Friday, 4 May 2012

Professor Judith Curry threatened with blog closure attempt


UPDATES


1) 6th May 2012 added Section 2.0 Defamation? and 2.1 Fact or Opinion?
2) 9th May 2012 added Section 2.2 Claims and Counter-claims
3) 24th-25th May 2012 added Section 2.3 More Claims and Counter-claims
4) 4th August 2012 reformatted the article (updates moved) and added Section 3.0 The E-mail Thread in which Tim Ball (Principia Scientific International's Chairman) claimed to have legally dissociated himself from John O'Sullivan (PSI's CEO and Legal Consultant - http://www.linkedin.com/pub/john-o-sullivan/19/6b4/84a).
5) 10th Oct. 2012 added link to "Forbidden Muse" to replace one made "private" by the owner - see Section 3.2 E-mails, E-mail of Apr 25 2012, 03:22 PM from Andrew Skolnick to John O'Sullivan.
6) 2013-04-02 Added E-mails of 9th, 10th and 30th May 2012 to Section 3.2

1.0 John O'Sullivan's "FORMAL 'TAKE DOWN' NOTICE"

This is a copy of the demand that I have been advised was E-mailed on 21 April 2012 by Principia Scientific International CEO John O'Sullivan to Professor Judith Curry, Professor and Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Instititute of Technology regarding comments on her blog "Climate etc"


 QUOTE:

Dear Dr. Judith Curry, FORMAL ‘TAKE DOWN’ NOTICE I demand the removal of defamatory material published by you. As such this is a Formal Demand prior to legal proceedings (i.e."cease and desist" warning). I am issuing this to you because evidence suggests you have with malice published libelous material against me that you accepted for publication from commenters on your blog. Be advised one such commenter, Mr. Andrew Skolnick, a former pro-green journalist, has a reputation as a liar and defamer and was dismissed from his position as Assistant Editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) for making similar such false statements. For the past year Mr. Skolnick and his accomplice, Mr. Peter Ridley, have pursued a bizarre public vendetta against me in the blogosphere. It now appears they are making such false statements with your connivance as publisher of your blog, 'Climate Etc'. See sample evidence here:


False statements are deemed actionable if they can “. . . reasonably be understood as declaring or implying actual facts capable of being proved true or false." [Ruiz v. Harbor View Community Ass’n (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 1456, 1471]. To date you have published no substantiating evidence to verify your scurrilous claims and nor do you appear to have requested any such evidence from your accomplices, Mr. Skolnick and Mr. Ridley.

Mr. Skolnick and Mr. Ridley (with you) are shown to have published numerous false statements - among them that I have fraudulently misrepresented myself as an attorney. Be advised that no one who is unqualified may claim to be an attorney and to do so is a felony under both U.S. and U.K. law. Someone of your academic standing should know this basic fact. As such you are required to show due diligence. Under law, being that you knowingly make such false and malicious statements - or are actively and willingly a co-publisher of others' malicious speech - you are absolutely NOT protected under the First Amendment. As such you are hereby on notice that I require you to either:
(a) remove all posts by Mr. Skolnick and Mr. Ridley maligning my good name or:
(b) demand from Mr. Skolnick and Mr. Ridley verifiable evidence substantiating such ludicrous claims (i.e. by way of a copy of a police report of an ongoing criminal investigation about me or, in the alternative, proof of my conviction(s) for any such offense(s)).

In addition, I demand a written apology from you for publishing these defamatory comments. If I do not have your full compliance within 48 hours then your omission to act may be deemed to be further and additional evidence of actual malice. As such, be advised that I will give no further warning being that I intend to take action to have your blog ‘Climate Etc.’ shut down by your Internet service provider (ISP) as per violation of your TOS and/or render you liable to civil proceedings for complicity (being that your ISP is also exposed by you to liability for defamatory statements placed by third parties).

Be advised that a bcc copy of this email has been sent to numerous interested persons so that they may ascertain for themselves your character and true motives in this abuse of your position.

Truly, John O’Sullivan LLB, BA (Hon) PGCE Legal Counsel: Principia Scientific International

 UNQUOTE.

I was only made aware of these allegations by Mr O'Sullivan because one of those BCCs, Rupert Wyndham, was good enough to send me a copy of Mr O'Sullivan's E-mail.

On 25th April I responded to Mr O'Sullivan's, concluding QUOTE: ..

I am not (and have not been made) aware of having made any statement about you or any of your associates (past or present) at PSI that can reasonably be considered defamatory.  Please would you advise which of my comments on Professor Curry’s threads (or elsewhere) you consider to be defamatory so that I can give due consideration to your concerns and consider if any corrective action by me is necessary .. If you fail to do that then I shall consider taking legal action against you for defamation, which I am discussing with my legal advisor.

Alternatively, if you are unable to substantiate your allegations against me then you can resolve this issue very quickly and easily by simply issuing a written retraction of and suitable apology for your unsubstantiated allegations. If you do so promptly by E-mail to me, open copy (not Bcc) to each and every one of those others to whom you have communicated those allegations, either in writing (directly or as Bcc) or aurally then I will consider taking no further action over what I regards as your defamatory statements about me made in your FORMAL ‘TAKE DOWN’ NOTICE to Professor Curry.

UNQUOTE.

Mr O'Sullivan's immediate response was QUOTE: Ridley, You are a proven liar and a con artist who spends his life trawling the gutter looking for dirt. You and your partner in crime Skolnick are a joke. No wonder nobody takes you seriously.UNQUOTE.

Both Andrew Skolnick and Rupert Wynham responded to Mr O'Sullivan who reacted along similar lines QUOTE: Skolnick, I'm not interested in any of your lies and it appears no one else is, either UNQUOTE.

QUOTE: Mr. Wyndham, I call Ridley and Skolnick liars because they are. Your attempts at playing armchair lawyer are as laughable as theirs. As I've said umpteen times  - either put up or shut up. The same goes for you, too. You're a joke UNQUOTE.

 Andrew Skolnick advises that he has submitted a 180-page affidavit to the Supreme Court of British Columbia in relation to the libel action brought by Dr. Michael Mann against Dr. Tim Ball. Mr O'Sullivan claims that he " .. acts as legal consultant to Canada's most prominent climatologist, Dr. Tim Ball .. "  (http://johnosullivan.wordpress.com/about/) however, Dr. Ball appears not to agree with that statement.

On 27th April 2012 I was sent a copy of an E-mail claimed to have been sent by Professor Ball on 26 April 2012 QUOTE: .. I was made aware of the charges against O'Sullivan almost from the start. I checked as much as possible because .. there are a lot of deviously clever people who spin stories knowing that once it is on the web it has legs. My lawyer has also down extensive checks. .. I legally disassociated myself from O'Sullivan very early and though he provided commentary he never acted as legal counsel. I cannot disconnect myself from the book as it is in the public record. .. UNQUOTE.

