DUI BLOG

Here is what I am talking about the State and the High Court not willing to follow the law.

The Law states that for scientific evidence to useable in Court, it must be generally accepted by the scientific community.

The record in the Chun case shows no acceptance by the general scientific community,… the main part of which in NJ is the FDA/PHARMA SCIENCE.

AS I HAVE TRIED TO EXPLAIN IN PREVIOUS EMAILS, THE LEADER IN VALIDATING ANALYTICAL INSTRUMENTS IN NJ IS THE FDA, HANDS DOWN, NOT EVEN CLOSE , NO DOUBT.

It is my contention the NJ Supreme Court is not a scientific community and has no legal standing to just rule the Alcotest is reliable if there is nothing in the record to show the general scientific community accepts it, which there is not.

Therefore, in order for the high courts ruling to be lawful, they must rule the results can not be accepted until such time the scientific community accepts the instrument as being reliable, accurate, precise, and of course, this means validation.

Now, the high court may have it in their minds to split the difference and allow some , maybe half of the pending cases to get off on technicalities such as breath temp,.., then move forward with all results being acceptable as incontrovertible evidence…. well, this would not be right either.

I say, the NJ Supreme Court must be very careful in what they are willing to say is acceptable for analytical instruments to be reliable, accurate, precise, and validated.

Because if the rule the Alcotest is reliable, when it clearly isn’t , that would open the gate to a slippery slope of decreasing the quality of our pharmaceuticals, …companies being able to say, well, I didn’t need real validation, did I,?, after all the NJ supreme court says that’s all BS when it comes to results.

Of course, we all know the NJ Supreme Court would be wrong and unlawful to rule the Alcotest is reliable, but would also open this gate to our high standards of all analytical instruments slide downward.

BUT PLEASE KEEP IN MIND THE BIGGEST ISSUE OF ALL…

IF THE NEW JERSEY COURT RULES THE ALCOTEST IS RELIABLE, THEY WILL BE DOING SO UNLAWFULLY, AND SHOULD FACE CHARGES OF POLITICAL CORRUPTION, DISBARRMENT, AND PROBABLY PRISON SENTENCES.

WE AS A FREE PEOPLE CAN NOT ALLOW THE HIGHEST COURT IN NJ TO BLANTANTLY BREAK THE LAW AND RULE AGAINST THE LAW.

Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape in the new year.

—————–
Forwarded Message:
Subj: RE: Alcotest is simply not validated – please read 
Date: 1/16/2008 2:43:13 A.M. Eastern Standard Time
From: JMenzel@dwi1dwi.com
To: Hplc2218@aol.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)

 
It’s not over yet.  Arguments were held before the Court last Monday.  When I argued about the complete absence of any adherence to standards, how standards and documentation are the cornerstones of any endeavor requiring science as its foundation, the justices did not seem terribly engaged — almost as if the would ignore this fundamental tenet of scientific reliability. 
 
But the Court must still render an opinion.  Actually, they will probably issue an interim order soon with a more detailed opinion to follow a few months thereafter.  I agree with you and the principles you’ve expressed.  In fact, we won the case in terms of the overwhelming record we created demonstrating not only the lack of scientific method in the development of the source code but in the total absence of any system for identifying, documenting, and correcting errrors.  The record shows how disorganized, complex, and error prone the software is.  Ordinary safeguards within the code were disabled.  There is no positive feedback for almost all hardware functions.  The code substitutes for various values when errors are encountered.  These were the flaws found through source code review.
 
On cross examination, the Alcotest’s biggest claim for reliability — that two independent technologies test the same sample of breath — was shown to be a lie.  In fact, when the fuel cell readings drift beyond tolerance, an algorithm within the code forced them to agree.  This is done without any recalibration of replacement of the fuel cell.  I was asked what affect this “adjustment” had on the relability of the ultimate Breath Test result.  My response was: I don’t know; all I know is Draeger lied about it for 12 years, it was not revealed in two source code reviews, but only came out after persistent cross examination.  The only reasonable inference one can draw is that Draeger never told anyone about it and lied about it so consistently because it must be a bad thing.  Draeger cannot be trusted.
 
