STENOIMPERIUM

Introduction

The California court system has recently been embroiled in a heated controversy surrounding the use of electronic recording equipment in courtrooms, the status of court reporters, and how the law is being interpreted in this regard. This debate has captured the attention of the public, legal professionals, and the media. The case at the heart of this controversy is the Los Angeles Superior Court’s (LASC) recent actions, the California Court Reporters Association’s (CCRA) legal battles, and the failed passage of California Senate Bill 662 (SB 662), which would have legalized the use of electronic recording systems in certain courtrooms. These developments have raised significant concerns about the future of court reporting, the integrity of the legal process, and the potential consequences for the public.

The Attempt to Change the Law: SB 662 and Its Failure

Senate Bill 662 (SB 662) was a significant piece of proposed legislation in California aimed at modernizing the court system and addressing a perceived shortage of court reporters. The bill, introduced in 2023, sought to authorize the use of electronic recording equipment in courtrooms for civil, probate, and family law cases. Proponents of SB 662 argued that such a measure would be a cost-effective solution to the ongoing shortage of court reporters, which had left many courtrooms understaffed.

However, the bill faced significant opposition from various legal organizations, including the CCRA, which argued that replacing human court reporters with electronic recording equipment would undermine the accuracy and fairness of court proceedings. Despite extensive lobbying efforts and significant backing from various sectors, SB 662 failed to pass in January 2024, leaving the question of electronic recording in the courts unresolved.

The failure of SB 662 was a blow to the Los Angeles Superior Court and other jurisdictions that had already begun preparing for the implementation of electronic recording. In particular, the LASC had already installed recording equipment in all of its civil courtrooms and trained court clerks in its use, leading to a substantial financial investment by the county. With the bill’s failure, there were concerns about how these resources would be justified, as well as the broader implications of circumventing existing laws related to court reporting.

The CCRA’s Legal Victory: County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (Kusar) (1993)

The legal struggle surrounding electronic recording in California’s courts is not new. In 1993, the CCRA filed a lawsuit against the County of Los Angeles, arguing that the county had violated the law by using electronic recording equipment in courtrooms where court reporters were required. The case, County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (Kusar), ultimately resulted in a victory for the CCRA, with the California Court of Appeal upholding the ruling that the county was in violation of existing laws.

The ruling in Kusar was based on Government Code § 69957, which prohibits the use of electronic recording in certain types of cases, including unlimited civil, probate, and family law cases, unless the parties involved agree to the use of such technology. The law explicitly requires that court reporters transcribe these proceedings to ensure an accurate record. Despite this clear legal mandate, the issue of electronic recording has continued to surface in various courtrooms across California, raising questions about whether the law is being followed.

The CCRA’s legal victory in Kusar established a precedent that reinforced the requirement for court reporters in cases that were not exempt under the law. However, recent developments, particularly the actions of LASC, have called this precedent into question. The ongoing legal battles and the potential for further litigation suggest that the issue of electronic recording in the courts is far from settled.

Government Code 69957: The Law Against Electronic Recording in Civil, Probate, and Family Law Cases

At the heart of this controversy is Government Code § 69957, a law that prohibits the use of electronic recording equipment in unlimited civil, probate, and family law cases. This law was enacted to ensure the accuracy and reliability of court records in cases where complex legal issues and significant financial stakes are at play. Court reporters, who are trained to accurately transcribe legal proceedings, are considered essential to maintaining the integrity of the judicial process in these types of cases.

The law has been in effect for several decades, and its purpose is to ensure that all parties in a legal proceeding have access to an accurate, verbatim transcript of the proceedings. This is particularly important in complex cases where the details of the trial are crucial to the outcome. Electronic recording systems, while useful in some circumstances, have been criticized for their inability to capture the nuances of legal testimony and arguments. Critics argue that such systems are prone to errors, and that they do not provide the same level of accuracy and reliability as a human court reporter.

Despite the legal restrictions outlined in § 69957, there has been a growing push in some courtrooms, particularly in Los Angeles, to use electronic recording equipment as a cost-saving measure. This has raised concerns among court reporters and other legal professionals, who argue that the law is being ignored in favor of expedience and cost-cutting measures. The CCRA has been vocal in its opposition to these efforts, citing the potential negative consequences for the legal system and the rights of individuals involved in court cases.

The Motive Behind Jessner’s Order: Justifying the Investment in Electronic Recording Equipment

In September 2024, LASC Presiding Judge Samantha P. Jessner issued a controversial order allowing the use of electronic recording in civil courtrooms, despite the clear restrictions outlined in Government Code § 69957. Jessner’s order came after the failure of SB 662, which had been viewed as a potential legal basis for implementing electronic recording in these courtrooms. According to reports from court clerks, all civil courtrooms at the Mosk Courthouse had been equipped with electronic recording systems, and clerks had already received training in how to use the equipment.

Given the significant financial investment made by LASC in these systems, it is believed that Jessner’s order was an attempt to justify the costs incurred by the county. The installation of recording equipment and the training of clerks had reportedly cost millions of dollars, and without the passage of SB 662, there was concern that these investments would go to waste. Jessner’s order, therefore, may have been motivated by a desire to justify these expenditures and ensure that the county’s investment in technology did not go unused.

Critics, however, argue that Jessner’s order represents an unlawful and unconstitutional attempt to circumvent established law. By allowing electronic recording in courtrooms where court reporters are required, Jessner’s order is seen as an effort to bypass the legal restrictions outlined in § 69957. This has led to allegations of fraud, as some judges have been accused of falsely claiming that § 69957 allows them to use electronic recording equipment in these cases.

Allegations of Fraud: Misleading Signs and False Claims in the Courtrooms

One of the most concerning aspects of this controversy is the allegation of fraud surrounding the use of electronic recording equipment in California courtrooms. Judges in some unlimited civil courtrooms, particularly in Los Angeles, have been displaying signs that claim Government Code § 69957 allows for electronic recording in these cases. These signs are misleading, as the law clearly prohibits the use of electronic recording equipment in such cases unless all parties involved agree to it.

The CCRA has been vocal in its criticism of these false claims, arguing that they are a violation of the law and a breach of the public’s trust in the legal system. The use of misleading signs in courtrooms is seen as an attempt to circumvent the law and push through the use of electronic recording systems, despite the legal restrictions that exist.

Further compounding the allegations of fraud is the claim that there is no actual shortage of court reporters in California. Jessner’s order was partly justified by the argument that there is a nationwide shortage of court reporters, but critics argue that this shortage is exaggerated and that the actual number of court reporters in California has been increasing in recent years. According to some reports, California has seen an increase of 750 court reporters, while the number of reporters lost to retirement or attrition has been relatively small, with a net loss of around 900.

