Okay, kids, imagine this: A government agent walks up to you. They cannot legally detain you if you do not violate the law. And you know statistically that the vast majority of them do not want to illegally detain you.
My honest advice is be friendly. Usually kills the tension and reduces the likelihood of needing to be arrested. Give your name, assert your constitutional right to remain silent, and ask for a lawyer if you’re not free to go. There are thousands of police interactions that don’t result in a court case and you can be one of them by being smart. You will not only be saving your community money by not wasting police resources on stupid bullshit (the legally correct term for anything you can walk away from without being arrested), you will be freeing up court resources so that your peers with MUCH bigger problems can maybe get help, more time with their public defender, so on.
It sucks to have the rules enforced on us even when we’re 100% in the wrong. Ask me how I know. But take the time if you will to imagine how much it must suck to enforce the rules on other people. Like, you have to be that guy, because society is paying you to be that guy. Within a legal framework that tells us to resist some very human behaviors. That’s how it works. And everybody that’s cool with that idea has a real advantage on the job market over those that don’t.
Some of the common ways you can get arrested are listed in the New York State Penal Law.
If your rights are violated, some helpful search terms may be: USC 1983 lawyer, civil rights lawyer, 50-h hearing lawyer, criminal defense lawyer.
Claims against the city gotta be filed with the comptroller within 90 days.
If a lawyer won’t take your case it means your case has bad facts (I can’t prove this) or bad damages (proving this in court isn’t worth the money). By the way, yes, this does create a massive systemic inequality with regard to civil litigants’ access to justice. The Wayne Wilson case I wrote about was still active in 2026! It’s been bouncing court to court, and to this day he doesn’t have his car. Didn’t watch that on Newsmax, did we, Staten Island?
Rikers sucks but you know what I met one of the nicest people in the world there. Oh no he didn’t. But let me explain: It feels oppressive. To anyone accustomed to freedom, it is a dreadful place. I was paid to be there, and everyone was nice to me. But I will never allow myself to forget that feeling, like, isn’t there another way?
No, you fool. There is no other way. You swore an oath to the State of New York that you’d act in accordance with its laws and constitution, and you’re going to fulfill that for as long as this wonderful world lets you. And you’re going to do it contemporaneously with the criminal law greats of the modern age — yes, I’m writing to you, just this once, with love and respect for all you do and have probably done for me and everybody else in this city. And for the kids, all you will do.
I saved the best for the smart kids who read to the end. The secret is that you can view courts as a place of expensive resolution for people that cannot resolve their issues any other way. If you’re in court on a criminal case, congratulations, someone in the decision making process thought you were worth burning $2,000 to $6,000 on misdemeanor prosecution or more on a felony. This does not mean you are guilty, but it does mean you are about to experience a process relatively few of us New Yorkers do. It’s unpleasant and can cause intense reactions and feelings depending on your psychology.
Took a quote “recently.” If you don’t qualify for a public defender, word on the street is you’re paying at least $1,500 on a nothing misdemeanor case where the mens rea can’t be proven and nobody wants to prosecute. Again, Staten Island kids, think of your inheritance before you do dumb dopey shit that gets you LOCKED UP. You really want to burn $400 an hour for your lawyer to chit chat with an ADA hoping that you’ll get a better deal?
And I find that some have a romanticized version of the courts in their head and to some degree I share that view. But I would offer another to anyone that would find it useful: Forums of function and necessity. The system is basically pulling 80 people into a room and asking them questions about their lives and asking them to swear they’ll be fair and impartial, and that their decisions will not be swayed by bias or sympathy. That’s it. Hundreds of years have gone into the development of the process but at the end of the day you’re asking 6 to 12 regular people to look at what the district attorney presents at trial alongside what you present at trial and make a decision. Everyone in the room knows it’s scary to be you right now, but nobody’ll ever know how it feels to be you.
To the extent you have a choice, choose health, happiness, and safety.
(This is written with compassion to all community stakeholders, a list I dare not try to write tonight, but certainly starting with every person willing to share this literary work of art. The views expressed are mine alone to the extent they are actually mine (ah!) and this is not a government message or endorsement.)
(If an actual child looking for help comes across this page, please understand that you’ve witnessed a complex and mature piece of literature. If you understood it or later come to understand, it means you have amazing potential. Don’t let it stop you from shining in this world. Contact Child Protective Services in New York State or the Administration for Children’s Services in New York City if you are a child in New York City facing abuse or neglect.)
Addendum, night of June 30, 2026:
Yes, the joke was, if you could not be bothered to read this, would you really want to sit through a trial?
And my gut tells me the people least likely to read this most need to read it.
I do think the message can be explained to children but care must be taken for each child’s maturity level.
Some time ago I came up with a pretty good formula for figuring out a court reporter’s hourly rate. It excludes appearance fees, but depending on the job, appearance fees can be pretty damn minimal and simply by adding a small amount to the hourly rate, you’d be adjusting for the lost appearance income.
Page rate * pages per hour = hourly rate.
Hourly rate * 0.33 = writing time rate
Hourly rate * 0.67 = transcription rate
Perhaps divide your appearance fee by 4 and add it to the hourly. This is a little more fair than the 4-hour blocks many in the industry use today.