If the 7110 is validated by the Supreme Court, it will be a decision dictated by the politics of the Court, not by the evidence in the record.  The 7110 is simply no good.  We are contemplating a petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court if the State Supreme Court rules against us.  Such a petition is probably a year or two off, because the present decision which we are awaiting is interlocutory.  Any appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court must await a final adjudication of someone’s case.
 
A constitutional convention is not the answer.  Any constitution is only as strong as the will of the institutions that enforce it.  The concepts in our present constitution are sufficient.  But our Supreme Court has gone astray.  See a case called No Illegal Point v. Florio to see just how far our Supreme Court can go, how they can disregard the plain language of an unambiguous statute just to validate a long-standing informal procedure.
 
There is real danger in the Court’s action if they validate the 7110.  One might say, I am not worried, because I do not drink or I am not a drunk.  But such reasoning can lead to genocide as history has shown us.
 
I hope the Court does the right thing.  My fear is that they will not.  Good Night, Jim.
 
John 

From: Hplc2218@aol.com [mailto:Hplc2218@aol.com]
Sent: Wed 1/16/2008 1:15 AM
To: John Menzel
Subject: Re: Alcotest is simply not validated – please read

Mr. Menxel,
 
So it is over?
 
I thought that if adendum A was adopted, that the hardware would then have to be validated?
 
Mr. Menzel, I respecfully disagree that political concerns can ever eclipse the merits.
 
We are a free people and have the ability to govern ourselves and there is no reason we should not have a breath testing device that is validated as any other analytical instrument is, as the FDA oversees.
 
The fight is actually not over even if you guys lose.
 
One of my bigger points is that in order to be used as evidence the Alcotest result must be accepted by the scientific community , and the NJ Supreme Court is simply no that community.
 
The NJ Supreme Court actually has no standing in this area, and as a matter of law can not say an instrument is accepted by a scientific community if it is not!
 
The FDA is the overwhelming community on analytical results in NJ, and thus that will be my personal argument in Municipal Court with appeals as necessary.
 
I do not care if I have to argue with my last breath over the next 50 years, if we need a constitutional  convention in order to get people in government that follow the law, that is what we should be pursuing.
 
Jim
 
 
n a message dated 1/16/2008 12:53:12 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, JMenzel@dwi1dwi.com writes:

Dear Jim,
 
I deeply appreciate your interest in State v. Chun.  The bottom line question in Chun is, Will the evidence or politics dictate the case’s outcome.
 
When we had the source code examined, we discovered that the code was highly complex and prone to insertion of errors on revision.  Key safeguards like catastrophic error detection were disabled.  In many instances, the software arbitrarily substituted values.
 
NHTSA has no software standards for breath testing instruments.  FDA does.  We established in the hearing that the source code is unreliable.  On the evidence, the Supreme Court should send Draeger back to the drawing board,  Unfortunately, political concerns will eclipse the merits.
 
In any event, the arguments are now on the NJ Judiciary website from 1/7.  I don’t think we did a perfect job, but it wsa a pretty good effect.
 
Thanks again for your interest.
 
John Menzel, J.D.
2911 Route 88, Suite 12
Point Pleasant, NJ 08742
(732) 899-1899 office
(732) 713-4100 cell
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

From: Hplc2218@aol.com [mailto:Hplc2218@aol.com]
Sent: Wed 1/16/2008 12:17 AM
To: John Menzel; s.sachs@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Alcotest is simply not validated – please read

Hello,

Dear Mr. Sachs and Mr. Menzel,

I assume this email will be read or at least welcomed. Neither of you have asked me not to email you, and it has been several months since I have last wrote an argument and forwarded it to you guys.