Perhaps Mr O'Sullivan has a simple explanation for that apparent conflict between what he claims and what Dr, Ball says.


2.0 Defamation?


2.1 Fact or Opinion?

In Section 1.0 I presented the "Formal 'Take Down' Notice that Principia Scientific International CEO John O'Sullivan issued to Professor Judith Curry and related E-mail exchanges that ensued.  Let’s now look more closely at that “Formal ‘Take Down’ Notice” to see if there is any justification for John O’Sullivan's claims that there are defamatory comments about him on Professor Curry’s “Letter to the dragon slayers” thread.

The two comments used by PSI’s CEO as “sample evidence” justifying his action were posted by Andrew Skolnick and were:

1) http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-193531

QUOTE: April 19, 2012 at 12:55 pm .. Pete, I think it’s unfortunate readers of this Sky Dragon Slayer Discussion are not able to read about the snowballing legal troubles of Slayer leaders Tim Ball, John O’Sullivan and their association Principia Scientific International.

A Supreme Court of British Columbia hearing in the matter of Michael Mann vs. Timothy Ball, et. al, is scheduled for May 2, for which I was asked to submit a 180-page affidavit documenting the results of my investigation. I expect my affidavit and exhibits will have a serious if not devastating effect on the defendants’ case. It’s unfortunate that readers here will not be able to read about the developments in the case that John O’Sullivan calls “the science trial of the century.”
UNQUOTE.

Andrew’s reference to “snowballing legal troubles” was possibly based upon his understanding as at 19th April that PSI’s Chairman Dr. Tim Ball was still being given legal advice by John (albeit unpaid at present), based upon what John himself has repeatedly implied (Note 1). Dr. Ball stated in an E-mail on 26th April “ .. I legally disassociated myself from O'Sullivan very early and though he provided commentary he never acted as legal counsel .. ”. Had Dr. Ball made his statement at the time that he dissociated himself from John then I guess that Andrew would have modified his comment accordingly. Dr. Ball’s statement has certainly changed my understanding of John’s claims of being a member of Dr. Mann’s legal team.

The rest of Andrew’s comment seems to me to be half fact and half opinion.

2) http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-193983

QUOTE: April 21, 2012 at 8:53 am .. Doug, the only unlawful hoax I see is the hoax John O’Sullivan, Tim Ball and the rest of the Sky Dragon Slayers are perpetrating. O’Sullivan is not a “lawyer with more than a decade of successful litigation in New York and federal courts.” He’s not recognized as a lawyer anywhere. At the time he claims he went to University of West Surrey law school, he was in earning an art history degree from Western Surrey College of Art and Design.

I recently asked his WSCAD classmate, who shared a house with O’Sullivan, if he knew his roommate was also attending University of Surrey AT THE SAME TIME. He said no!

Here are the facts documented in my affidavit to the Supreme Court of British Columbia in the case Mann v. Ball et al. VLC-S-S-111913:

After receiving his art history degree in 1983, O’Sullivan earned teacher certification and began teaching athletics and perhaps art until his teaching career abruptly ended in 2003, after he was arrested and tried for repeatedly sending obscene messages to and assaulting a 16-y-o girl. After he was acquitted for lack of evidence, O’Sullivan self-published “Vanilla Girl,” which he called “A fact-based crime story of a teacher’s struggle to control his erotic obsession with a schoolgirl.”
http://cupboard55vanillagirl.blogspot.com/

That launched a writing “career,” which first consisted of self-published writings until he turned to publishing online articles for global warming denier web sites. Sometime around 2010, he began to promote himself as an attorney with “more than a decade of successful litigation in New York and federal courts.” The first time O’Sullivan publicly claimed he earned a law degree from University of Surrey was in the summer or fall of 2011! Prior to that, he claimed he got his law degree from University College, Cork.

There clearly is an unlawful hoax going on and it’s the hoax perpetrated by Tim Ball and his “attorney” John O’Sullivan and their fellow science Slayers.

UNQUOTE.

Andrew used the words “unlawful hoax” and in my opinion most of us would regard that as the normal banter that is expected during exchanges between supporters and sceptics of the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change (CACC) hypothesis. John has made similar comments himself (Note 2).

Andrew’s comments about John’s education in and practice of law appear to be have been substantiated by the evidence that has come to light (Note 3) and more may come to light if his affidavit is used in the Ball v Mann libel case.

It seems to me that Andrew’s two comments are simply a combination of fact and reasonable opinion based thereon which may well be considered derogatory but with nothing of a defamatory nature whatsoever.

It would be very interesting to know what it is in my comments on Professor Curry’s “Letter to the dragon slayers” and other threads that John O’Sullivan claims is defamatory – but I don’t expect that I’ll ever find out because John has steadfastly refused to clarify which ones he alleges are such. Maybe he is a follower of Harpocrates (http://www.whale.to/b/silence.html).

NOTES:

1) e.g. “ .. November 10th, 2011  .. Mr. Skolnick’s gambit to derail my relationship with Dr. Ball has failed. .. when Mr. Skolnick first learned that Dr. Ball engaged me, .. It is certainly true that I have acted as a paid consultant to Dr Tim Ball on matters related to his libel suits in Canada. Dr. Ball paid me for this work via the offices of Michael Scherr, Ball’s libel attorney at Pearlman Lindholm, Vancouver, British Columbia. However, since August 2011 I have not been paid for my services due to a new strategy agreed between Mr. Scherr, Dr. Ball and myself .. ” (http://johnosullivan.livejournal.com/41331.html). It should be noted that although Dr. Ball said that he had “ .. legally disassociated myself from O'Sullivan very early .. ” he was still discussing issues relating to the case with John as recently as 7 months ago.

e.g. on 29 Sept. 2011 in an E-mail to me, CCd to the “Slayers” et al. John said of Andrew “ .. He began his personal tirade against me around May 2011 on the LinkedIn website when I mentioned, in one of the discussion forums on the site, that I was appointed as a consultant to Canadian Law firm, Pearlman Lindholm. I was appointed to assist Dr. Tim Ball in his defense of two high profile libel suits (the first, versus Dr Andrew Weaver, the second versus Dr. Michael Mann) .. last week I was advised by Pearlman Lindholm that Skolnick has filed a "complaint" against me via the Canadian Supreme Court .. ”. Dr. Ball responded to John that same day with “ .. I understand Skolnick has also filed a complaint with the BC Law Society against my Canadian attorney .. ”.

e.g. on 6th May 2012 “ .. O’Sullivan is a member of the New York County Lawyers Association (NYCLA) and is litigating in two high-profile international lawsuits involving climatologists, Dr Michael Mann and Dr Tim Ball .. ” (http://www.linkedin.com/pub/john-o-sullivan/19/6b4/84a) – a week after that E-mail in which Dr. Ball claimed to have legally dissociated himself from " .. O'Sullivan very early .. "!