From my experience, believe it or not, you can get a New York City deposition reporter for somewhere around $4.00 a page. And a court reporter gets somewhere between 40 and 60 pages per hour.
That gives us a range for a non-realtime reporter of $160 to $240 an hour. Seems high, but for every hour on the machine it can take up to 2 hours of transcription, and court reporters that can do it much faster are either cutting corners, really experienced, or really, really good.
According to my sources, digital court reporters make around $30. Just so everyone knows, a fraud nonprofit called the Speech-to-Text Institute was used by the larger corporations of the court reporting field to systematically soak the market in misinformation, confusing jobseekers and consumers. The aim was to expand digital court reporting, increase the supply of “court reporters” to create a market glut, and make corporations like Veritext look good on paper so they could be sold to the next sucker.
30/240 = 12.5%
And let me be clear, $4.00 per page is not exactly a rich life in court reporting NYC. There are many that make more than that, which means digital is an even smaller percentage.
Did your deposition discovery costs decrease 90%?
My sources say lawyer bills are higher than ever.
The secret is that charges that court reporters don’t share in are added to the bill while page rates are kept artificially low to keep you thinking you’re getting a great deal.
Do what you will with that information. Might I humbly suggest that if they’re going to use a digital court reporter, you demand that the bill be something like 20% of what it usually is.
Or let them milk you, and by extension, your clients. That’s cool too.
Just let it happen. Trust me.
With stenographer jobs being systematically eliminated via fraud and deceit rather than by actual technological advancement, there’s really no reason for us not to expose what the companies are doing. After all, if they’re successful enough in reducing stenographic court reporter numbers, courts won’t be able to fill spots, and my job will likely be eliminated someday too, and with the disabilities I live with, I’m unsure about being able to do better than what I’ve got. Call me biased, sure. But your whole system of law is based off of two biased sides presenting their evidence, so if bias is a reason to disregard truth, you can just throw out the whole justice system today if you want to paint biased people as untrustworthy.
Just writing that for a fan of mine.
Side note, corporations that make millions of dollars let a respected 14-year member of our field publish openly about their fraud for almost 3 years now. They’re banking on you doing nothing. I suppose I am too.
It occurs to me it might be best to come out and say that in terms of rates lawyers have a financial interest in prolonging this digital v steno thing. More suppliers in the market, more competition. This is juxtaposed against what the corporate schemers want, continued corporate consolidation of the field under people that can jack up prices a la tacit parallelism.
Lots of pressure for you to switch to digital. Now you know why. Do with it what you will.
After my post, someone I love very much urged me to seek guidance from a lawyer on this issue. If you want your name here, just let me know.
Another court reporter insisted that my “Chaotic Good” post was filled with supposition and put together by hope and duct tape. I have now spoken to a lawyer whose life mission is worker organization. Let’s just say my supposition, hope, and duct tape is more like the concrete foundation on which we build a better tomorrow for you and your families. Take it or leave it.
As it turns out, much of what I wrote in the aforementioned post is true. As told to me by the attorney:
There are many factors balanced or viewed by a fact finder when deciding if someone is an independent contractor or misclassified employee. What the parties call the relationship does not matter. So, for example, Lexitas’s Independent Contractor Agreement means jack shit. I wonder who could have predicted that.
There are two tracks reporters could take to push the issue. The first would be some kind of class action that could be pushed all the way to the Court of Appeals, New York State’s highest court. The second would be finding enough reporters from a specific New York City office and filing a petition with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
No matter what track is selected, the organizing workers would have to decide whether to form a new organization or form under an existing organization. It is probably better to go with an established union.
Misclassification class action track. This option would take years and quite a lot of money in legal fees. Given the facts I expressed to the attorney, he commented that the misclassification route would probably be better.
NLRB track. This option would be quicker and is more attractive in that sense. In the event of an NLRB petition, the employer will likely say that the petitioners are independent contractors and not employees. the NLRB will hold a hearing to decide the issue. The NLRB is more favorable to workers than many courts, including New York’s courts. The company being unionized may attempt to withhold work from the petitioners, but if it’s found that petitioners are employees (and there are good reasons to believe they would), such action would be illegal union busting, and those retaliated against could be compensated for it. The NLRB track would require dedicated campaigners. This would be smarter to do at a smaller agency first, because it requires a majority of workers at the agency.
Digital court reportersand voice writers. Where agencies use a mix of court reporters, it would make sense to unionize all together. After unionization, a contract could be put in place that sets ratios of reporters, and that contract would have to be followed by law.
Contracts generally. Anything that can be put inside an enforceable contract is fair game. So, again, the right to work from home and refuse jobs, some kind of system could be put in place to allow for that. Many of the “benefits” court reporters enjoy from being “freelancers” can be secured contractually. The lawyer noted something like “it sounds like you are all getting all the drawbacks of being an independent contractor with none of the benefits.” Meaning we take on the self-employment taxes and so forth, but we have little to no customer control or independent branding, and are generally not allowed to subcontract our jobs to others as we would be if we were true independent contractors.