Moreover, it has been alleged that LASC refused to hire court reporters last year, despite a growing number of applicants. According to some insiders, the court system hired only three new court reporters while rejecting at least 12 applicants who were qualified for the positions. These actions raise questions about the true motives behind the push for electronic recording and whether the shortage of court reporters is being used as a pretext for implementing a system that may be less accurate and more cost-effective for the county.

The Ducker Study and the Speech-to-Text Institute: Exposing the Fraud

A key part of the justification for using electronic recording in the courts was the Ducker Study, a report commissioned by the Trial Court Consortium in 2022. This report relied on data from the now-defunct Speech-to-Text Institute (STTI), which had predicted a significant shortage of court reporters. However, this forecast has since been discredited, with many court reporter bloggers and industry experts exposing the inaccuracies of the STTI’s claims. The STTI’s predictions were based on flawed and unverifiable data, leading to accusations of fraud within the court reporting industry.

The STTI’s former president, who was also the president of Stenograph, a company that manufactures steno machines, resigned from both organizations after the fraudulent claims were exposed. The STTI was eventually shut down, and its reports were discredited as part of a broader effort to mislead the public and the court system about the state of the court reporting profession.

The Future of Court Reporting: Legal and Constitutional Implications

The ongoing legal battles surrounding the use of electronic recording in California’s courts have far-reaching implications for the future of court reporting in the state and beyond. The controversy raises important questions about the role of court reporters in the judicial system, the integrity of the legal process, and the potential consequences of allowing electronic recording systems to replace human reporters.

As California grapples with these issues, other states are closely watching the outcome of this case, as the issue of electronic recording in courts has the potential to spread to other jurisdictions. If California, the most populous state in the nation, were to adopt electronic recording on a widespread scale, it could set a precedent for other states to follow, with potentially disastrous consequences for the accuracy and fairness of court proceedings.

Ultimately, the resolution of this controversy will have far-reaching implications not only for the legal profession but for the public’s trust in the judicial system. As the case unfolds, it is clear that the fight over the future of court reporting in California is far from over.

Conclusion

The battle over the use of electronic recording in California’s courts represents a complex legal and constitutional issue that touches on the heart of the judicial system’s integrity. The failure of SB 662, the legal victory of the CCRA in the Kusar case, and the recent actions of LASC have all contributed to a growing sense of unease about the future of court reporting in the state. As the controversy continues to unfold, it is essential for the legal community to carefully consider the implications of these developments and ensure that the rights of all parties involved in legal proceedings are upheld.

The potential for a constitutional crisis, as some have warned, is real, and the outcome of this case could have significant repercussions for the legal system not only in California but across the United States. Whether or not electronic recording will be allowed to replace human court reporters remains to be seen, but it is clear that the legal battle over this issue is far from over.

In a controversial move, the Los Angeles Superior Court has recently authorized the use of electronic recording for a wide range of case types, despite the clear violation of California law. This decision, issued by Presiding Judge Samantha P. Jessner, has generated significant pushback from court reporters, legal professionals, and labor unions, who argue that the shift to electronic recording is unlawful, dangerous, and detrimental to the integrity of the legal system.

California law mandates that licensed court reporters provide verbatim transcripts of court proceedings to ensure the accuracy and fairness of the legal process. By replacing human reporters with electronic recording systems, the Los Angeles Superior Court is not only bypassing these legal requirements but also introducing a host of risks related to the reliability of the court record. Electronic recording systems, while efficient in some contexts, lack the human expertise necessary to handle the complexity of legal proceedings, putting the accuracy of transcripts at risk.

The Legal Violations and Ethical Concerns

The decision to rely on electronic recording in place of human court reporters is a direct violation of California law, which requires licensed reporters to transcribe legal proceedings in most case types. Electronic recording systems are prone to technical failures, inaccuracies, and an inability to capture the nuances of legal language. Furthermore, these machines cannot ask for clarification when something is unclear, potentially leading to incomplete or erroneous records.

Court reporters, by contrast, ensure that the record is accurate and reliable. They are trained to handle specialized legal terminology, to detect and correct errors, and to maintain a complete and accurate transcript. A flawed record — such as one produced by an electronic recording system — can undermine the fairness of trials, appeals, and other legal actions, ultimately denying individuals access to proper justice.

The ethical responsibility of maintaining an accurate, reliable court record is paramount. If the Los Angeles Superior Court is allowed to move forward with its decision, it could set a dangerous precedent that diminishes the role of human court reporters across the state. As the situation continues to unfold, many are questioning whether cost-saving measures are being prioritized over the integrity of the justice system itself.

The Manufactured Reporter Shortage

At the heart of the issue is the accusation that the shortage of court reporters in California is, in fact, a manufactured crisis. Critics argue that the Los Angeles Superior Court has systematically undermined the availability of qualified court reporters through layoffs and rejection of applicants, creating the illusion of a shortage to justify replacing human reporters with electronic systems.

The court’s failure to hire enough reporters, combined with a flawed hiring process, has led to a situation where the narrative of a “shortage” is being used as an excuse to implement substandard recording methods. Many experienced, qualified reporters have been turned away, even as the need for court reporters remains high. This manufactured shortage makes the court’s decision to use electronic recording seem like a foregone conclusion, but critics point out that the real issue is mismanagement and a refusal to prioritize proper staffing.

CCRA’s Response

In light of the Los Angeles Superior Court’s decision, the California Court Reporters Association (CCRA) has raised its voice in opposition. On September 5, 2024, CCRA President Brooke Ryan issued a public statement condemning the court’s actions and calling for the immediate reversal of the order. The CCRA argues that the decision to use electronic recording violates state law and sets a dangerous precedent for the future of the court reporting profession.

CCRA’s response highlights the significant flaws in the court’s reasoning, pointing out that the shortage of court reporters is not a natural occurrence but a direct result of the court’s previous actions — including layoffs and an exclusionary hiring process. CCRA has called on the Los Angeles Superior Court to engage in a dialogue with the labor unions and court reporters to find solutions that address staffing shortages while upholding the integrity of the court system.

The association has also emphasized that the Los Angeles Superior Court has been warned multiple times about the consequences of its actions. The move to electronic recording is seen as a calculated attempt to phase out human reporters in favor of machines, further eroding the quality of the legal record.

What Others Can Do

As this issue continues to develop, it is crucial for individuals who care about the integrity of California’s legal system to voice their concerns. The decision to allow electronic recording to replace licensed court reporters has far-reaching consequences for the fairness of the legal process, and it is essential for the public and legal professionals to take action.

