Sexual misconduct allegations against Radford, Shermer, et al. Part 2

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Continuation of this thread

Posted By:zooterkin

Originally Posted by Brive1987

Note Radford's reference to "the document". Clearly there was a final document in play and delivered to Baxter. This is the one Radford claims to have posted without change.

And there has been no explicit denial of this from the KS camp in their releases - let alone the simple expedient of releasing the variant document in their possession.

If we imagine for a moment that Radford did change the text before publishing it, why would Baxter and/or Stollznow then release the real agreed-upon document given that it would then be able to be used as evidence against them in the lawsuit?

[Brive1987]

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

If we imagine for a moment that Radford did change the text before publishing it, why would Baxter and/or Stollznow then release the real agreed-upon document given that it would then be able to be used as evidence against them in the lawsuit?

Assuming Radford explicitly lied in his FB mea culpa post, knowing KS could reveal his lie at will....

How exactly could an unsigned document, received from Radford (which differed from that he later published) be used against them??

[Lorentz]

Originally Posted by Brive1987

Assuming Radford explicitly lied in his FB mea culpa post, knowing KS could reveal his lie at will....

How exactly could an unsigned document, received from Radford (which differed from that he later published) be used against them??

There's implicit agreement with the content of that document from KS and husband. I'd think it would probably contain statements, entirely true, or acknowledged by way of compromise in spite of being seen as half-truths, that could be detrimental to KS' case.

Even if she's (mostly?) in the right, that doesn't mean she is - nor should she be - willing to acknowledge every negative truth about her actions or narratives. In court, that is; morally is a different question.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by Brive1987

Nope. Goldstein is a symbol.

Nothing at all ironic about employing the satirical trope of two minutes hate in a five minute video comparing your ideological opponents (Myers, Benson, Zvan, Watson) to a murderous totalitarian regime?

ImageUploadedByTapatalk1403882884.779076.jpg

[hjhornbeck]

Bloody stupid flakey internet connection. Only time for one comment, at the moment:

Originally Posted by Denver

Maybe it is premature, but have you thought about how to continue the analysis once the trial begins?

I dug up some stats on civil torts that suggested the average length of one is 22 months, if it reaches trial. It's only been five so far, and we haven't even settled the jurisdiction conflict. We should have plenty of time to finish this document before the trial.

Originally Posted by Denver

For example, it might be useful to plan a saved milestone of things at that point, and then continue, so at the end of it all, the analysis of the pre-trial could be compared to the final analysis and trial results.

Once Brive1987 and I settle the font and document structure issues, this document will be made public. You will not only get to see it made, you'll be able to download your own copy at any moment. I'm sure there'll be no shortage of pre-trial copies floating around.

Originally Posted by Denver

This also could become fairly chaotic: it seems to be a somewhat clean project to conduct up until the trial begins. Then all kinds of new factoids could turn the analysis into more of a blow-by-blow commentary. Something to watch out for I think.

Following the trial or hearings is going to be a huge pain for me, as I'm not even a US citizen. I'll have to leave the live updates to someone else, and focus more on the pre- and post-trial phases.

[SimplyAghast]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Sorry to abruptly change the subject but does anyone think that Shermer's recent wedding will make him "safer" to be around in the eyes of (1) those who have leveled accusations of sexual impropriety at him or (2) the general con-going public?

Just curious, and since it fits the subject line, may as well ask.

Do you have any proof that Shermer had a wedding? And that it was "recent?" Do you mean another person named Shermer? Shermer, Illinois, perhaps?

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by SimplyAghast

Do you have any proof that Shermer had a wedding? And that it was "recent?" Do you mean another person named Shermer? Shermer, Illinois, perhaps?

Hyperskeptic.

[Jules Galen]

Originally Posted by Brive1987

How exactly could an unsigned document, received from Radford (which differed from that he later published) be used against them??

1. You don't know that what was published was different than what was agreed to by Baxter and Radford.

2. This episode, which was supposedly being monitored by Radford's lawyer, could be used to show Radford's willingness to resolve the issue, and Stollznow's deceit.

