More FOI follies from the George Mason University #RICO20 train wreck: Edward Maibach, 'legal gymnast'

People send me stuff. Today, I’ve been given CEI’s response to the “emergency stay” that Ed Maibach filed (via his own attorney) last week that sought not only to prevent the release of new emails, but also sought to retroactively quash previous court rulings on April 22nd and May 13th, court decisions that released the first tranche of emails as we previously covered at WUWT here: BREAKING: #RICO20 Edward Maibach tries ’emergency stay’ to retroactively pull Shukla/George Mason University emails from view

Maibach’s original petition to stay included this statement:

maibach-retroactive

CEI’s legal counsel considers the Maibach request for stay ridiculous, and filed a scathing response today:

response-to-maibach-stay

They used some strong language, even going so far to label Maibach as a “legal gymnast”:

Maibach-legal-gymnast

Maibach-legal-gymnast2The conclusion:

Maibach-legal-gymnast3

 

Further,  not only do they show how Maibach’s argument is ridiculous, they call for sanctions against Maibach’s Attorney Shannon Beebe and the Spiggle Law Firm, effectively arguing that she is incompetent and has misled the court and made false claims about a scheduled legal hearing in court pleadings.

Some selected sections follow.maibach-sanctions1 maibach-sanctions2 maibach-sanctions3 maibach-sanctions4 maibach-sanctions5 maibach-sanctions6 maibach-sanctions7What a circus Edward Maibach has started.

Here are all the documents filed today (PDF), now part of the public record.

ExhibitstoStayMotion

ResponsetoIntervention

ResponsetoStayMotion

Sanctions

 

Advertisements

175 thoughts on “More FOI follies from the George Mason University #RICO20 train wreck: Edward Maibach, 'legal gymnast'

  1. Yet another unqualified dope. You know what they say, when you cant DO you end up teaching.

      • Ahh, sweet confirmation of the tried and true, old and venerated adage:
        — “A students work for C students, B students teach!”
        — So, I give you Heir Doctor Professor Maibach!

      • I read an article yesterday that students at Oberlin college have petitioned the administration to cancel mid-terms and guarantee that no student will get a grade below a ‘C’.
        Seems that they have discovered that there aren’t enough hours in the day to be both political activists and students. So they want to just pretend to be students for a few semesters, but without loosing any credits along the way.

      • I think the original is sufficient:
        Those who can, do.
        Those who can’t do, teach.
        Those who can’t teach, criticise.

      • I always heard it this way – “Those who can, do. Those who can’t, teach. Those who can’t teach, teach others to teach.” Any way you slice it, the taxpayers of Virginia and the students at GMU are not getting their money’s worth…

      • re: MarkW @ 2:36 pm:
        All those protests confused me at first, because I could not figure out how so many students were able to spend so much time pitching fits, especially in the middle of the day. If you take 4 or 5 classes that are 3-4 credits each, that is usually 12-16 hours of class time, plus 3 hours per lab if taking sciences. Then there is reading, studying, writing papers, doing assignments, writing lab reports… Once the demands for indulgences started, I realized that the “students” were just skipping class and not studying. It is not surprising that the AGW zealots are trying so hard to recruit at universities: those acolytes are already well-versed in expecting everyone else to change and go without, while their special snowflake selves get whatever they want.
        Every one of my professors would have responded with a flat “no” or outright laughter if asked for such leniency. As well they should.

      • “Those who can’t do, teach. Those who can’t teach, teach in universities.”
        Might as well complete the tree: “Those who can’t do, teach. Those who can’t teach, teach in universities. Those who can’t teach in Universities become civil servants. Those who can’t become civil servants, become politicians. Those who don’t become politicians still find a way to become rent-seekers.”

    • Oh, yes. This is starting to get really interesting.
      Sometimes learning what NOT to do is just as important as learning what to do. I’m sure his students are learning lots of things about “communication”.
      When in a hole, stop digging?
      “No”, says E-Mailbatch “not until I get to the bottom!”.

      • Maybe he thinks he can escape to China if he digs long enough…
        He clearly does not remember/know much about most science, so he may well be unaware that the earth’s crust is not the only layer of the planet.

