You’re a deadhead on this issue, and have no grasp of the legal principle of the Best Evidence Rule. Your posts on these threads are pure, unadulterated garbage.
Yep, me Judge Land, the 5th Circuit (and a number of other Circuit Courts) Antonin Scalia, John Roberts - we're all idiots compared to your superior intellect and grasp of the American legal system.
Keep telling yourself sweetheart, maybe you'll actually believe it.
Well, looking at the quality of your relative arguments, I have no doubt which of you I would choose to represent me in a court of law.
And, for the record:
“The best evidence rule is a common law rule of evidence which can be traced back at least as far as the 18th century. In Omychund v Barker (1745) 1 Atk, 21, 49; 26 ER 15, 33, Lord Harwicke stated that no evidence was admissible unless it was “the best that the nature of the case will allow”. The general rule is that secondary evidence, such as a copy or facsimile, will be not admissible if an original document exists, and is not unavailable due to destruction or other circumstances indicating unavailability.
The rationale for the best evidence rule can be understood from the context in which it arose: in the eighteenth century a copy was usually made by hand by a clerk (or even a litigant). The best evidence rule was predicated on the assumption that, if the original was not produced, there was a significant chance of error or fraud in relying on such a copy.
In the age of digital facsimiles, etc. the rule is more difficult to justify. The likelihood of actual error (as opposed to mere illegibility) through copying is slight. The balance of convenience favours avoiding needless effort and delay where there is no dispute about the fairness and adequacy of a digital facsimile. Further, it is by no means clear what the ‘original’ of an electronic communication such as an e-mail actually is: as a great many electronic ‘copies’ of a message might come into existence from creation to receipt.”