Michael Sullivan
May 7, 2012
I wanted to reach out to any of the Los Angeles Superior Court reporters who are being affected by the upcoming layoffs. Sullivan & Hargreaves Court Reporters is looking to help you! We are an independent, court reporter-owned agency that prides itself in providing the very best service in the industry. We are headquartered in Los Angeles and have been in business for over 25 years. We are diligently working to restructure our company to provide courtroom reporters for our clients. If you have are a courtroom reporter and are looking for work, please contact us immediately! We have opportunities that would be both beneficial to you, as well as to our clients.
Michael Sullivan
May 7, 2012
Please contact Sullivan & Hargreaves Court Reporters by emailing:
Michael Sullivan, President Sullivan & Hargreaves Court Reporters
michael@sullivancourtreporters.com
FRL Texas Court Reporters
May 7, 2012
Very nice Michael. It’s great to see independent business owners showing their support.
Teresa
May 29, 2012
I am a court reporter. I went to school for 6 years. I owe 40,000 in student loans. I am in a criminal trial department. My Judge has never asked me to alter my record, your record, nor would I ever do that. I create accurate records, even when you’re talking over one another, talking too fast, turn your back to me when you’re talking or mumbling. I am there to take a record. I take pride in what I do and I may be expensive, but I am worth it. I write all day in court, I go home, I transcribe all evening until I go to bed. I transcribe on weekends and holidays too. I am a taxpayer just like everyone else. My job is not secure just because I am a member of a union. I may be laid off within the next month. My job is more important than most realize, but I am truthfully exhuasted with trying to prove it. If I am laid off, I will not be a court reporter any longer because it is a thankless job.
Wendy Darling
May 29, 2012
You are right, Teresa, that your job is more important than most people realize. And the people running the show at 455 Golden Gate Avenue couldn’t care less about how important your job is. They’re too busy building computer systems that don’t work, $500.00 light bulbs, painting closets at $2,500.00 a pop, drinking Grey Goose, eating caviar and lobster, and punishing people for speaking up and telling the truth.
But those here on JCW know fully well how important your job is, and we do thank you for it. As well as all the other trial court line staff that are in jeopardy of losing their jobs because of the idiocy in current judicial branch administration. We all know that without you, and good, ethical judges, there is no justice, or a valid court system, in California.
Which is exactly why we’re all here.
Long live the ACJ.
wearyant
May 29, 2012
Teresa, if you love your job, hang in there. Since ’78 I heard all sorts of garbage from idiots who didn’t know what they were talking about, starting with “why don’t they just use a tape recorder instead of [expensive] you?” Those people are simply jealous and ignorant. If I had to live it over again, I would have let it roll off my back and forget it. Unfortunately it’s the whiners you’ll hear from most often. The ones that appreciate you tend to be shy, silent or figure you are aware of your worth. Enjoy your job and your self-worth. It’s all a rare learning experience every day, and every day is never the same. You’re the silent witness to all the pathos, ironies and sad human comedy. And you are safely apart from all of it as you’re the impartial keeper of the record. Don’t let the bastards grind you down. As long as you like what you are doing, hold your head high and see it to the end! My best wishes to you.
unionman575
May 29, 2012
The Honorable (fill in the CA politcian of your choice),
Certified shorthand reporters “CSRs” are professionals who provide verbatim transcripts of oral court testimony, grand jury hearings, depositions and other legal proceedings. The integrity of our legal system rests on accurate records. Court reporters play an essential role in providing these transcripts by ensuring that there is a verbatim record of judicial proceedings.
There is clearly a public stake in the competent performance of reporters and, in some cases; life and liberty rely on the record.
Litigants, other participants in the judicial system, and the general public expect that depositions and court proceedings be recorded by a competent, independent and neutral court reporter who has no stake, financial or otherwise, in the outcome of the action.
Prohibiting parties of interest in litigation from having a direct contractual relationship with court reporters, as officers of the court, is necessary to ensure the public’s faith in the integrity and impartiality of the judicial system.
Because of budget crunches, several courts are exploring the use of electronic recording systems to either supplement or replace stenographic reporters. Although electronic recording may be used in certain environments, such as courts that do not have frequent transcript requests, real-time court reporters, often described as “Guardians of the Record,” remain the most reliable and accurate method of making the record.
Budget decisions to stop providing court reporters for civil proceedings will drive a privatization of the civil courtrooms, increasing expense to litigants and decreasing access to justice.
I urge you to act now to preserve access to justice for all Californians.
Sincerely,
_____________________
wearyant
May 31, 2012
Excellent post, Unionman! Definitely a keeper. I’ll be using it for the ongoing struggle.
unionman575
June 1, 2012
And I am NOT a CSR. Although I try to look out for everyone
🙂
unionman575
May 31, 2012
Click to access Notice%20of%20Nonavailability%20of%20Court%20Reporters%20v3.pdf
NOTICE OF NONAVAILABILITY
OF COURT REPORTERS
Effective June 4, 2012, the court will not provide a court reporter for:
• civil law and motion hearings,
• any other hearing or trial in civil departments, or
• any afternoon hearing in Department 201 (probate).
