SGU Episode 535 - Revision history

Xanderox: /* Special Report: Lawsuit Update (0:43) */ upgrading subtitle for emphasis and less-wordy section titles

2022-08-15T19:47:39Z

Special Report: Lawsuit Update (0:43): upgrading subtitle for emphasis and less-wordy section titles

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:47, 15 August 2022
Line 64:		Line 64:
	S: So this is a very interesting episode this week. We have the Nobel Prize reports coming up and we're going to review the movie ''The Martian''.		S: So this is a very interesting episode this week. We have the Nobel Prize reports coming up and we're going to review the movie ''The Martian''.

	== ~~Special Report:~~ Lawsuit Update <small>(0:43)</small> ==		== Lawsuit Update <small>(0:43)</small> ==
	* https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/tobinick-lawsuit-update-justice-has-prevailed/		* https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/tobinick-lawsuit-update-justice-has-prevailed/

D Inwood: Transcribed one segment

2016-11-04T05:25:56Z

Transcribed one segment

Show changes

Rwh86: title, timestamp

2015-10-12T10:00:58Z

title, timestamp

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:00, 12 October 2015
Line 65:		Line 65:
	S: So this is a very interesting episode this week. We have the Nobel Prize reports coming up and we're going to review the movie ''The Martian''.		S: So this is a very interesting episode this week. We have the Nobel Prize reports coming up and we're going to review the movie ''The Martian''.

	== Special Report <small>(0:43)</small> ==		== Special Report: Lawsuit Update <small>(0:43)</small> ==
	* https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/tobinick-lawsuit-update-justice-has-prevailed/		* https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/tobinick-lawsuit-update-justice-has-prevailed/

Line 134:		Line 134:
	S: We'll get a break for a while, we'll see what happens.		S: We'll get a break for a while, we'll see what happens.

	== Forgotten Supervillains of Science <small>()</small> ==		== Forgotten Supervillains of Science <small>(10:30)</small> ==
	* Bad Boys of the Nobel: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/10/151005-nobel-laureates-forget-racist-sexist-science/		* Bad Boys of the Nobel: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/10/151005-nobel-laureates-forget-racist-sexist-science/

Rwh86: /* Special Report (0:43) */ done

2015-10-12T09:59:31Z

Special Report (0:43): done

@@ Line 90: / Line 90: @@
 B: Wait, so he saw the futility?  Are you sure?
-S: Well I'm sure he lawyers told him, as a matter of law you can't possibly win for the other plaintiffs given that the judge has already ruled that you don't have a defamation case for the one plaintiff that fell under the anti SLAPP statue in California.  So all that was left at that point were the commercial speech Lanham Act part of the claims against me personally.  And that took several months to work through so Tobinick had an opportunity for discovery, to troll through all of my emails and that's when he deposed Jay and essentially what he was trying to prove was that I make money from my skeptical activism under the theory that because
+S: Well I'm sure he lawyers told him, as a matter of law you can't possibly win for the other plaintiffs given that the judge has already ruled that you don't have a defamation case for the one plaintiff that fell under the anti SLAPP statue in California.  So all that was left at that point were the commercial speech Lanham Act part of the claims against me personally.  And that took several months to work through so Tobinick had an opportunity for discovery, to troll through all of my emails and that's when he deposed Jay and essentially what he was trying to prove was that I make money from my skeptical activism under the theory that because what I do generates income that renders the article commercial speech.
-(5:48)
+B: That's so bizarre.  So that would basically say that any newspaper...
 == Forgotten Supervillains of Science <small>()</small> ==

Rwh86: /* Special Report (0:43) */ more

2015-10-12T09:06:12Z

Special Report (0:43): more

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:06, 12 October 2015
Line 78:		Line 78:
	E: He has no merit, he has no grounds.		E: He has no merit, he has no grounds.