If you have a few minutes, please read this essay I wrote up on the Alcotest, you may find some useful arguments or insight.

My experience with the FDA is in person experience as well as hands on experience feeding them documents for review, as well as face to face conversations in audits.

I have been through several face to face FDA audits of the factories and laboratories I have worked in, in several companies.

I have also worked on testing to be used for drug applications, which the FDA ALWAYS COMES TO REVIEW,… one being liquid Prozac for a South Jersey pharma.

I have worked in the business for 20 years and have a lot of  first hand knowledge on how the FDA works in relation to many aspects of manufacturing, testing, instrumentation, and validation.

I also have a lot of 2nd hand knowledge from chemists and manufacturing managers in other companies that I have met and talk to over the years over the course through my career.

I can tell you, to a man, without any doubt, the FDA ARE PERFECTIONISTS AND DEMAND PERFECTION IN EVERYTHING THEY DO AND EVERYTHINFG WE DO.

This is why I want the FDA involved in breath testing, they would leave no stone unturned in having a reliable breath testing device that no one could say was not reliable, of course, short of perfection in testing and validation and documentation which they mandate

 

Even with all my knowledge and experience, it is very little compared to thousands of other people in NJ.

All you have to do is talk to analytical and manufacturing directors at Merck, J and J , ect.. to understand what I am talking about.

Or go to instrument manufacturers of HPLC’s such as Ailment to understand what the FDA wants.

here is a story for you.,,,

Ailment came in to validate one of our HPLC’s which I had under my direction. Now they had been in every year to do it, ,.. and they put the validation sticker on the side of the instrument ( not to mention the 2 notebooks of data accumulated in the validation and must be presentable to the FDA). Well… this validation engineer from Agilent told me that the FDA was upset to see a new sticker covering over an old sticker on an instrument in another company, and cited them for it in a report.
Well, my instrument was the same way, because Agilent puts the stickers on and over stickered previous stickers from other years. To a regular person this may seem like nothing, because , of course, we have all the instrument validation notebooks going back 7 years for each instrument, as mandated by the CFR/FDA regs. But to the FDA this was an issue and they wrote up the company.

This is just one of countless trillions of trillions of things the FDA looks at in audits.

If there is a word beyond perfectionist, tell me what it is, because that would describe the FDA

It is no secret in the industry the enormous power the FDA has to demand and expect perfection, or the ability of the FDA to recognize quality or non quality work.

No one wants a form 483 from the FDA, it is a bad thing and a negative reflection on our work

I have tried to covey the perfection and amount of work the FDA mandates and expects. But I am not sure I have done that yet.

The general public really has no idea what goes into pharma manufacturing or OTC manufacturing.

When I use the term cleaning validation, you and the general public have no idea what it means.

It is an enormous amount of testing for each kettle and each packaging line, for trace residue analysis as well as microbiology. include a photograph of each unit, and a validation package, for first 3 batches of each new formula, annually, used on each piece of manufacturing and packaging equipment.

cleaning validation in a factory is a enormous undertaking, and yet only a drop in the bucket of what we need to do for the FDA.

anything not right can lead to the doors being padlocked by the FDA, a branch of the US Navy, and hundreds or thousands of people out of a job.

Perfection is the name of the game when it comes to the FDA.

So, THE ANSWER YOYR FIRST QUESTION, YES, THE FDA IS AS CLOSE TO A GOD AS WE ARE GOING TO GET IN THE PHARMA INDUSTRY AND FOR A GOVERNMENT AGENCY

You can probably tell from my vast emails I believe in the law. In regards to the FDA , it is what they mandate, not only in the CODE OF FEDERAL REGISTER, BUT AS FAR AN POLICY AND AUDITS AND ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS.

Now, am I saying companies do not make mistakes, even try to hide things , no, I’m not saying that, … am I saying chemists do not make honest mistakes,.. no, of course not,,, am I say FDA auditors do not miss things,.. no I am not saying that.

