Return to Top
AAERT AAERT AAERT AAERT AAERT AAERT
For Professionals in Electronic /
Digital Court Technology
Volume 13, Number 2 — Conference 2008
. . .
- Your Association
AAERT AAERT AAERT AAERT AAERT AAERT
A Judicial Perspective on Electronic Reporting
— The Hon.
Nancy F. Alley
Eighteenth Judicial Circuit Court, Florida
In another step toward the paperless court system, the electronic
reporting system is here to stay. There are positives and negatives to
this system that judges deal with, but deal with it they must.
I point that out
because one of the most prevalent issues is the systemic inertia of
those who resist change. Interestingly enough, that is not always
an issue for judges; sometimes the attorneys are resisting anything new.
I know many attorneys who must have a copy of the case or statute from an
expensive book, rather than Westlaw, Lexis, or other research tool.
While most of us have some computer skills, some professionals view the
use of technology as the equivalent of typing their own pleading.
Well, who do you think is typing this article? I am. (I actually
had one person say that they didn't want to be responsible for putting
someone out of a job.)
I am currently assigned to the Juvenile Division of the Circuit Court. That
division does Delinquency, Dependency and Probate. The hearings and
trials must be recorded, and we use electronic reporting. To be honest,
most of the time I don't even remember it is recording. During breaks
the recording continues unless we manually shut it off, so it can pick up
comments that are not intended for open court.
The best use we make
of the event is in motions for rehearing or exceptions to the General
Magistrates' Findings and Recommendations. Instead of the extended
delay that a written transcript requires, we can just review the recording
within minutes. It reduces the attorneys' use of exceptions as a
delay tactic and, in my opinion, is more accurate because we can also
observe the demeanor, gestures, and vocal issues that often impact the
credibility of the witnesses. Obviously, this is a cost saving
administratively, an environmental improvement as to paper use, and
is faster. Other motion hearings can be eliminated because of the
review of the recording, such as motions for clarification.
Of course, there are negatives. If a court reporter is in the
courtroom, a quick readback of a few questions is easier to do. Since
I have a decent memory, I usually repeat questions if needed. Also,
no one is saying, "I didn't get that" or "I can only record one person at
a time." Ensuring sound quality or maintaining a complete recording
could be a problem, which is why it is very important to have employees
solely responsible for the recordings. Power failures, computer
glitches, or strange-noise issues are also random concerns — but
remember, this can happen with a stenographer's equipment as well.
However, in a centralized electronic courtroom, the courtroom reporter
monitoring the court remotely is still able to play back portions of
testimony or other previously recorded matters into the courtroom.
advantage of the centralized electronic courtroom is that matters which were
recorded in another courtroom can also be played back into my
courtroom. Recently we needed to take the testimony of a
child outside the presence of the mother. I had the mother exit the
courtroom, we recorded the child's testimony, the child exited the
courtroom, we brought the mother back into the courtroom, and the digital
court reporter played the testimony back into the courtroom for the mother
to hear. We were then, of course, recording the mother listening
to the child's testimony.
The biggest concern is our own inertia. We don't want to, or feel
frustrated, when asked to learn something new. My job description did
not include a knowledge of technology. I personally find it interesting
and efficient, but others in my profession do not. Unfortunately, the
power of the budget does not allow the court system to ignore technology
when it comes to cost-saving measures.
My personal experience says
that the positives outweigh the negatives. But even if they didn't,
the system is here to stay.
Judge Alley sits on Florida's Eighteenth Judicial Circuit bench.
She attended Villanova School of Law, and was admitted to the Florida Bar
in 1983. She was first elected to the Eighteenth Circuit in 1997.
A total of 24 Circuit and 19 County judges serve the Eighteenth,
encompassing both Brevard and Seminole Counties. More than 963,000
Floridians live within its jurisdiction. Brevard is the home of
the Kennedy Space Center at Cape Canaveral.
The Circuit includes centrally monitored courtroom facilities,
providing both audio and video systems to capture the record, and
Judge Alley's remarks are understood to focus on that variant of
E-Reporting used in her Division.
Return to Top
Mary (right) tells Susan (left) all about John.
Hearsay, hearsay, hear all about it!
ur last issue explored experts' testimony: the
only class of witnesses who can regularly repeat in court what they've been
told or what they think about the facts in a case — in short, a special
form of permissible "opinion hearsay." An ordinary mortal is not
allowed to take the stand and recite what Mary said:
"Mary told me she saw John with a gun that night."