3. If this incident played out as Radford described, then Stollznow just screwed herself again.

I just don't see how Stollznow is going to come out of this with any kind of credibility at all. THE COURTS WILL NOT TOLERATE STOLLNOW'S WHINING AND PLAY FOR PITY. THE COURTS ARE UNMERCIFUL. DEAL.

[Brive1987]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Nothing at all ironic about employing the satirical trope of two minutes hate in a five minute video comparing your ideological opponents (Myers, Benson, Zvan, Watson) to a murderous totalitarian regime?

Attachment 31179

Parody thru exaggerated metaphor with a hint of black absurdist humour. Obviously not to all tastes.

Any yet it resonates. How odd.

[Brive1987]

I'm on a break this weekend with family, so extended engagement with the exercise will have to wait till Monday.

Re the docs, if KS was really sitting on an alternate version sent by Radford then that published by him, you would expect a faster and more explicit denouncement than what we got.

I take onboard the points made above, but think of the capital that could be made from releasing the differing doc and saying "here was Radford's last version which we still had not agreed to despite duress and pressure, much less signed. And note how even this travesty was twisted and changed into the one on Facebook. The man is a fraud." ? Game over.

[hjhornbeck]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

If you're taking requests, please consider allegations 48, 54, 57, and 58 from the original filed complaint.

Right, those are:

Quote:

48. Stollznow’s malicious fabrications about Radford have had a devastating effect on Radford’s reputation, as Stollznow unquestionably intended.

Hmm. I keep stumbling over "malicious fabrications" and "unquestionably intended," which "devastating effect" depends on. Even if the latter bit is correct, it can be nullified if Stollznow wasn't fabricating things or didn't intend for this to blow up. It's low on my priority list, but I'll still consider it (and Brive1987 is free to add it and do his own analysis, either way).

Quote:

54. Defendant Stollznow made her false statements about Radford knowing that they were false and with the intent to harm him. Accordingly, she is guilty of constitutional malice in the context of the law of defamation and it is immaterial whether Radford is determined to be a public or non-public figure for purposes of this law suit.

I can say a few things about "constitutional malice," so that's going in there, even if it is somewhat contingent on other claims (via "false statements").

Quote:

57. Defendant Stollznow engaged in actionable fraud when she maliciously and falsely told Radford’s employer, CFI, that Radford had sexually harassed and assaulted her. In doing so, she intended to mislead and did mislead CFI, causing it to investigate Radford.

We only have the testimony of Radford and Stollznow to go on for the assault, so I can't say much there. Harassment's a different story, as Radford has provided an abundance of email evidence, so that part is high on my list.

Quote:

58. In the course of CFI’s investigation of Radford, Stollznow maliciously and intentionally provided false information to CFI’s investigator, including, without limitation, providing CFI with numerous fraudulently-dated emails to make it appear to CFI that Radford had been sending Stollznow “harassing” emails in 2012 when, in fact, he had sent the emails in 2009 and 2010 in the course of a sexual relationship with Stollznow that she had nitiated and perpetuated.

I might even tackle this one first.

While I intended to hold off adding claims until Brive and I reached a consensus on the format, I needed to add a few just to show off said format. They were Stollznow's claim of "incessant communication of a sexual nature” and Radford's claim that they mutually called off their sexual relationship on September 18th 2010 (26q of the complaint).

More are forthcoming, of course, but those two should be visible when the Google Doc goes live. Oh yeah, speaking of which: Microsoft Office Online started giving me grief, and in researching a solution I figured out how to make Google Docs co-operate. So I made it.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Originally Posted by Brive1987

Assuming Radford explicitly lied in his FB mea culpa post, knowing KS could reveal his lie at will....

How exactly could an unsigned document, received from Radford (which differed from that he later published) be used against them??

Who is talking about a document released from Radford? You questioned why Stollznow and Baxter didn't release the document that Stollznow was prepared to sign?

Now think about it. You're being sued for a large sum of money for libel. You have a document in your possession which admits some degree of culpability on your part in the case that's being brought against you. Would you release it? Or would that seem like an idiotic move?