I am saying the risk, the consequences of any mistake, no matter how small, is great!

I have integrity, most people in my field have integrity. The FDA expects integrity and perfect application and documentation of their mandates, .. the penalty for  infractions go beyond a 483, they go to criminal prosecution.

As close to 100 percent as we can get to conformity to FDA mandates, we get to, only very rarely do companies not conform.

Able labs was one in NJ a few years ago that had their doors padlocked the FDA.

THIS IS WHY THE FDA needs to be involved in the alcotest, alcohol is a drug, and there is no government  agency better to put fear in , this case the States, to have a program that is not approachable by defense attorneys.

This is what I want…. this is what we as a people should want, however, this is not what defense attorneys want…. defense attorneys want a unit in place that is questionable, so occasionally they can get a defendant off of charges, … but to me this is totally the wrong approach and a philosophical difference between me and resig/levow.

The last thing reisig or levow wants is a breath testing unit that is unapproachable as to its accuracy or reliability,.

IF WE AS A PEOIPLE WANT A GOOD INSTRUMENT THAT CAN BE REKLIABLE AND VIRTUALLY UNCONTESTED IN ITS RESULTS, WE NEED THE FDA INVOLVED IN THE ENTIRE PROGRAM ON A NATIONAL BASIS

 

THIS IS WHY THE ENTIRE CHUN CASE IS A DEBACTLE AND AN EXRCISE IN NOTHING MORE THAN ARGUMENT.

As I have said before , we have a trillion or more dollars to fight in Iraq over the course of a decade, we should have  the money , easily, to have a FDA regulated breath testing program, it is a no brainier.

You can understand that from the perspective of someone like me has, and there are 10,000 plus of us in NJ, that not only is it possible to have an unapproachable breath testing device mandated and overseen by the FDA on a scientific basis, BUT THAT WE SHOULD HAVE IT, AND that because of our knowledge of analytical instruments and what the FDA mandates, that we are frustrated by what the State and Drager are willing to call reliable.

You certainly can question the FDA on major political-economic decisions as mandated by presidential administrations, ,,… however you can not question the expertise or demands of the FDA on us, as an industry, to supply the highest quality of work possible known to mankind.
you can, but it would be unwarranted,

The FDA is unapproachable in its management and un relentless approach and enforcement of perfection!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Can you at the very least, acknowledge, that someone with my experience in the pharma industry, with the FDA, after all I have tried to explain in the above posts, is upset and highly agitated about an un validated analytical instrument that is going to be able to put someone behind bars?

 

I want to ask you a question… and this question have nothing to do with any case of any kind….

I JUST WANT AN ANSWER

What do you think happens when a generic pharma company in NJ manufactures a batch of acetaminophen tablets?

Do you believe that testing is done with VALIDATED methods on validated instruments, and that the results of the tests are reliable and correct in its results, and the batch is properly released for distribution to pharmacies and supermarkets and convenience  stores?

and that the FDA mandates perfection in this manufacturing and testing from every possible angle of review?

if you do not believe this, my arguments are really a lost cause….

but if you do believe  this, and say yes, then it is not a far jump to say the FDA could have a validated breath testing device in place nationally that could rarely be challenged.

 

Well, are you saying you do not believe  me, and do not know from what I say, that the FDA monitors to the extent of perfection?

Transportation has nothing to do with analytical instruments.

I do know that the FDA is the worlds foremost authority on analytical instrumentation.

Are you willing to take the time and investigate my assertions on this?

Are you willing to contact heads of analytical departments at pharma companies to obtain knowledge?

I’m a nobody and I know the FDA is the worlds foremost authority on analytical validation.

Do we not want a incontrovertible breath testing device?

This goes to the core of my arguments as they pertain to the statutes allowing scientific evidence into courts!

