If I Can't Hire My Own Reporter, I Won't Show!

[TheNewSaint]

I'm sure that any professional reporter would deliver a transcript that did not materially differ from the official transcript. I seriously doubt that any amount of money would entice a reporter to alter the transcript.

Yeah, that would be career suicide. But I will go one further, and suggest that even recording an accurate unofficial transcript of court proceedings would be harmful. It risks angering the judge and the court system, the people who hire you. Based on the narrative in the OP, I think that's what happened here:

Prior to the trial call on January 25, 2016, a court reporter presented herself in the courtroom. In an informal discussion, she told the judge Tebedo had hired her to transcribe the proceedings. The judge informed her he had retained an official court reporter and the court would rely on its reporter to prepare the official transcript. Tebedo's court reporter left the courtroom and did not return.

I suspect the judge told the reporter to skedaddle pronto if she ever wants to be hired in this district again.

However, the reporter probably delivers the transcript in the form of a text document or a Microsoft Word document on a CD or DVD. After that, it shouldn't be hard for the TP to "correct" the transcript in any way he chooses. Even if it is delivered on paper, it is simple to scan it into a Word document. Even a PDF would not be immune from alteration, with the right software and a little knowledge.

Modern court reporting software supports digital signatures, which would make it extremely difficult to edit the transcript. I would hope that any reporter dumb enough to take this job would at least be smart enough to do this.

One other point: transcripts aren't perfect. Even with modern recording and editing software, two different transcripts of the same proceedings will likely vary. The TP might be hoping to build a case on discrepancies between the two, or the mere fact that discrepancies exist. (Not that this approach would get anywhere, but it might be their logic.)

[The Observer]

I'm sure that any professional reporter would deliver a transcript that did not materially differ from the official transcript. I seriously doubt that any amount of money would entice a reporter to alter the transcript.

And I think that was the thrust of my question. All the court would see, if the TP could get the unofficial transcript admitted, is the idiotic things he or she did during the recordation. It would only reinforce in the court's mind that the TP is a chronic and frivolous litigant since no professional recorder is going to edit or otherwise what occurred.

But this is similar to the pursuit of getting a notary public to notarize gibberish that a TP has written down and signed. All the notary is doing is attesting to is that the idiot came in and signed this gibberish after providing reasonable proof of who he claimed to be. The notary provides no validation that the gibberish itself is legal or authoritative. But try to convince the TP of that...

[Dr. Caligari]

Not if you want an outcome different from what really happened. I just keep wondering if they really think the reporter actually is going to alter the record to suit their slant on things. You know, subscribe to a false record, and lose their ability to be a court reporter, ever again, anywhere???

Deliberate falsification is unlikely, but busy court reporters can make innocent mistakes. New York State even has a statutory procedure for resolving disputes as to the accuracy of transcripts. N.Y.C.P.L.R. 5525(c).

Something I have occasionally seen in the course of my legal career, and which I consider borderline improper, is for judges to make statements to the lawyers, outside the presence of the jury, which might arguably support a claim of bias, and indicate to the court reporter (usually by a gesture, but sometimes verbally) that the statement is not to be transcribed. I know one former judge in the Southern District of New York who would do this if she wanted to excoriate a lawyer for some perceived misconduct.

[Famspear]

....But this is similar to the pursuit of getting a notary public to notarize gibberish that a TP has written down and signed. All the notary is doing is attesting to is that the idiot came in and signed this gibberish after providing reasonable proof of who he claimed to be. The notary provides no validation that the gibberish itself is legal or authoritative....

That's pretty close to what the law is here in Texas. And, wackadoo tax protesters are probably not the only folks who don't understand what a notary public does.

In Texas, for an ordinary acknowledgment before a notary public (not talking about an affidavit), all the notary is doing is providing assurance that the person providing the acknowledgment (1) appeared before the notary public, and (2) stated that he or she signed the document in question for the purposes and consideration expressed in the document. The notary also has some obligation to satisfy himself or herself of the true identity of the person making the appearance.

I haven't studied the case law on this, but under the Texas statute there is no express legal requirement that the notary read the document or even really look at the document and see what it contains. Indeed, contrary to what many notaries might think, there is nothing in the express language of the statute that even requires that the person signing the document sign the document in the presence of the notary. The notary is not there to "witness" the physical act of the signing of the document.

The notary is there to provide some assurance that the specific person who signed the document actually appeared before the notary and actually represented to the notary that he or she signed the document for whatever purpose and consideration are described in the document, and to obtain (or have) satisfactory evidence that the acknowledging person is the person who signed the document and is the person described in the document.

See Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, section 121.004(a), and section 121.005, section 121.007.

This means that generally, under the literal language of the statute, the person could sign the document in private, then take it to a notary public, provide the notary with proper proof of his or her identity, tell the notary that he or she signed the document for the purposes and consideration expressed in the document, and the notary could then legally provide the notarization.

[notorial dissent]

It's not only the hiring of the reporter that is expensive, the real expense comes in when they have to transcribe the actual trial material, that is when it gets expensive. Those certified transcripts can run thousands of dollars. I'm sure that little detail completely eluded them.