[SimplyAghast]

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

Who is talking about a document released from Radford? You questioned why Stollznow and Baxter didn't release the document that Stollznow was prepared to sign?

Now think about it. You're being sued for a large sum of money for libel. You have a document in your possession which admits some degree of culpability on your part in the case that's being brought against you. Would you release it? Or would that seem like an idiotic move?

Even the staunchest sensible person/Radford supporter acknowledges it was idiotic to release the statement as he did. In his defense, there is ample evidence to suggest that the statement had been agreed upon and was only awaiting notarization.



Shortly thereafter, Lucy pulled away the football and collected 60 grand based upon lies.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by SimplyAghast

Shortly thereafter, Lucy pulled away the football and collected 60 grand based upon lies.

Which lies, in particular?

[MattusMaximus]

Why in the Nine Hells do we need a second thread about this?

[MattusMaximus]

Originally Posted by hjhornbeck

Bloody stupid flakey internet connection. Only time for one comment, at the moment:

I dug up some stats on civil torts that suggested the average length of one is 22 months, if it reaches trial. It's only been five so far, and we haven't even settled the jurisdiction conflict. We should have plenty of time to finish this document before the trial.

Once Brive1987 and I settle the font and document structure issues, this document will be made public. You will not only get to see it made, you'll be able to download your own copy at any moment. I'm sure there'll be no shortage of pre-trial copies floating around.

Following the trial or hearings is going to be a huge pain for me, as I'm not even a US citizen. I'll have to leave the live updates to someone else, and focus more on the pre- and post-trial phases.

Here's a novel idea...

Why don't we wait until we see the outcome of the lawsuits and court cases before we make up our minds about what the courts should say, hmmm?

Or is the temptation to play "lawyer via the Internet" just too great?

[hjhornbeck]

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

Why don't we wait until we see the outcome of the lawsuits and court cases before we make up our minds about what the courts should say, hmmm?

Or is the temptation to play "lawyer via the Internet" just too great?

No, I'm playing lawyer at Radford's request:

Quote:

I am making this information public in order to set the record straight and correct misperceptions about this matter. There’s a lot of material here because it’s important to be as open as possible and rebut her claims, while not complicating the legal situation (a defamation and fraud lawsuit against Karen has been filed), nor violating our privacy. Nonetheless I have both a right and a duty to respond to her claims and to defend myself against her false accusations.

His stated goal for that website is to get the general public to read and analyze the evidence, coming to their own conclusions.

Now consider an alternative hypothesis, that Radford's goal was not to clear his name but to defame Stollznow and run her name through the mud under the pretext of a lawsuit. That website then is his primary weapon, presenting a superficially solid case that would fool the average person. If you found some evidence for that hypothesis, wouldn't you want to counter the flimsy claims as loudly and quickly as possible?

You also forget that both Radford and Stollznow's legal teams are monitoring these discussions. We're giving both sides free legal advice, which they can then use to shape their arguments in hearings and the courtroom. It's a great alternative to donating to either person's cause.

Finally, is it just me, or is a skeptic asking people not to do a skeptical analysis? That seems... bizarre, quite frankly.

[Octavo]

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

Here's a novel idea...

Why don't we wait until we see the outcome of the lawsuits and court cases before we make up our minds about what the courts should say, hmmm?

Or is the temptation to play "lawyer via the Internet" just too great?

If only there was a place people could go, to discuss these things, so that they didn't get in your way here. Maybe a forum....

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Originally Posted by SimplyAghast

Even the staunchest sensible person/Radford supporter acknowledges it was idiotic to release the statement as he did. In his defense, there is ample evidence to suggest that the statement had been agreed upon and was only awaiting notarization.

http://i.imgur.com/P8iaRxX.jpg

Shortly thereafter, Lucy pulled away the football and collected 60 grand based upon lies.

What's any of that got to do with anything I posted?

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

Why in the Nine Hells do we need a second thread about this?

Presumably because we haven't heard the last of the sexual misconduct allegations against prominent skeptics from the social justice wing of the freethought movement. “More names will be named” and “a great swamp-draining” as they would say.