If one wants to argue analytical scientific result should be allowed as evidence in a court of law, then one must show it is accepted by the scientific community, in the case of analytical instruments producing results, this IS THE FDA’S REALM OF FORMOST EXPERTISE!!!!

IF YOU WANT TO KNOW THE TRUTH, YOUY CAN DO ONE OF 2 THINGS, EITHER TAKE MY WORD FOR IT, OR START COMMUNICATION WITH ANALYLYTICAL HEADS AT TOP PHRAMA COMPANIES.

I will say this, at some point in the future, I will invite you into an analytical laboratory and show you the instruments and testing and teach you about it, that way you would have first hand knowledge and experience in it.

I am a very good teacher.

I would not be surprised if the nhsta consulted at least on an informal basis with the FDA in regards to breath testing.

As a person, do you not want a breath testing device that in incontrovertible as to the results.

No, I do not know what the nhsta does, but I do know what they do not do, they do not require the instruments to be validated as the FDA does, or we would not even be having this discussion.

If the alcotest instruments were validated as according to FDA regulations, we would not be having this discussion.

The results from it would be beyond approach !

Come into one of my labs in the future and look at the validation that is done on a daily basis.

I know you do not have the time to look into such a huge economic-social-political issue…and be a grand stander, nor are you willing to donate your life to do so, …

But do not discount my arguments because you have no knowledge of them

However, the State of NJ, Drager, and the Chun defense team has had not only the time to do it, but the mandate to do it!!!!!

Drager has absolutely no excuse at all, as I have looked at their web site and have found they are a huge corp. involved in many many things in analytical testing and should know better than to try to pull the wool over our eyes on the alcotest.

The State also has no excuse, as NJ pharma companies are the worlds leader in analytical testing!

Defense lawyers, I give a little break, because they need to yet be educated.

As far as the Statute and case law goes, the NHsta is not the scientific community and had no standing in the area of analytical results

The foremost authority on analytical results is the chemistry community, and the leader in this community is the FDA!!!! to a man, hands down!!!!

 

Yes, to answer your question, the FDA has the responsibility to oversee the validation of every piece of analytical instrumentation that is use in the manufacture, DISTRIBUTION, PACKAGAING, AND TESTING OF DRUGS, AND OVER THE COURTER THE PRODUCTS SUCH AS VITAMINS, COSMEITCS WITH SUNSCREENS, FOOD, AND Other PERSONAL CARE PRODUCXTS THAT CLIAM ANB ACTIVE INGREDIENT.

The FDA had the ability and mandate to audit and revue , and they do this, even for instruments that test antiperspirant!

Yes, every single gd instrument in the US testing these products is validated and overseen by the FDA, with the threat of prosecution if regs are not followed.

I am not kidding or making this up!

Every single piece, every instrument!!!

Billions of instruments in the US are under the watchful eye of the FDA for compliance with the CFR/FDA regulations.

Every instrument in every company.

I am telling you , for a fact, this is no joke as to what the FDA does and is responsible for.

All of the big pharmas have office right in the facilities for the FDAS to work out of, the smaller companies get visits., and if anything is wrong, it is addressed.

I kid you not!!

 

The FDA would never allow an instrument such as the alcotest to be used in the testing and release of pharmas, OTC, food, or personal care products.

Instruments need to be validated, each and every individual one, I kid you not!

And this validation is not simply a calibration verification, is involves many things far beyond simple calibration.

I have touched on these issues over the summer in many posts.

Just to take one aspect of the alcotest, …. even it has a temperature sensor, as Alabama uses, this sensor needs to be validated and calibrated.

Let’s take another aspect, the calculation, this needs to be verified for each instrument with a special program that inputs signals through a program to see if it comes up with the correct response..

Let’s take another aspect, … there is 100 percent absolutely no way, the FDA would allow an analytical instrument with the ability to produce such a meaningful result using an ir scan, not to have to actual ir scan available for review. to me this is a fundamental issue, as it is the crucial piece of evidence, to not have the ir scan is unbelievable.

