Originally posted by Kitilani
Originally posted by CynicalDrivel
I.e., an expert witness is an expert whom the court recognizes. Why this is not accepted is just plain silly.edit on 15-8-2011 by
CynicalDrivel because: Replaced a missing word.
I am not a judge in court hearing testimony. There are no expert witnesses here. Anyone that claims to be an expert in anything relevant better be
able to both back that up and explain why it is relevant. So far no one has been able to do that for any of the so called "experts" listed. You just
keep saying they have been expert witnesses in court. Sure. What for? Using their expertise in what?
Please show me one time where the "scanner expert" was used in court to determine the validity of a state issued document.
Why would
there ever been a need for a scanner expert in such a case before? The unique thing is that they are trying to force someone to cough up an original
because the only document available is a scanned copy online. Basically, show me a case where a scanned copy was the SOLE SOURCE of evidence, first,
or at least 1 document that had to be verified by an expert was derived solely from a scanned copy, then your point would be valid. Until then, your
fussing about a "scanner expert" is just as useless as the people you're still arguing against.
Besides, do you realize how many people in this country can't produce their original birth certificate, and that all others are just reissued, and
while they are valid in a court of law, they are generally not something you could compare to the ones printed closer to the time of your birth? This
would have been a better argument to use, by the way.