wrote on Jan 30^th, 2003 at 10:21pm:

Next time I'm at the San Francisco court, I'll take a look at Gelb's declaration.  I don't have any court appearances scheduled there as of now.

I don't know if that would be productive Mr. Mallah, although the offer is quite generous. The case in which Mr. Gelb was hired (CGC-02-413508, LAWRENCE J BAIRD VS. LORI CAPOBIANCO HAIGH et al) does not appear to have any record with regard to Mr. Gelb's participation in a supplemental declaration contained within the court reporter's minutes. That's odd, because the record notes:

RESPONSE TO MONSIGNOR BAIRD'S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS; INDEX OF SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATIONS AND SUPPLEMENTAL DECLS. OF LORI HAIGH, DR. EDWARD I. GELB, AND KATHERINE K. FREBERG, AND DECL. OF MARK GOLDOWITZ IN SUPPORT OF DEFT. LORI HAIGH'S SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AS A MERITLESS SLAPP; PROOF OF SERVICE OF REPLY PAPERS FILED BY DEFENDANT HAIGH, LORI CAPOBIANCO--NOV-22-2002

Pouring over the entire file might come up with the declaration, but I doubt that Mr. Gelb's CV or resume would be there.

And for the faceless critic who smarted off about being productive, none of this would be necessary if Ed Gelb would simply answer the LEGITIMATE queries about his credentials.

How about it, Batman? Are you going to go after Mr. Gelb's credentials as vigorously as you demand them from the polygraph's detractors here? Or do credentials only matter to you when you don't like-- but cannot disprove-- what the other person is saying?

Dave, PhD in forensic psycho-physiologial-prelimbic detection of deception, LaSalle University (our school's mascot is a Bayou Billy Bob swiggin beer while driving an airboat)