The following declaration has been modified only to mask the identities of those involved, other than myself. The essentials are common to all such proposals to have a so-called ink expert spoliate a document at an initial cost of $3-5,000 with promise to the expert of more money to come for depositions, court testimony, further testing, further consultations, and more declarations in support of it all before both the paying customer and opposing party are off the baited hook dipping into their bank accounts. The opposing party cannot take comfort in the costs to the ink expert’s client, since the opposing party will have to hire a similar expert or expect to lose the case and be taxed for the other side’s ink expert. Thus the handful or so of American ink experts have an interest in common: They help enrich each other by upping the ante in any case one of them becomes involved in.
The following gives a general idea of what the ink experts seem never to be so expert at that they can candidly inform either their clients or the courts of the problematic aspects of their esoteric and costly expertise. Since they all seem to use different ways of testing inks already on paper, one cannot use something like the attached as a universal answer to every demand that you submit your original evidential document to their ability to damage it permanently and unalterably. Of course, do not expect any ink expert or many a document examiner, who might ride the well inked coattails to further enrichment for oneself, to agree with my choice of word to describe the effects of their ministrations on a document.
One needs to fashion a specific reply to a specific demand that an evidential document be surrendered to the spoliations by an ink expert. In this little collection of consultations of me by attorneys and my services rendered, there will be another case where, like this one, the ink expert’s proposal was thwarted. That other case shows how current reports about the latest scientific research need to be surveyed and how one’s argument must be built to counter the specifics of the particular proposal from the other side.
Case: Rape by an Ink Expert