SGU Episode 535: Difference between revisions
(→Special Report (): add timestamp) |
(→Special Report (0:43): more) |
||
| 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 | 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. | ||
( | 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> == | ||
Revision as of 20:06, 12 October 2015
|
This episode needs: transcription, time stamps, formatting, links, 'Today I Learned' list, categories, segment redirects. Please help out by contributing! |
How to Contribute |
| SGU Episode 535 |
|---|
| October 10th 2015 |
 |
| (brief caption for the episode icon) |
| Skeptical Rogues |
| S: Steven Novella |
B: Bob Novella |
C: Cara Santa Maria |
J: Jay Novella |
E: Evan Bernstein |
| Quote of the Week |
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 |
| Links |
| Download Podcast |
| Show Notes |
| Forum Discussion |
Introduction
You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.
S: Hello and welcome to the Sketpics' Guide to the Universe. Today is Wednesday, October 7th 2015 and this is your host, Steven Novella. Joining me this week are Bob Novella.
B: Hey Everybody.
S: Cara Santa Maria.
C: Howdy.
S: Jay Novella.
J: Hey Guys.
S: And Evan Bernstein.
E: Oh, a pleasure to be back.
S: So you're sticking with the howdy, huh?
C: I dunno.
(laughter)
S: It's alright.
E: For now.
S: You're allowed to do that because you're from Texas, right?
C: Exactly.
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 (0:43)
S: But first I have some very good news, an update on the lawsuit. As I'm sure most of our listeners know, I and the SGU were sued by a physician Edward Tobinick for an article I wrote about his treatments on Science Based Medicine. Last week the judge ruled on my motion for summary judgement, granting my motion for summary judgement.
J: What does that mean?
S: That means the case is over. She basically said that Tobinick cannot possibly win the case as a matter of law and that therefore it's over.
C: Yaaaay!
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 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.
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 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.
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 ()
- Bad Boys of the Nobel: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/10/151005-nobel-laureates-forget-racist-sexist-science/
News Items
Nobel in Physics ()
Nobel in Medicine ()
Nobel in Chemistry ()
Peer Reviewing The Martian ()
Movie Review ()
Who's That Noisy ()
- Answer to last week: Weirding Module
Science or Fiction ()
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. 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. Item #3: Physicists have recently published a paper demonstrating that the precise measurement of time is fundamentally impossible.
Skeptical Quote of the Week ()
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
S: The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe is produced by SGU Productions, dedicated to promoting science and critical thinking. For more information on this and other episodes, please visit our website at theskepticsguide.org, where you will find the show notes as well as links to our blogs, videos, online forum, and other content. You can send us feedback or questions to info@theskepticsguide.org. Also, please consider supporting the SGU by visiting the store page on our website, where you will find merchandise, premium content, and subscription information. Our listeners are what make SGU possible.
References
|
|
|