      • Nigel S May 26, 2016 at 1:26 pm wrote: “It’s millions of degrees down there!”
        Nigel, quit making fun of poor ole Al Gore. He got the Sun’s interior and surface temperatures confused. You’ll never let him live this down, will you. 🙂

      • TA,
        Al Gore’s , Generation Investment Management, LLP, London, UK, owns 1,770,152 shares of Opower.
        Opower is a company that does Behavioral Demand Response implementations for electric companies across North America including one in Ontario.
        Uses behavioral programs to persuade customers to use less electricity by changing/altering their behavior.
        People’s behavior has to be altered so they won’t consume as much electricity.
        Gore cashing in through a company that alters people’s behavior to save the world!

      • Morally, he’s hit bottom already. When he picked his slimy, prevaricating, truth twisting occupation. He’s getting ready to break through to a new bottom that I’m not familiar with.

      • Barbara May 26, 2016 at 7:10 pm wrote: “Gore cashing in through a company that alters people’s behavior to save the world!”
        People like Gore think they know better than others, and think they have to educate the dumb yokels, so they fall into line.
        I’ve been resisting what I would call my local electric company’s attempted intrusion into my life. I don’t know if Al Gore has anything to do with it or not.
        My electric company wants me to register with them, and if I do so, then my electric rates will be lower by a certain amount if I use electriciy during the off-peak hours. The more electricity I arrange to use during off-peak hours (the laundry, for example), the more I save.
        My question is if this is such a good program for everyone, why doesn’t the electric company just offer this reduction to all their customers, whether they register with the company or not. All they have to do is charge the lower rate during the off-peak hours, and advertise the fact to their customers. No paperwork or registration required.
        I don’t know why they make such a push for this. They send out numerous letters asking you to join, which must cost them a lot of money. So far, registration is voluntary, and I have chosen not to register. This might make Al Gore angry. I’m not sure.

      • @ TA, May 26, 2:36 pm, Off Topic, TA I send you a reply on the METI thread today, leave me a reply here ( or on that thread), thanks ( sorry to be of topic guys) I am following this debate as well. I am starting to wonder if the rep for Maibach just wants out of the case? Unless she is completely incompetent.

      • asybot May 26, 2016 at 9:53 pm: “@ TA, May 26, 2:36 pm, Off Topic, TA I send you a reply on the METI thread today, leave me a reply here ( or on that thread),”
        I can’t seem to locate the “Meti” thread, asybot. I will be happy to communicate with you but need to know the subject.
        Do you have a link to the Meti thread? I don’t usually keep these threads active in my browser for more than about 24 to 36 hours.

      • TA,
        There is more than one company that does these kinds of programs. Ask your local utility.
        It’s the issue of behavioral modification that’s important!

      • @ TA May 27 9 44 am, here is the link ( it was on WUWT around May 20) https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05/20/the-morality-of-meti-should-we-broadcast-to-let-aliens-know-were-here/comment-page-1 I do not know if Anthony gives out e-mail addresses but if you want to ask him for mine you have my permission to get it, if you want I could leave it here but I will only do that if Anthony will not. I’ll see if you are other recent threads to leave this same message if I don’t get an answer here.

      • asybot May 27, 2016 at 2:02 pm wrote: “@ TA May 27 9 44 am, here is the link ( it was on WUWT around May 20) https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05/20/the-morality-of-meti-should-we-broadcast-to-let-aliens-know-were-here/comment-page-1 I do not know if Anthony gives out e-mail addresses but if you want to ask him for mine you have my permission to get it, if you want I could leave it here but I will only do that if Anthony will not. I’ll see if you are other recent threads to leave this same message if I don’t get an answer here.”
        I left a reply to you in the Meti thread, asybot.
        Anthony is probably busy, so I’ll just give you this email address where you can contact me. I don’t check this account often, so give me a heads-up if you send me an email. toma201862ATaol.com

      • Thanks, Barbara for those “Demand Response” links.
        I guess I’m not the only one that is being lobbied about using electricity during the off-peak hours.

    • I’ve had the misfortune to need to read a number of legal pleadings in my life.
      The language in these is downright harsh.

  2. It is interesting to see how these climate clowns (who want to RICO skeptics for exercising free speech) react in a judicial setting.

    • I wonder how many lawyers refused to work for them before they found one incompetant enough.

    • Council plays the hand dealt by the client and bets and takes the clients money. Council has nothing to lose unless sanctions are at risk, which are far too rarely applied with effect.

      • The proper term is “counsel”. And I wonder, do women lawyers sign their names with the sobriquet “Esquire”?