And why not? Because it's quite possible that Mary doesn't
like John and is more than happy to get him into heaps of trouble.
Only if Mary herself takes the stand and makes herself available
for cross-examination by John's attorney could her "gun statement" go
into the record — coming firsthand from her own mouth, in the first
person: "I saw
John . . ." — not by Susan's un-testable
secondhand report. That's the general (anti-)hearsay rule.
A cornerstone of our jurisprudence:
If something cannot be tested,
it probably shouldn't be trusted.
So, does this mean that all objections based on hearsay grounds will be
sustained? No. Is there a way for Susan's hearsay "gun
statement" to get into the record, even over objection? Yes.
Consider this scenario:
Q. Susan, what did Mary say she saw that night?
MR. OBJECTS: Objection; hearsay.
MR. OFFERS: Not offered for the truth,
Your Honor. It goes to state of mind.
THE COURT: Objection overruled.
BY MR. OFFERS:
Q. What did Mary tell you?
A. She told me John had a gun.
Q. How did you feel when you heard that?
Q. What were you afraid of?
A. That John might come over.
Q. So what did you do then?
Now, what went on in that exchange?
How in the world does Not
offered for the truth suddenly make it okay for the "gun statement"
to come into the record, although it's still hearsay?
- The statement is clearly objectionable on hearsay grounds.
- But Susan gets to say it anyway, because it
is not offered to prove that John did, in true fact, have
a gun, but only to show what Susan felt and thought when she heard that he
had a gun — in short, her own state of mind at
- Now Susan can leave hearsay behind and tell the court
what she herself did that night.
Thus, at least sometimes (and just like the experts) we can give
hearsay testimony — proving the rule that all rules have
exceptions. Indeed, there are at least 35 areas where we can
do so, some handed down in common law from simpler times, some recently
created so our complex litigations can still ferret out the truth.
The rationale behind these exceptions is so justice may be done, or
at least appear to be done.
You're probably familiar with a number of the other exceptions found in
Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 803,
but some on the list are rarely invoked and deal with rather unusual
considerations. Here are a few of the less esoteric ones we encounter:
Tricky situations can arise when someone's history, character, or reputation
are involved, but in general:
Records normally and regularly kept for business purposes are considered to
be trustworthy, but only when presented in court by their custodian. A
bookkeeper might be called to introduce a firm's financial
statements, for example. The bookkeeper need not have made all the
entries, but must be able to declare that the records are standard within
the firm and are authentic.
Normally, we expect witnesses to testify from memory. Complex
technical, and financial matters are difficult to remember in great detail,
so a witness who once had the information, but has now forgotten, and
who kept notes or wrote a memo about it way back when it was
still freshly in mind, can review that information to refresh her memory, and
even read it into the record if necessary.
A closely related exception is:
Without this exception, few physicians would be able to testify about the
condition of a patient they may have not seen for several years.
Public records / vital statistics,
and closely related information found in:
Religious organization records,
such as a parish registry to demonstrate a birth or death date, or
such as an old Bible, to demonstrate family relationships.
There are limits here: the judgment must be final, although it may be
currently under appeal, and the conviction needs to have been for a crime
normally punishable by significant jail time.
One's own family members can say things such as "We all knew Tom took drugs."
One's associates or members of the community can say, "Tom is a great guy"
or "Nobody trusts him at all." Whether such statements carry
much weight is a different matter.
In addition to those exceptions, there are also
two exemptions from the rule:
(1) a prior inconsistent statement made by the witness him-
or herself, and
(2) an admission made by an opposing party in the case.
Statements made by absent witnesses
What about statements made by people who are no longer around to
testify, and so cannot be confronted in cross-examination about what they
said? In criminal cases, it has been traditional that if the
trial judge finds such a statement to be reliable, it could be
considered. However, this
very week, on May 19, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court turned that
principle on its head, overturning precedent by a highly
unusual 9 to 0 vote, and saying in the Crawford v.
"Admitting statements deemed reliable by
a judge is fundamentally at odds with the right of confrontation"
This new wrinkle in the rule means that prosecutors can use
statements made by now-absent witnesses only if the person
had been previously cross-examined by the defendant, such as at a prior
deposition or in some previous trial.
— a right guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment.