1. Contact the Los Angeles Superior Court: Concerned individuals can contact the Los Angeles Superior Court directly to express their opposition to the decision. Letters and emails can be sent to Presiding Judge Samantha P. Jessner, urging her to reverse the order and reconsider the impact of this decision on the accuracy and fairness of the court record.
2. Support Court Reporters and Unions: Court reporters and their unions are at the forefront of this fight. Supporting their efforts, whether through petitions, public endorsements, or donations, helps amplify their message and puts pressure on the court to reconsider its stance.
3. Engage with Legislators: California lawmakers have the power to step in and help address this issue at the state level. By contacting local representatives and urging them to take action to protect the role of human court reporters, concerned citizens can help prevent this dangerous trend from spreading.
4. Raise Public Awareness: Social media and public forums are powerful tools for raising awareness of the issue. Sharing information about the consequences of replacing court reporters with electronic systems can help inform the public and rally support for the cause.

The Path Forward

The decision to move toward electronic recording is more than just a technical shift — it is a legal and ethical challenge that could have long-lasting consequences for the legal system in California. If the Los Angeles Superior Court’s decision is allowed to stand, it could lead to a significant erosion of the role of court reporters in the state, ultimately undermining the quality and fairness of the court record.

As court reporters, legal professionals, and concerned citizens continue to push back, the hope is that the Los Angeles Superior Court will reconsider its decision and work toward a solution that ensures a sufficient number of qualified court reporters are hired and retained. In doing so, California can maintain the integrity of its legal system and protect the rights of all those who rely on a fair and accurate court record.

The next few months will be critical in determining the future of court reporting in California. With continued advocacy and public pressure, there is still hope for a positive resolution to this ongoing issue.

The 50 Shades of Steno Imposters And How They’re Getting Away With It Undetected

The legal profession is one of the pillars of modern society, often regarded as the embodiment of trust and professionalism. Among the critical components of the legal process is stenography, or “steno,” the practice of using shorthand to transcribe verbatim speech quickly and accurately. Court reporters, equipped with specialized equipment and skills, play an essential role in capturing everything that happens in a courtroom and in deposition settings, ensuring that every word is preserved for future reference.

However, like any other profession, the world of steno is not immune to challenges such as fraud, deception, and impersonation. In recent years, an alarming trend has emerged, with more and more so-called “steno imposters” infiltrating the field. These individuals, who lack the necessary training or certification, are passing themselves off as qualified court reporters. Their presence has raised serious concerns about the accuracy and integrity of legal transcriptions, with many cases slipping through the cracks unnoticed.

In this article, we will explore the different types of steno imposters, their methods for deceiving others, and how they manage to get away with it undetected. We will also examine the consequences of these fraudulent activities on the legal profession, the justice system, and the public at large.

The Rise of Steno Imposters: Who Are They?

Stenographers, by nature, are highly specialized professionals who undergo rigorous training to master their craft. In order to become certified, they must pass examinations that assess both their technical ability to use shorthand and their knowledge of legal terminology. However, as with many fields, a small but growing number of individuals are attempting to bypass these qualifications.

Steno imposters fall into several categories, each with their own unique methods of infiltration. Some of the most common types of steno imposters include:

1. The Unqualified “Fake Reporter”

These individuals claim to be certified stenographers, using forged credentials or false representations to convince others that they have the required training. They may present fake diplomas, membership in nonexistent associations, or even forged certification documents in order to secure work in courts, depositions, or other legal settings. These imposters often rely on their ability to speak the “language” of stenography, using jargon and technical terms that they have memorized, but lacking the true competence to transcribe effectively.

2. The Under-Qualified “Near-Miss”

Some imposters have attempted to pass certification exams but failed to do so. However, they still manage to convince employers and clients that they are qualified. They may use a variety of excuses for their failure to obtain certification, such as claiming they were “almost there” or that they “just need one more exam to pass.” These individuals often lack the speed or accuracy required to be a reliable stenographer, but they manage to slip through the cracks due to their persistence or charm.

3. The “Tech Savvy” Fraudster

With the increasing reliance on technology in the legal field, some imposters take advantage of advancements in speech recognition software or other tools to impersonate qualified stenographers. These fraudsters use AI-powered software to transcribe speech in real-time, presenting a polished transcript without ever having to learn the art of stenography themselves. While this technology can be incredibly helpful, it’s often unreliable and inaccurate, especially in legal contexts where precision is paramount. Yet, many individuals are able to pass off these automated transcriptions as legitimate, making it difficult for clients or legal professionals to detect the fraud.

4. The “Untrained Temp”

In some cases, steno imposters are simply people who are untrained or undertrained, but find their way into the profession due to a lack of qualified stenographers in certain areas. These individuals may be hired as temporary workers or substitutes, filling in for certified professionals who are unavailable. However, because they lack the skills necessary for the role, they often make errors that go unnoticed until later, when a transcript is reviewed or a critical error is uncovered.

5. The “Plausible Deniability” Con Artist

These imposters are often savvy con artists who know how to take advantage of the system. They carefully cultivate an air of respectability, frequently changing locations and employers to avoid detection. Their tactics include providing just enough proof of their credentials or offering testimonies from clients that support their false claims. They are masters of manipulation and often rely on the lack of a centralized database of stenographers to keep their fraudulent activities under the radar.

How Are They Getting Away with It?

Despite the sophistication of modern stenography tools and techniques, these imposters continue to operate undetected in the field for a number of reasons.

1. Lack of Verification and Oversight

One of the key reasons why steno imposters are able to operate without being caught is the absence of stringent verification processes. Unlike other professions, there is no universal, central database where employers or clients can easily verify the credentials of stenographers. In some cases, these imposters may have worked for multiple employers who never checked their certification status, enabling them to continue with their fraudulent activities.

2. The Pressure for Affordable Services

There is a growing demand for court reporters and stenographers, but the costs associated with hiring qualified professionals can be prohibitive for some clients. This has led to a market where some employers are willing to accept lower rates, creating opportunities for imposters to sneak in. They promise high-quality services at a fraction of the cost, making it harder for clients to resist the temptation to hire them. This situation has created an environment in which a low price point is often valued more than the quality or reliability of the service.

3. Tech Solutions Masking Incompetence

Some of the aforementioned “tech savvy” fraudsters use automated transcription services or voice recognition software to mimic real-time stenography. While these tools can certainly assist professionals in capturing speech, they cannot replace the nuanced understanding of context, punctuation, and legal terminology that a trained stenographer provides. However, because the technology has become more advanced, it’s difficult for clients to distinguish between an automated service and a skilled professional without conducting thorough audits of the final transcript.

4. Subtle Errors and “Close Enough” Quality

Many steno imposters don’t make glaring errors, but instead make subtle mistakes that go unnoticed until much later. Minor transcription errors can be difficult to detect in the fast-paced environment of a courtroom, especially when they don’t significantly alter the meaning of the text. An imposter may even go unnoticed for years if they continue to make only small, inconsequential mistakes.