This will take a lot of perseverance no matter what. It may also take a lot of time. Organizers and campaigners must be ready for a fight.
I want to stop and pick on point 6 a little, because court reporters are probably like “no, no, no, no, no.” Let me give you reality. Veritext has been advertising for digital court reporters every day for years. The larger companies of our field are, without any doubt whatsoever, slowly siphoning us out for digital court reporters. If you do have any doubts about this, feel free to reach out to Jackie Mentecky and ask her how things are going in Florida. To summarize: Stenographers cannot get work and are having trouble affording their bills because digital court reporters are being sent on the jobs they would have had. I have personally corresponded with people that are having trouble paying their bills because of agency mistreatment. So if you do nothing, you will be replaced. And even if you are not replaced, the constant influx of court reporters from both our stenographic recruitment drive and Veritext’s cash-dump strategy will create a worker glut that will reduce or freeze your rates. To understand why this is, you have to look at supply and demand. Demand for court reporters is forecasted to pretty much remain the same, with 3% job growth currently forecasted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. So if the demand is remaining the same, and the supply is going up, eventually our gentle shortage will become a deluge of workers who will all be competing to get the same jobs. This is why New York City is 30 years behind inflation. And that was with stenographers competing with each other, not with a combined workforce.
And if stenographers do not do this, then digital court reporters might do it after our numbers thin out a little more. Who do you think gets to set the ratio if that happens?
Special note to the rest of the country: What’s happening in New York City and Florida is just an accelerated version of what’s coming for you. I know you don’t like to read that, but this is the nature of corporate consolidation of the country. MEDICAL DOCTORS are having difficulty and pay disparity is causing massive worker shortages in pretty much every field. How long do you think your licenses are going to protect you? They barely do now.
I am taking steps to obtain records from the defunct Federation of Shorthand. If obtained, they will likely be shared with the lawyer, and may be shared with this audience. If anyone would like to assist me in this endeavor, please reach out to contact@stenonymous.com. It seems that either we will need to pay for reproduction of the records OR visit in person at 70 Washington Square South.
On one end, you have a guy who uses a considerable amount of his free time to help people he’ll never know. On the other end, you have corporations that are factually doing everything they can to create market conditions that reduce your income. I don’t think this is a difficult decision, but I’ve been wrong before.
The Speech-to-Text Institute is an organization that was accused of fraud and illegal anticompetitive conduct, was subsequently sued, and shut down its website in 2023.
Conclusion
Unionization for New York City deposition reporters is possible but will require action on the part of court reporters. You can use me as a shield to organize by filling out that form I linked at the top.
ADD-ONS
A union is not the only course of action that can be taken. We can also push for a New York City or New York State price transparency bill where companies would be required to tell court reporters what the consumer is being billed and tell the consumer what the court reporter is being paid. A second option, suggested by another lawyer, is creating something of a cooperative agency that competes directly with the big box brigade. All of these options are preferable to doing nothing. All of these options require organization, so quite frankly, if you’re interested in 1/3, you should still sign up on my link.
“In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act.” -George Orwell
The following was written by Joe Gratton for the Stenonymous blog, mostly unedited:
There’s currently ongoing and blatant corporate fraud in the court reporting industry. Yet many industry professionals remain unaware and unconcerned about the danger posed by companies deliberately exaggerating the court reporter shortage to espouse the benefits of digital court reporting as if the two services are somehow equivalent.
The companies that have tacitly colluded under the umbrella of the non-profit Speech-to-Text Institute (STTI) are engaging in deceptive practices by spreading misinformation about the cost, quality, and validity of digital court reporting services.
With little to no oversight by courts or government agencies, these companies are getting away with it. However, there are steps stenographers, lawyers, and other affected parties can undertake to ensure justice is served and the court reporting profession is protected from further subversion.
Background to the Corporate Fraud Currently Occurring in the Court Reporting Profession
It’s worthwhile spending a few moments elucidating the circumstances that have allowed corporate fraud to occur unchecked thus far.
It’s essential to start by explaining that, yes, there are court reporter shortages within the United States – primarily due to retirement. However, these shortages are minimal and localized. Moreover, these minor shortages are increasingly offset by excellent recruitment initiatives led by National Court Reporters A to Z, Project Steno, Open Steno, and other worthy organizations.
The companies launching spurious claims that the shortage can’t possibly be filled with more stenographers (and, therefore, should be replaced with the vastly inferior practice of digital court reporting) base their assumptions on the deeply-flawed Ducker Report of 2013-14, which stated that 70% of court reporters would retire over the next 20 years (2013-2033).
Not only is the report now rapidly approaching ten years since publication (significantly undermining its relevance), but those predictions were based on, wait for it, interviews with 120 industry professionals from in and around the industry. Even with some “proprietary data analysis” thrown in from Ducker, how anyone can profess that there’s currently a potentially industry-ending court reporter shortage based on such flimsy evidence is anyone’s guess.
Worse, when reviewing objective industry data, there are around 27,000 court reporters still active within the profession. How many were there in 2013, the year of the Ducker Report? 21,000. The predicted retirement cliff must be getting taller every day since stenographer numbers are still trending upward ten years later.