* * *
Clearly, what hearsay is and what it isn't, both in the civil and
criminal arenas, and who gets to say what and
when, and about what, is in flux. Although hardly an exhaustive
review, these remarks are intended to help us become even more familiar and
comfortable with the hearsay rule's underlying bases as we report and
Return to Top
It's the product that counts
Court reporters are in the business of making a court record.
not there as paralegals, we rule on no objections or motions, we weigh no
evidence, we find no facts and reach no conclusions, we counsel no attorneys
We're there to capture what people say in court. Our goal is to
preserve their words for subsequent review. Historically, this
I love transcribing. I love painstakingly working on a transcript and
knowing that when it's filed, all speaker identifications, legal terminology,
proper names and spellings are accurate. I'm attached to transcripts.
I've been transcribing for years. I'm a visual learner. I love
to read. Written formats have a history of being stored over the long
term; audio formats are more recent developments. I hope
transcripts are required in many venues for a long, long time.
I love court reporting. I want to be the one in the courtroom
meticulously identifying each attorney, witness, proper name, and making
sure a professional recording is made. I hope court reporters stay in
many courtrooms in this country and aren't removed from the process —
like I was.
With each passing year in this field, the "won't let go" mentality of
some in our industry comes into sharper focus. Once understandable,
that has now become incomprehensible to me. If you don't believe you
should let go of certain things, by all means defend them. But, please,
carefully weigh your thoughts and opinions regarding the future of the
court record and the roles of transcribers and court reporters.
Now is the time to prepare for a future which may provide no
other option than to "let go and move on."
As each industry evaluates its position in our ever-changing marketplace,
impacted by technology and finances, a question must be faced:
"What business are we really in?"
Part of our business includes playing back portions of the record for
court participants, as well as producing transcripts, CDs, and
DVDs. We provide long-term media storage and ensure the audio / video
will be retrievable. I think AAERT's members are in tune with court
administrators across the country, because we have an understanding of
the scope of their responsibility to archive the record and produce it in
various forms. Here at AAERT we have a keen appreciation for the
melding of technology and duty.
We have voice-transcribers (voice-writers who transcribe from recorded
audio), steno-transcribers (steno-writers who transcribe from recorded
audio), transcribers using keystroke shortcuts to greatly speed up
transcription, and court reporters using clerk and judicial assistant
databases to customize daily dockets for courtrooms, to appropriately "tag"
multiple courtrooms in a centralized court reporting environment.
We have court reporters who produce daily transcripts. In fact, our
associates in Australia, who have now formed their own association based
on AAERT's example, produce transcripts at the end of each and every court
day. As court reporters responsible for the court records business,
we must use the best solution for each situation.
As an analog court transcriber in the '90s, I was appalled to learn digital
recording technology would soon make my costly analog equipment obsolete.
I was also fearful of what this unseen digital technology would bring. It
has been said that the only constant is change. And I think change is
solidly inconsistent — it always brings fresh fears, new challenges —
and also unexpected opportunities.
A few years ago, NCRA also realized they needed to decide what business
they were in. As technology allowed for closed captioning and CART
services, NCRA embraced these stenographers as court reporters —
a kind of a hijacking of the phrase "court reporter," but a step they took
to identify their fellow stenographers. They,
too, realize the importance of the court record and the fact there are
other professionals besides stenographers, but they ardently represent
the stenographers — which is their choice and right. NCRA
leadership regularly challenges its membership to use realtime and become
realtime certified, as the only remaining frontier to separate them from
According to their Blue Ocean Analysis, 13% of NCRA
reporter members are certified realtime reporters. Realtime is a
valuable skill for many venues, but for many more venues is not the best
solution, particularly in due process, low-transcript-volume environments.
We at AAERT also represent those responsible for a verbatim court record.
Instead of tiers of hierarchies, we have solutions of excellence.
I'm not sure what the future will hold. I'm often uncomfortable with
some of the hypothetical situations my overactive mind conjures. But
I do know that, as together we pursue excellence, all court reporters will
be needed to produce and manage the court record.
Join us in San Antonio for our 15th Annual Convention! Check out one
of America's most famous and lovingly guarded forts, The
Alamo — and while there, learn even more about our responsibility
to produce, preserve, and guard the record.
After all, it's the product that counts, not the method.
Return to Top
Is your work killing you?
— Two recent studies
don't bring good news to . . .