5. Difficulties in Reporting and Enforcement

Even when the fraud is discovered, reporting it can be complicated. Many clients are hesitant to make accusations without solid evidence, and some are even unaware that they have been taken advantage of. This leads to a lack of formal complaints, which in turn means there is little enforcement against fraudulent stenographers. Without a reliable reporting system in place, it’s difficult for authorities or professional organizations to act swiftly and decisively to remove imposters from the field.

The Consequences of Steno Impostors

The consequences of having unqualified or fraudulent stenographers in the field are far-reaching. First and foremost, accuracy in legal transcriptions is paramount. Mistakes, however small, can have severe consequences in court proceedings, potentially altering the course of a trial, leading to wrongful convictions, or undermining the fairness of legal proceedings.

Additionally, these imposters undermine the integrity of the legal profession as a whole, making it harder for legitimate stenographers to earn trust and respect. The presence of fraud in this field also damages the public’s faith in the legal system, as the public becomes aware that there are individuals who are impersonating professionals and jeopardizing the justice process.

How to Detect and Prevent Steno Impostors

Combating the rise of steno imposters requires a multi-faceted approach. Increased vigilance, thorough credential verification, regular audits of transcripts, and better education and training for stenographers are all essential steps in tackling this issue. Legal professionals and clients alike must become more proactive in identifying potential frauds, and taking action when they spot discrepancies.

Ultimately, maintaining the integrity of the steno profession requires a concerted effort from all parties involved, from the certification bodies to the legal teams hiring court reporters. Only through vigilance and cooperation can the shades of imposter stenographers be uncovered and eradicated for good.

The New Gold Rush – court reporting agencies trade stenographers for profits and endanger the entire legal industry!

The legal industry is facing an unprecedented crisis, one that has remained largely under the radar, yet threatens the very foundation of the judicial process. Court reporting agencies, once dedicated to the integrity of legal transcription, have shifted their focus away from skilled stenographers in favor of cost-cutting alternatives that prioritize profits over accuracy. This new gold rush—where corporations exploit digital recording and offshore transcription services at the expense of trained stenographers—poses a grave danger to justice itself.

The Decline of Stenographers in Courtrooms

Historically, stenographers have been the backbone of courtroom proceedings. Their specialized training, which requires years of rigorous practice, enables them to transcribe legal proceedings with near-perfect accuracy in real-time. Certified Shorthand Reporters (CSRs) not only ensure every word is captured, but also provide instant readbacks and certify transcripts as official records.

However, the legal industry is now witnessing a sharp decline in stenographic professionals. According to the National Court Reporters Association (NCRA), the industry faces a shortage of more than 5,000 stenographers across the U.S., with many leaving due to low pay, lack of job security, and the rise of alternative transcription methods. But rather than invest in training new stenographers, court reporting agencies are accelerating their shift toward digital court reporting—a move that comes with significant risks.

The Rise of Digital Court Reporting and Its Pitfalls

In a bid to cut costs, many court reporting agencies are replacing skilled stenographers with digital recording systems and untrained transcribers. These digital court reporters (DCRs) rely on audio recordings, which are later transcribed either by software or outsourced personnel, often in countries with no legal oversight.

While these methods may seem cost-effective on the surface, they come with alarming downsides:

• Accuracy Issues: Unlike stenographers, who capture speech verbatim in real-time, digital recorders often struggle with overlapping voices, background noise, and technical malfunctions. Poor-quality audio results in incomplete or inaccurate transcripts, which can impact legal decisions.
• Lack of Certification: Digital court reporters do not undergo the same rigorous certification process as stenographers, leading to a lower standard of accuracy and accountability.
• Security Risks: Many agencies outsource transcription to offshore workers, raising concerns about data security and the confidentiality of sensitive legal records.
• Legal Challenges: Courts rely on certified transcripts as official records, but digitally transcribed proceedings frequently contain errors or omissions that can jeopardize cases, leading to appeals and retrials.
• Lack of Judicial Oversight: Court reporters play an indispensable role in ensuring judicial oversight and the overall accountability of the justice system. Their transcripts serve as the permanent, unalterable record of courtroom proceedings, which is crucial for monitoring not only the fairness of the trial, but also for documenting any potential judicial misconduct. If a judge behaves improperly, it is often the court reporter’s record that enables the Judicial Council to investigate and address such actions. Without an accurate record, judges could act without oversight, knowing their words and decisions are not being reliably captured, potentially leading to unchecked abuse of power.
• Moreover, in the appellate process, a court reporter’s transcript serves as the foundation for a higher court to review and potentially overturn a trial decision. If this record is compromised by inaccuracies or missing details due to the rise of unreliable technology or unqualified individuals, the foundation of appeals collapses. In essence, court reporters safeguard against the concentration of unchecked power in the hands of judges, ensuring that no one, including judges, can escape accountability. Without their vital work, the system of checks and balances within the courts would be severely weakened, ultimately threatening the very foundation of justice.
• With digital or electronic recording systems owned and controlled by the court itself, there is a serious risk of manipulation, tampering, or outright destruction of records, especially in cases where the court or individuals involved may want to cover up negligence or misconduct. In the case of the Waukesha, WI Christmas Parade tragedy on November 21, 2021, for instance, if a court were guilty of negligence or mishandling the case, there would be nothing preventing them from deleting or altering digital records, either intentionally or as a result of poor system oversight. Unlike stenographic records, which are permanent, time-stamped, and verifiable by multiple parties, digital records are much more vulnerable to being erased, edited, or lost without anyone ever knowing.
• This lack of permanence and transparency in digital records creates an environment where accountability is compromised. Stenographers, on the other hand, create a physical, independent record that is much harder to tamper with or destroy, ensuring that courts can be held accountable for their actions—whether that’s the handling of evidence, testimony, or even the conduct of judges. If courts have control over digital systems, there is no safeguard to prevent them from manipulating records to cover up their own errors or misconduct, which poses a direct threat to judicial oversight and the fundamental principles of justice.
• In cases like Waukesha, WI, the importance of maintaining an accurate and untouchable record is even more urgent, as any erasure or alteration could deprive victims, families, and the public of the truth—and prevent a fair investigation or appeal. This highlights the irreplaceable role that human court reporters, with their professional expertise and independent records, play in ensuring justice is served and accountability is maintained.

Corporate Greed at the Heart of the Crisis

The shift away from stenographers is not driven by necessity, but by profit. Many court reporting agencies are now owned by private equity firms and large corporations, whose primary goal is maximizing shareholder returns, rather than ensuring judicial integrity. These entities view stenographic services as an unnecessary expense and prioritize methods that increase profit margins, even at the risk of compromising justice.

