> Why would you need to challenge that?

That's precisely the question, yes.

> Are you implying something that's more than one in a million?

Court cases aren't about the common occurrences.

> That's precisely the question, yes.

Don't be vague on purpose. Say what you're implying.

> Court cases aren't about the common occurrences.

Usually they still are. But I'm talking about things being very rare among court cases. Do you think there is a systemic problem of false court transcripts? And I really don't think such a thing is the reason not to allow recording.

We do certain things to avoid the image of impropriety.

We also look askance at people who refuse to allow oversight into their work.

That oversight is a big part of why the court reporter exists, and has existed since long before recording technology was invented. Keeping things the same is not a refusal of oversight.

The civil exception handler.

“I’ll see you in catch!”