But also because Hornbeck/Brive are going to the mat. opcorn:

[Denver]

Originally Posted by SimplyAghast

Even the staunchest sensible person/Radford supporter acknowledges it was idiotic to release the statement as he did. In his defense, there is ample evidence to suggest that the statement had been agreed upon and was only awaiting notarization.

http://i.imgur.com/P8iaRxX.jpg

Shortly thereafter, Lucy pulled away the football and collected 60 grand based upon lies.

Thanks, I've been wondering about this. Is there a reference to the actual document BR speaks of there: the "agreement to drop the lawsuit"? I have been wondering whether we have a reference of MB/KS ever receiving that piece for review? Or am I reading that wrong and that agreement was to be part of the statement both parties are discussing? If we have proof this agreement exists, I am also interested as to the wording: for instance, does it agree to not restart the lawsuit later, after the statement is signed?

[Stout]

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

Here's a novel idea...

Why don't we wait until we see the outcome of the lawsuits and court cases before we make up our minds about what the courts should say, hmmm?

Or is the temptation to play "lawyer via the Internet" just too great?

The court of public opinion is still in session

Don't forget who picked this venue.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by Stout

Don't forget who picked this venue.

The guy who put all those fascinating documents on the web for us to comb through endlessly?

[Stout]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

The guy who put all those fascinating documents on the web for us to comb through endlessly?

Nah, the gal who blogged about it and tried to ( kinda sorta ) hide the guy's identity. I mean *I* never would have figured out who he was but those closer to the issue had no problems filling in the blanks so we could all go to the ball.

[hjhornbeck]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

But also because Hornbeck/Brive are going to the mat. popcorn:

My goal wasn't to pit Brive against me, it was to pit both of us against reality. By focusing on the claims and keeping the two analyses as independent as possible, it becomes a lot tougher for one of us to call a foul on the other and throw in the towel. We also stay more on topic, less likely to wander away and take potshots at one another. If there's any competition, it's in extracting the most convincing analysis we can from the evidence.

Besides, pitting each of us against reality should be a lot more entertaining.

[d4m10n]

If you (both) believe there is enough publicly available evidence to rightly discern reality on any of the key issues in that case, please, do have at it. Don't let my nagging doubts slow you down.

[SimplyAghast]

Originally Posted by Stout

Nah, the gal who blogged about it and tried to ( kinda sorta ) hide the guy's identity. I mean *I* never would have figured out who he was but those closer to the issue had no problems filling in the blanks so we could all go to the ball.

Let's not be so hasty. I think D4mi0n has a point. Stollznow doesn't have a time machine. Of course not. But she does have one of those big circular rock formations like in The City at the Edge of Forever that allows her to see the future. Stollznow saw that Radford would be posting all of the evidence that destroys the evolving claim that she hadn't yet made.

So she sat down to write the SciAm essay.

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

Why in the Nine Hells do we need a second thread about this?

What do you mean by second thread? This is a continuation for performance reasons; is there another open thread about the same topic? If so, please report it so it can be merged.

[MattusMaximus]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

What do you mean by second thread? This is a continuation for performance reasons; is there another open thread about the same topic? If so, please report it so it can be merged.

Ah, my bad.

I typed out my rant before I realized that. Thanks!

[epepke]

Originally Posted by Brive1987

Parody thru exaggerated metaphor with a hint of black absurdist humour. Obviously not to all tastes.

Any yet it resonates. How odd.

The imagery was awesome. Could have used an edit, though.

[Brive1987]

Originally Posted by hjhornbeck

My goal wasn't to pit Brive against me, it was to pit both of us against reality. By focusing on the claims and keeping the two analyses as independent as possible, it becomes a lot tougher for one of us to call a foul on the other and throw in the towel. We also stay more on topic, less likely to wander away and take potshots at one another. If there's any competition, it's in extracting the most convincing analysis we can from the evidence.

Besides, pitting each of us against reality should be a lot more entertaining.

I'm pretty much happy to roll, formatting will undoubtedly evolve based on how we approach this.

I'm not sure why HJ is so worried about tossing his towel, I'll accept a basic bended knee of subservience.



