So why did you object so vehemently to me calling the incriminating items that I listed in the Brown case "EVIDENCE"? Those items COULD be "put into EVIDENCE in a trial" couldn't they? Sure, they might then be cross examined and found not to be fact but they would still have been put into evidence ... RIGHT? Shall I pull up the definitions of evidence that both of us cited and see who is disassembling now? I told you all along that the material PRESENTED in the courtroom is evidence and you disagreed, maintaining that it also had to be proven TRUE before it was evidence. You stated, for example, that It's NOT evidence until it gets into a courtroom and is cross examined. That IS quite different than the definition you are now trying to put forth, which by the way IS more in line with the dictionary definitions that BOTH of us cited, way back when.
And why don't you comment on your apparent belief that someone (Klayman?) must go to court BEFORE Ashcroft can begin an investigation into the Brown matter and GATHER the material that will be put into evidence? Is that what you think?