There will be more on that later in my “A Short History of Principia Scientific International” thread.

2) e.g.  “ .. this greatest hoax of all time .. ” and “ .. the criminal and unethical practise of climate scientists at CRU .. ” (http://renegadeconservatoryguy.co.uk/is-anthropogenic-global-warming-really-a-hoax/comment-page-1/#comment-7242). Notice that even two years ago, before he had assembled his team of “Slayers” John was complaining about comments being defamatory, accusing people of lying and boasting about his success as a litigant. In my opinion John should have given careful consideration to what Andy McCafferty said  (http://renegadeconservatoryguy.co.uk/is-anthropogenic-global-warming-really-a-hoax/comment-page-1/#comment-7263), especially “ .. Being willing and being allowed to have open debate is healthy, what we don’t need is bullies like John O’Sullivan .. threatening litigation .. ”.

I made a similar point about bullies like John O’Sullivan to Professor Curry on 25th April after I had found out about his unwarranted “Formal ‘Take Down’ Notice”. “ .. John is in my opinion nothing more than a bullying braggart. Bullies are cowards and John tackled you because he saw you as a soft target with most to lose. He didn't have the courage to let us know of his allegations .. ”.

3) e.g. John has claimed (apparently in 2010) to have been “ .. successfully litigating for over a decade in the New York State courts and U.S. federal 2nd circuit .. ” (http://www.blogger.com/profile/04719257903632828427). On 26th Feb 2010 John also claimed " .. I am a legal advocate, totally unpaid in relation to fighting these climate criminals. I have litigated against government corruption for over a decade in the U.S. federal Court Second Circuit as well as the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Appeal Court and Division of Human Rights. I have insight plus I still haven’t lost a case... " (http://www.climategate.com/how-i-now-debate-a-climate-fraud-denier).
The evidence that I have seen gives the distinct impression that John himself has not succeeded in winning any case in the USA and in my opinion being successful means winning. Despite being asked repeatedly to provide substantiation of his claim to having successfully litigated in the USA John has provided none. It seems that the extent of his litigation in the USA was to give advice to others who were litigating “pro se”, e.g. his wife Barbara (http://vertumnus.courts.state.ny.us/claims/wp-html/OSullivan.2009-039-142.htm) and Mr Tom Neveu (http://www.vegasinc.com/news/2011/oct/01/righthaven-stephens-media-eating-more- legal-costs-/).
e.g. John said " .. the task of legal advocates, like me, as for honorable scientists, is to work with the facts .. " (http://www.climategate.com/how-i-now-debate-a-climate-fraud-denier) and according to Wikipedia " .. The process of becoming an advocate is referred to as devilling. All Intrants will hold an LL.B. (Bachelor of Laws) and the Diploma in Legal Practice qualifying them as solicitors or be members of the Bar in another common law jurisdiction .. " (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advocate). That statement of John's sounds to me as though on 26th Feb. 2010 he was claiming to be qualified as a solicitor but in his "Formal ;Take Down' Notice he seems to me to be saying that he does not claim to be an attorney. I thought that in order to become an advocate (barrister) one had to be qualified as a lawyer (attorney). Maybe an expert out there can explain it for me.

2.2 Claims and Counter-claims


As mentioned in previous sections, John O’Sullivan has boasted about his legal qualifications and prowess on numerous blogs but the most revealing one was 28 months ago in a statement that gives substance to what Andrew Skolnick has been saying about John for months.

“ .. John O'Sullivan said January 31, 2010 at 10:18 pm .. I am especially happy to take on anyone in any court room at any time on any issue of law- tis what I do best. I especially welcome arrogant climate alarmists with pots of money to waste thinking they can get one over on me in court. .. I am a retired academic and I have litigated personally or assisted others in pro se litigation at every level of court there is in New York State as well as Federal level, for over a decade and never lost.
Am I licensed to practice law in the US or UK? No, sir- self taught and proud! I think that makes my achievements even more extraordinary, don’t you?
I’m just some Brit with a brain who can .. kick ass big time around a courtroom. I’ve also even done it, too, in criminal court back in the UK where I wiped the floor with the Crown Prosecution Service and corrupt police who tried to frame me on trumped up criminal charges in what’s euphemistically called ‘police noble cause corruption.’ I won by a canter- acquitted on all counts and it made the national news, too! .. ”.

Andrew Skolnick submitted several comments about John’s LLB and other claims - see the “Letter to the dragon slayers - selected comments” thread which is to be gradually extended (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/professor-judith-currys-letter-to.html). Here are relevant extracts:

- 9th November 2011 at 1:05 am “ .. The Sky Dragon Slayer leader John O’Sullivan is going to rue the day he dared me to report him to the authorities for claiming bogus academic and professional credentials. (See a copy of his July 2nd taunt below from an earlier Climate etc discussion.) .. ”.

- 15th November 2011 at 11:08 am & 11:55 “ .. Do you know whether John O’Sullivan earned his law degree from Hill University? The reason I’m interested is that I’d like to be able to get the following in “15 days” after sending in my $349: .. http://www.hilluniversity.com/Hill/life_experience_degrees_programs.asp .. For your own good, you need to sit down with your fellow sky dragon sleazer and ask him whether he really earned his law degree from Hill University .. ”.
- 16th November 2011 at 11:22 am & 4:55 pm “ By the way, Mr. O’Sullivan, did you earn your law degree from Hill University? .. You didn’t earn a law degree from University College, Cork as you first publicly claimed. And it’s hardly likely you earned it at the University of Surrey at the SAME time you were actually earning an art degree at West Surrey College of Art and Design .. Now I hear it was actually from Hill University. Please tell us if this is true or not .. Still no answer whether it’s true that this humbug bought his law degree from “Hill University” — the online diploma mill where a guy can buy a Doctorate degree in any subject in just 15 days .. Well John, what say you? Did you or did you not get a law degree from Hill University? .. ”.
- 23rd November 2011 at 12:10 pm  .. Show me Pete, where Mr. O’Sullivan identifies the law school that awarded him a law degree. And I don’t mean the bogus online diploma mill Hill University that will sell anyone any degree he wants, promising “delivery within just 15 days!” .. What evidence have you seen showing O’Sullivan has a law degree from anywhere, but an online bogus diploma mill?
He first claimed in May or June that his law degree was from University College, Cork. In the latest versions of his resumes and bios, he claims he earned his law degree in 1984 from the University of Surrey — which would be quite hard if not impossible since he was actually attending West Surrey College of Art and Design, where he earned an art degree in 1983 (he says 1984 on his LinkedIn profile) .. ”.
- 21st December 2011 at 5:21 pm .. Peter, Slayer John O’Sullivan lately claims he earned law degree from University of Surrey, not Sussex. However, last May, the humbug told a LinkedIn discussion group that he earned it at University College, Cork. And in October he told the New York County Lawyers’ Association that he earned his law degree last year from “Hill University” — which is a bogus, online diploma mill that sells people any degree in any field they want with a “Promised Free Delivery in Just 15 Days!” .. ”.