Quite simply the problem is not whether Radford is right at a meta level, he is. Only a fool would tie their colours directly to SA as a reasonable account.

Rather the question devolves to "has BR done the best possible job of demolishing the invisible dragon claims made by KS?"

The claims that have left no tangible impression, no evidence, no witnesses (Joe Andersen - bwhahaha) .... despite plaintive pleas by would be champions that went unanswered* (It would appear easier to crowd source $60k from the gullible and feel-gooders than a single shred of corroboration).

Claims that cleverly mix and match the explicit with implicit inference to create an epic fable. Claims a professional investigator, following the evidence, had to pare down to a still questionable smoking stub that sent KS on an unprincipled stampede of retribution.

We may find BR needs a slightly more nuanced approach to addressing these clearly stated yet ephemeral whispers of phantom menace. We may also find that on rare occasion he might have (almost) matched the far more consistent darkness of charity displayed by KS.

What we won't find is SA.

* Despite HJs assertion that KS had "tonnes of evidence" which was obviously faced down by the forces of evil. In this case embodied by a female third party professional. Link - comment #4

.................

Truth and justice, strength and honour.

[Brive1987]

Originally Posted by epepke

The imagery was awesome. Could have used an edit, though.

Agree on the edit, and thanks for your comment.

My problem was that the Fatherland song, gradually and almost hypnotically conscripting the brains of the horde, exerted its own level of fascination on me.

[FreddyEH]

Originally Posted by hjhornbeck

Now consider an alternative hypothesis, that Radford's goal was not to clear his name but to defame Stollznow and run her name through the mud under the pretext of a lawsuit.

Okay, let's consider that hypothesis. First, it fails because the web site wasn't made public until after his attempt to clear his name through a simple retraction went sideways when Stollznow refused to sign it. Second, it fails because there is nothing I've seen on the web site that defames Stollznow (legal definition of defamation is knowingly making false statements about another person to harm their reputation; true statements are not defamation); showing that she has previously made false accusations of a sexual nature against other men (especially by quoting her own husband) is not "running her name through the mud," nor is it defamation. Third, it fails because the web site had nothing to do with the lawsuit; it was online long before the lawsuit was filed.

[FreddyEH]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Which lies, in particular?

Perhaps SimplyAghast is referring to the fact that Karen Stollznow claimed that she needed to raise money to pay for her legal defence (since Radford's lawsuit was bankrolled by a fictional "big settlement," according to PZ Myers) when in fact her legal bills were being paid in full by her insurance company.

[Brive1987]

Originally Posted by hjhornbeck

Now consider an alternative hypothesis, that Radford's goal was not to clear his name but to defame Stollznow and run her name through the mud under the pretext of a lawsuit. That website then is his primary weapon, presenting a superficially solid case that would fool the average person. If you found some evidence for that hypothesis, wouldn't you want to counter the flimsy claims as loudly and quickly as possible?

I understand the allure of counterfactuals. But really?

So his legal case is but an (expensive) pretext, a false flag operation for his website? The one that has Google search robot.txt'ed away .....

Because what is more logical than supplementing a public data dump with a fake legal challenge?

And I guess the more compelling the evidence, then the more dastardly and nefarious the dupe site becomes ... ?



But we will ferret out the seemingly trite inconsistency here and the half hidden anomaly there to expose the base conspiracy.

.... edit

I assume the argument here is that the website is a weapon of mass destruction. That it was setup prior to the case as a bludgen, a Sword of Damocles that fell when KS wouldn't buckle to the aggressive demands for retraction. That because it predates the filing it must be the actual focus of Radford's wrath and vengeance.

Well here's another thought. Radford gets branded a serial harasser and sexual predator who commits assault. That's his opening position.

No evidence is presented but the blogosphere powers up, the thousand lights replaced by a thousand searing posts.

So you construct a detailed rebuttal as you seek a win-win, we are all professionals here, no apologies required, retraction. The site buttresses the legitimacy of your demands and provides, via organised arguments and documentation, the confidence and capacity for messaging denied you by the witch hunt and gag order - which, incidentally, was only respected by one party.

