On June 20th, the very day of a well-publicized industry gathering, an article I authored was published and distributed. It wasn’t timed accidentally. It was intentional. Not malicious—but intentional. Because accountability doesn’t take a day off, and public relations doesn’t outrank professional integrity.
For those asking, yes—I knew the event was scheduled. I also knew that many court reporters, students, and even vendors might attend without understanding the full context of the brand behind it. The timing of my article was meant to give those individuals a moment of pause. A chance to make an informed decision.
If that upset you, I suggest asking yourself why. If a piece rooted in factual documentation and analysis “ruined” the day, maybe the problem isn’t the timing—it’s the content.
I received a message from someone who said, “Seriously? I get an email from you regarding the branded, non-reporter entity known as Steno In The City (registered trademark) the very day of her conference? This is wrong.”
No, what’s wrong is holding a public event, asking for support, donations, and visibility—while actively avoiding scrutiny, transparency, and compliance. What’s wrong is calling something a “conference” when it isn’t registered, reported, or structured as one under state or nonprofit law. What’s wrong is silencing whistleblowers and painting any challenge as a personal attack.
And make no mistake—inside that room, there was buzz. You don’t write “this is wrong” in real-time unless something is being passed around, whispered about, or screen-shared during the breaks. That message didn’t come from quiet reflection; it came from a group reaction. That means the article hit its target. It landed. It disrupted.
I wouldn’t be surprised if, in the wake of that disruption, there were statements made from the stage or behind a mic that framed me as a “hater,” “bitter,” or “toxic.” That’s what happens when someone used to applause is met with accountability. They reframe criticism as persecution. They invoke phrases like, “I’m still standing,” or “After all I do for this community,” as if scrutiny is a betrayal rather than a basic standard of leadership.
This is a tactic. It’s performative martyrdom. It emotionally manipulates supporters into defending a figure instead of examining facts. And it works—on those who prefer personality over principle.
🗣️ Why That Works in Her Circles
This approach bonds her followers emotionally and discourages critical thinking. If she frames herself as a martyr, any legitimate critique becomes “hate,” and those who raise concerns are seen as toxic or jealous.
While we can’t confirm exactly what Shaunise Day said or how she framed it without direct evidence, my intuition aligns with a recognizable pattern she and her supporters have followed in past situations:
🧠 Likely Reaction Pattern (Based on Public Behavior)
- Victim framing:
Yes — it’s highly plausible she portrayed herself as being attacked, especially on the day of her event. She’s previously used emotionally charged language when facing critique. - Deflection and dramatization:
She likely didn’t address the article’s content directly, but instead reframed it as a personal attack or “jealousy.” This helps deflect from any real questions of transparency or legality. - Performative resilience:
A line like “I’m still standing” or “I keep going no matter who tries to tear me down” fits her public style — dramatic, affirmation-based, and meant to reinforce her image as a strong, unshakable leader. - Moral superiority:
Positioning herself as the selfless giver (“after all I do for this community…”) and critics as ungrateful, bitter, or even evil (e.g. “that devil”) would not be surprising. She has a history of invoking righteousness and persecution in response to criticism.
Let me be clear: Criticism is not cruelty. Transparency is not sabotage. And truth doesn’t lose its value just because someone else is trying to sell a narrative.
It’s also worth clarifying the difference between what I did—and what a campaign candidate does. There have been murmurs that the timing of my article was somehow equivalent to sending campaign emails on the day of voting. That’s a false equivalency.
Here’s a clear breakdown:
| Topic | My Blog Article | Margary’s Campaign Emails |
|---|---|---|
| Role | Independent journalist/blogger | Active candidate |
| Intent | Public commentary and critique | Direct solicitation for votes |
| Audience | General/public readership (with optional subscription) | Targeted members using email for campaign purposes |
| Timing | Coincided with a private/commercial event (not a regulated election) | Sent during the 24-hour voting window of a professional election |
| Regulatory impact | No legal constraints on publication timing | Subject to expectations of procedural fairness in a member election |
In U.S. political elections, there are clear restrictions on campaign messaging during the voting period to ensure fairness and prevent undue influence. While NCRA isn’t legally bound to the same rules, ethical expectations still apply. A candidate sending multiple reminders—especially within the voting window—raises questions about equity and process.
I’m not running. I’m not campaigning. I’m not seeking influence over the ballot box. I’m shining a light on institutional behavior and leadership dynamics. That’s not electioneering. That’s accountability journalism.
I have no obligation to schedule truth around someone else’s party.
If your defense of this situation rests on phrases like, “She does so much for us,” or “She’s still standing,” I urge you to consider what kind of leadership model you’re supporting. Charisma and choreography do not replace compliance and credibility.
What I wrote wasn’t mean-spirited. It was necessary. And judging by the reaction inside that room on June 20th, it struck exactly the nerve it needed to.
And for the record: You’re unsubscribed.
DISCLOSURES
- The content of this post is intended for informational and discussion purposes only. All opinions expressed herein are those of the author and are based on publicly available information, industry standards, and good-faith concerns about nonprofit governance and professional ethics. No part of this article is intended to defame, accuse, or misrepresent any individual or organization. Readers are encouraged to verify facts independently and to engage constructively in dialogue about leadership, transparency, and accountability in the court reporting profession.
- The content on this blog represents the personal opinions, observations, and commentary of the author. It is intended for editorial and journalistic purposes and is protected under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
- Steno In The City® is a registered trademark of its respective owner. This blog is unaffiliated, unsponsored, and not endorsed by Steno In The City®or Shaunise Day.
- References to “Steno In The City” are purely descriptive and used for editorial critique under fair use.
- Readers are encouraged to review the facts and form independent conclusions. All views expressed are based on publicly available information, direct experience, or opinion. Nothing on this site is presented as legal or professional advice.
- The organization known as Steno In The City (a registered trademark) has, to date, made no public statement regarding these concerns.
- My use of the phrase ‘Steno In The City’ is purely descriptive and used solely to refer to the trademark holder in the context of journalistic critique and commentary. No content on the site implies affiliation, endorsement, or partnership with the trademark holder.
***To unsubscribe, just smash that UNSUBSCRIBE button below — yes, the one that’s universally glued to the bottom of every newsletter ever created. It’s basically the “Exit” sign of the email world. You can’t miss it. It looks like this (brace yourself for the excitement):
STENOIMPERIUM 