And yet, companies such as Veritext, US Legal, and others have happily used these terribly inaccurate extrapolations to make even worse predictions about stenography’s future.
For instance, they have gone on the record to claim the industry requires 82,000 stenography training program enrollments annually (based on a 10% graduation rate) to plug the self-proclaimed shortfall. Yet this figure would quadruple the size of the entire court reporter industry today and increase the pool of available court reporters to six times that of 2014, the year the so-called “shortfall crisis” started.
Why Corporate Fraud in Court Reporting Continues Today
There’s a pretty obvious reason these companies keep promoting and disseminating their misleading and inaccurate claims: there’s a lot of money to be made.
Stenography is skilled labor and is remunerated as such (some might say underpaid). For someone to type at a rate of 225+ words per minute with an accuracy rate of 99.8% takes years of training and dedication. Stenographic writing is closer to playing the piano than typing on a keyboard. It takes at least two years in a stenography training program, state licensure, and professional certification.
Digital court reporter training lasts six months, with most of that time spent learning how to take accurate notes and operate sound and video equipment. That’s it.
In short, these companies want to replace those hard-earned skills with technology so they can charge less for their services and make huge profit margins while doing so. With audio and video equipment in place, digital court reporters merely make sure the equipment is working and note key pieces of testimony.
The companies in question want to mislead the world into thinking that digital court reporting does the same work as traditional court reporting. But once again, the objective facts of the profession paint a different picture.
Automated Speech Recognition (ASR) software delivers a dreadful 25%-80% accuracy rate, and non-stenographers transcribe English dialects such as African American Vernacular English (AAVE) at a rate half as accurate as court reporters. These are merely two of dozens of damning examples showing that digital court reporting cannot replace standard court reporting.
And yet the two are conflated as one and the same on a daily basis by those that stand to profit most from doing so.
How they have been allowed to for so long somewhat beggars belief.
It seems that, thus far, the courts and government agencies tasked with protecting the public from fraudsters and con artists seem unwilling or unable to act.
So can change be instigated? How can those being hurt by these misleading and fraudulent claims take action?
How to Fight Corporate Fraud in Court Reporting
The simple answer is to fight back. The very tactics companies use to mislead the public can be used against them. They are so brazen and demonstrably false that they are easy to report to the appropriate authorities.
Report Antitrust, False Advertising, or Deceptive Business Practices to the State Attorney General
Their purview, among other responsibilities, includes enforcing their given state’s consumer protection laws. Given the flagrant breaches occurring, including false advertising, tacit collusion, and deceptive marketing practices, it would be entirely reasonable to expect that they can take action against these corporate fraudsters if made aware.
Report Antitrust Violations and False Advertising to Federal Trade Commission
Given the attempts by the STTI to falsely create a market problem and sell the solution (digital court reporting), it’s worth reporting any antitrust or false advertising violations to the FTC.
Given the practices of these companies harms both customers (by giving the false illusion of equivalency between standard and digital court reporting and deceptively exaggerating the court report shortage) and the 70% of court reporters that work as independent contractors, the FTC should at the very least investigate these practices.
Sending Information to Local and Corporate News Outlets
Sometimes the only way to draw attention to a problem is to throw a spotlight on it. By writing emails to editors of local newspapers or contacting local TV stations and radio stations, it’s possible to make clients aware of the deceptive practices and have them contact the relevant authorities and regulators to demand action.
At the very least, it may be that these fraudulent operators have to answer very direct questions regarding their business practices. With the glare of a significant readership or viewership, they may squirm under the pressure and be forced into providing evidence and documentation that doesn’t actually support their statements.
Contact Local Elected Officials
Another option for stopping corporate fraud on this scale is contacting elected local officials at either state legislature or county levels.
Not only do they have the power to pass laws that protect consumers from unfair or deceptive trade practices, but they also have a direct line to the government agencies tasked with enforcing those laws, such as the FTC and state attorney general.
Once again, those with the power to act can’t do so if they are ignorant of the problem in the first place. Only by publicizing these fraudulent practices can lawmakers and regulators be forced to act.
Court Reporting is Under Attack from Those Standing to Benefit from Its Demise: It’s Time to Act
There’s no question that the court reporter shortage has been leapt upon by companies such as Veritext, US Legal, Planet Depos, and other members of the STTI as an opportunity to cash in on the digital court reporting market.
By replacing incredibly skilled labor with unskilled and automated digital transcription, they persist in attempting to convince law firms, courts, and even government agencies that digital court reporting is a viable replacement.
The statistics speak for themselves on that front.
However, it’s the hyperbolic claims being made and the outright lies being spread about the court reporting industry in the name of corporate greed that are truly egregious. It’s naked corporate fraud that is only being further enabled by the willful ignorance of many lawmakers and regulators tasked with protecting consumers from unfair and deceptive trade practices.
Thus, the onus is now on those willing to stand up for justice to take action using some, if not all, of the avenues mentioned above.
Hopefully, with coordinated and concerted action, there can be an end to the rampant corporate fraud taking place within the court reporting and stenography profession.
Author: Joe Gratton Bio: Joe Gratton is a professional writer who has worked with a number of legal firms in the United States, covering topics including court reporting, legal videography, electronic discovery (e-Discovery), and trial presentation services.