      • Er. Mayber “sobriquet” isn’t exactly right, either, except in the broader sense. Maybe “honorific” would have been better.
        Jim B, JD, Esq.

    • Ha! Maybe his lawyers ” modelled” his case to get the desired outcome! Still scratching their heads over the hockey stick shape.

  3. What a surprise that she resorted to defamation of the petitioner’s character (…not).
    That seems to be the politically correct response these days.

  4. And this guy is in charge of teaching people how to communicate climate change to people? Seems it would be hard to find a worse choice. Yikes.

  5. You kind of wonder what world academics live in. I think after a while they actually do believe all the bulls**t they put out and just can’t believe anyone (of their supposed intelligence) would question them or their beliefs.
    And never once considering their emails might be made public? At least I would have set up a bunch of oddball gmail accounts and done all this offline.
    Any who, welcome to the real world Edward Maibach. As my favorite cartoon character would say: “What a maroon!”

    • They do believe, they do! Not long ago they took a cruise to Antarctica. I wonder who paid the bill for the rescue. Don’t go hiking without insurance.

    • Liberalism is a neurologic disease characterized by an inability to differentiate fact from fiction. With thoughts of grandeur and megalomania thrown in for good measure. Kind of like Schizophrenia on steroids, only worse!

    • I know what you mean, but, sad to say, that phrase is a racial slur. Look up the etymology of the word.

      • Huh. I would think being called a “Maroon” would be something of a compliment, seeing as the Maroons successfully fought the British in the 1700s (twice!). Things I learn. I always figured it was just a play on words, moron/maroon, and meant to poke fun at both parties (in the cartoon).
        One of the disadvantages of growing up in a household where no one used slurs is not actually knowing what words are slurs. I figured out the “obvious” ones through context (older books, period films, etc.), but I continue to learn about apparent slurs even now that I am in my thirties. Some of them are so obscure I wonder if they really are slurs. Others are so strange I am more likely to laugh at the word than be “shocked” at the offense. Can something be a slur if it is so stupid it exposes the idiocy of the user?

    • rbabcock wrote: “You kind of wonder what world academics live in. I think after a while they actually do believe all the bulls**t they put out and just can’t believe anyone (of their supposed intelligence) would question them or their beliefs.
      And never once considering their emails might be made public?”
      They are True Believers on a noble cause. How could their emails get them in trouble when they are trying to do the right thing and save the world, they think.
      Then they found out “whoops” their emails *could* get them in trouble. They are thoroughly discombobulated now.

  6. Hasn’t Shukla been very quiet? Maibach has taken all the heat, but little of the cash.

  7. This is using the court for theatre – the points made are nothing to do with the case, but are designed to look good in newspaper reports.
    That point ought to be made to the Court. I’m guessing that it will take a poor view of counsel trying to use the court for ulterior motives…

  8. Edward’s parents must have never read Proverbs, Aesop’s fables, etc. to him. Failure at important cultural information transmission. I fear this failure is widespread.
    for example:
    “Play with Fire, you might get burned”.
    and
    the story of: The Boy Who Cried Wolf.

    • Maibach would not be the first jester thinking he could do no wrong because the ruler likes his tune.
      He may find soon there is no ruler, only the coldblooded bosses of several syndicates.
      “Look, why take a chance?”

  9. I guess CEI learned their lesson after letting Gleick off the hook. Compassion, or whatever it was that stopped CEI from slamming Gleick over felonious acts didn’t profit them an iota. Now they are rightfully slapping these (ignorant and dangerous) stooges down without mercy.
    Even the idiocy of someone BEING a professor of global warming communication strategy is a result of the total collapse of academic standards that is going to need millions of person-years to straighten out. It’s like being a professor of phlogiston dynamics or Martian canal hydraulics. Global warming is verging on extinction. The ARC Centre of Excellence in Climate Science in Australia can stop trying to catch up with smarter lost Emperor Penguins who keep giving them the slip, and 350 global warming PhDs chopped from the CSIRO can settle in with their new insurance sales and bank teller jobs. The lukewarmers are becoming the far-out crowd and I notice these once ‘sensible’ folks are getting testier and testier, too.
    Probably the cheapest and most efficient way to clean up the impossibly suffocating flotsam and jetsam of a disintegrated, activist, empty headed, worldwide academia is to create brand new universities and institutes with deeply edited down lists of disciplines and brand new learned journals with strict high standards that 80% of current academics would be unable to meet, and let the rest either fix themselves or go down the drain. No, from now on, give no quarter to the pandemic of feckless fools that are choking up civilization. The changing political tide doesn’t augur well for the academogoguery that temporarily took over the world for a few decades.

