Lewinski has passed the Daubert Standard, YOU have not.
Aside from your inability to know that information based on this forum alone, one does not "pass" the Daubert Standard. One meets federal rules on the admissibility of testimony or, more commonly, withstands a challenge to its admissibility. As courts are generally deferential to both law enforcement and claimed expertise, it is not difficult to do.
But what Lewinski does not have, and what you have failed to produce for him, are valid scholarly credentials in his claimed area of expertise.
- He does not have credentials or training to be doing the kind of research he claims
- He does not have a real credentialed certification in psychology
- His doctorate is from an academically suspect degree mill
In short, he acts as if he's an expert in fields where he has no training or expertise, he always sides with law enforcement no matter what, and he ordered his degree with a credit card off the internet. No wonder cops like this guy so much - he's just like most of them!
Now you are playing pathetic semantic games. It's absolutely laughable. My point is that Lewinski has met the Daubert standard, you have not met any standard of review. You flippantly brush this aside as the courts being "deferential" to law enforcement.
But what Lewinski does not have, and what you have failed to produce for him, are valid scholarly credentials in his claimed area of expertise. - He does not have credentials or training to be doing the kind of research he claims - He does not have a real credentialed certification in psychology - His doctorate is from an academically suspect degree mill. In short, he acts as if he's an expert in fields where he has no training or expertise, he always sides with law enforcement no matter what, and he ordered his degree with a credit card off the internet. No wonder cops like this guy so much - he's just like most of them! PROVE IT. You've not established any of your points in this area. NONE. In fact, many of your points are bold faced defamatory lies. For instance, the Union Institute is regionally accredited by The Higher Learning Commission and is a member of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools, calling it a degree mill is a bold face lie.
As for the Psy.D program, Union merely hasn't reached the stage where it can receive full accreditation from the APA. It will apply for that accreditation when it meets the initial requirements, this is nothing out of the ordinary, and is similar to the process that the ABA uses to accredit new law schools. (Incidentally, the APA has no business being involved in the accreditation process at all, considering that the APA is nothing but a marxist left-wing organization bent on the destruction of America, but that is a topic for another thread.)