	S: He has no merit, basically. And summary judgement, the bar is really high for that, you know. As the judge says in the [http://www.casewatch.org/civil/tobinick/288_summary_judgment_order.pdf decision itself] that she has to give all the benefit of the doubt to the person not filing for summary judgement, you know, so anything in question, any doubt gets assumed in his favour, she has to look at the facts in a way that's most favourable to his position and then even still she said that his case has no merit. So there's a lot of confusion about what exactly the decision means. I wrote about it on Science Based Medicine obviously and posted on our Facebook page and the comments are all wonderful and I appreciate all of the support but it's clear to me from reading the comments that there's a lot of confusion about exactly what happened and that's understandable because it's complicated. So let me unpack it a little bit very quickly just so people understand what happened a little bit better. So first of all, there were multiple ~~defendents~~ in the case. Myself personally, SGU Productions, The Society for Science Based Medicine and Yale University. Yale had absolutely nothing to do with this, he just threw them in and they very quickly extricated themselves from the case. We convinced them, SGU Productions had to get their own lawyer and we convinced them to drop us from the suit. The Society for Science Based Medicine got their own lawyer, they also earlier this year filed a motion for summary judgement and they were granted summary judgement as well which removed them from the case. So I was the last defendant standing in the case.		S: He has no merit, basically. And summary judgement, the bar is really high for that, you know. As the judge says in the [http://www.casewatch.org/civil/tobinick/288_summary_judgment_order.pdf decision itself] that she has to give all the benefit of the doubt to the person not filing for summary judgement, you know, so anything in question, any doubt gets assumed in his favour, she has to look at the facts in a way that's most favourable to his position and then even still she said that his case has no merit. So there's a lot of confusion about what exactly the decision means. I wrote about it on Science Based Medicine obviously and posted on our Facebook page and the comments are all wonderful and I appreciate all of the support but it's clear to me from reading the comments that there's a lot of confusion about exactly what happened and that's understandable because it's complicated. So let me unpack it a little bit very quickly just so people understand what happened a little bit better. So first of all, there were multiple defendants in the case. Myself personally, SGU Productions, The Society for Science Based Medicine and Yale University. Yale had absolutely nothing to do with this, he just threw them in and they very quickly extricated themselves from the case. We convinced them, SGU Productions had to get their own lawyer and we convinced them to drop us from the suit. The Society for Science Based Medicine got their own lawyer, they also earlier this year filed a motion for summary judgement and they were granted summary judgement as well which removed them from the case. So I was the last defendant standing in the case.

	J: Well I had to get a lawyer at one point too.		J: Well I had to get a lawyer at one point too.

	S: Well yeah, because they tried to rope Jay in at one point and they did depose him and he had to get his own attorney as well, it's true. There's also multiple plaintiffs in the case. There's Tobinick himself, his California corporation and his Florida corporation. And then there's also multiple counts in the case and they divide into two basic types. There's the defamation, libel, and then there was what we call the {{w\|Lanham Act}} claims which is essentially unfair trade and tortuous interference meaning that I'm interfering with his business by saying untrue bad things about him. Now, the Lanham Act claims, these counts, are dependent upon the theory that my article in Science Based Medicine was commercial speach. That was essentially the entire legal argument: was the article that I wrote commercial speech or not?		S: Well yeah, because they tried to rope Jay in at one point and they did depose him and he had to get his own attorney as well, it's true. There's also multiple plaintiffs in the case. There's Tobinick himself, his California corporation and his Florida corporation. And then there's also multiple counts in the case and they divide into two basic types. There's the defamation, libel, and then there was what we call the {{w\|Lanham Act}} claims which is essentially unfair trade and tortuous interference meaning that I'm interfering with his business by saying untrue bad things about him. Now, the Lanham Act claims, these counts, are dependent upon the theory that my article in Science Based Medicine was commercial speach. That was essentially the entire legal argument: was the article that I wrote commercial speech or not? Earlier this year in June, we had filed, fairly early in the case, an {w\|\|anti SLAPP}} motion based upon California State's anti SLAPP law, so for the California plaintiff we filed an anti SLAPP for the defamation part of the case, does that make sense? And I won that, so the judge essentially threw out the defamation claims for the California plaintiff and I was awarded fees, the exact amount has yet to be determined but it's going to be something like 10-15% of the overall cost of the case. You know, it's going to be nice but it's not going to be a huge chunk.

	(4:00)		E: Right.

			S: And then after that Tobinick dropped the defamation claims for the other plaintiffs because obviously they have no chance of winnign. There's actually a legal term for this, like you can't rule one way for one plaintiff and the other way for the other plaintiffs, so at that point it was totally futile to continue with the defamation claims once I won my anti SLAPP even though it only technically applied to one plaintiff. Alright.

			B: Wait, so he saw the futility? Are you sure?