Do you realize how many ir’s are in use in NJ that produce scans…. probably 100,000.

Do you realize actually how many ir scans I have been personally responsible for in my 20 year career…. suffice it to say more than I can count in years time.

If these ir instruments are producing a scan crucial to the testing and release or raw materials and finished goods, they are subject to the FDA adnt he CFR

I kid you not on this.

10, 2006.

The State of NJ has choosen to remain in contempt of this court order for all this time, and not only in my case, but probably thousands of cases.

Each time I have went to court believing I would be trialed that night, only to be sent home being told discovery not complete, because of prosecutor laziness.

It goes beyong laziness, it is psycological abuse, intentional, and done by the State.

The lawsuit I will file will start at 10 million dollars.

A very important aspect of the Alcost breath testing instrument is the area under the curve, the peak area of the peak produced by alcohol. I am not sure if they are measuring the “oh” group peak or the “ethyl peak”, but for this argument it doesn’t matter.

As an analytical chemist with 20 years experience, this visual picture/evidence/document, is just about the most important document there is.

The picture of the test.

Picture a straight line across a page of paper 8 inches in width. picture about 6 inches down the line a tall thin triangle rising about 6 inches from the line (baseline), symmetrical in shape, and about 3 millimeters in width at the baseline.

This is what I call a peak a classic desired peak.

The amount of area inside the shape of the peak is calculated by a computer program and converted into a number called “counts”.

What the program does is this, it through its programing, determines when the peak starts and stops. draws a baseline under the peak, then calculates the area in counts , inside the triangle.

This count of a breath sample is compared to the count of a known standard solution, a mathematical calculation is performed, and a final BAC is determined.

This is fundamental , most basic, analytical chemistry, for peak based instruments, like an IR in the Alcotest.

In my career I have revived , looked at, millions and millions of peaks generated from such instruments to determine if the start and stop of the peak was determined correctly, if the baseline was determined correctly, if the peak shape was ok, if the right peak was being used in the calculation, and if there were any interferences.

Without this picture, it is impossible for Drager, me, you, the state, the FDA, or anyone else in the world, to say the result is accurate.

In the millions of peaks I have revived in 20 years, I have found a lot of problems along the way.

The start was determined wrong, the end was determined wrong, the baseline was drawn incorrectly, the wrong peak was used to calculate.

An instrument can be running fine for 100 samples in a row, have one off, and 100 more good samples. It is just the nature of analytical instruments for this type of analysis, and every peak needs to be looked at and signed off on.

With the Alcotest there is no picture. We have absolutely no way of knowing if anything looked ok in a breath test.

Do you understand what I am saying?

It is not like I am looking for the world here, a simple IR machine that produces a picture is not only common, it is expected, required, taken for granted.

The cost of the Alcotest is ridiculously high for an instrument that can not even produce a picture of the test.

To take this one step further, the “counts” for each standard and sample would be listed on the screen and printout, and an example calculation would be typically performed for the first sample by hand,vto ensure the program was calculating correctly, and available to perform for every sample tested.

All of this is a no brainier.

Do you understand?

The process that calculates the area under the curve is called integration.

Unless their is a visible hardcopy picture of the peak showing the start, stop, and baseline of the integration…. showing the peak, at the proper , in the case, wavelength, but in HPLC retention time, and it is reviewed to determine the peak shape was ok, the correct peak was used, there are no interferences, and the integration had the right start-stop-baseline, there is absolutely no way to say beyond a reasonable doubt any breath test result is correct.

A key aspect in the Alcotest case are the manuals supplied by Drager to the Chun defense teaM, which one of the attorneys, not my former one, was kind enough to supply me with last summer for review….which I did review….

In these manuals are example pictures of the peaks produced by an IR scan for alcohol.

The methodology clearly shows a baseline and peak for the analysis , as I described earlier.

