Your own quote showed that the judge acknowledged this was a REAL expert with evidence. She held him to higher standards that aren’t actually prescribed under the law. We learned this thanks to you. What we need is an honest judge who will follow the law and uphold the Constitution.
I think you misread it. She said he was an expert in typesetting (the pertinent information on the BC is not typeset, it was written using a typewriter) and that his methods were not based on any scientific method.
Someone like this would make it through any legal challenge:
http://www.qdewill.com/cv.html
This might help explain it:
MS. TAITZ: Fifty years of experience as a sheriff.
THE COURT: One thing that the federal courts must do is that they must act as gatekeepers for people who are claiming to be experts. That’s the Daubert case, which is a very well-known case. And people can’t simply say I am an expert in a particular area because they want to be an expert. They have to be tested by others who may look to them and say this is, in fact, a tried-and-true method. You have experience. You have expertise. And to simply say that a person has 50 years of experience doing a particular job does not make that person an expert.
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Grinols-Transcript-of-01.03.2013-hearing.pdf