The so-called “court reporting shortage” has been strategically fabricated by the Speech-to-Text Institute (STTI) and certain big box agencies to serve their financial interests. By pushing this narrative, agencies justify replacing certified stenographers with unreliable digital alternatives, boosting their own profits while reducing accuracy in legal records. STTI, backed by digital reporting proponents, falsely claims a crisis to drive courts toward inferior technology. In reality, thousands of skilled stenographers are available, but agencies refuse to pay fair wages. Court reporter wages have not kept pace with inflation for over 50 years, further discouraging new professionals. This manufactured shortage undermines justice, prioritizing corporate greed over verbatim accuracy and the integrity of the legal system.

Rather than invest in recruitment and training programs for new stenographers, these agencies lobby for legislation that supports digital court reporting, despite overwhelming evidence that it is an inferior alternative. Some states have even begun relaxing certification requirements, allowing anyone with minimal training to work as a court reporter, further degrading the profession’s standards.

The Real-World Consequences of Digital Court Reporting

The dangers of replacing stenographers with digital alternatives are not hypothetical—they have already led to serious legal repercussions. Cases across the country have suffered due to transcription errors, missing testimony, and audio failures that rendered entire proceedings invalid. Some of the most glaring issues include:

• Criminal Trials in Jeopardy: In one case, a defendant’s appeal was delayed for years because the digital transcript contained numerous gaps and inaudible sections, preventing an accurate review of the trial record.
• Civil Lawsuits at Risk: Businesses and individuals have faced costly delays when transcripts failed to accurately reflect testimony, forcing parties to go through expensive and time-consuming re-litigation.
• Judge and Attorney Frustration: Legal professionals have voiced concerns that the lack of real-time readbacks—something stenographers provide instantaneously—slows down proceedings and hampers effective advocacy.

The Fight to Save Stenography

Despite these challenges, the legal community is pushing back against the profit-driven erosion of court reporting standards. Advocacy groups, including the NCRA, have launched initiatives to attract new stenographers and emphasize the profession’s critical role in maintaining justice. Some law firms and judges are also refusing to work with agencies that rely solely on digital reporting, demanding the return of certified stenographers to the courtroom. Judges are also refusing to admit transcripts that are not certified by a licensed court reporter.

Legislation may also play a role in reversing this trend. Some states are considering laws that would require stenographers for certain legal proceedings, recognizing that their expertise cannot be replaced by machines or untrained personnel. In California, a new law now requires court reporters to state their name and license number at the start of every proceeding. Furthermore, increased investment in court reporting education and apprenticeship programs could help replenish the profession’s ranks.

Conclusion: A Call to Action

The legal industry is at a crossroads. If the current trajectory continues, the accuracy and integrity of court records will be at risk, endangering the very foundation of the justice system. While digital technology has its place, it should be used to support, not replace, trained stenographers.

Court reporters play an indispensable role in ensuring judicial oversight and the overall accountability of the justice system. Their transcripts serve as the permanent, unalterable record of courtroom proceedings, which is crucial for monitoring not only the fairness of the trial but also for documenting any potential judicial misconduct. If a judge behaves improperly, it is often the court reporter’s record that enables the Judicial Council to investigate and address such actions. Without an accurate record, judges could act without oversight, knowing their words and decisions are not being reliably captured, potentially leading to unchecked abuse of power.

To prevent this crisis from deepening, legal professionals, lawmakers, and the public must take action. Court reporting agencies must be held accountable for prioritizing profits over justice. Law firms should demand stenographic services for critical proceedings. And aspiring professionals should be encouraged to enter the field through better pay, incentives, and career development opportunities.

This new gold rush—where court reporting agencies chase short-term profits at the expense of legal accuracy—must be stopped before it permanently undermines the fairness of the judicial system. The future of justice depends on it.

The Trumpets of Doom are silently wailing across American courtrooms as judges eagerly attempt to solve a problem that, in reality, does not exist: a supposed shortage of court reporters. This so-called crisis, first highlighted in a 2013 study by Ducker Worldwide, predicted a deficit of 5,500 court reporters by 2018. However, that shortage never truly materialized. Instead, what has emerged is something far more insidious—a calculated attempt to replace a critical, time-honored profession with inferior digital alternatives, jeopardizing the accuracy of court records and, ultimately, the integrity of democracy itself.

The Manufactured Crisis

The judicial system, legislators, attorneys, and court reporting associations were slow to react to the warnings raised by the Ducker study. When they finally did, the response was not to strengthen stenography education or address recruitment strategically but to open the floodgates for digital court reporting and voice-to-text software. These alternatives, while marketed as innovative and cost-effective, fail to meet the reliability standards of human stenographers. They are now being touted as the inevitable future despite mounting evidence of their inadequacy.

The irony is that the predicted court reporter shortage did not materialize in 2018 as forecasted. Instead, the field has seen a surge of interest, with stenography schools now experiencing unprecedented enrollment numbers. Stenographers have worked tirelessly to recruit and train new professionals, successfully counteracting the doomsday predictions. Yet, the push for digital reporting persists, driven not by necessity but by a concerted effort to replace highly skilled workers with automation that benefits corporations rather than the public.

The Fraud Perpetrated on the American Public

The real crisis lies not in a lack of stenographers but in the misinformation campaign that seeks to justify their replacement. Proponents of digital court reporting claim that artificial intelligence and voice recognition software can accurately transcribe legal proceedings, but real-world applications tell a different story. Unlike certified court reporters who undergo rigorous training, digital alternatives rely on automated transcription software and underqualified operators, leading to significant errors in official records.

Errors in legal transcripts can have devastating consequences. A single misinterpreted word in a court proceeding can change the entire outcome of a case. Stenographers provide real-time, verbatim transcription, ensuring accuracy and accountability—qualities that digital recording systems simply cannot replicate with the same reliability.

Furthermore, the widespread implementation of digital court reporting raises serious concerns about data security and privacy. With digital recordings susceptible to hacking and tampering, the integrity of legal records is at risk. Unlike stenographers, who provide a human safeguard against such breaches, digital systems introduce vulnerabilities that could be exploited to alter or manipulate court records, undermining the very foundation of justice.

The Corporate Agenda Behind the Digital Push

At the heart of this transition is a profit-driven agenda. Companies that manufacture and market digital reporting software stand to gain immensely by convincing judicial systems to adopt their technology under the guise of efficiency and cost-cutting. By shifting from human stenographers to automated systems, courts may see an immediate reduction in short-term costs, but at what long-term price?

The legal profession relies on accurate documentation of proceedings to ensure fair trials and due process. The replacement of stenographers with flawed digital alternatives prioritizes convenience over justice, efficiency over accuracy, and profit over the rights of individuals. This corporate-driven push is not unique to the legal system; it reflects a broader trend of automation replacing skilled professions, often with disastrous results.

The Undermining of Democracy

The repercussions of this digital takeover extend beyond the courtroom. Democracy thrives on transparency, accountability, and the rule of law—principles that require an accurate and indisputable record of legal proceedings. By replacing human stenographers with imperfect digital solutions, we introduce doubt and instability into a system that demands precision.