			S: Well I'm sure he lawyers told him, as a matter of law you can't possibly win for the other plaintiffs given that the judge has already ruled that you don't have a defamation case for the one plaintiff that fell under the anti SLAPP statue in California. So all that was left at that point were the commercial speech Lanham Act part of the claims against me personally. And that took several months to work through so Tobinick had an opportunity for discovery, to troll through all of my emails and that's when he deposed Jay and essentially what he was trying to prove was that I make money from my skeptical activism under the theory that because

			(5:48)

	== Forgotten Supervillains of Science <small>()</small> ==		== Forgotten Supervillains of Science <small>()</small> ==

Rwh86: /* Special Report () */ add timestamp

2015-10-12T06:03:17Z

Special Report (): add timestamp

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:03, 12 October 2015
Line 65:		Line 65:
	S: So this is a very interesting episode this week. We have the Nobel Prize reports coming up and we're going to review the movie ''The Martian''.		S: So this is a very interesting episode this week. We have the Nobel Prize reports coming up and we're going to review the movie ''The Martian''.

	== Special Report <small>()</small> ==		== Special Report <small>(0:43)</small> ==
	* https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/tobinick-lawsuit-update-justice-has-prevailed/		* https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/tobinick-lawsuit-update-justice-has-prevailed/

Line 85:		Line 85:

	(4:00)		(4:00)


	== Forgotten Supervillains of Science <small>()</small> ==		== Forgotten Supervillains of Science <small>()</small> ==

Rwh86: partial

2015-10-12T06:01:47Z

partial

@@ Line 32: / Line 32: @@
 == Introduction ==
 ''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''
 == Special Report <small>()</small> ==
 * https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/tobinick-lawsuit-update-justice-has-prevailed/
 == Forgotten Supervillains of Science <small>()</small> ==

Rwh86: auto skel, show notes

2015-10-12T05:41:36Z

auto skel, show notes

New page

{{Editing required
|transcription = y

|time-stamps = y
|formatting = y
|links = y
|Today I Learned list = y
|categories = y
|segment redirects = y 
|}}
{{InfoBox
|episodeNum = 535
|episodeDate = October 10th 2015 
|episodeIcon = File:Martian-gallery3.jpg 
|previous = 
|next = 
|rebecca = 
|bob = y 
|jay = y 
|evan = y 
|cara = y 
|perry = 
|guest1 = 
|guest2 = 
|guest3 = 
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2015-10-10.mp3
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,45323.0.html
|qowText = Don't be afraid to be curious. Don't be afraid to ask silly questions. Why is the sky blue? It turns out silly questions have profound and interesting answers. That at its heart is what science is all about. It's understanding nature and not being afraid to ask why. 
|qowAuthor = {{w|Amy Mainzer}}, astronomer 
|}}

== Introduction ==
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''

== Special Report () ==
* https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/tobinick-lawsuit-update-justice-has-prevailed/

== Forgotten Supervillains of Science () ==
* Bad Boys of the Nobel: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/10/151005-nobel-laureates-forget-racist-sexist-science/

== News Items ==
=== Nobel in Physics () ===
* http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2015/

=== Nobel in Medicine () ===
* http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2015/

=== Nobel in Chemistry () ===
* http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/oct/07/lindahl-modrich-and-sancar-win-nobel-chemistry-prize-for-dna-research

=== Peer Reviewing The Martian () ===
* http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/secret-martian-success-scientific-peer-review-180956745/?no-ist

== Movie Review () ==
* [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3659388/ The Martian]

== Who's That Noisy () ==
* Answer to last week: Weirding Module

== Science or Fiction () ==
[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/10/151007124810.htm Item #1]: Using a mathematical model to predict crime location in order to direct police deployments resulted in a significant decrease in crime, even outperforming crime experts.
[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/10/151007124810.htm Item #2]: Using a mathematical model to predict crime location in order to direct police deployments resulted in a significant decrease in crime, even outperforming crime experts.
[http://phys.org/news/2015-10-perfectly-accurate-clocks-impossible.html Item #3]: Physicists have recently published a paper demonstrating that the precise measurement of time is fundamentally impossible.

== Skeptical Quote of the Week () ==
<blockquote>Don't be afraid to be curious. Don't be afraid to ask silly questions. Why is the sky blue? It turns out silly questions have profound and interesting answers. That at its heart is what science is all about. It's understanding nature and not being afraid to ask why. - Amy Mainzer, astronomer</blockquote>

{{Outro404}}

== References ==
<references/>

{{Navigation}}