1. A stressful combo:
Carnegie Mellon and University of Utah researchers used functional MRI
(fMRI) to watch brain activity as people attended to what someone was saying,
while at the same time performing physical tasks. The team found
surprisingly steep declines in efficiency and coordination, and
described the brain as taking "a neural hit" — significant biologic
The 18 April 2008 issue of Brain Research explains that combining
automatic tasks, such as speech comprehension, with a less-ingrained motor
activity learned long after a person has grasped his native language, is
a highly stressful combination.
They propose that's a reason why drivers, for example, who listen to talk
radio (or even converse on hands-free cell phones) while in traffic
have more accidents than those who listen to music only, or drive in silence.
2. Who would have thought?
British longitudinal studies*
tracked the health of 18,000 civil servants, and found
the highest rate of premature death is among — no, not the
executives, managers, judges, or members of Parliament, but among workers
who have little or no control over what is required / expected of
them — or when they must perform their tasks, or for how long they
must stay at them.
High rank, independent authority, or even extensive financial
responsibilities showed a much weaker correlation to actual
stress levels than was expected when the studies began thirty years ago.
Conclusion: Workers who must maintain constant,
intense, prolonged concentration, focusing on repetitive tasks immediately
at hand, tasks which they cannot easily slow, stop, or change, have a
significantly elevated risk for cardiovascular disease and stroke.
True, other factors also play their parts: diet and smoking among
them. But the results are in, and the conclusions persuasive.
So what does this have to do with our profession? you wonder.
Think about it.
"Longitudinal" here means following the same subjects over a
long period. The studies described are commonly referred to as
The Whitehall Studies I and II, begun in the 1970s.
See the 23 January 2008 issue of European Heart Journal.
Resurrecting ancient audio
— math, physics, and chaos theory restore what had been given up
In 1949 a music fan went to hear folk legend Woody Guthrie perform,
and made a bootleg analog*
recording of the event. This previously unknown piece of music history
surfaced in 2001, fifty-two years later — alas, so badly damaged it was
considered a sad and total loss.
Mathematician Kevin Short (University of New Hampshire) and audio engineer
James Howarth won this year's Grammy Award for best historical album because
they performed a near-miracle: they retrieved the "irretrievable"
Guthrie performance, which is now available for all to enjoy.
How was this resuscitation accomplished?
Alongside intentionally recorded sounds, analog systems typically lay
down a bias signal — a pure tone far beyond the range of human
hearing. This signal can become a reference against which other sounds
can be mathematically compared.
(By the way, any steady background tone, even one produced by fluorescent
lights in the room, can perform this reference function. In the Guthrie
case, the tone was found to be "hum" from an electrical line at 60 Hz.)
In an innovative approach (recently patented) using variable rate
sampling instead of traditional sampling at regular intervals, coupled
with the math subset known as chaos theory, the restoration team
found structure in what had appeared to be mere "noise" — and
voilà, Woody's original voice and music were revealed.
No one suggests a return to analog recording, now that more efficient and
cost-effective digital systems are available and widely installed.
However, the old bugaboo of "forever lost" audio recordings has been
turned on its head and can now be laid to rest.
You can hear the result of this work at www.plangentprocesses.com.
* "Analog" here refers
to sound captured on magnetic tape or wire. The 1949 exemplar was a
See the May 2008 issue of Scientific American.
Return to Top
The Nature of Words
I have a riotous display of fragrant rosemary in a sunny part
of my yard that gets hot in summer and doesn't grow grass very
well. Several of the bushes produce vigorous vertical branches,
and another variety has arching branches that drape gracefully toward
the driveway and the street, forming a bank of greenery. It's
called prostrate rosemary, but when someone asks, I'm apt to tell them
it's recumbent — I do like the alliteration.
Of course, then I pondered the difference between
Prostrate is derived from
prostratus, participle of
prosternere, to throw
Prone is from
turned or leaning forward, to lie face down,
as opposed to supine, which is to lie face upward.
I don't know about you all, but the hint I learned in
school to differentiate prone and supine is that when you're
supine, you're lying on your spine.
Recumbent is derived from the participle of
to lie back, similar to cubare,
to lie down. Relatives of recumbent through
cubare are cubicle, from the Latin
incubate, from incubare,
to lie or recline on, to sit on, like a hen on eggs; and
incumbent, from incumbere,
to lie or lean upon.