Imagine a scenario where a crucial piece of testimony is misinterpreted by automated transcription software. A defendant’s fate could hinge on a software error, leading to wrongful convictions or unjust rulings. The gradual erosion of reliable court records paves the way for corruption, as altered transcripts or missing testimonies could be manipulated to serve particular interests. When the very foundation of justice is compromised, democracy itself is at risk.

The digital deluge sweeping across the judicial system is not just a threat to the stenography profession—it is a direct assault on the integrity of legal proceedings and the democratic principles that govern America. By allowing technology to take precedence over human expertise, we are jeopardizing the accuracy of court records and endangering the lives of those who depend on them for justice.

Fighting Back: A Call to Action

It is not too late to counteract this dangerous shift. The legal community, policymakers, and the public must recognize the importance of preserving the stenography profession and resisting the corporate-driven push for digital court reporting. Here’s what can be done:

1. Educate Lawmakers and the Public – Awareness is key. Judicial bodies, attorneys, and legislators must be informed about the risks associated with digital reporting and the advantages of retaining human stenographers.
2. Strengthen Stenography Education – Investment in court reporting schools and training programs will ensure a steady influx of qualified professionals, negating any future shortages.
3. Implement Legislative Protections – Laws must be enacted to mandate the use of certified stenographers in legal proceedings, ensuring that human oversight remains the gold standard.
4. Challenge the Digital Takeover – The legal community should push back against the adoption of digital alternatives and demand evidence-based assessments of their effectiveness before implementation.
5. Expose the Corporate Agenda – Investigative efforts should be made to uncover the financial motivations behind the push for digital court reporting and to hold those responsible accountable.

The battle to preserve stenography is not just about protecting jobs; it is about safeguarding the integrity of the judicial system and, by extension, American democracy. If we allow the digital deluge to wash away the human element from our courts, we risk losing far more than just a profession—we risk losing justice itself.

The Trumpets of Doom may be wailing, but they are not yet signaling the end. There is still time to resist this manufactured crisis and ensure that democracy, truth, and justice remain firmly rooted in the American courtroom. The fight for stenography is a fight for democracy, and it is one we must not lose.

Have you read Christopher Day’s article, “Forced to Pay NCRA…”?

Forced to Pay NCRA Membership Dues to Work In Your State? Contact Stenonymous!

I’ve long believed it’s problematic for a third-party nonprofit organization to require a license in order to work in a state, yet this practice is common and not widely questioned.

In the 1980s, the National Society of Professional Engineers (PE) faced a similar issue: too many people were calling themselves engineers. To address this, the PE implemented several strategies:

1. Title protection for professional engineers (PE).
2. State certification in all 50 states.
3. Enforceable laws prohibiting anyone without a license from claiming the title or practicing as a PE.
4. Publishing a “Responsible Charge Statement,” among other measures.

These steps were instrumental in the success of the engineering industry. Many engineering firms have thrived, keeping up with wage inflation, with some companies earning millions annually. This is a model that stenographers could have followed—and arguably should have—if a similar strategy had been adopted.

Instead, the National Court Reporters Association (NCRA) introduced its own certification, but only succeeded in getting 8 states to mandate it and 13 more to make it an optional requirement alongside their own state licensing. Unfortunately, this left 27 states without any form of licensing protection. This gap allowed the digital transcription movement to exploit the lack of regulation, starting with states like Florida, where they’ve completely dominated the market. Meanwhile, stenographers are left struggling with fewer opportunities.

The view that the NCRA’s actions (or lack thereof) have contributed to the decline of our industry isn’t popular, but it’s one worth considering. What the NCRA should have done was abandon its certification program and instead advocate for a standardized “CSR” (Certified Stenographic Reporter) license across all states. Had this happened, along with title protection and a Responsible Charge Statement in each state, we would have been much stronger, and the rise of digital transcription would have faced far more resistance.

While it’s likely illegal to require certification from a single monopolistic organization—something the PE didn’t attempt to do—this issue has yet to be addressed in court. The NCRA could push for a state license, but it cannot require a license from a third-party monopoly. This opens the door for potential antitrust lawsuits. Interestingly, it seems Christopher Day is in talks with someone who may be preparing to challenge the current system.

If this issue were to come to light, the response would be massive. Reporters who have spent years and significant amounts of money on certification exams, CEUs, and conferences would be up in arms. Such a challenge could drastically shake up our industry, and we’d see plenty of backlash from those invested in the current setup.

A possible solution to this issue would be for the NCRA to collaborate with state governments, professional organizations, and individual stenographers to establish a universally recognized, standardized “CSR” (Certified Stenographic Reporter) license across all states. This unified approach would ensure consistency in qualifications, title protection, and professional standards, strengthening the profession and making it more difficult for digital transcription methods to replace us. By working toward state-mandated CSR licenses and implementing a uniform “Responsible Charge Statement,” the NCRA could help solidify the role of human stenographers, offering greater legal and professional protection nationwide. This proactive, collaborative effort would not only restore the credibility of our profession but also secure its future by defending it against further encroachment. Rather than perpetuating cycles of infighting and divisiveness, we should come together as one force, advocating for a solution that benefits everyone. By setting aside differences, we can demonstrate the power of unity in protecting and growing the stenographic profession for years to come.

In the realm of court reporting, the dichotomy between Steno Meritocracy and Social Connections presents a perennial debate. On one hand, the profession prides itself on a meritocratic ethos, where success is ostensibly determined by skill, dedication, and proficiency in stenography. However, the importance of social connections cannot be understated. Networking and fostering relationships within the community can open doors to opportunities, mentorship, and support.

Loneliness poses a significant challenge within the court reporting sector, extending beyond our professional realm to a broader societal concern affecting middle-aged women across the nation. Dr. Vivek Murthy, the Surgeon General, highlighted the alarming prevalence of America’s “loneliness epidemic” in 2023, underscoring its correlation with heightened risks of health ailments like cardiovascular disease and depression. Given the solitary nature of the court reporting profession, its susceptibility to this issue is particularly pronounced.

Court reporters, whether operating officially or as freelancers, along with CART providers and Captioners, all possess a common characteristic: exclusivity. As stenographers are entrusted with creating the official record, only one can fulfill this role. Consequently, they often find themselves working solo, traveling to job sites. In the legal sphere, court reporters compile transcripts, frequently dedicating evenings and weekends to this task when not physically present on a job. Such a schedule often entails extensive solitary hours spent preparing transcripts well into the late night and early morning.

Loneliness is a painful emotion that arises when a person perceives that he or she is alone, or is being shunned by and isolated from other people. It can stem from working in a virtual or geographically dispersed team, or from being in a team of one.
Individuals experiencing loneliness often exhibit decreased commitment, creativity, collaboration, and attentiveness, leading to a decline in both the quality and quantity of their work. Additionally, loneliness has been recognized as a contributing factor to workplace burnout.

