Klat

DISCUSSION

Klat contends the trial court erred in prohibiting her from being "counsel of

record" and a witness at trial. In other words, Klat claims she attempted to offer herself

as a witness, but the court refused to allow her to testify. The record, however, does not

support Klat's version of events.

Initially, we observe that Klat, as an in propria persona litigant, is "entitled to the

same, but no greater, rights than represented litigants and are presumed to know the

[procedural and court] rules." (Wantuch v. Davis (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 786, 795.)

On appeal, the judgment of the trial court is presumed to be correct. (Denham v.

Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 (Denham).) All intendments and presumptions

are made to support the judgment on matters as to which the record is silent. (Ibid.)

An appellant has the burden to provide an adequate record and affirmatively show

reversible error. (Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574; see Denham, supra,

2 Cal.3d at p. 564.) Further, it is the appellant's duty to support arguments in his or her

briefs by references to the record on appeal, including citations to specific pages in the

record. (Duarte…