    • The AGW activists need to forcefully demand that all US engineering schools start developing more-energy-efficient and sustainable orgone boxes, funded by taxpayer $$.

    • The DOJ let Gleick off the hook. That was criminal in it’s own right, I swear it was!
      Please lets see what happens in the days after Trump takes office.
      How many Dems will go to jail / I say 100 political; appointees!? PPLLEEAASSEE

      • Yes, it was primarily DoJ that should have prosecuted Gleick. It is fairly obvious that he got a free ride for political reasons.
        I’m sure that CEI took good legal soundings before deciding whether to take out a civil suit and probably concluded that the case would be rigged by a “suitable” judge being appointed. That there were too many vested interests running against them. That’s my reading of it.

      • Things are looking up, but can’t rest yet. If Dems retain WH, all the progress made against the CAGW scam can get unraveled pretty fast. We CANNOT let that happen!

    • @ Gary Pearce, 9:51 am thank you for that. We thankfully have a vocational “College” in our area that is second to none. I would hire any of their trades graduates in a heartbeat. I have read some of their exams and actual work they have to deliver before getting their tickets. Very up to date and complete!

  10. I propose that we take up a collection and fund some more shovels for this guy. I mean, he would really dig it.

  11. The statements in the sanctions portion seem very clear that not only is he a clown but has somehow found a law firm to paint themselves as one as well!

    • Looks have nothing to do with it, the most attractive woman I’ve ever met is know to have had lessons with the Devil in “How to be Evil.” What we do not know is how much she charged the Devil to teach those lessons.

    • Besides, she’s in her safe space so you can’t throw a bunch of triggers at her.
      I wonder how many participation awards she’s earned?

    • She can’t be smiling as much after reading the CEI reply filing.
      Learning on the job is a tough way to do it; but we all learned much of our occupations that way.

      • She’s probably a decent lawyer but her experience is employment law. Her idiot client dragged her into the deep end and his employer won’t throw him a lifeline. She’s out of her depth.

      • She’ll be smiling even less after she reads the courts response to her filing, which came out today.

    • Perhaps she could select a champion from among the ranks of the Alarmists to defend her honour in a duel with the champion of the Deniers, whoever that may be!

  12. Reading the linked docs in full… CEI’s lawyers seem to be right on top of this, so far.

  13. I would hate to have any of those accusations leveled at me. It was a bit painful to read. On the other hand, going to court is more of a crap shoot than most people realize. We’ll see how this turns out.

  14. The company I retired from has always blocked all “WebMail” services on their internet services. The IT manager claimed that if supenied for all “email” on a topic originating by employees for a lawsuit they would have to include email originating inside the company and transmitted via the webmail server. As they had no way to collect it, they blocked it.

    • This is pretty much standard operating procedure. Most companies will want to track what their employees are doing on company time, and since external emails typically aren’t copied/saved to the company servers they’re often blocked. It also blocks potential infection vectors for malware since the majority of people in any company (except tech firms) are going to be largely illiterate when it comes to information security.

      • We had a secretary/receptionist who opened the same infected email three days in a row.

      • It happens inside tech companies too.
        And usually because someone thinks the IT department has secured stuff so well, they don’t have to think about security.

      • Maybe if the Internet connected host didn’t have access to the internal stuff… but in the contrary, clueless companies insist that the same browser used for highly sensitive internal stuff must be used to browse the open Internet… morons! That Mozilla Firefox couldn’t run your crappy ActiveX widgets is plus! That Mozilla can’t parse the HTML emitted by your IE 6 oriented internal HTTP server is a plus!
        You could even put a Firefox firewall at the application level so that it couldn’t access the internal websites. But no. Vulnerability by design and computer insecurity is essential to banking, apparently. And I can barely get people working in a bank to admit they have serious security issues at so many levels.

    • Not a lot of use in the days of the smart phone capable of sending emails over 3G/4G digital networks.
      Most in my place of work have a personal phone and a work phone. They did try blocking web mail for a while but gave up when it realised that it did not stop people writing private emails, and it took them longer to write on a phone virtual keyboard than a real one – thus wasting more time!

