SCRAM:a possible defense against the worlds 1st infallible device

[marcellus91872]

What is the name of your state?MI.
This is currently under construction in Michigan,And could possibly be the only way to prove Secure Continuous Remote Alcohol Monitors convict the innocent to the courts:9/9/2005,
I have done hundreds of google searches consuming over 200 hours of my time,most seemed to lead to this road,TOMOGRAPHY.After researching most of these links they had one thing in common,(99m)Tc-Bicisate.Following this lead I found on a clip-board (summary of study) that testing showed that (n=9) in subjects that had relapsed in a two month period and those who abstained showed (n=11).In a relentless effort I wanted to find what (n=??) in a normal or control subject,and their it was,the study in full context.
[url]http://alcalc.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/37/4/347[/url]

This test can not only exonerate the innocent client,but reduce SCRAM to what it really is,a monitor,circumstancial evidence at best.I was convicted of a confirmed obstruction with no alcohol detected,this is now the equivelant to hear-say.I have yet to locate or finance the procedure but I didn't start this fight and I won't lay down to be kicked.I am accepting any possible leads or information you may have at [email]marcellus91872@netzero.net[/email].I would love to see AMS have to pay for anyone found innocent of charges just for claiming to have developed the worlds first infallible device with only one (not independant) published research.This is one big glove,a probationer may need to have a strong lower back to use it,but it is the
KNOCK-OUT PUNCH

more research on SCRAM with links at [url]http://convictedinnocent.blogspot.com[/url]