Again, as others have pointed out, I just can't see a competent professional doing what the nutbag wants, at least more than once.

It still amazes me that the crazies think there is going to be any markable difference between one transcipt and another.

[The Observer]

Indeed, contrary to what many notaries might think, there is nothing in the express language of the statute that even requires that the person signing the document sign the document in the presence of the notary. The notary is not there to "witness" the physical act of the signing of the document.

That has been a false assumption on my part, and probably a lot of others as well. That is an interesting twist in the law.

[Famspear]

Indeed, contrary to what many notaries might think, there is nothing in the express language of the statute that even requires that the person signing the document sign the document in the presence of the notary. The notary is not there to "witness" the physical act of the signing of the document.

That has been a false assumption on my part, and probably a lot of others as well. That is an interesting twist in the law.

Of course, if the notary has the individual sign the document in the notary's presence, that adds some additional comfort level to the whole process. And, where a notary is needed, most people are used to the idea of signing in the presence of the notary. I can't think of a really good reason not to maintain that procedure, even if the law of a particular state doesn't require it.

[The Observer]

Of course, if the notary has the individual sign the document in the notary's presence, that adds some additional comfort level to the whole process. And, where a notary is needed, most people are used to the idea of signing in the presence of the notary. I can't think of a really good reason not to maintain that procedure, even if the law of a particular state doesn't require it.

I wonder if the law was drafted without that requirement to accomodate those people why may not be able to sign on a minute's notice (due to some sort of infirmity) and would need a great deal of preparatory time just to get a signature on the document. Perhaps as well, the law is meant to allow people who need to sign the document in advance to meet a deadline that would not allow for a notary to be present.

[notorial dissent]

The only time a notary really becomes legally involved in a document is when they are doing an affidavit or taking something on oath or affirmation. Then they have to attest that NOT only did the person making the document sign it, and have proof of who they are, in my state in their presence, BUT that they did make the required oath or affirmation. Beyond that they have no legal involvement.

The only real exception is if a notary does a protest, a real one, not the sovcit kind, and that does actually involve some actions on the notary's part. Still doesn't make them judges or anything like that, and once the protest is done the parties THEN have to go do court to get enforcement.

[fortinbras]

There is no constitutional right to film or broadcast (or webcast) what happens inside a courtroom. Nixon v. Warner Communications Inc. (1978) 435 US 589 at 610, 55 L.Ed.2d 570 at 587, 98 S.Ct 1305 at 1318, 3 Media L.Rep 2074; similarly Estes v. Texas (1965) 381 US 532 at 539-542, 14 L.Ed.2d 543, 85 S.Ct 1628, 1 Media L.Rep 1187, 1 Radio Reg. 2104; similarly Chandler v. Florida (1981) 449 US 560, 66 L.Ed.2d 740, 101 S.Ct 802, 7 Media L.Rep 1041; similarly In re Sony BMG Music Enterprises (1st Cir 2009) 564 F3d 1, 37 Media L.Rep 1681, 90 USPQ2d 1481 cert.den 558 US 933; similarly Hollingsworth v. Perry (2010) 558 US 183, 175 L.Ed.2d 657, 130 S.Ct 705 38 Media L.Rep 1097; similarly Weddigen v. Weddigen (2015) 2015 Ill.App.4th 150044, 397 Ill.Dec 573, 42 NE3d 488. Similarly, no constitutional right to photograph the jurors in a court case. KPNX Broadcasting Co. v. Arizona Superior Court (1982) 459 US 1302, 74 L.Ed.2d 498, 103 S.Ct 584, 8 Media L.Rep 2600.

[TheNewSaint]

It's not only the hiring of the reporter that is expensive, the real expense comes in when they have to transcribe the actual trial material, that is when it gets expensive. Those certified transcripts can run thousands of dollars.

Very good point. Getting a transcript costs extra. It requires the reporter to review their notes, correct errors, format the document according to local requirements, and so forth. Everything is recorded, but a transcript is only produced if someone requests it, which doesn't always happen. (As noted earlier in the thread, some hearings are unimportant.) Reporters are required to keep their notes for a number of years, so a transcript can be produced later if something turns out to be relevant.

For private gigs, such as transcribing a board meeting, the reporter might negotiate a flat fee for the entire job. This is feasible when it is known up front that the customer will want the transcript, and how much effort it will require. Unfortunately for Mr. Tebedo, he has no idea how long his case will run, or how much transcribed material he'll need to serve his loony purposes. So he can't even estimate costs. Which is yet another reason this whole thing is stupid.

[fortinbras]

About the only hope the court reporter has of making ends meet is having a virtual monopoly on producing transcripts of the trial. Yes, they are costly. But if there is competition with price wars, the official reporters may simply quit altogether and leave the participants to hire their own independents; it would be uglier than it is now.

[notorial dissent]

And since it is only the transcribed and certified transcript that has any legal value, they really are for it. Even some relatively short hearings can run to several thousand dollars if you want the transcript done. I would expect that most run of the mill tax court cases would be of the expensive to middling expensive variety, and the more time they waste the longer the hearings run.