      • This isn’t an issue of time, but one of record retention. An email sent as part of your employment is an official document that can be discoverable in any legal matter. Not keeping such records might not be illegal (unless you work for the government), but it looks very bad if you can’t produce the records in court.

      • If you do it during work time on your private account on a computer given to you by your company, is it “part of your employment”?

  15. This may well be the beginning of the end of Liberal Terrorizing of Conservatives (actually Republicans!) for ALL Climate Issues. And may well begin the exposition of ALL CAGW Lies and the associated criminal behavior(s) by MANY In the most ironic of ways!
    Does Sheldon Whitehouse fit in amongst the RICO20 somewhere?!?
    Also, Is it possible to see what FOIA’s have been requested for a given Senator?

    • I’m not sure about it being the beginning of the end, but it sure is entertaining. Lets see what the judge says and remember Han Solo’s advice: “don’t get cocky kid.” I think Meibach failed to pay attention to this advice in a major way. His counsel may be simply inexperienced or have gone to a substandard law school. Rule number one in litigation is “don’t make the judge mad.”

  16. This is pure theatre, the irony in this spectacle tastes absolutely delicious. You literally could not have written the script. In my mind, it is like a knowall being run over by his own car, after failing to put the brake on. In my imagination, he has opened the boot/trunk and lifted two large bags of shopping. You can make up the rest.

    • Mr. Hardin is an attorney, it is not uncommon to have an attorney sign “on behalf of” when the relationship is well established, and the client and attorney have agreed to move the matter forward. Our trust attorney signs our distribution checks all the time, but I’m not clear why he only sends them to my wife.

  17. There is a common saying:
    Where there is smoke, there is fire.
    So far, we’ve been seeing voluminous smoke.
    Should we stand back a bit in case something goes “bang?”

  18. Aristotle would have been proud for so exposing logical fallacies.
    Similarly, trom John Christy’s evidence, Steve McIntyre finds that:

    1) a model run
    1) will be warmer than an observed trend more than 99.5% of the time;
    2) will be warmer than an observed trend by more than 0.1 deg C/decade approximately 88% of the time;
    3) and will be warmer than an observed trend by more than 0.2 deg C/decade more than 41% of the time.

    Engineering Prof. M.J. Kelly exaines
    Lessons from technology development for energy and sustainability
    MRS Energy & Sustainability : A Review,
    Journal Materials Research Society, 2016
    doi:10.1557/mre.2016.3
    Popularly summarized as:
    Professor Says ‘Madness’ Of Fighting Global Warming Will Impoverish Everyone
    Now if “climate scientists” could just
    1) learn the rudiments of logical analysis
    2) learn how to apply the scientific method and
    3) recognize and avoid systemic corruption of science

    we might discover actual data and develop validated reliable climate models sufficient to make some informed policies.

    • I’m not sure that they don’t know about logical analysis and the scientific method, but they aren’t using them as this is a political exercise that may cause them significant problems. A court is not a political forum. Suggesting that they learn those processes implies that they are ignorant of them instead of evil and willfully ignoring them. I think these people want control more than saving the planet and the truth doesn’t help them with that.

  19. Oh, I hope that the court slams both Maibach and his council for this. Not because of climate arguments but just for being so dumb, disrespectful and wasting the court’s time with vindictive B/S.
    They are trying to USE the court for their own ends, not to seek justice. I would expect any judge will find that very inappropriate and contemptuous.
    Should be interesting.
    I just hope it’s not some doddering old fart of a judge who starts getting a hard-one when a cutie in a black robe walks into his court. She does not seem to have got where she is today by having a razor sharp legal mind, so it must be some other faculties she has to rely on.

    • Looks like a very expensive row of teeth that she’s proudly showing off. Shy must be making some money. Somehow.

    • I have to say, it is nice when I see someone giving the attorney some stick for a change. I know that clients can often be quite rabid about what they want doing, but – in my opinion – it is the role of their attorney to keep them to what is germane to the law. Too often I see that it is the lawyers who are making the inflammatory statements and i think they should be censured for this more often.

      • Attorneys are human too. I had a case once where my attorney and opposing attorney got into a name calling fight, and the judge flamed both of them. Don’t make the judge mad…

  20. I’m wondering how many of the RICO 20 think to themselves every now and then, “It seemed like such a good idea at the time.”