I had the opportunity to sit down with the transcript and audio of a small claims case and claimant Wayne G. Wilson. Throughout my time with Mr. Wilson, reviewing the audio, there were several areas where he felt colloquy and testimony was missing from the transcript. Using my general court reporting experience, I listened to the audio, and did not hear any cutaways that suggested tampering, but I am not a forensic audio expert, so take that for what it is. There were a number of off-the-record discussions, so it is possible that a situation arose that was believed to be on the record when it was actually off.
It’s a long small claims trial, 66 pages, so I think the best way to do this is to provide a brief summary, provide extra insight received from Mr. Wilson, reveal video from after the trial, present major errors, present minor errors, and then allow people to download the transcript. Before I begin, I’ll say that this is among the best digital transcripts I’ve seen (eScribers), and it points to the fact that digital can produce acceptable or close-to-acceptable transcripts. We have to grapple with the fact that stenographers make mistakes too, so I’ll try to be as fair as possible, and we’ll get through it. My first notable comment is that the $3.65 per page was charged for a 14-day turnaround according to a bill received by Stenonymous. It is notable that $3.65 is the expedited rate for New York transcripts according to Part 108.2 (b)(2)(ii). That section provides for 5 business days turnaround time. As far as I know from reading about small claims from various sources, and from my own small claims case years ago, the proceedings are recorded without an audio monitor (AAERT standard is to have a monitor) and outside vendors transcribe the matter. Succinctly, right from the start, it appears that litigants could be paying nearly 22% more for what would’ve been a stenographer’s “regular” delivery. But while the bill states 14 days, Wilson states the transcript took months to be prepared, lending credibility to reports that transcription can take much longer than stenographic court reporting.
The case is fairly simple. Mr. Wilson alleges that he brought his car to a body shop or auto business, captioned as Mike’s Roadway Collision Experts, Inc., apparently A/K/A Roadway Towing and Auto Repair. The trial took place on September 23, 2022. He wanted the car painted and serviced. According to the testimony, a verbal estimate of $1,500 or $1,800 was provided and a $500 deposit was paid. From the transcript of the proceedings, the deposit was paid on June 2, 2021, and an agreement was made that the car would be done in two weeks. Events unfolded and the shop allegedly needed more time. Wilson claims that in July he walked into the facility and saw journeymen working on the car, but rubber seals were ripped off or damaged and the interior was ripped “with reckless abandon.” Wilson further explains that he had another car in Nebraska and that he would part it and fix up the car at Roadway Towing. Ultimately, defendant representative Michael Morales states in the transcript that the initial price was $2,500, that extra repairs brought the price up to $4,500, and that the price was subsequently dropped to $3,500 or $3,000. A lien was put on the car and the dispute is ongoing. Wilson has stated he does not know how a lien was put on the car because he was never served.
Wilson has several complaints about missing information in the transcript. He remembers a discussion where the defendant representative, Michael Morales, said he didn’t know anything about the carpet, and remembers an exchange where the judge questioned further about this event, allegedly stating “you said you didn’t know… [about the carpet].” This appears nowhere in the transcript or audio that I reviewed and leads Wilson to believe that there is missing information thanks to the digitally recorded proceeding.
There were some comments on the record about the car being a rust bucket. Claimant says the car wasn’t rusted. Claimant says there was confusion at the proceeding where the car in Nebraska was mistaken for the car in New York, and that it was the car in Nebraska with some rust under the fenders, which were taken off. This goes to show that even where a transcript is decent, there can be unclear points of testimony or colloquy that make litigants question the process. Hopefully it encourages us all to do our best to ensure accurate records and increase litigant confidence.
Wayne Wilson points to page 31 in the transcript as evidence that defendant is being untruthful, stating “there was no insurance. Couldn’t put insurance because I had no license or registration. There was no accident and no reason for insurance to be taken out on the car.”
In videos obtained by Stenonymous, Mr. Wilson and an unidentified cameraman apparently confront Mr. Morales, with Mr. Wilson stating “you said the car is $1800, and I just want my car, to pay whatever I need to pay to get my possessions, bro.” Mr. Morales appears to be calling the police while being filmed, and can be heard stating “…he disturbs my shop every time he comes here. I cannot trust him, I don’t know if he has any weapons…” Mr. Morales makes it clear during the video that the matter is pending in court. Later in the video, Morales states during the event “everything was done on the car…” “…and you don’t want to pay! Now you lost the car.” He continues “you’re not getting the car until you pay me all my fees.” Wilson retorts “what’s the money?” Morales comes back “I’m not discussing anything with you.” When the unidentified cameraman says “so you stole the car,” Morales replies “yes, I stole it. That’s what you say.” Eventually the altercation devolves into Wilson yelling “how much money do you want to claim now?” Both men accuse the other of being a “liar” and “clown.” At the end of the videos, Mr. Morales is seen taking out several pictures, stating “film that, this is the car.” An abrupt end followed.
Wilson says he’s been “baited” by Morales in the past. Asked for comments by mail, Michael Morales did not respond as of publishing.