Stenographers endure feelings of loneliness to a significantly greater extent compared to the average middle-aged American. With the average age of court reporters in the U.S. hovering around 51 or 55, it’s apparent that a substantial portion of the approximately 27,000 stenographers are likely grappling with loneliness.

I once came across a claim suggesting that the suicide rate among court reporters surpassed that of dentists. Intrigued, I attempted to verify this assertion but couldn’t find any evidence to support it. However, from time to time, I encounter reports of court reporter suicides. With the proliferation of Facebook groups among court reporters, such narratives are not uncommon to stumble upon.

Why are stenographers lonelier than average Americans in Middle Age?

Cultural norms, such as an emphasis on individualism, heightened social media usage, dwindling social ties, and escalating political polarization, can exacerbate the divide among stenographers, fostering feelings of isolation. Middle-aged adults often grapple with weakened family bonds and lack the social safety nets enjoyed by the average “employed” populace, such as family leave, unemployment protection, and childcare support.

The court reporting profession places a significant amount of emphasis on individual achievement, prioritizing economic market competition, choice, and the notion of a meritocracy that rewards talent, ability, and excellence. Esteeming high achievers on a pedestal, this culture witnessed a surge in reporters obtaining credentials like RPR, RMR, RDR, CRR, during and after the pandemic. However, this emphasis on individual achievement may lead to a disconnect from others, framing the world as an individualistic competition and sidelining the importance of fostering healthy social connections.

In the realm of court reporting, an unnecessary air of competitiveness can prevail despite abundant work opportunities due to high demand. Instances of court reporters poaching clients from agencies can breed suspicion and excessive client protection measures. Such actions are deemed unethical, as they undermine the hard-earned relationships of agencies. While some may disregard ethical considerations, it’s worth noting that karma has its way of catching up with such behavior.

To address professional isolation and foster a nurturing work environment, it’s crucial to emphasize communication and camaraderie within our court reporter community. This entails organizing frequent gatherings, fostering informal social gatherings, and facilitating opportunities for open dialogue. By encouraging reporters to openly express their experiences and emotions, be it related to work or personal matters, we can cultivate stronger bonds and cultivate an environment of inclusivity and support. Here are a few more suggestions to consider.

Embrace Volunteering: By actively participating in volunteer initiatives with both your state and national associations, you not only contribute to meaningful causes but also cultivate a profound sense of purpose and fulfillment. Moreover, volunteering offers invaluable opportunities for forging deep connections and fostering a sense of community with like-minded individuals.

Be a Mentor: Offer your availability for students seeking to accumulate apprentice hours or commit to long-term mentoring relationships. Reach out to local court reporting schools, state court reporting associations, the NCRA, or Project Steno to connect with students. Additionally, students can utilize NCRA’s ProLink platform to locate reporters in their vicinity. Another resource is CoverCrow, which now offers a free mentor/mentee student matching feature. Court reporters can create a profile on this platform, allowing students nationwide to find and contact mentors in their area.

Speak at Court Reporting Colleges: Contact court reporting colleges and offer to speak to the students. You can do this remotely now. One time, I was driving home from an all-day assignment, and I pulled off the freeway into a parking lot where I was able to connect via Zoom remotely using my iPhone to give a scheduled presentation to students for an hour. It doesn’t require much preparation; just speak about what you do for a living.

Engage in Career Days: Maintain active involvement in promoting the court reporting profession by participating in career day events across various educational institutions, including colleges, high schools, and elementary schools. These occasions offer chances to expand your network and foster meaningful social connections. Utilize the resources provided by the NCRA, such as handouts and demonstrative materials, to enhance your presentation and engage students effectively.

Speak at Bar Associations & Law Schools:
Law schools no longer offer courses on making a record as electives, leaving it to court reporters to fill this educational gap for both future and practicing attorneys. You can seek approval for Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) credits and conduct presentations at local bar associations. Additionally, engaging in networking activities at law schools and bar associations can also be beneficial in spreading awareness and knowledge on this important aspect of legal proceedings.

Participate in State & National Association Conventions: Few experiences match the energy and excitement of joining your state or national convention and engaging with fellow court reporters. There’s no one who gets a court reporter like another court reporter. The camaraderie among peers is unparalleled, offering invaluable networking opportunities and fostering lasting friendships that can uplift your spirits for weeks on end.

Help Your Fellow Court Reporters: Many court reporters are deeply engrossed in their own pursuits, often overlooking the struggles of their peers. It’s essential to pause amidst the rush, perhaps during your commute to a job site, and make at least one phone call daily to connect with another reporter and offer support. Consider scheduling a lunch meeting or extending a friendly greeting when you encounter a fellow stenographer with a recognizable roller bag. Don’t hesitate to initiate these interactions; a simple hello can go a long way in fostering camaraderie.

The most effective strategy is to invest time in getting to know and deeply understand your fellow court reporters. By doing so, you’ll be better equipped to identify when someone is feeling disconnected or excluded. Keep an eye out for any shifts in their behavior or body language. If you notice them appearing downcast, withdrawing from interactions, or experiencing a sudden decline in production, it’s evident that there’s an issue that needs attention.

Certainly, finding time for social connections can be challenging for court reporters, especially when they’re grappling with transcript backlogs and the demands of daily life. This may involve juggling additional jobs or dedicating free time to caring for children or elderly family members, given the soaring costs of caregiving. Social safety nets can help provide some financial support and stability, which, in turn, might also make it easier for people to take the time to build and nurture long-term relationships.

Balancing these two dynamics, Steno Meritocracy and Social Connections, is essential for court reporters seeking advancement in their careers. While meritocracy underscores the significance of individual achievement, cultivating social connections can offer invaluable support and growth opportunities. Ultimately, finding the right equilibrium between steno prowess and social acumen is key to thriving in the competitive landscape of court reporting.

An ex-Veritext employee recently shared with StenoImperium that the Shareholders of Veritext have mandated that every single Veritext office nationwide have a split of 50% digital and 50% steno! We were told that each Veritext office around the country has weekly meetings with staff and they go over their numbers, ensuring that 50 percent of their business each week is digital. Also, it is a purely profit-driven decision, compelled by the V shareholders. There is no written policy that the whistleblower knows about, but it is expressly understood that it is a requirement, and it’s looked at and discussed weekly by each employee in each office nationwide. There has to be documentation of this mandate somewhere.

A reward of $1,000 is offered for anyone who can produce a document from Veritext that discusses this shareholder requirement/mandate that 50% of their business must be digital. Anyone who wishes to come forward can reach StenoImperium through this blog.