    • I know, why don’t we start a conspiracy to accuse other of conspiracy and then campaign to get them thrown into jail.
      We will obviously be immune from prosecution, just like Peter Gleick was, because it’s all for “the cause”.
      It’s not like any of use a making money out of any of this or double dipping or anything, what have we got to loose?!

      • Reminds me of a former co-worker who would steal things that were under his jurisdiction and then be the one to report them as stolen so no one would suspect him.

  21. Pedant Alert!
    Presumably the court Justice in the snippet of The American Tradition Institute transcript knows the proper usage of affect and effect, but the court reporter apparently does not:

    What if, for general purposes, all of these bad motives are true?
    How does it effect the legal right to FOIA protection?

    This misusage is common, but when I find it in official court transcripts I give up. It seems the only appropriate reaction is to reprise Rupert Giles from Buffy the Vampire Slayer:

    The Earth is doomed.

    • Could be a spelling mistake. They could have meant “infect”. Seems like a more important question to ask.

    • To be fair Alan, The court reporter is in the USA and they are unable to spell aluminium correctly 😀

  22. It reminds me very much of the kind of thing that goes on in Wikipedia where I understand politically active academics with nothing else to do engage in “legal” manoeuvres to prevent anyone removing their blatant propaganda – and where they and their buddies are judge jury and executioner.
    So, I guess this behaviour is and culture is so commonplace in academia, that it will be a real shock to find themselves in even a pseudo-impartial court.

  23. This side show is great fun but it will be interesting to see what they are trying so hard not to reveal.
    They really do not seem smart enough not to incriminate themselves, so this can only get better.

  24. Read the new pleadings. What is clear is that GMU is in contempt of court for not having handed everythingmover on May 13. CEI should go after them as an institution, as well as the FOI officer in her individual capacity.

    • Rud: I agree. GMU and like institutions are the enablers for this nonsense by both providing resources and an environment that is fundamentally anti-free speech. It is as if the enlightenment never happened.

    • That is something I really do not understand about this whole mess. Why was Maibach allowed to determine what was or was not related to the request? It seems to me that the appropriate way to handle FOIA (VFOIA) requests is to have the officer (or appropriate representative) conduct an email/records search, inform the party involved (Maibach) what has been identified as related, and then allow said party to argue if they think something should not be released. This request in particular should have required an independent party’s involvement, since Maibach has an adversarial relationship with CEI.

      • They likely don’t have a records “officer” and figured it was Maibach’s responsibility to come up with the emails. Of course assuming all the while that he would be completely honest and not try anything “sneaky”, because we all know how scientists are always completely honest and incapable of being sneaky. (I’m being sarcastic, for those of you who haven’t figured that out yet 😉

    • They are hoping obummer will ride in on a white horse with Lynch and save their sorry arses. Which he would certainly do if he thought he could get away with it. The most treasonous potus in history.

    • Absolutely, she facilitated knowing that maibach expressed bias “they are trying to hurt me” and didn’t ensure compliance

      • “Absolutely, she facilitated knowing that maibach expressed bias “they are trying to hurt me” and didn’t ensure compliance”
        IOW, she believes you should answer properly to legal requests, except those that come from someone who doesn’t love you! Any such request can be answered by “I need a safe place” or “Reading this might trigger me”.

    • I worked IT for 20 years, we always provided access to the mailbox of staff in question to auditors, as well as backups pre FOI request to ensure nothing was deleted

    • In the corporate world FOI requests are taken very seriously, especially in Reinsurance and other finance sectors be cause Irish and UK laws demanded retention of business related emails for 7 years

  25. “With integrity, you have nothing to fear, since you have nothing to hide. With integrity, you will do the right thing, so you will have no guilt.”
    – Zig Ziglar

