We have delivered high quality Language Services since 1985. Our interpreters and translators are hand-picked, to provide our clients with the best service available.
Having the peace of mind of working with true professionals alows you to focus on your tasks without worrying about the language barriers.
Owned and Operated by a Federally Certified Court Interpreter
Why should I use a Certified Professional?
EXECUTIVE ORDER 13166 on Equal Access for People with Limited English Proficiency
"In certain circumstances, failure to ensure that LEP persons can effectively participate in or benefit from federally assisted programs and activities may violate the prohibition under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000d and Title VI regulations against national origin discrimination. The purpose of this policy guidance is to clarify the responsibilities of recipients of federal financial assistance from the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), and assist them in fulfilling their responsibilities to limited English proficient (LEP) persons pursuant to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and implementing regulations. The policy guidance reiterates the longstanding position that, in order to avoid discrimination against LEP persons on the grounds of national origin, recipients must take reasonable steps to ensure that such persons have meaningful access to the programs, services, and information those recipients provide. See, e.g., 28 CFR 401-415."
US ex rel. Negron vs. New York, 434 F. 2d 386 (1970) Deemed Summary Interpreting Inadequate.
During a murder case, the prosecutor's interpreter provided the Spanish speaking defendant with summaries of witness testimony in sessions lastiing from 10 to 20 minutes. "However astute (the interpreter's) summaries may have been, they could not do service as a means by wich Negron could undestand the precise nature of the testimony against him."
Federal Reporter, second series, Volume 434.
EFREN R DIAZ vs STATE OF INDIANA.
The Indiana Supreme Court ordered the post-conviction court to hold a new hearing for a Mexican man who claimed he didn’t mean to plead guilty to two felonies and did so only because of faulty interpreting in court.
On July 7, 2004, Efren Diaz, whose native language is Spanish, was arrested and charged with two felony drug possession counts. His attorney used a bilingual individual to communicate with Diaz. The court appointed this person as the interpreter for the guilty plea hearing. She was a native English speaker but said she learned Spanish from her father and from staying in Mexico for a few months, that she had translated for courts "about 20 times in the last two or three years."
In January 2010, the Indiana Supreme Court heard arguments on the Diaz case, who claimed he did not understand that he had plead guilty to 2 charges instead of 1, due to faulty interpreting. The Court ruled 9 months later.
The State had emphasized Mr. Diaz had repeatedly stated that he understood what the non-certified individual was saying during his hearings, to which the Court replied:
“Although Diaz answered that he did not, one may fully understand and even acknowledge to others an understanding of what is in actuality an inaccurate interpretation of the proceedings. Put another way, one can understand perfectly the words spoken by an interpreter who tells you the wrong thing,” wrote Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard."