Freelance court reporters are well-versed in deposition taking. It's about 85% or more of what most of them do, though some do specialize in other areas.

There is not only no obligation on the part of the CR to point out any procedures that are or are not being followed (except the witness needs to be sworn before beginning) but it is beyond the scope of the reporter's duties to point out such (even though they would know it).

It is the reporter's job to take the record, not make it.

The reporter would have the responsibility to make sure a proper record can be taken, such as asking people to repeat a question/answer they could not hear or understand, to ask/remind participants to not interrupt each other as they can only write one person at a time (for the most part) and to speak at a speed the reporter can take. Other than that... sit down, shut up, and keep up.

Will seating be sufficient for a surprise Obot flash conference (free Margeritas will be served in unlimited quantities from FEMA funds)

And then charges $10 a page for the transcripts ...

Damn, I gotta get into that racket.

Is a lawyer plaintiff allowed to make the decision that the opposition's second chair is sufficient to attend a deposition, based on economy? IOW, is it reasonable for the first chair to insist on attending this deposition and be compensated for airfare, hotel, (fine) dining, etc?

Would it not be the best of all possible worlds if a camera were allowed to capture Orly's latest historic event? How much fun would that be, especially if it were streamed live!

FIFY

The obligations of the court reporter are generally outlined in the final sheet of any transcript produced by that reporter. For example, from the certificate from the deposition of Casey Anthony.

Essentially, they simply certify they were authorized to record the transcript and produced a transcript that to the best of their abilities is a true and complete transcription, generally from stenographic notes (for a real SECR) or audio recording (from other kinds of transcriptionist). The one in this example also disclaims any conflict of interest.

A conscientious reporter will sometimes interrupt to point out obvious omissions like failing to swear in a witness, or request parties to repeat things that are unclear or stop interrupting each other, but is under no obligation to do so. If the attorneys screw it up, it's on them.

The court reporter gets paid in any event, though in the case of a crook like Orly, should probably insist on being paid in advance.

Because they don't want the phone to be the smartest thing in the room?

Could the smart phone reference have more to do with the fact that it can be used as a passive listening device?

Why that would matter at a deposition is beyond me but FM/Orly logic is not of this world.

To be really safe, ensure you only rent a car with an old school carberator and no computer.....

I love our court reporters. I stopped counting how many depositions I've taken at about 150, years ago. But I will never forget deposition number one: I was so nervous that I forgot how to even begin the deposition, i.e. the mundane introductory comments and instructions most attorneys will give to a witness. The opposing counsel, who I also will never forget, jumped in for me and got me on my way. Still terrified at how the transcript would look to my new bosses, it turns out that the court reporter and opposing counsel conspired to "modify" it to make me look better. (This was a routine, low dollar value car accident case. No standards of justice were harmed in the performance of these acts of kindness.)

You still have to worry about the dipstick and the emissions hoses.

I stopped counting the number of "baby lawyers" I've helped "train" many years ago, but it's considerable. I have many SECR friends who have done the same.

I have clients who will ask me to come by the office after a baby lawyer depo or will call or email me afterward asking "how did he/she do." Be nice to your SECRs.

OK, I can see how Orly can be called an "emissions hose" but who is the dipstick that's going along with her?

See Jackson, Chalice, aka Meroni, Sharon.

(this is too easy)

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=3238#p106453

I shared a copy of the transcript of my first deposition (years ago) with our resident suck-egg court reporter. I was doing second-day mop-up operations for one of the partners who wanted to return home early from Atlanta. SECR was very tactful and carefully chose his words to mask his dismay at the wreck of a record. I did get the witness to concede one fact that was crucial to surviving MSJ, though, and had the good sense to end the deposition at that moment so the witness could not retract or rehabilitate his answer. The best part was seeing the expression on opposing counsel's face when he realized what had just occurred.

Within a year I was jumping in to aid baby lawyers.

Dammit I'm mad. Board of Supervisors meeting ran long and got over there at 1:00. Homemade meatloaf and cornbread. Missed it all.

This thing needs a Jimmy Connors throwing a tantrum icon.

.

I'm fairly I already know the answer to this, but I'm asking anyway - is there any truth **at all** to what she's claiming? Or are the charges just completely bogus?

Thanks!

I'm not sure Orly understand that each defendant can have their own defence attorney. Some or all of them may opt to hire the same attorney(s) so that they can present a more unified defence, rather than having to have all of the defence attorneys try to coordinate their efforts, but AFAIK there's no requirement that they do so.

I think that Orly believes, however, that even if they all have individual attorneys, one defence attorney can represent the entire group at a deposition, asking questions and making objections not only on behalf of his/her own client, but on behalf of all the clients. As a result, only the attorney located in California needs to be able to attend the deposition if she can hold it there, making it unnecessary for the other attorneys to make the trip.

Ok, gotta go massage the brain for a few - I think I pulled a lobe up there trying to figure all that out...

I love this line. Turn it around and say "Soandso won the election, and all the caucuses, as long as you don't count primary elections."

I know a lot of people have disagreements about whether or not caucuses are worthwhile compared to standard primary elections for the purposes of electing delegates to the conventions. But those disagreements aren't relevant at the moment. The fact is in 2008 both the Democratic and Republican parties had some states that held caucuses, and some states that held primary elections. A caucus tends to bring out the diehards, those who are wholly committed to a candidate. Get-out-the-voter efforts for caucuses are of great importance, as the "number of caucus-goers per delegate" is significantly lower than in a primary. And yes, every candidate tries all they can to get people to go, generally by offering transportation. I haven't heard anything about "falsifying documents", but PUMAs have been claiming that for years without any evidence. The reality is if Hillary Clinton had something definitive to use against President Obama in the primary, including "election fraud", she probably would have used it. That's politics.

So it's true that (although it's a bit wrong in that President Obama did not participate in Michigan, while Hillary Clinton did, against her pledge to not do so) Hillary Clinton did get marginally more primary election votes than President Obama. I don't recall the numbers and I'm sure someone can find them on Wikipedia. But President Obama's strategy included a focus on the caucus states, and getting his supporters to attend the caucuses, and he won a large number of delegates from caucus states, with a corresponding lower number of people actually participating. In contrast, Hillary Clinton's campaign staff openly stated they were focusing on the large primary election states with large numbers of delegates. President Obama's strategy won - the delegates he was awarded from caucuses overcame Hillary Clinton's advantage in the primary election states.

Look, our presidential primaries are still done very strangely, with each state doing their elections differently (primaries or caucuses) and apportioning delegates differently (winner take all, by district, proportionally, etc). But President Obama did gain more delegates, and was the nominee.

In addition, IIRC, she's including Nagamine as part of the RICO crap because of her aiding and abetting the Usurper by denying Orly her right to see Obama's long-form birth certificate. I *think* she believes this is an effective way to get Nagamine to relent and release the records rather than have to face the consequences of having to defend herself in a RICO suit.