    • I disagree with Zig on this one. It sounds plausible, but law enforcement these days can twist things around just like the media does. And then they hose you with it. Best just to be silent as is your right. Seems very similar to the climate wars. Here are a couple examples of the rot in other venues:
      Over 25 years ago, I had a permit from the state to collect and possess some California Kingsnakes native to Utah for the purposes of breeding and genetic experiments. I had proposed during that time that it would be more environmentally friendly to allow amateur herpetologists to collect, breed and sell offspring so people didn’t have to get them from the wild for pets. The state Division of Wildlife Resources was adamantly opposed to this idea, and even though I had not violated any aspect of my permits, they started proceedings to revoke the permit. They first asked to see my facilities for snake breeding, and my attorney suggested letting them. So we did. Then I get a letter stating that I am in violation of the terms of my permit, without documenting which terms were violated. I got to have a hearing with me versus all people from the Division, and it was a kangaroo court situation which I recorded on tape. Then the Wildlife Board rubber stamped their findings, still without any evidence that I had violated the terms of my permits. My permit was revoked. My attorney counter sued on my behalf and we won. That was a lot of work for simply trying to be honest when I had nothing to hide.
      My integrity never protected me from that. In this world you need to be very careful and wise as the sophistication of these tactics is rather high.
      The media is not to be trusted either. Recently Katie Couric had a “documentary” in which she misrepresented pro-gun control people by editing the interview footage. Unfortunately for her and fortunate for us, somebody else recorded the audio of the interview and showed the deceptive edits.
      http://freebeacon.com/issues/audio-shows-katie-couric-gun-documentary-deceptively-edited-interview-pro-gun-activists/
      So the corruption is everywhere and you can’t trust the institutions of the culture any more. It is a shame, but that seems to be the way it is. You have to have integrity AND be really savvy.

      • PS After my incident, I was able to get the Utah Legislature to pass a law that forbid the Division from revoking any permit that had not already been adjudicated in a real court with proper due process. And even later, I succeeded in using the Legislature’s administrative rules committee to get the Division to allow people to collect, breed and sell progeny of native species.

        • Rights are rights and life is life. You would think that one group that supports your right to bear arms would also support a woman’s right to determine her reproduction rights. And the other group that calls to deny your right to bear arms would also be against a woman’s right as well. In the truest sense, both guns and a woman’s right kills. You can only be anti gun and pro abortion or pro gun and anti abortion. You can’t be pro gun and pro abortion or anti gun and anti abortion. It’s strange how the system is set up.

          • rishrac wrote “Rights are rights and life is life.”
            Let’s try mixing it up: “Rights is life and life is rights”
            It makes an interesting sense. Without rights, what is life?
            Anyway, rights don’t exist. What exists is a social convention to mostly not challenge you as you do something. Those agreements change frequently.
            “You would think that one group that supports your right to bear arms would also support a woman’s right to determine her reproduction rights.”
            That’s a supersize Non Sequitur. My right to bear arms is derived from my right to life itself. My desire to stop abortion is also related to my right to life “paid forward” to someone just starting out on life.
            What you seem to be requesting is a right that doesn’t exist; the right to start a fire and then put it out at any time you please; but it may not be possible.
            “And the other group that calls to deny your right to bear arms would also be against a woman’s right as well.”
            I suppose that some people, socialists usually, wish you to have no rights of any kind, but merely government mandates.
            “In the truest sense, both guns and a woman’s right kills.”
            You have said nothing so far about killing. How did this enter the picture? Is “womans right to reproduction” just a euphemism for killing?
            Guns exist primarily for defense. A woman’s right to reproduce is the same as mine; government cannot say you cannot have children.
            “You can only be anti gun and pro abortion or pro gun and anti abortion.”
            I can be anything I wish; but your description seems to describe Democrats versus Republicans.
            The optimum way to figure this out is to realize that Democrats are in it for themselves — I don’t want you to have a gun and do what you want to do; but *I* want to do whatever I want and you get to pay or work for it, if anyone must pay or labor.

          • Depending on the state you live in, the law of the land determines what you are allowed to do. Not arguing the right or wrong of any position. I was only pointing out the strangeness of position of parties. You either have a right or you dont. It’s either legal or it isnt.