Parties may arrange and pay for the attendance of a certified shorthand reporter.
In limited jurisdiction cases, parties may request electronic recording.
Amended Local Rule 3.95 states:
Except as otherwise required by law, in general civil case and probate departments, the services of an official court reporter are not normally available. For civil trials, each party must serve and file a statement before the trial date indicating whether the party requests the presence of an official court reporter.
wearyant
May 31, 2012
This is foisting electronic recording on the public, which any knowing, intelligent person knows is a product way inferior to what an official court reporter provides. But if the litigants are savvy enough to request an official court reporter, then the fees the Alameda county courts collect for providing same should remain with that county’s trial court.
Thanks for the info, Unionman.
unionman575
May 31, 2012
Anytme Ant!
Official
May 31, 2012
Here goes… First post to JCW.
Ant, as I understand it, the fees you speak of will not be collected and/or retained by any trial court for an official court reporter in civil cases under these circumstances. Exactly how each county will implement this rule is uncertain, but the first step is that the court will post the unavailability of reporters in certain departments or types of hearings. If, by chance, a party sees the notice and requests an official reporter, the court will attempt to schedule an official reporter to be present for the hearing. Since the court will have already laid off all but a skeleton crew of reporters, none will be available, and the court will notice the party of their right/obligation to BYOR “Bring Your Own Reporter.” After that, the court will have nothing to do with the process. No fees collected at all by the court because no reporter is provided by them. The parties must schedule and pay for their own reporter to be present for the hearing. This is all conveniently authorized by the CRC, drafted by none other than… The Judicial Council/AOC.
Of course this process is inherently flawed, but the CRC stops short there and leaves the practical implementation of this mess dumped squarely in the laps of the trial courts, reporters, and the litigants. Imagine a civil law and motion calendar in a busy court: “Excuse me, Your Honor, while I have the reporter that I’m privately paying for set up in your courtroom so he/she can make the record. She’s certified and impartial, I promise.”
Judicial Council Watcher
June 1, 2012
Welcome to JCW ‘Official’! As an aside JCW was whispered in the private message window that this weeks scheduled AOC layoff has been pushed back a week ‘due to security concerns’ In that same whisper I was told that OCCM is the next CCMS and advised us to look at the management promotions in OCCM in the past couple of years. Apparently, OCCM believes themselves untouchable due to the court transfers – So much so that 30 of them have been promoted to “senior” titles.
wearyant
June 1, 2012
Official, thanks for your valuable info from the front lines in this battle to save the judicial branch from the JC/AOC. It is truly disheartening watching the JC/AOC shoot themselves in the foot and the damage goes to the trial courts and their hard working employees. And then on to the public at large who use the services of the courts. I thought that the fees parties pay for the official court reporter’s presence is collected and maintained by the county; if not, those fees should be. They certainly should not be skimmed by the JC/AOC in the same manner an unlawful gang of thugs would of store owners for “protection.” I wish the trial courts and their employees well in this current nightmare brought on by imbeciles in high places.
Recall Tani!
Long live the ACJ!
And, thank you all at JCW, for keeping the info flowing that the court bureaucrats would undoubtedly prefer be suppressed.
Official
June 1, 2012
Ant, some “court reporter fees” collected by the courts in civil cases ARE retained by the courts. Here’s the distinction:
The scenario I explained is where the courts have elected to NOT provide an official reporter in civil cases. In that instance, the BYOR Rule of Court I outlined would be used.
The fees you are thinking of are collected when the courts DO provide an official reporter for civil cases. A Government Code section provides that the record in civil cases shall not be prepared at public (court) expense, and therefore authorizes the court to collect fees from litigants in civil cases in an effort to reimburse the court for the cost of having the official reporter present to preserve the record. However, since the trial court “unification,” these fees have been scooped up by the JC/AOC and have NOT been allowed to remain at the trial court level.
Court reporters are working to change this and have these fees retained at the trial court level, similar to the efforts of ACJ’s AB1208.
http://www.aroundthecapitol.com/Bills/AB_2076/20112012/
unionman575
May 31, 2012
http://www.courts.ca.gov/18281.htm
Pervasive Software per Specifications for IFB-ISD-053012-AA
The Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) is seeking firms to provide bids for Pervasive software as detailed in the invitation to Bid # IFB-ISD-053012-AA, for our office location in San Francisco, California.
NOTE: Questions regarding this IFB should be directed to Solicitations@jud.ca.gov by Friday, June 1, 2012, at close of business (PST).
Proposals must be received by Thursday June 7, 2012 no later than 12:00pm
Hard copy proposals must be delivered to:
Judicial Council of California
Administrative Office of the Courts
Attn: Nadine McFadden, IFB-ISD-053012-AA
455 Golden Gate Avenue, 7th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102-3688
Wendy Darling
May 31, 2012
The basics of “justice” in California: a good, ethical judge, a baliff, a court clerk, and a court reporter.