My question to Drager would have been, how do you know your instrument, the Alcotest, produces these peaks, integrates them correctly, every time, 100% without flaw, drawing a perfect baseline to the peak every time, with a perfect start and stop tic marks, and thus perfect integration.

The answer is they really do not know. They may have some hook up at the factory but nothing was presented at the hearings. The most important aspect though is, we do not know for each and every breath test the integration and result are flawless.

Even a slight movement of the baseline drawing on the slightest wrong incline, or a start or stop of the peak that is even the slightest up on the peak rise or fall, will create the wrong result. Maybe the start or stop was too soon or too late and occurred in valley beneath the baseline, thus causing a bad result.

There is no way to ever now how much off the mark it is without seeing the picture.

Most instruments have software where you can change the integration parameters to force the instrument to properly integrate certain peaks, however, in doing this, the standards, and bracketing standards, must be under the same parameters, and this reprocess of results must be documented with explanation as to why.

I am telling you, with 100 percent certainty, that the picture of analysis by analytical instruments of the nature of the Alcotest is the most fundamental document to support the result!

yet is doesn’t exist!

 
What really gets my goat, if you will, is that this really shouldn’t be up to me to point out such fundamental basic aspects of analytical chemistry.

This is something that Drager should know, probably does know, the State should know, probably turns a blind eye to, defense attorneys have no idea about, … and only analytical chemists that were tested on it and charged with a dui care about.

One can not even begin to validate an instrument like this in all seriousness, one that can take away a persons livelihood, freedom, driving privileges, respect, without having the picture.

This is not like the measuring of the ph in your pool water.

This is exact analytical chemistry science. Exact also made by statute, in virtue of the State differentiating between 0.07, 0..08, 0.09. 0.10% BAC >>

To not be able to even begin to validate an instrument like this, where the result is so important, and basic IR instrumentation allows for it, because Drager didn’t engineer it to produce a picture with the counts, is really unbelievable, and wrong, and not just.

What can I do to make people understand?

I would like to be able to get in the above argument in my particular dui case.

I will have to somehow figure out with my attorney how exactly we can get this argument on record, in order to have an appeal with this basis…. keeping in mind any appeal I  have would be based on many things including speedy trial and lack of due process, but also for this analytical argument to also come on record so it can also be appeal able.

I don’t know what the case law says on this, but I certainly hope to be my own expert witness as to analytical results of peak based analysis by software driven analytical instruments.

This on appeal, would be the new “Chun”.

This fundamental aspect of this type of analysis, as I have described above, was not the main attack of the Chun defense team, and should have been.

In my opinion they could have won on this argument alone.

It is not a question of what Alabama is doing, as the Chun case seemed to rely on, or what other States are doing, or what other manufacturers of breath testing equipment are doing.

It is a question, and case, of such fundamental basic analytical chemistry standards, as they exist today in NJ.

It is not nuclear science, it is not rocket science, it is so basic, and so fundamental, and so low level, that analytical chemists like me, with just a basic college education, and low salary, take for granted.

Producing a picture of an IR scan and its integration, is so basic and fundamental, it is equivalent to a auto mechanic checking the air in someone’s tire ( as far as it is being done),… that is to say NOT THAT IT IS EASY TO DO, BUT IT IS JUST SOMETRHING SO BASIC, SO FUNDAMENTAL, IT IS TAKEN FOR GRANTED IN THE ANALYTICAL WORLD.

The science is exact, the analysis is exact, the statute is exact,  so what are we missing?

We are missing the most fundamental piece to the puzzle, the actual picture!

Before they make any political compromises as to the Chun case, understand one thing, my arguments are valid, not argued in Chun, and will be put up on appeal all the way, as the new Chun, if my case is not dismissed or acquitted after trial.
 
There is no way this Alcotest, an analytical instrument, capable of taking away someone’s freedom, should be used without supplying the picture of the IR scan and the counts from the integration.