Regardless of the merits of the dispute, at the end of the small claims case the judge noted that the case was dismissed without prejudice pending action in the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Major Errors: 1. Page 33, Line 19, “your” should be “the.” I count this as major to the extent it could be used for impeachment in a future proceeding where the insurance issue becomes relevant. If not, minor error. 2. Page 41, Line 6, “have” should be “had.” To the extent a reader might be confused between the past and present state of the car, this can be nothing or it can be an issue. 3. Page 41, Line 7, there’s an unidentified speaker. This isn’t the transcriber’s fault, but it shows the problem with recordings. There will naturally be responses and designations that are best recorded in person, right there on the spot. 4. Page 48, Line 14, Mr. Wilson is designated but Mr. Morales was speaking. Stenographers can make this error too, but I do consider it to be major in that it can confuse a reader. 5. Page 49, Line 1, Mr. Wilson is designated but Mr. Morales was speaking. 6. Page 55, Line 9 and Line 10, “And then, *if* he — he shipped the car from Ohio. He wants me to pay for that? When I had — that was way before I even — ” Missing the “if” and the question mark does seem to change context here in a way that could matter in the future.
Minor Errors: 1. Page 3, Line 10, the word “right” is missing from “raise your right hands.” 2. Page 6, Line 2, an inaudible where no crucial information appears to be lost. 3. Page 9, Line 2, ’89 Volkswagen Cabriolet is missing its apostrophe. 4. Page 12, Line 20, the judge’s comments are omitted without an “off the record” and there is an inaudible. 5. Page 14, Line 14, an inaudible. 6. Page 15, Line 25, a period is missing between “of” and “minus.” 7. Page 16, Line 24, the word “every” should be “ever.” 8. Page 19, Line 13, the word “my” is omitted before “windshield.” 9. Page 19, Line 15, possible “style difference” rather than error. Quotes can go on what was said, but this is debated in our field. 10. Page 19, Line 16, a question mark is missing after “windshield.” 11. Page 20, Line 24, Morales appears to say “no, no” rather than “no.” 12. Page 21, Line 8. There is a small pause where Wilson believes there may be something missing. I did not hear a significant change in the background noise to indicate a skip. 13. Page 22, Line 19, “brought” should be “bought.” Wilson feels this changes the context of the answer. 14. Page 25, Line 8, “are” should be “care.” 15. Page 27, Line 14, “for” should be “to.” 16. Page 32, Line 2, “would’ve” should be “would.” 17. Page 33, Line 8, I do not believe a comma should go after “and now.” 18. Page 35, Line 2, missing a question mark. 19. Page 38, Line 19, Wilson believes they discussed the exhibits and it does not appear on the record. 20. Page 39, Line 4, “message” should be “messages.” 21. Page 40, Line 17, Wilson claims the judge said “nice picture” or “she’s hot,” and it’s not reflected in the audio or transcript. He points to this as evidence that other things could be missing. 22. Page 41, Line 13, only one “in.” 23. Page 42, Line 19, “under our” should be “under article — “. 24. Page 43, Line 9, it should be “and had shipped.” 25. Page 43, Line 10, it should say “about the car.” 26. Page 45, Line 14, inaudible. It should say “tip.” 27. Page 45, Line 18, inaudible. It should say “change.” 28. Page 46, Line 3, there’s an off-the-record discussion with no indication from the judge that they’re off record, though this may just be standard small claims practice. I don’t know because my experience with small claims is mostly limited to a case I had against State Senator Jesse Hamilton several years ago. 29. Page 46, Line 5, “he bring” should be “he brang.” This is a verbatim nitpick. 30. Page 46, Line 17, there’s a random apostrophe at the end that should be deleted. 31. Page 47, Line 8, missing comma between “Nebraska” and “not.” 32. Page 52, Line 7, missing a question mark. 33. Page 52, Line 16, Wilson recalls the judge stating that Morales “lacks candor.” This does not appear in the transcript or audio. 34. Page 56, Line 15, “judgement” should arguably be “judgment,” but this may be a style choice. 35. Page 59, Line 8, missing a comma between “again” and “whatever.” 36. Page 59, Line 13, missing a period. 37. Page 60, Line 18, inaudible. Likely should’ve been “Maspeth.” 38. Page 62, Line 7, “judgment.” Style choice.
The invoice and transcript are available to download below.
If anybody’s still with me, this is an interesting moment for me. I am 100% for the aggressive expansion of stenography. I believe that given enough time and resources, we could do absolutely phenomenal things with court record access across the country. I will likely spend the rest of my professional career, as a stenographer at least, advocating for working reporters and looking for opportunities to bring investors to steno. But honestly, if every transcript was this good, I wouldn’t have such strong feelings about digital quality degradation from the standpoint of the people transcribing. By my review, this seems like a transcript that got adequate attention from its transcriber and proofreader. But there are inherent problems with digital recording from a time and efficiency standpoint. Two months to get a transcript is too long, excluding jurisdictional exceptions. I’d say the same with stenographers that are excessively late on their work, up to and including the times I’ve been late on my own work. We also lose words to inaudibles by doing it digitally. Luckily, no inaudible here seemed critical. Then on the efficiency angle, we’re inputting stuff at 225 WPM and cleaning it up after. They have to painstakingly transcribe, with transcription speeds generally ranging between 50 and 100 WPM. The stress on the wrists alone points to stenography being better for society.