[Hercule Parrot]

It's not only the hiring of the reporter that is expensive, the real expense comes in when they have to transcribe the actual trial material, that is when it gets expensive. Those certified transcripts can run thousands of dollars. I'm sure that little detail completely eluded them.

Again, as others have pointed out, I just can't see a competent professional doing what the nutbag wants, at least more than once.

It still amazes me that the crazies think there is going to be any markable difference between one transcipt and another.

A lucky escape for the hired reporter. The defendant probably imagined that he would have some ability to review, correct and approve the version he was paying for, as the judge or court clerk might with the official transcript. And when he received a transcript which was substantially identical to the official one, and his required edits were declined by his reporter (mindful of her professional reputation), he would inevitably refuse to pay her.

On a general point, and applicable here in UK also, I think there is an ethical argument for routine audio or video recording of all judicial hearings. We see regular squabbling when defendants or their allies try to record hearings on their phones (or with skanky covert "pens" etc). Instead of wasting time trying to stop this, courts should accept that a secure, reliable and verbatim record of what was said is a good thing. We've been doing police/suspect interviews this way for many decades, to safeguard against 'verballing', it shouldn't be controversial to handle hearings the same way.

[Burnaby49]

All court hearings in British Columbia are recorded on a sound system. Court reporters and written records went out years ago. The only time the court record is turned into text is when someone orders a transcript. it's a lot more reliable than an individual, no matter how good at the job, trying to keep up with the sometimes overwhelming barrage of events.

[bmxninja357]

Gosh we are overlooking the obvious. If it's a discount court reporter ye be needing the in house court reporter Burnaby49 will report for bus fare and beer from what I hear around the old waterhead cooler.

Best court reporter this side of the Pecos.

Fine.
I will keep my brilliant ideas to myself.

Peace
Ninj

[Burnaby49]

Gosh we are overlooking the obvious. If it's a discount court reporter ye be needing the in house court reporter Burnaby49 will report for bus fare and beer from what I hear around the old waterhead cooler.

Best court reporter this side of the Pecos.

Fine.
I will keep my brilliant ideas to myself.

Peace
Ninj

Unfortunately you probably won't be getting many of my court reports in the future. Not because of my unwillingness to provide them but because of the disappearance of source material. I haven't done a straight freeman type hearing in years. It seems, in retrospect, that our local freeman types had a burst of enthusiasm starting about 2008 or so, pulled various antics, but quickly retreated when they started getting hammered in court. The Nanaimo three were the highlight and then nothing.

All I've been able to find recently are the Poriskyite tax evaders but they are quickly coming to an end, at least here in Vancouver. The Steinkeys in Edmonton are providing a lot of entertainment but I can't get to them.

There are still a few diehards. I recently attended a Poriskyite hearing (not yet written up) where one of the spectators, a guy I didn't recognize, refused to stand up when the judge left the courtroom. He told the sheriff he didn't have to stand because he was a sovereign. Didn't seem to work for him. The sheriffs had a word with him outside in the lobby and he decided to stand after that. He also told the sheriff later that he'd shut Canada down a few years ago using maritime law. Sheriff told him that he hadn't noticed and, frankly, neither had I. But instances like this are getting extremely rare.

[notorial dissent]

It would seem that the sovcit meme never really resounded in the Canadian communities that should have been prime for it, and the few diehard adherents have all either died of old age, wandered off to the ever newer and shinier, or gotten themselves all expense paid vacations leaving very few proponents and even fewer suckersfollowers. There's just not enough money to be made from it, even beer and cig/pot money is getting tight, in Canada, there's a limited feeding ground, and the Canadian courts just don't seem to have the sense of humor or tolerance that the US courts have shown for the most part, although the Tax Courts are getting right testy and expensive over it now. It has to be a lonely and frustrating life to be a sovcit in Canada these days. Poor bunnies, it's a hard life when you're foolish.

[The Observer]

To point out the obvious, Canada doesn't have the population the US has, so the opportunity for nutbaggery to bloom is rather limited. Plus, the climate probably forces a reality on those who suddenly find themselves at risk for being homeless and jobless that could be better tolerated here in the US. Other than a diehard or two like the Paraclete or the idiot in the particle-board RV who are dealing with their homelessness by living in vehicles or bumming rooms from potential marks.

[Burnaby49]

To point out the obvious, Canada doesn't have the population the US has, so the opportunity for nutbaggery to bloom is rather limited. Plus, the climate probably forces a reality on those who suddenly find themselves at risk for being homeless and jobless that could be better tolerated here in the US. Other than a diehard or two like the Paraclete or the idiot in the particle-board RV who are dealing with their homelessness by living in vehicles or bumming rooms from potential marks.

I think, given our sparse population and harsh climate, that we've been punching well above our weight in nutbaggery. We must of course acknowledge with gratitude the immense assistance and past guidance we have received from our southern neighbour. While Canadian freemanism has now developed a life of its own (albeit now on life-support) almost all its founding concepts were first developed in America. Thanks a lot.