There was no transparency about that from John or any of his fellow “Slayers” in those exchanges even though John responded on a few occasions, e.g. :

- 16th November 2011 at 10:37 am and 10:52 am “ .. Mosher .. you and Skolnick have now been made to look very stupid being that the British Columbia Law Society dismissed all of Skolnick’s complaints against me as being totally unfounded.
But don’t let independent investigations stop you libeling me. .. if necessary, I will take my remedy in the courts and prove you to be the liar you are for aiding and abetting Skolnick in his defamations.
You discredit yourself as an impartial observer by placing your faith in the judgement of Skolnick who is a proven liar .. it is by your appeal to Skonlick’s ‘authority’ in these matters that you reveal your own ignorance and bias in backing proven lies written about me. .. Skolnick has been thoroughly discredited and shown to be a liar after the British Columbia Law Society investigated his allegations against me and determined that every one was utterly unfounded. The fact Dr. Curry permits Skolnick’s lies to remain published on her blog exposes her bias and lack of objectivity and fairness.
But my colleagues and I are not in the least surprised being that Dr. Curry has shown the same lack of objectivity and inability to discern the truth when addressing our Slaying the Sky Dragon book .. ”.

On 17th Dec. 2011 during numerous E-mails involving the “Slayers” et al. since that Sept. John O’Sullivan, Andrew Skolnick and I exchanged the following comments:

JO’S “ .. I earned my law degree from University of Surrey in 1982 .. ”.

AS: “ .. Excellent, "counselor!" It's taken me 7 months to get you to make this statement, but finally we have it. You say you earned your law degree, not from "WSCAD," or West Surrey College of Art and Design, or University College, Cork, or Hill "University,"  but from the University of Surrey -- and not in 1910 or 2010, but in 1982. Now explain to us why your provisional membership application to the New York County Lawyers' Association -- which is ONLY open to recent law school graduates -- says you received your law degree in January 2010. Were you lying to the New York County Law Association in October or are you lying to us now?  I know the answer, but I'd like your friends and colleagues to hear    it from you first .. ”.

JO’S “ .. Neither. The Law School at the University of Surrey provided me with training in English law, not American. I more recently obtained certification in U.S. criminal law and as such my application to the NYCLA is entirely truthful and accurate. I provided evidence for clarification of this in a sworn deposition to attorney, Michael Scherr, as part of my evidence submitted to the investigation by the Law School of British Columbia. In that statement (made as per the Court of Protection Rules 2007 (PRACTICE DIRECTION B – STATEMENTS OF TRUTH) I provided full and explicit details that verify the above reply as accurate. I thereby challenge you (as usual) to prove that any of what I have stated is a false.

AS: “ .. by that you mean you bought your law degree in Jan. 2010 from the bogus online diploma mill, Hill "University" and claimed that in order to defraud the New York County Lawyers' Association by falsely    claiming you received a legitimate degree in Jan. 2010? Notice how hard it is to get the humbug to tell us WHERE he    "recently obtained certification." Shall I tell everyone where they can go to read for themselves your admission of having bought your "law degree" from that bogus diploma mill or will you finally speak the name of that hilariously funny "university" yourself .. ”.

JO’S: “ .. Even better, as an "investigative journalist" you shouldn't need to rely on my word for anything. Simply contact the University of Surrey (or the NYCLA or the LSBC, or Michael Scherr) and have any of them verify if I am misrepresenting my credentials. After "seven months of trying" you  really should have these facts to hand by now .. ”.

AS on 18th : “ .. Your great reluctance to even say the name "Hill University" suggests you aren't proud of your alma mater. So I have to wonder, why you thought the New York County Lawyers' Association (NYCLA) would consider a law degree from this bogus diploma mill to be valid. I guess you found Hill's offer hard to resist:  Any degree you want in any subject with a "Promised Free Delivery in Just 15 Days!"

PR on 19th : “ .. As I understand it John obtained a Law degree in 1982 from the University of Surrey, a Fine Arts degree from WSCAD in 1983 and a law certificate from Hill University. Of course I am not saying that John’s Law Degree is from that same Hill University but that’s the only one of that name that I could find. There are those who will jump to conclusions, so come on John, settle this once and for all by providing us with concrete evidence about your degrees. Don’t you owe it to the “Slayers” and all of those individuals who have contributed funds in response to you various appeals? .. ”.

JO’S on 28th Dec. : “ .. Skolnick, So inept were you at debating the science you've now spent the last few months devoting your ample spare time trying to smear the reputations of scientists and researchers who you cannot match on an intellectual level. I suggest you avoid further ridicule and ply your heel snapping talents where they are more appropriate - photographing dogs .. ”.

Despite all of John’s protestations about being defamed over his claimed qualifications he never once provided any substantiation of his claims n response to our requests for him to do so. In spite of his numerous claims to have an LLB (not to be confused with this John O’Sullivan, BA LLB - http://www.sirowendixon.com.au/barristers/john-osullivan.php) and to have studied law at “ .. University of Surrey/WSCAD Bachelors Degree, Law/Fine Art (History) 1979 – 1984 .. ” (http://www.linkedin.com/pub/john-o-sullivan/19/6b4/84a) John was boasting in Jan. 2010 “ .. Am I licensed to practice law in the US or UK? No, sir- self-taught and proud .. ”.

On the other hand, having been accused by John on Professor Curry’s “Letter to the dragon slayers” thread on 16th Nov. of being  “ .. a proven liar who falsely claims to have a master’s degree .. ” Andrew promptly offered to provide irrefutable evidence that he did indeed have a Masters degree. On 9th Dec. Andrew E-mailed the group saying “ .. Seriously, do any of you believe this shameless liar? Unlike this humbug, I back up my claims.   I'd be happy to mail a request to Columbia University's registrar to send an official certification* to the first 3 people who email me their snail mail address.  I'd even have a certified copy sent to the shameless humbug, if he would ask. Let's see if John O'Sullivan will ask the University of Surrey registrar to send any of us certification that he attended law school there and earned a degree. Big fat chance.  I've been asking the con artist for proof for the past 6 months .. ”.

I took Andrew up on that offer and on 4th Jan. I had received from Columbia University’s Office of the Registrar “ .. Skolnick, Andrew A. Master of Science May 13, 1981 .. official certification of the academic record of the above-named individual a shown .. ”.