In 2021, Andy Frederick’s, the COO of Veritext in California, shared with a court reporter that digital business accounted for 10% of their CA market share, which was $10 million at the time. This 50% mandate in CA would equal $5 million in digital business in CA, a state where using the term “court reporter” (or any iteration of the title) in legal proceedings is protected and can’t be used by anyone who is not licensed by the Court Reporters Board. For transcripts to be admitted into evidence and lodged with the court in CA, it must be certified and signed by a CA CSR. Transcripts produced by Veritext’s “notaries” are being rejected by CA judges. Also, digital recorder persons are not permitted to work in court, although they try to sneak in, only to be kicked out.

“Absolute power corrupts absolutely” is one of the proverbial sayings that seems to be proved correct by experience of people’s actual behavior.

It was coined by the English nobleman Lord Acton [John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton, first Baron Acton (1834–1902] in 1857, using similar ideas expressed by several of his contemporaries. It was part of a quote of his opinion expressed in a letter Bishop Mandell Creighton in 1887, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.”

He coined the phrase, but he didn’t invent the idea; quotations very like it had been uttered by several authors well before 1887. Primary amongst them was another English politician with no shortage of names – William Pitt the Elder, Earl of Chatham and British Prime Minister from 1766 to 1778. Pitt said something similar in a speech to the UK House of Lords in 1770:

“Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it.”

More than 2,400 years ago, the Greek philosophers Plato (c. 428–347 B.C.) and Aristotle (384–322 B.C.) wrote about tyranny and the rule of law. In a tyrannical government, the government becomes corrupt and uses its power to further its own interests, instead of working for the common good.

Like Plato and Aristotle, our nation’s founders worried about tyrannical government. In John Adams’ (1735-1826) phrasing of the problem of power, he states, “My opinion is, and always has been, that absolute power intoxicates alike despots, monarchs, aristocrats, and democrats”. Recognizing that tyranny could come from a single powerful ruler or from “mob rule,” the founders wrote into the Constitution mechanisms to prevent tyranny and promote the rule of law. They separated the powers of government into three equal branches of government: the executive (the president), the legislative (Congress), and the judicial (the Supreme Court). Each branch can check the other to prevent corruption or tyranny. Congress itself is divided into the House of Representatives and the Senate. The House, elected for two-year terms, is more likely to be swayed by the passions of the people than the Senate, elected to six-year terms. The Constitution further limits the powers of the government by listing its powers: The government may not exercise any power beyond those listed. The first 10 amendments to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, protect people’s liberties and freedoms from government encroachment. In creating the judicial branch of government, the framers gave federal judges lifetime terms, thus ensuring that judges would base their decisions on the law and not on politics.

The judicial branch of government further separates the power of government down through the lowest level of court in courtrooms by separating the duties and powers of courtroom staff, giving the court stenographer, a unique and separate power from the judge. A court reporter does not answer to the judge and is not directly controlled by the judge. The power of a court reporter is separate and apart from the judge, and I would assert, equal to or greater than that of a judge, because a court reporter can essentially overrule a judge’s order to change the record, on their own authority given to them by the state to protect and preserve the record.

The role of a court reporter is to protect the record, and their transcripts transcend the courtroom, where that judge’s rulings in a case can then be overturned by a higher court. This is the reason why judges always say, “The court reporter is the most important person in the room.” It’s the role of the court reporter who serves as the checks and balances in our judicial system, preventing corruption, precisely as the Greeks had predicted could happen, more than 2,400 years ago. For this reason, judges and the judicial council should play no role in minimizing the role that court reporters play in our justice system; it would seem to serve a self-interested agenda. Wouldn’t it behoove a tyrannical judiciate to get rid of court reporters, who are a threat to their agenda, that being one of having absolute power?

Fast forward to our current time in history, members of our judicial system stand at the precipice of absolute corruption and are venturing to drive America into a tyrannical rule of justice.

Case in point.

The country watched as Waukesha County jury convicted Darrel Brooks on 76 charges for murdering six people and injuring more than 60 others in the Waukesha Christmas parade attack Nov. 21, 2021. But what has received very little attention since being initially reported are the missing electronic recordings of his bail hearing on Nov. 5th, when Brooks was accused of running over the mother of his child with the same SUV police said was used in the Waukesha parade crimes. The bafflingly low $1,000 bail amount, even though Brooks was at the time in violation of his bail conditions for a 2020 case where he was accused of opening fire on a family member, was the subject of media attention and they requested a court transcript, only to be told that there was never a record created of the Nov. 5 2021 bail hearing because of a failure of audio recording equipment. Hearings from two other days, before and after, were also not recorded by the court.

Just a year before this took place, Waukesha County removed court reporters from their courtrooms and replaced them with electronic recording equipment, after being warned by the Wisconsin Court Reporters Association of the dangers that ER posed to the justice system. Court Reporters are known as the Guardians of the Record because the decentralized nature of keeping of the court records with licensed professionals, is the most superior way to protect the record. It protects from natural disasters, such as floods, fires, earthquakes, and it also protects from malicious data hacks. If hackers wanted to gain access to all the county’s transcripts and corrupt, destroy, or tamper them, they couldn’t do it, because they’re not there. They are with each of the individual court reporters who are using, at a minimum, 4 sources of backups for all of their court transcripts, individually, and are protecting them to ensure they are not tampered with and changed. The court reporters are responsible for the chain of custody of the record and certify that the record of the proceeding that they reported on their steno machine is 100% accurate.

When Waukesha County adopted electronic recording equipment, guess who was put in charge of the protection of the record? The court became the custodian of the record. That is a huge conflict of interest, which becomes clear in the face of the Darrel Brooks fiasco.

Milwaukee County Chief Judge Mary Triggiano claimed the missing electronic recordings were a result of a “human error” or a “technical malfunction.” Woops! My bad! The resulting investigation has been long forgotten now. It was the fox guarding the henhouse.

What would the judgment against Waukesha County have been in the resulting civil actions for six wrongful death cases and 60 injured victims have been? Settlement awards for successful wrongful death claims have ranged from $1,000 or less to tens of millions of dollars. With 6 victims, the county could have been bankrupted with hundreds of millions of dollars in just settlements. What those victims’ families needed was that transcript of the judge’s negligence in letting him out on $1,000 bail.

I don’t believe for one second that 3 days of recordings of hearings was “human error” or a “technical malfunction.” I believe it was intentional evidence tampering by the guilty party, who happened to be in charge of the evidence, and who had everything to lose if that evidence was not destroyed.

This is Tyranny. This is absolute corruption. This is where our justice system is heading, unless we stop it, unless we fight to keep human court reporters in charge of protecting the record.

https://www.wisn.com/article/waukesha-parade-suspect-bail-hearing-not-recorded-failure-of-court-equipment/38404097#

https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/22/us/what-we-know-about-suspect-in-waukesha-parade-tragedy/index.html