It's been an amazing and astonishing process to watch vermin attempt to hurt you, the general public.
In the past two years I formulated a business reliant on the rule of law. Completely compliant with every word with federal law and in complete compliance with the laws of at least 35 American states, my business is championed by supreme court judges, district judges, law societies, and all organizations of justice. We capture deposition evidence by audio-visual means and produce everything; there's not just one typed record made on the fly by someone with a crazy typewriter. With us (and us alone) if you doubt it, REWIND and REPLAY.
And so I found it disgusting to see the yellow fangs of disease-laden rats-- those who selfishly want their expensive, antiquated businesses to survive (at your expense)-- pull in dirty favors with every cigar-smoking, back-slapping, backroom secret handshaking politician and wink-wink good-buddy administrator. Two good private investigators have collected enough bright lights to show looting, plundering and support of these rats, but they're still drooling their foaming diseases behind closed doors to their buddies in the Bar.
But government is broke-- including the courts. Last November Utah limited depositions. So just try to tell me that you'd rather pay 300% more for just a paper transcript-- and that you'd turn your back to ignore the video, the audio, and the transcript made from sealed digital records? Nonsense. The 1870s-era machinery typists whine that paper transcripts are as valid as rotary dial phones... and that video and audio are unnecessary. Really? Do you often turn off the TV picture on your favorite program to read the subtitles?
So the vermin miscalculated the safety of their dens. The forest has changed. This is an election year. Pocketed politicians and their Baby-boomer buddies no longer lurk in smoke-filled rooms. Most are enduring the glare of frugal re-election platforms. Those weakening voices claiming that digital records are inferior to an impromptu typing are just fools-- there's no defense before the bench or pragmatically. Over 86% of all courts are now digital (Source: NCRA). We all turn to the video, legitimized and legal for years. It's just the rats who snarl and hiss in the dark.
But we're staying-- and growing. The Guardian of the Record IS the Record... and we give it truly.
It is the flash which appears; the thunderbolt will follow. --Voltaire
- Lee Richan
- Salem, Utah, United States
- Funny how a person's life is just a little summary dash on their tombstone between birth and death dates. My little dash measures a decade in Japan, Singapore, Europe, and America; twice automotive factory General Manager and thrice president. But my final date hasn't arrived, so I wonder what, precisely, the Architect yet builds. Enjoy then with me some final introspections, ramblings, and stumbles as I still lurch forward, working to keep straight and true that little dash. "The things we do for ourselves are buried with us when we die. The things we do for others live forever." (Les Brown)
日本の携帯装置
Catch Me If You Can
3 comments:
Just to remind you, modern court reporters use the very latest technology to produce fast, accurate verbatim transcripts which are still very much a part of the legal world--otherwise, why would attorneys even want them? Transcripts are always necessary if anyone wants to prepare briefs from them or present excerpts of testimony. Lawyers don't just take tapes to a judge and sit and rewind and play parts--it needs to be presented in written format. The idea of just "rewind and replay" is antiquated, inefficient, and unreasonable, especially during a deposition when a reporter can instantly go back to anyplace in the transcript and read AND/OR PLAY BACK the testimony--contrary to what you claim, that we only do "typed records." What is useful is an accurate, properly prepared transcript by one who is trained and tested and licensed to protect the public against shoddy work by those who may not even understand ethical concepts such as impartiality. (Related to this is the importance of our licensing after proving competence; in this way the public is protected and ensured we'll do our best work, or we're out of a job or thrown in jail if we, for example, tamper with the record.) And transcripts are not just "made on the fly on a crazy typewriter"--it's a phonetic writer that enables a live, thinking person to capture a written record instantly (as opposed to going through a tape later from scratch and doing it), who is able to mark areas for spellings/clarifications, say when a person needs to speak up, and actually see who is speaking instead of guessing identifications later when there are multiple parties speaking. We can provide instant readback, same- or next-day expedited transcripts, and, as I mentioned, even audio, or better--a transcript that can be synchronized with a properly done video if the attorneys request that service. There are many other services we can provide with our transcripts, such as hyperlinked exhibits, that are of great value to our clients.
I'm wondering why you don't just go get the CLVS designation (Certified Legal Video Specialist) that includes training beyond just taking a video. Wouldn't that serve to give you more credibility?
"Twenty years ago, Rule 30 was amended to permit video recording of depositions. Twenty years from now, legal scholars will wonder why it took so long to make the second change to prefer the use of video to record depositions in the first instance. Nothing will be lost by the experiment, and much can be gained; a stenographic transcript can always be made from a videotape. But once the visual and paralinguistic cues escape transcription, they can never be recaptured. (Berch, "A Proposal to Amend Rule 30(b)")
I think any way you slice it, the A/V record is a more accurate representation of a proceeding. Whether you have it transcribed later or not for the purposes that Vicky mentioned, the video will always show things that court reporters are not even allowed to include in their transcripts such as sarcasm, facial expressions, and other non-verbal communication.
Wasn't there a study out of UCLA that proved the high percentage of communication being non-verbal?
This notion of court reporters being technology savvy is really pretty funny. Seeing 45+ year-old women trying to hook up a realtime would have anybody laughing at the irony. Watching the poorly made "we are technology" video will remind you that these people must have a hard enough time operating their flip-phones, let alone a steno machine and a realtime feed.
The simple fact that their education system is crumbling beneath their feed is proof enough that even the money-grubbing for-profit institutions don't even see enough of a future in them to make a buck. Have you seen all of the online court reporting schools starting to pop up? I'm leery enough having a trade-school graduate attend my deposition, let alone a graduate of and online institution.
Post a Comment