The is more about Hill University in my comment of 12th December from Professor Curry's Thread..

I leave it to you to form your own opinions about who has been defaming whom during these exchanges. Anyone who would like to see the full set of comments posted on Professor Curry’s “Letter to the dragon slayers” thread or the complete set of E-mail exchanges with the “Slayers” et al. during Sept. 2011 to Jan. 2012 can contact me here.

In my next update I propose to look at the earlier comments on Professor Curry’s “Letter to the dragon slayers” from Andrew and me to see if there is anything in those that could be considered defamatory of John.

On the other hand John himself could do the right thing and advise me direct about which specific comments of mine he considers to be defamatory and why. Alternatively I would be happy to accept a suitable retraction of his unfounded allegation along with an appropriate apology posted on this thread.

In John’s comment on 31st January 2010 quoted at the beginning of this update John also said “ .. I am a retired academic .. ” but didn’t offer to expand on that. As explained above that matter was also discussed on Professor Curry’s thread and also in those E-mail exchanges during Sept. 2011 to Jan 2012. “Retired” is hardly the word that I’d use to describe the sudden end to John’s teaching career. There will be more on that in the “Short History of Principia Scientific International” thread, meanwhile there are comments about it on the “Letter to the dragon slayers - selected comments” thread which is to be gradually extended (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/professor-judith-currys-letter-to.html) on 11th Dec. 2011, 20th Feb. 2012, 14th March 2012 and 21st April 2012.

2.3 More Claims and Counter-claims

Previous sections of this article have presented specific items pertaining to Professor Curry’s “Letter to the dragon slayers” thread, with Update 2 focussing on comments relating to John O’Sullivan’s claims about his various qualifications and careers. Reference has been made to several of the comments that had originally been posted on Professor Curry’s “Letter to the dragon slayers” thread and more comments have now been made available on the “Professor Judith Curry's "Letter to the dragon slayers" - Selected Comments” thread (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/professor-judith-currys-letter-to.html).

Just before John O’Sullivan issued his “Formal ‘Take Down’ Notice” there had been several submissions which Professor Curry refused to post on her thread. Her publicly-stated reasons for rejecting them were that discussions about family members or extraneous accusations were off limits, comments were getting too personal and too repetitive (see comments by curryja on April 19, 2012 at 7:00 am and 4:45 pm).

On 18th April I submitted a comment to Professor Curry’s “Letter to the dragon slayers” thread that tried to summarise the main points of the hundreds of earlier comments that had been posted there. Andrew Skolnick submitted three responses which were presented in “comment notification” E-mails but Professor Curry must have considered them to have violated her blog rules. She did not permit them to be posted on her thread but for completeness I have posted all four into my “Professor Judith Curry's "Letter to the dragon slayers" - Selected Comments” thread here.

In my comment of 18th April at 12:07 pm I referred to J Daly O’Neal whose biography had been quoted by Andrew Skolnick on 15th Dec. at 10:19 am. Andrew not only posted that comment on “Letter to the dragon slayers” but had also E-mailed it to John O’Sullivan, Cc the “Slayers” et al. In my opinion that 2007 biography (http://www.helium.com/users/208604) and another contemporary one (http://www.writers.net/writers/54740 linking to http://www.myspace.com/mrdarrk) epitomise the contention between Andrew, me and the “Slayers”. 

In those biographies J (or John) Daley O’Neal (AKA John O’Sullivan) claims to have earned a 1st degree in fine art (1983) and qualified as a teacher (1985) but makes no mention of having studied or qualified in Law. John also claims to have married an American legal advocate/lawyer and assisted in her legal advocacy work in the American civil courts however it seems that John’s second wife Barbara has never been a lawyer. She appears to have been involved in quite a few legal actions, represented or “pro se”, the most significant actions revolving around a potentially lucrative but unsuccessful claim “ .. asserting that she was subjected to a sexually hostile work environment and quid pro quo sexual harassment during her employment as a corrections officer working for the New York State Department of Correctional Services .. and that she was constructively discharged .. ” (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-nynd-3_01-cv-01300/pdf/USCOURTS-nynd-3_01-cv-01300-0.pdf). That tale is told in John’s second “factional” novel “Summit Shock” (http://cupboard55summitshock.blogspot.co.uk/) and mentioned in his first factional novel “Vanilla Girl (http://cupboard55vanillagirl.blogspot.co.uk/2008/03/cupboard-55-novel.html).

John claims to have helped his wife Barbara in her action against NY DoCS and to have defended himself in his criminal case in 2004. On the other hand, according to “Vanilla Girl” Leo Bloom BA Hon PGCE (John’s alter ego) was represented in court by a barrister (Ashkenazi Shaffernacker). In the novel Shaffernacker told him that he would be convicted unless his step-daughter gave her confession in person to the court. The local newspaper report of the case describes how “ .. another teenager was flown in especially from New York and told Lowestoft magistrates that she had sent the explicit material – not the 43-year-old teacher.

Chapters 48 and 49 of “Vanilla Girl” describe how he and his wife collected her daughter from Heathrow on the Thursday evening before the final day of the trial, reading the newspaper reports and his wife asking her daughter if she had her story straight and if she new “ .. the whole deal now? .. ”. It goes on to describe how he and his wife “ .. had barely an hour of coaching our witness - sitting her down and going over her testimony and ensuring she gives the answers want her to give .. ”. 

The local Beccles and Bungay newspaper report on 5th March 2004 about John O’Sullivan’s case describes how after the acquittal QUOTE: .. Prosecuting counsel Matthew McNiff said the last-minute evidence had “ambushed” his case .. UNQUOTE. Chapter 56 of “Vanilla Girl” says “ .. according to prosecutor, McNutt’s ‘spin’ my stepdaughter had certainly ‘ambushed’ his prosecution, or so the ‘Eastern Echo’ headline had it .. ”.

In “Vanilla Girl” Chapter 54 his lawyer (Brigid Kearney) tells him after he is acquitted that she hadn’t thought that he “ .. had a prayer  ” but that it was his stepdaughter’s confession that saved his bacon “ .. without a shadow of a doubt .. ” and mentioned how lucky he was to have obtained it from her.

“Vanilla Girl” Chapter 18 says more about that NY DoCS claim made by his wife, saying about her getting a letter from Human Rights. It talks about this being some news about their special secret, a multi-million dollar lawsuit she had filed against her former employer, still pending a decision. John and Barbara must have been terribly disappointed by that final decision, apparently not a penny heading their way “ .. NEW YORK SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, THIRD DEPARTMENT .. These claims lack merit based upon the determination that petitioner was not subjected to unlawful discrimination. Peters, J.P., Rose, Lahtinen and Malone Jr., JJ., concur. ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed .. ” (http://ny.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20090514_0004860.NY.htm/qx) and “ .. New York State Court of Claims .. Decision the claim is dismissed .. ” (http://vertumnus.courts.state.ny.us/claims/wp-html/OSullivan.2009-039-142.htm).

Bearing in mind that the petition and claim were dismissed on 14th May and 30th September 2009, 9 months later on 26th Feb. 2010 John said “ .. I am a legal advocate .. I have litigated against government corruption for over a decade in the U.S. federal Court Second Circuit as well as the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Appeal Court and Division of Human Rights. I have insight plus I still haven’t lost a case .. the task of legal advocates, like me, .. is to work with the facts .. ” (http://www.climategate.com/how-i-now-debate-a-climate-fraud-denier#comments). I’m sure that John will be able to construct what to him is a plausible argument that despite that dismissal of his wife’s petition and their joint claim he still hasn’t himself lost a case - perhaps because he wasn’t litigating on her behalf because she was acting pro se. I would be a little more convinced if I could find any evidence of John having won the main legal argument in any case in which he has litigated. 

In my opinion John’s boast in his “blogger” biography that “ .. In one of America's longest and most astonishing sexual harassment cases, 'Bracci v New York State Division of Human Rights’ O’Sullivan successfully advanced writs and petitions in both the New York State Supreme Court, and US federal court. While in another extraordinary case, John’s insightful analysis controversially succeeded with a last minute defeat for the Crown Prosecution in the English criminal court .. ” (http://www.blogcatalog.com/user/john0sullivan/bio/) flies in the face of reality. It would be interesting to hear how he considers his step-daughter taking the blame for the offences that he was charged with to be his “ .. insightful analysis .. ”.

John says “ .. AND WHAT IS A CUPBOARD 55 NOVEL? A new literary genus .. rose from the creative non-fiction, or the ‘factual novel’ .. This is the factual literature of today’s corrupt reality and it is told in narrative form .. ” (http://cupboard55summitshock.blogspot.co.uk/2008/03/and-what-is-cupboard-55_31.html). Still to be ascertained is just how much in his two novels is fact and how much is fiction or even how much of anything that he claims is fact and how much is fiction.

In his submission to Professor Curry’s thread on Apr 18 Andrew Skolnick said that John’s room-mate at WSCAD told him on 21st Sept 2011 “ .. John was studying painting at WSCAD. He went on to teacher training college where he trained as a sports teacher. However, all that was 28 years ago. He may have studied Law in the interim. John may have his own take on life and he loves swimming against the tide but he is also great fun and full of energy .. ” (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/professor-judith-currys-letter-to.html).

Hugo Sanders’ suggestion that John may have subsequently studied law relates to an interesting snippet from “Summit Shock” which Andrew Skolnick kindly drew to my attention. John’s alter ego Leo Bloom says “ .. I had used my time wisely.  No longer was I the stumbling sophomore at the Law School of Judge Judy. Now Google had surrendered up Columbia Law School’s ‘A Jailhouse Lawyer’s Manual’ (6th Edition). Chapter 4 of Volume II gave me exactly what I needed to formulate my legal challenge to Kirkland’s corrupt Order .. ”. That manual “ .. is a handbook of legal rights and procedures designed for use by people in prison .. You can download the entire Jailhouse Lawyer’s Manual for free .. ” (http://www3.law.columbia.edu/hrlr/jlm/). John says that “Summit Shock” is “ .. this thrilling true story .. ”. If that is to be believed then it seems that John studied law not at Cork University or at University of Surrey/WSCAD (http://www.linkedin.com/pub/john-o-sullivan/19/6b4/84a) or at the Internet-based Hill University where anyone can apparently buy a degree in anything for about $500 but taught himself from the Jailhouse Manual.

Lets not forget that John did boast “ .. on January 31, 2010 at 10:18 pm .. Am I licensed to practice law in the US or UK? No, sir- self-taught and proud! I think that makes my achievements even more extraordinary, don’t you? I’m just some Brit with a brain who can go live with his American wife in her country and kick ass big time around a courtroom. I’ve also even done it, too, in criminal court back in the UK where I wiped the floor with the Crown Prosecution Service and corrupt police who tried to frame me on trumped up criminal charges in what’s euphemistically called ‘police noble cause corruption.’ I won by a canter- acquitted on all counts and it made the national news, too! You try it and see how long you last. I guarantee if you tried walking in my footsteps you’d have a little less arrogance, sir .. ” (http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/01/29/deep-black-hide-the-decline/).

John’s “ .. thrilling true story .. ”  Summit Shock is full of very helpful pointers to readily available evidence on the Internet that appears to relate to John’s litigation activities in the USA. There is also a very interesting section in Chapter 26 where Carla, wife of John’s alter ego Leo, writes to a friend describing how she has concerns about his mental state, that he has a very exaggerated sense of his own importance and wonders if he might be suffering from Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Wikipedia provides an interesting overview of symptoms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder#Symptoms). 

In E-mail exchanges during Sept. – Dec. 2011 (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/selected-e-mails-with-slayerspsi.html) both Andrew and I repeatedly asked John to substantiate his claims about having a degree in Law but to no avail. John’s response on 17th Dec. included “ .. I prefer not to give out more information than I have already because dirt diggers like you and Skolnick are merely out to unjustly invade my privacy, inflict stress and anxiety on myself and my family, not in the pursuit of the truth but to merely to further your own agenda .. ”. I find that unconvincing taking into consideration the conflicting claims that have been made.

After Andrew Skolnick had drawn attention to the writings of J Daly O’Neal (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/professor-judith-currys-letter-to.html December 15, 2011 at 10:19 am) one Bryan made the fair point “ .. Its indeed a strange world where folk with genuine scientific qualifications and credibility like Postma, Peirs Corbyn and Claes Johnson seem to need a front man without any formal scientific training and who requires name changing from time to time .. ” – strange world indeed.

John makes claims about the membership of PSI but as I said on April 18, 2012 at 10:48 am (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/professor-judith-currys-letter-to.html) “ .. I prefer not to accept anything from the “Slayers” or PSI on face value. As far as the claimed or implied membership is concerned I would only be convinced by each named individual publicly acknowledging having joined and remained a member – of course excluding John O’Sullivan, Hans Schreuder, Joe Olson, Joseph E. Postma and last but by no means least, dear old Dougy Cotton .. ”.