You don't actually (apparently) threaten anyone with it. There is no evidence in the back channel leaks or anywhere else that anyone was aware of it pre-launch. In fact PZ specifically says he got hardcopy rebuttal evidence (which he naturally avoided reading).

But even if Radford did "threaten" or actually published there and then, so what? Every entry on that site had a purpose countering, sometimes in excruciating detail, the grubby claims in play. You expect Radford to sit in his corner, dunce hat in place, nursing his licks? No right of reply?

Whatevers. It was all kept behind closed doors. The information wasn't leaked by "friends". He didn't get poppys, um I mean proxies involved. Only the relevant parties were contacted. But in your world being circumspect is actually implicit threat isn't it? Good grief Charlie Brown.

And then you get retraction-gate. Now not only are you cast a sexual deviant but you are also a fool and a manipulative fraudster. Your opponent accuses you anew of being a liar, a harasser and on the basis of this emotional tsunami, raises 60K. Game on.

The courts are your last chance of forcing an outcome. Weird and drawn out as a technical case of libel will be... At least there will be rules of evidence.

And there you are sitting on infrastructure that proves your aggressor is themselves a fraud..... A pathway to immediate public redemption in those circles prepared to reconcile ambit claim vs actual data.

So. What do you do?

"I am a structured documented rebuttal, not a mud slinging data dump. This is not who I am and this is not Ok"

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by FreddyEH

Perhaps SimplyAghast is referring to the fact that Karen Stollznow claimed that she needed to raise money to pay for her legal defence (since Radford's lawsuit was bankrolled by a fictional "big settlement," according to PZ Myers) when in fact her legal bills were being paid in full by her insurance company.

As her accountant, you really should take client confidentiality more seriously.

Just kidding, but seriously, where are you getting this from?

[Brive1987]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

As her accountant, you really should take client confidentiality more seriously.

Just kidding, but seriously, where are you getting this from?

According to Stollznow, Radford broke into her apartment, examined her policy and then carefully couched his filing to specifically thwart natural justice.

It's all there on her campaign website.

Is there nothing that man isn't capable of?

[FreddyEH]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Just kidding, but seriously, where are you getting this from?

Which part? Stollznow's comments about why she needs money were on her fundraiser, and the issue of her insurance is mentioned on Radford's web site at least once. If Stollznow has denied flat-out that her legal fees are being paid by an insurance policy, I haven't seen it. Maybe Radford is wrong, or there's some confusion, someone should straight-out ask her if it's true or not.

[A'isha]

Eugene Volokh on homeowner's insurance and libel lawsuits.

In short, most homeowner's insurance policies and some renter's insurance policies cover the costs of a defense and settlement in the case of a libel lawsuit, but virtually all also have some pretty broad exemption clauses in cases where said libel stems from something said or written in the course of a "business pursuit" (especially if any money is made for writing the thing deemed libelous).

Her insurance company may have decided to cover it, or they may have decided to invoke the exception because the statements Stollznow made about Radford, particularly as published by Scientific American, might be considered by them to have been made in the course of a "business pursuit".

[hjhornbeck]

Originally Posted by Brive1987

I'm pretty much happy to roll, formatting will undoubtedly evolve based on how we approach this.

Excellent. With your permission, I'll make the document public. I myself will be away from the computer for a few days, so you'll have the floor for a bit.

Originally Posted by Brive1987

Only a fool would tie their colours directly to SA as a reasonable account.

Call me a fool, then; with one or two minor exceptions, Radford's evidence supports the rough sketch of the situation Stollznow gave in her SciAm blog post.

Originally Posted by Brive1987

* Despite HJs assertion that KS had "tonnes of evidence" which was obviously faced down by the forces of evil. In this case embodied by a female third party professional.

Read more carefully, I said that CFI has tonnes of evidence, as they have that report they commissioned. Giving them even more evidence doesn't make sense, hence why I was arguing with Christina's request to give CFI more evidence.

I'm kinda flattered, though, that you'd know of comments I made eleven months ago. I thought the 'Pit had stopped monitoring me, but I guess I'd thought wrong. *shrug*