          • rishrac wrote “Depending on the state you live in, the law of the land determines what you are allowed to do.”
            Some variation exists from state to state as to what you are permitted, prohibited or required to do.
            “I was only pointing out the strangeness of position of parties.”
            Agreed; but only as seen from other points of view. When properly understood then it is not strange. Youth tend to vote Democrat but that’s because Youth is accustomed to having its own way, immediately. “I want everything and I want it right now!” There’s no consistency when judged by principles but it is perfectly consistent when judged by human impulse.
            The right tends to be oriented toward survival of the species; the real socialism — protection of human reproduction, survival, shelter, food, defense (and at times offense to get these things).
            This is why marriage is right wing, religion is right wing, self-defense is right wing, property rights inseparably connected to life itself (Life, liberty, property). Rights exist to ensure and enhance life, but not necessarily everyone’s life or all kinds of life. No right-winger would ever sacrifice himself or his family for a minnow.
            “You either have a right or you dont. It’s either legal or it isnt.”
            That’s a bit simple minded (well, a lot simple minded). Rights do not exist; and yet they do — the moment you think of it you have just instantiated a right. The hard part is persuading others that you actually do have this right and they must honor it.
            The Constitution created no rights; or at least the Bill of Rights created no rights. It acknowledges pre-existing, common law rights and simply says the government will not infringe upon them.
            Being right and being legal are very different things and there’s quite a bit of fuzzy grey area filled with lawyers deciding, moment by moment, whether the thing you just did which was legal last week is perhaps suddenly no longer legal.
            For instance in New York City it is now illegal to fail to refer to persons by their preferred pronouns of which a great many exist beside “he” or “she”. Headline: You can be fined for not calling people ‘ze’ or ‘hir,’ if that’s the pronoun they demand that you use
            [https]://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/05/17/you-can-be-fined-for-not-calling-people-ze-or-hir-if-thats-the-pronoun-they-demand-that-you-use/
            Do you have a right to demand that others call you whatever you prefer? Maybe you prefer “Your Highness”!
            The simple answer is you have every right that you can imagine, for that is all it is. Someone imagined it. Then you persuade others, in this case a city council, that this right actually “exists” floating around somewhere and it is the city’s duty to enforce it.
            What is legal is what other people let you do. Rights are demanded, legality is permitted.

          • In some countries exercising any right I can imagine will significantly reduce my lifespan, quality of life or both.
            These questions are the legal side of climate science and those that would silence those of us who have a different understanding.
            The biggest headache I can see is that some day there will be an issue that is real and will have to be addressed. The same people who are pushing the CAGW will learn lessons from this and apply them then. We shouldn’t want to teach them too much.

          • Rishrac – much as CAGW activists learnt from the banning of DDT. You can sidestep the issues of freedom and democracy ie regulation instead of legislation.

      • The Virginia Citizens Defense League members made their own audio recording of the interview and can prove that Couric committed a journalistic fraud.
        And yes, Juan, I’m sure Jeff meant to say pro-gun rights. The pro-gun control people are the fraudsters.

      • More than once I’ve seen reporters “edit” comments to completely change what was said.

      • rishrac, so in your opinion, a group that supports people’s right to defend themselves must also support the right of women to kill their children?

      • It really is sad the way leftists refuse to deal with reality.
        Guns rarely kill, the vast majority of the time, merely showing the bad guy that you are armed is sufficient to cause him to leave.
        Guns are about defending yourself, they are not about killing.
        On the other hand abortion always kills the baby.

  26. Ahh, sweet confirmation of the tried and true, old and venerated adage:
    — “A students work for C students, B students teach!”
    — So, I give you Heir Doctor Professor Maibach!

  27. Maibach’s score on “Rate My Professor” is one of the lowest at GMU (as of 2010). I won’t repeat any of the epithets used to describe him, but “difficult” is the most polite.

  28. I doubt that the attorney in question is incompetent, or even guilty of trading on her looks. I suspect she is of an age where the twin “echo chambers” (to quote an Obama official) of University and Law School make it perfectly acceptable to denigrate someone who doesn’t hold politically correct opinions (i.e. CEI). After all, that sort of disparagement happens all the time, from her professors, her fellow students, and her activist role models. That she’s surprised when opposition counsel and the court react badly is only a consequence of coming out from under the bubble and seeing the real world that we ordinary folk live in. Hopefully this will be a life lesson for her, but I doubt it.

    • @ Taylor and just looking at how she has bungled this case I doubt she’ll have it on her CV. ( Must have been on a long sabbatical during these past few weeks)

      • Her superiors may have realized they were in a no win situation , and decided to give this case to an expendable junior.
        That way they can blame her when it all goes belly up.

    • There was an article on Drudge yesterday that claimed that 82% of law professors are Democrats.

  29. Got a fund raising appeal from UCS (Union of Concerned Scientists) this morning. They’re unhappy that the US House is asking for their e-mails about exposing (supposedly) Exxon’s disinformation campaign to conceal the oil-carbon-warming linkages. Maybe we’ll get some brighter lines as the where “private” stops before this whole RICO mess stops?

  30. My grandmother told me that I should never lie, because lying makes you comfortable with lies, and you lose the ability to distinguish lies from the truth. I guess the same can be said about tolerating incompetence – you lose the ability to distinguish competent people from incompetent ones.

Comments are closed.