On 29th Sept. 2011 John was claiming on his LinkedIN bio “ .. John O'Sullivan Legal Consultant at Pearlman Lindholm, Albany, New York Area .. a member of the American Bar Association (ABA), is currently litigating in two high-profile climate science lawsuits. He acts as Consultant to prominent Canadian law firm, Pearlman Lindholm, Vancouver, Canada .. As of April 2011 I have been engaged by Vancouver law firm, Pearlman Lindholm as Legal Consultant to advise on matters relating to libel suits involving prominent international climatologist, Dr Timothy Ball .. ”.
On 23rd May 2012 he was claiming “ .. John O'Sullivan CEO of Principia Scientific International, Albany, New York Area .. Legal Consultant at Principia Scientific International .. O’Sullivan is a member of the New York County Lawyers Association (NYCLA) and is litigating in two high-profile international lawsuits involving climatologists, Dr Michael Mann and Dr Tim Ball. .. ”.
On 26th April Dr. Ball stated in an E-mail that “ .. I legally disassociated myself from O'Sullivan very early and though he provided commentary he never acted as legal counsel .. ”.

Andrew’s affidavit includes a copy of an application that John made in March 2010 for employment with WalesOnLine (http://johnosullivan.livejournal.com/12444.html). Although John talked about his “ .. 20 years of pursuing the mundane life of a classroom teacher and college lecturer .. ” he made no mention of any Law Degree in that bit of self-promotion – I wonder what claims he made in the CV that he attached to his letter.

That does leave another question that would benefit from some transparency – why does John suggest on his LinkedIn page that he and his company PSI are located in “ .. Albany, New York Area .. ” rather than in West Glamorgan “ .. South Wales, where I have lived since last summer with my new love .. ”?

We may have to wait for the outcome of the Mann v Ball case before there is proper transparency about all of those claims however a little more light is shed on an almost daily basis.


In my next article "SpotON - Principia Scientific International" I shall discuss the plans and motivation that PSI’s visionary John O’Sullivan (CEO and Legal Consultant) and PSI’s “driving” founders, Dr. Timothy Ball (Chairman) Johannes Cornelis Schreuder (CFO), and Joseph A Olson had for their publishing company. It is a fascinating story of twists, turns, claims and counterclaims going back to the 1990s and earlier and I anticipate that there will be more interesting episodes to come, including those involving the libel case in the Supreme Court of British Columbia - Dr. Michael Mann vs. Dr. Timothy Ball.

A copy of Andrew Skolnick’s affidavit for the Mann v Ball case has now been placed in the public domain (http://aaskolnick.com/hold/Skolnick_affidavit_4.19.2012.pdf) and it makes for very interesting reading.

As usual, if anyone considers that anything I have said in this article is unfair or a misrepresentation of the facts then please let me know and I will consider whether or not a retraction or apology is warranted. The last thing that I wish to do is misinterpret the evidence that has been made available to me and present a misleading picture to others. My objective is simply to provide as much transparency as I can about PSI, starting with its CEO’s threat to Professor Curry.

Whilst adding some more comments to my “Professor Judith Curry's "Letter to the dragon slayers" - Selected Comments” thread I was reminded of one on 19th Dec 2011 from someone hiding behind the false name “Truth Sword” (I speculate that this may be “Slayer” and PSI founding member Joseph A Olson). A link was provided to http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/home/9691-desperate-climate-campaigner-sinks-to-criminality-to-smear-skeptics which is no longer accessible however the article by John O’Sullivan is still (for the time-being) available on the German version of the “Slaying the Sky Dragon” promotional site (http://slayingtheskydragon.com/de/blog/190-desperate-climate-campaigner-sinks-to-criminality-to-smear-skeptics). Hurry along before it too is taken down, then go to Lucia Liljegrens’ “Sniffing out Crackers Bots” thread (http://rankexploits.com/protect/2011/12/not-proof-of-photoshopping/) for a laugh.

You might also like to visit Lucia’s “Do Industrial Countries Absorb CO2?” thread (http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/do-industrial-countries-absorb-co2/) before John issues a “Formal ‘Take Down’ Notice” to her, although I doubt that she will be as easily persuaded as Professor Curry was to take down her thread.

3.0 Selected E-mails from the Thread

3.1 Recent Events

On 1st August 2012 John O'Sullivan gave his opinion on the "Breaking: Courtroom Chaos as New Zealand Skeptics Rout Government Climatists" (http://johnosullivan.wordpress.com/2012/08/01/breaking-courtroom-chaos-as-new-zealand-skeptics-rout-government-climatists/). Not everyone was impressed by what he had to say and a better-informed counter-opinion was presented in "With friends like these we need no enemies" (http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2012/08/with-friends-like-these-we-need-no-enemies/#comment-109628). Richard Treadgold started out with " .. some of his comments describe more hope than fact, possibly through a misunderstanding of NZ law and the nature of our court case .. " and proceeded to substantiate those claims.

My attention was drawn to these articles in an E-mail on 4th Aug. 2012 from Rupert Wyndham who had advised me of John O'Sullivan's defamation accusations (see Section 1.0). I have submitted a comment on "With friends like these we need no enemies" in which I quote from the E-mail thread that I post here in order that the full context of my quotations can be checked. (I wouldn't want anyone to accuse me of misrepresentation by cherry-picking).

 It is worthwhile noting that in his E-mail of 26th April 2012 Tim Ball said " .. I was made aware of the charges against O'Sullivan almost from the start.  .. I legally disassociated myself from O'Sullivan very early and though he provided commentary he never acted as legal counsel .. " whereas on 27th May 2011 John O'Sullivan had claimed to be " .. deeply involved in representing Dr. Tim Ball in his two libel cases in the Vancouver Supreme Court, BC. That was in an E-mail circulated to the "Slayers"/PSI group and others (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/psi-due-diligence-20102011-selected-e.html) yet Tim Ball said nothing at the time to refute what John was claiming. Considering that Tim Ball was involved in E-mail exchanges with the group from at least 26th May 2010, including the "PSI & Due Diligence" exchanges during Dec. 2010/Jan. 2011 it would be nice to know what Tim Ball means when saying " .. disassociate myself from John O'Sullivan very early .. ". 27th May 2011 does not seem to me to be "very early" as far as his legal association with John O'Sullivan is concerned but perhaps I misunderstand what he means by "early" or "from the start".

3.2 The E-mails


=============== 

 From: Rupert Wyndham …
Date: 4 August 2012 09:48
Subject: Re: O'Sullivan
To: Outside The Beltway Group …
Forwarded To: peter.ridley@…. at 09:51 AM

 Hello Keith

The answer to your question is 'Yes'. The man is a menace; loose cannon is far too complimentary! He's not only abrasive and self-promoting, he constantly goes off half-cock, as Treadgold's damage limitation exercise makes all too clear.

Forgive me if I do not edit the following exchange of emails, but I think that you and your contacts (Treadgold, in particular, perhaps) my find find pertinent and useful material in them. For greater ease of understanding, I'd suggest reading from the bottom.