So much for “justice” in the California trial courts – courtsey of the AOC.
Long live the ACJ.
JusticeCalifornia
June 1, 2012
Top leadership has no interest whatsoever in the basics.
There must be a legislative change regarding court reporters. That is the only way our branch is getting things done these days, apparently.
Teresa
June 1, 2012
Just some info for the fellow reporters out there:
The next planned step is to take the language out of the statute that says family law proceedings cannot be recorded. I guess right now it states family law does not have to be reported, but it cannot be recorded. So between now and the next fiscal year, that’s what they’re planning on working on here in Ca..
So, not only are they taking us out of civil, but they’re in the works to take us out of family too.
unionman575
June 1, 2012
FYI – It’s family law and probate both.
Official
June 1, 2012
Sadly, if court reporters are eventually removed from family law courtrooms, the JC/AOC will have reached an all-time low in terms of public “dis”service. The demand for a verbatim record in family law cases is extremely HIGH. Very frequently judge’s orders are difficult to understand and a record is needed to produce an order after hearing. Courtroom clerks are busy producing backlogs of minute orders and do the best they can, but their minute orders can’t possibly be a substitute for a verbatim record. I truly can’t imagine a quicker way to push family law litigants right over the edge they are standing on than to get rid of the official record of their proceedings.
Wendy Darling
June 1, 2012
Agreed, Official, on all points.
Long live the ACJ.
wearyant
June 2, 2012
Thanks for your input, Official. It would seem to be abundantly clear that the JC/AOC is not looking out for the public’s interests or the trial courts in their actions; merely their own. Business as usual at the crystal palace.
When will this farce of the JC/AOC end?
Long live the ACJ
Recall Tani
Marlene McBain-Miller
October 27, 2013
To find out more on the courts doctoring court recordings go to the facebook page, “Australians against Courts Doctoring Court Recordings”.
CSR offical
May 13, 2014
I’m not just trying to save court reporters’ jobs, but what sort of justice is there for litigants when no one has a record of what goes on? Clerk’s minutes are a synopsis, not verbatium.
protect yourselves and your right to appeal, demand a court reporter. Reducing/removing court reporters from the courtroom does not save large dollars, but cripples the justice system.
Victory USA
May 13, 2014
Thank you for your comment that “Without Court Reporters Our Justice System Is At Risk. The problem with the courts today, Court Reporters, or no Court Reporter is that there is no justice. Allow me to share with you an example of court injustice that happened with me. Being knowledgeable in law, I sought to file a demurrer in a traffic ticket case. Neither the court room, nor the filing window would allow me to file such demurrer, which according to law must be filed in writing prior to an appearance for an arraignment. Unknown to me, a secret ”arraignment” was held, of which I knew nothing about, which “Minute Order” stated that I appeared, and was arraigned on charges in which I entered a plea to the charges represented by a Public Defender. There was no such arraignment, nor was there any Public Defender representing me. In preparing for an appeal to the Los Angeles Appellate Department Court downtown, I asked for a transcript of the so-called arraignment, and was informed by the court reporter that there could be no record made for an appeal in that no such event took place. I then asked if a sworn affidavit might be made to document such statement, and it was so made by the court reporter. While within the Appellate Court I was asked if I was seeking to impeach the Minute Order of the court below, I stated “Yes!” Nonetheless, they said that such impeachment by the Court Reporter countered the Minute Order. So we had the sworn testimony of the Court Reporter countering a Minute Order. They chose to believe the false and fraudulent Minute Order regarding an arraignment that never took place, and my own testimony that I neither knew about such arraignment, nor was present, nor was I represented by anone. I sought to appeal such fake arraignment to the State Appellate Court, and was prevented from doing so by the Appellate Department. So I brought suit against everyone connected with this fraud, and entered the sworn affidavit in the record in Federal Court naming and serving all, including the Justices of the Los Angeles Appellate Court. Within the Federal lawsuit, I compelled federal discovery the production of the court record within the so-called “arraignment” at which I allegedly was present and represented by a Public Defender and entered a plea to any criminal charges. They refused to produce in Federal Court such record, and I moved for contempt proceeding against these justices. At this same time, four Federal Judges successively recused themselves from the case, and passed it on to the fifth Federal Judge, who arbitrarily dismissed my lawsuit against all the justices. I neither appeared before such Federal Judge, nor ever saw him, nor was my motion for contempt proceeding ever heard. All judges therein involved in the case covered for one another, and none had to produce anything regarding their corrupt actions. My point is, the sworn testimony of a Court Reporter regarding a non-extent arraignment was worthless, and disregarded, and my motion in Federal Court to produce, and my motion for contempt for evading such Federal Production of Discovery, and the Federal Lawsuit against all of them were dismissed. There is no justice in our court system today, as the entire system is in on the fraudulent cover-up of each other! Ron VictoryUSA@JAIL4Judges.org  Judicial Counc
MFoster
January 12, 2016
yes