I got to sit down with ChatGPT, a program by Open AI that takes what you give it and gives you back what you’re asking for. The way it comes across to me is a “smart search,” essentially taking what you’re asking for and providing a simple, “humanized” output explaining something or answering you.
What you’re about to see are a series of things I asked it. I had some serious questions, some vanity questions, and even a conspiracy theory joke question in there. I even ask it what can be done to combat worker shortage. Please note that the co-founder of Open AI, Sam Altman, is quoted by VICE as having tweeted that it would be a mistake to be relying on it for anything important right now. Enjoy.
The first message I got when I went to try ChatGPT. The creators are upfront that it can produce misleading information.The ChatGPT system gives an honest look at its capabilities and limitations.Of course, my first questions for ChatGPT were the vanity questions.Stenonymous defeats AI for working people everywhere (joke).Christopher Day asks ChatGPT a joke conspiracy question.More vanity questions by Christopher Day to ChatGPT. But ChatGPT mentions AAERT and shuts that down fast.ChatGPT has as much trouble with this question as Christopher Day, part 1.ChatGPT has as much trouble with this question as Christopher Day, part 2.ChatGPT defends AI by refusing to answer (joke).
To be fair, while most question answers impressed me, this one stuck out as something where a traditional search is actually more helpful.
Spotlight on Trade Associations by the FTC
That said, even ChatGPT knows what the gold standard is.
You can also give it information. And while I work on another article to highlight CoverCrow, I figured I’d let ChatGPT in on it.
I’ve already commented, in my own way, that things don’t seem right in California. Here, PYRP makes the astute point that the big box companies likely would’ve opposed the bill if it was not in their best interest, among many other great points.
I’ve called what’s being done to consumers fraud for many reasons, and that’s a word that pops up in this statement too. Ultimately, it’s that kind of bravery and boldness that will seize the day, and is a departure from the positive toxicity that permeates stereotypical corporate cultures, including our own.
All I can really say is that association board members should heed these words and realize that the more advocacy that is shouldered by nonprofits like PYRP or for-profit enterprises like Stenonymous, the more advocacy dollars will flow away from traditional associations. The success or failure of our institutions rides on the motivations and feelings of working reporters. If people feel that associations are not doing enough, or that associations are working against their interest, then wallets will, perhaps rightfully, close, in some cases permanently.
See the full text of PYRP’s statement below.
Protect Your Record Project statement on SB 241Protect Your Record Project statement on SB 241Protect Your Record Project statement on SB 241Protect Your Record Project statement on SB 241Protect Your Record Project statement on SB 241Protect Your Record Project statement on SB 241
Last week word spread that a ruling had been made that the Judicial Branch Certification Commission (JBCC) in Texas should investigate StoryCloud. From my outsider point of view StoryCloud was or is one of those companies obsessed with cutting corners and/or cutting the stenographer/court reporter out of the deal. That business model is flawed not only because stenography is the most technologically advanced method of taking and transcribing the spoken word, but also from a legal standpoint. In some states, pretending to be a court reporter is simply illegal.
A great big thank you to Jo Ann Byles Holmgren, who initiated the lawsuit that led to this moment. She tells it better than I ever could. In short, the JBCC refused to investigate alleged violations of law. A writ of mandamus was filed to make the government do its job. A judge ruled the JBCC should investigate. StoryCloud more or less deleted its website. Perhaps this will be a roadmap for California, where the California licensing board refuses to protect court reporting consumers and regulate digital court reporting.
I’ll be adding a transcript of the hearing as soon as it’s available.
Following the ruling, most of the StoryCloud site was trashed in favor of a little blurb.
StoryCloud’s demise is not the only good news out of Texas. Mark Kislingbury claimed the new world record at Shaunise Day’s Fearless Stenographers Conference with 370 words per minute (WPM) for one minute at 95.4% accuracy.
I am always saying that if stenographers fight, they will win. Look no further than Jo Ann Byles Holmgren telling the government they’re wrong and winning. Look no further than Shaunise Day’s masterfully done and widely-acclaimed conference — a feat rarely pulled off by an individual unless it’s an industry veteran like Marc Greenberg (StenoFest) or MaryAnn Payonk (Empowerment). Look no further than Mark Kislingbury’s own personal triumph, defeating his former world record of 360 WPM. True failure is making no attempt to meet your goals. Until one is a true failure, one has a real shot at success.
Last night at about 10:00 p.m., I received an e-mail from Richard Hunt of Barran Liebman LLP about Naegeli. It was a fairly standard legal threat, not that I know what those look like, since I’ve never received one before. If you’re short on time, skip their nonsense and read my reply.
Now, I understand that this kind of thing may have a chilling effect on the free speech I have worked so hard to promote in our industry. I must ask all of you not to be afraid, but to turn to your state and federal legislators and law enforcement. Take this opportunity to share with them what is happening. I will lead by example in defense of our collective futures. I will be brave as I am asking all of you to be.