A relation suprising to
me is the cubit, originally a measure of the
forearm from elbow to longest fingertip — cubitum means
elbow in Latin. Thus, the medical term for the crook of the arm
from which blood is frequently drawn is the antecubital space.
Laurel H. Stoddard, CET
On The Record Reporting & Transcription, Inc.
Return to Top
Return to Top
A continuing reminder: Pengad offers a significant
AAERT members receive Pengad's
lowest catalog pricing on most
court reporting supplies, regardless of quantity.
This means we do not have to buy in bulk to save.
Just identify yourself as an AAERT member when ordering, and you
automatically receive this consideration on your purchases of
- Transcript covers
- Laser supplies
- Data accessories
- Stock forms
- Mailing supplies
- Index tabs, and much more.
800 631-6989 — fax
800 631-2329 —
Note: Promotional items, billheads /
invoices, business cards, flat or raised print stationery,
and printed mailing envelopes are not included in this benefit.
Return to Top
Exhibitor Information on...
A new exhibitor at this year's conference in San Antonio is
ErgoGenesis, manufacturer of BodyBilt seating.
BodyBilt chairs are renowned for their comfort, styling, and ergonomic
for a downloadable brochure detailing the
use of BodyBilt chairs in the courtroom.
Return to Top
Conference 2008, San Antonio — 22 - 24 June
Review the topics we will discuss and the events we will participate in
continuing education credits will be available.)
Until Monday, June 2, registration is $295, or $380 for yourself and
spouse / partner.
Thereafter, registration will be $325, or $410 for yourself and spouse /
San Antonio page
And take a look at just a small sample of the things San Antonio
has to offer!
As your Conference co-chairs, we warmly invite you to Texas, and sincerely
hope you will be able to attend.
Randel Raison, CET**D —
Margaret Morgan, CERT —
Or contact AAERT's Treasurer at
800.233.5306 (Pacific time)
Return to Top
Notice of 2008 Annual Business Meeting / Board Election
As our bylaws require, notice is hereby given to all AAERT members that
the Association's annual business meeting and Board election will be held at
3:45 p.m., Monday, June 23, 2008
El Tropicano Riverwalk Hotel
110 Lexington Avenue, San Antonio, Texas.
Click here for a downloadable / printable proxy form
Mail or fax your proxy so it arrives by Monday, June 16, 2008, at:
23812 Rock Circle
Bothell, Washington 98021-8573
fax (425) 481-9657.
Proxy deadline: Monday, June 16, 2008.
Two Board positions will be filled by election, and other Association
business may be conducted.
The current board nominees are:
Karen Bergstrom, CERT — (Royal Palm Beach, Florida)
Karen began transcribing in 1980 with Florida's
15th Judical Circuit. She initially typed for stenographers and
then, when analog equipment became available, began transcribing from
audio recordings — now, of course, in digital format.
Karen owns KBS Services. All three
of her daughters have transcribed for the 15th Judical Circuit.
Karen received AAERT's Transcriber of the Year award in 2005.
Randel J. Raison, CET**D — (Houston, Texas)
Randel is president of All Professionals Litigation
Support Team, Inc. (APLST), which provides transcription and support
for clients such as Citibank, Shell Oil, Pitney Bowes, CenterPoint Energy,
and USA Today, both within and beyond Texas. He has written
papers concerning Internet issues and electronics in the legal
profession, and received AAERT's 2007 Transcriber of the Year award.
Jared M. Sandel, CER**D — (Hollywood, Florida)
Jared manages Florida operations for Continental
Reporting Service, Inc., founded in 1981 and headquartered in Seattle.
CRS refers court reporting engagements to nearly 250 reporting firms nationwide,
and in Florida has a significant focus on insurance-related issues and
litigation. Jared has co-drafted CRS's instructional and procedural
manual for digital reporters and has trained a number of associates to work
in this field. He opened the Florida office in April 2007.
Return to Top
New Membership Benefits Announced in San Antonio
Dear AAERT Members:
Greg Smith and Associates is a full-service insurance brokerage and
financial planning company. We have been working with AAERT's
officers to add additional membership benefits, and to increase the
value of the association to its members. We are proud to be
presenting the first two benefits we have arranged at this year's annual
We have secured the following discounted insurance programs, which we
believe will help you immediately:
is offered through
Philadelphia Insurance Companies, specialists in Professional
Liability insurance for a variety of professions. They are offering
AAERT members a 10% discount on Professional Liability policies.
These policies can also be packaged with General Liability, and the
discount can be applied to both.
Disability and Business Overhead Expense
We have secured three discounted disability policies to fit any need
or situation from three blue-chip insurance carriers. These
carriers will be offering discounts of up to 15% on these policies.
We will present these programs at Conference in San Antonio
on Tuesday, June 24, at 1:00 p.m. We will also
discuss the need for these policies and what risks they can protect you
against. We look forward to seeing all of you!
P.S. These programs are already in place, so there is no need
to wait for the Conference itself!
Feel free to call me at
(520) 615-6385 to discuss these plans or obtain a proposal.
Return to Top
Newly Certified Members, April Examinations 2008
April 5th saw certification testing conducted in Middletown,
Connecticut (near Hartford), and in Orlando, Florida.
Congratulations and our very best wishes to these candidates who earned their
initial or upgraded certifications!
Sandra Aviles, CERT*D
Renee O. Bass, CERT*D
Janet M. Beason, CET**D
Tammy E. Crawford, CERT*D
Joelle H. Dixon, CERT*D
April Foga, CET**D
Alicia F. Jarrett, CET**D
Debra G. Jones, CET**D
Angela F. Karum, CET**D
Zandra L. Raines, CER**D
Jared M. Sandel, CER**D
Janet A. Smith, CER**D
— Stratford, Connecticut
— Crofton, Maryland
— St. Augustine, Florida
— Lawtey, Florida
— Keystone Heights, Florida
— Edgewater Park, New Jersey
— Cleveland, Tennessee
— Royal Palm Beach, Florida
— Sanford, Florida
— Ocala, Florida
— Hollywood, Florida
— Orlando, Florida
A general discussion of the program and a current schedule is at
Steve Simon, CERT
Return to Top
Pre-Certification Test Seminars
Mary Ann Lutz, CERT, of Lutz & Company in Monrovia, California,
conducts two-day seminars in various cities around the country to prepare
members to sit for AAERT's certification exams. An examination
immediately follows each seminar.
Dates and locations are included in the schedule posted at AAERT's
Certification Test page
You can review a PDF file detailing Lutz & Company's program by
Contact Mary Ann at
or view the company's website at
Lutz & Company
Return to Top
A warm welcome to our new members
since the last issue of The Court Reporter
AAERT members can go to our on-line Directories by clicking
Integrity Legal Support Solutions
April J. Foga, CET**D
Perfect Pages Transcription, Inc.
Edgewater Park, New Jersey
Amy Shankleton-Novess, CER 0838 (Michigan)
Modern Court Reporting, LLC
Patricia F. Acors, Virginia
Shawna L. Anderson, Texas
Janet M. Beason, Florida
Christopher Boone, Colorado
Pamela S. Buddenberg, Nebraska
Lisa N. Contreras, Maryland
Jo Lynn Dickinson, Ontario, Canada
Christine Eddy, California
Janet Evans-Watkins, Maryland
Ketelyn A. Frost, Michigan
Marie A. Gagliano, Florida
Melissa Garcia, Arizona
Suzanne M. Gustafson, Virginia
LaNell A. Haydon, Arizona
Sharon L. Holm, Florida
Jean Hudson, Maryland
Angela F. Karum, Florida
Kenneth J. Kelemen, Delaware
Cecelia Kelly, Illinois
Lisa Lake, Missouri
Michele M. Leinonen, Florida
Bethany J. Moore, New Hampshire
Jeanne K. Murie, North Dakota
Stacy E. Noeth, Florida
Melissa A. Odom, Florida
Amy Sarbaugh, Pennsylvania
Marsha D. Self, Virginia
Kim M. Stefka, Nebraska
Michelle L. Smirold, Maryland
Catherine A. Upchurch, Florida
Ilene M. Watson, Tennessee
Jo Elizabeth Wheat, South Carolina
Patricia D. Wtulich, North Carolina
Return to Table of Contents
Contact the Editor
The Court Reporter is published by
The American Association of Electronic Reporters & Transcribers, Inc.
All rights reserved, whether by electronic or print modalities. © 2008.
Gillian Lawrence, FPR, CERT, President
AAERT / 23812 Rock Circle / Bothell, WA 98021-8573.
AAERT AAERT AAERT AAERT AAERT AAERT