I’ll assume you’re an honest lawyer roped into this circus by your corporate client. Welcome. Make sure you’re sitting for this one.
This is my show. Defamation is a false statement of fact published to a third party that causes damage. Naegeli’s reputation is so awful that I find it hard to believe there’s anything that could be said that would damage its reputation further. Some of the statements I make are factual, and truth is an affirmative defense to defamation. Beyond that, some of the statements I make are an opinion based on my expertise as a stenographic court reporter for the last 11 and a half years and creator of what is indisputably the largest blog in my industry. You do not have a cause of action and therefore it would be legally wrong for you to file a complaint against me.
You should peruse my blog. I’ve been reporting corporate corruption against much larger corporations than Naegeli. Veritext and US Legal Support appear to be involved in a plot to rig the court reporting and stenotype services industry against consumers/lawyers. What was done to the healthcare industry as portrayed in the series Dopesick about Purdue Pharma is more or less being done to my industry. The difference here is that what is occurring in my industry is what would have happened if one doctor rallied the others to fight the misleading advertising and dishonest behavior. Conceded that the series is a dramatization of the actual events, of course. I have a moral obligation to stop the lies and dishonesty rampant in my field because of the damage this plot will likely do to my profession, its students, minority speakers, and testimony transcript accuracy. Once the public takes note and begins alerting the DOJ, FBI, and FTC as I have, there is virtually no chance the plot will continue. Naegeli’s gouging was such a minor and unrelated part of that, that in my wildest dreams, I couldn’t have imagined this kind of foolish overreaction and strategic blunder. Thank you.
My field is beset by silence and fear. I aim to break this. To achieve this I have become a goal-oriented person. You see, now that Naegeli has threatened to sue through an actual law firm, it’s put itself in a much worse position than anyone could have conceived. Now Naegeli has two choices. It can fail to sue me, and show an entire field of nearly 30,000 court reporters that it is a scared barking dog, which will embolden them. The competition from all of them will become so fierce that it will run the company into the ground. Alternatively, Naegeli could sue. I am quite sure that I can find a valid counterclaim. We can lock each other in for a lawsuit and give this field the show it never knew it needed. It will be the single-largest destruction of capital the industry has ever seen and your client’s reputation will drop even more as court reporters across the nation realize that money could’ve gone into advertising to fix the stenographer shortage. Imagine the backlash. “Yes, I could’ve spent $400 an hour advertising this profession but instead I, Naegeli & Co., have decided the money is better spent stifling Christopher Day’s free speech.”
I know the latter seems like an attractive choice, but it will only expand my audience exponentially and possibly allow me to run daily ads decrying Naegeli’s hatred of free speech and the stenographic free press. I took a personality test recently, and it claimed I was a mediator. Perhaps unsurprisingly, I have come up with a third option. I can use my media personality to completely rehabilitate Naegeli’s reputation. We can sign a contract that Naegeli will use only stenographers and/or voice writers, and will shift their billing model to be the more open and honest “split of invoice” method. I’ll take $100,000 for up to two dozen press releases or media actions in 2022. Together, we will find a way to repair Naegeli’s image in the eyes of the public and court reporters across the nation. We can donate 5% of the contract to NCRF and 5% of the contract to Open Steno to show the field our resolve and unity.
I have about $1,200 to my name and am about $20,000 in debt. You see, the corporations in my field looted it so much by the time I got here that as a young man, I simply didn’t have a fair shot. I let you know that in order to explain that in the event you sue and somehow manage to bribe a judge and/or jury to see things your way, you will have succeeded in little more than obtaining a piece of paper called a judgment that says “you win, congrats.” Meanwhile, the work I am doing will ensure that not a single stenography grad ever has to suffer like that again. If you believe there is any universe where I will back down, there is an ancient stenographic proverb designed just for you.
I had a lot of fun writing the Naegeli article. When I was done with it, I let them know it was live.
In my defense, it was 7:30 EST.
Naegeli apparently doesn’t agree with what I’ve written. Richard Teraci told me the company’s attorneys would be filing suit against me if it is not removed by Monday, November 22, 2021 at 9 PST. My response can be read below. I also accidentallyBCC’d a number of news organizations and field contacts so that if Naegeli fails to take legal action everyone sees it’s a barking dog with no teeth.
“Can’t wait. Supreme Court, Richmond County, New York State.” — Christopher Day 11/19/21 writing to Naegeli USA.
Unfortunately, Richard didn’t appear to appreciate my response much.
“You are not to contact me ever again. All communication from this point forward will be through our attorneys.” — Richard Teraci, Naegeli USA
Some companies seek to keep court reporters silent. Fear is a tool used to maintain silence. Either the company will fail to sue me and show you all there is nothing to be afraid of, or they will sue, lose, and show you all there is nothing to be afraid of. Either way, reporters across the nation will get to see this for what it is, a baseless attack on our right to free speech. More as this story develops.
If this is the most entertaining thing you’ve read yet today, please consider donating.
PayPal: ChristopherDay227@gmail.com
Venmo: Christopher-Day-141
Zelle: ChristopherDay227@gmail.com or 917 685 3010.