ATB
R

PS Best of fortune in your case in NZ. Strong advice, though - don't touch O'S with even the dirty end of a 40 ft barge pole.

 ----------------- ------------- ----------  
Message Received: Apr 30 2012, 04:13 PM
From: "Pete Ridley" …
To: "Rupert Wyndham" …
Cc:
Subject: RE: Fwd: John O'Sullivan, known and revered by all

 Hi Rupert, thanks for that very helpful set of E-mails. If you still have the original version of Tim Ball's E-mail sent to you on 26 April 2012 17:59, would you be good enough to forward it on to me for my records.
I 'phoned Hans on th emobile number that he has on his web-site but he declined to speak to me and hungup.
Best regards, Pete.

------------------------- --------------- -------------- 
Message Received: Apr 30 2012, 12:09 PM
From: "Rupert Wyndham" …
To: peter.ridley@…
Cc:
Subject: Fwd: John O'Sullivan, known and revered by all
---------- Forwarded message ----------

 From: Rupert Wyndham …
Date: 27 April 2012 17:01
Subject: Re: John O'Sullivan, known and revered by all
To: Tim Ball …
Cc: "S. Fred Singer" …

Hello Prof Ball
Just a few observations.
 ……. …… ….. (see below for the thread of exchanges about John O’Sullivan’s ‘Take Down Notice’ including those in the “Defamation E-mails with John O’Sullivan” Word document).
….. …… ….. 
----------------- -------- ------------ 
On 4 August 2012 01:01, Outside The Beltway Group wrote:
Rupert is this the same idiot who tried “it” on with you?****
If it is, his drubbing by Richard Treadgold might amuse you and your contacts.****
Kindests****
Keith****
…
 *Outside the Beltway Group *
 *New Zealand *
 * *
 *OTB is an informal,  not for profit group,  comprising individuals living and working outside of central Wellington (The Beltway),  New Zealand, and associates in  Australia, Britain, Switzerland, and the United States.  Group members have  extensive practical experience in accounting, business, economics, farming, Government administration, journalism, Local Government and in New Zealand politics.  *
*Contact information**:           outsidethebeltway@clear.net.nz*
* *
….
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++****
** **
With friends like these we need no enemies****
Richard Treadgold| August 3, 2012**** ... THEN A COPY OF THE FULL ARTICLE FROM http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2012/08/with-friends-like-these-we-need-no-enemies/#comment-109628  ...
=============== 

 Message Received: Apr 30 2012, 12:09 PM
From: "Rupert Wyndham" …
To: peter.ridley@…
Cc: 
Subject: Fwd: John O'Sullivan, known and revered by all
  
  ---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Rupert Wyndham …
Date: 27 April 2012 17:01
Subject: Re: John O'Sullivan, known and revered by all
To: Tim Ball …
Cc: "S. Fred Singer" …
    
Hello Prof Ball
  
Just a few observations.
  
*Your associations and views:*
  
- I'm not concerned about your associations - or rather, just one, and that only in the context of outstanding legal actions involving Mann and, even then, only in the light of what, in tha past, has been intimated to me by Mr. O'Sullivan himself.
- About your views I have no concern whatsoever. On the contrary, to the extent that I'm cogniscent of them, I'm pretty much in full agreement and treat them with considerable respect. Hence my willingness to proffer modest financial support.
  
*O'Sullivan: *
This is a funny one. When he made contact about you, he seemed 'on side', if I can so put it, even though some of his statements also seemed extravagant and slightly self-promoting - but, well, live and let live!
  
- My view of him started to veer away sharply, however, when he began to make a number of highly temperate attacks on, amongst others, Fred Singer and John Christy.
- And about what? Why, to be sure, about the issue of CO2 as a greenhouse gas.
- Speaking for myself, that may be an interesting matter of scientific speculation, but it is not the central issue. Neither, for that matter, is climate change qua climate change.
- The central, overriding issue is the integrity of the scientific endeavour and the defence of scientific method as an instrument of rational enquiry.
-  I did not and do not object to O'Sullivan disagreeing with Singer/Christy/Monckton or, indeed, me - in fact, me least of all. I did and do mind the dogmatism and abrasiveness of his approach.
- When I challenged him, it became immediately clear that the man was more of a hindrance than a help to the cause I've identified above and, in passing, about which you and I seem to be in complete agreement.
- This week, it was he, let me stress, who sent me the texts of some absurd and pompous 'take down notices', which he'd addressed to Prof. Curry. They were so innately improbable in substance and offensive in tone that I asked to see them - the links provided in his email wouldn't open.
- Thereafter and rapidly, all the dirty linen began to spill out - and a lot more than I've indicated to you.
- Until this occured, I had no idea that he had any association with you. To be frank, I found the revelation startling.
- In any event, I'm glad that you've done your own checks which, I surmise, have provided pretty much the same insights as have been vouchsafed to me.
- If so, you would certainly be wise to steer clear with regard to the case in BC.
  
*The book:* Well, as you may have divined, I personally couldn't care less about it. Actually, that's not entirely true. The scientific debate is, to me, a side show. It strikes me as a legitimate scientifc question, but not one on which I'm equipped to pass judgement. So what? It's a question that I'm more than happy to see sensible scientists debating - provided, of course, they do so is a proper spirit of enquiry and professional discourse. 

 *McIntyre:* You've taught me something very interesting. I hadn't realised how intuitive McIntyre had been. Amazing!
  
*Pat Michaels*: I have no idea what may have been the import of Pat Michaels' statement in Calgary. However, he's an excellent chap, but does have a streak of impishness in his nature, I fancy. It may simply have been an expression of that. Another, as you may recall, was the opening of his address to the Heartland Conference 2 or 3 years back. Speaking once more for myself, I say again 'So what?' The central issue is not scientific, it's one of ethics.
  
*"...they could not believe how bad the science was especially with regard to CO2." *I am not a scientist, but I totally agree. I'd go further.
Climate science, as it's currently promoted, does not require one to be a scientist. It only requires one to exercise fairly elementary logic. More sourly, it also requires one not to be a crook, from which it follows that your next paragraph is emphatically right!
  
*Menken: *As always with Menken, one is entertained by the aphoristic pithiness and wit, but I don't entirely agree with your extension of the quotation. As far as I'm concerned, I don't reject AGW in an antagonistic sense albeit that, in truth, I do think it's wholly untenable. However, it's untenable less because it's bad science as because it's wilfully dishonest. Any science that resolutely refuses to take account of contra-indications is not science at all, it's a form of cultist dogma.
That is the critical distinction between believers and sceptics. For the latter, whether or not the science is right or wrong is not the central issue. The central issue is that it's never settled which, of course, places it at a 180 degree divergence from AGW orthodoxy.
  
I trust I've written enough to demonstrate that, as to your final paras, I  am emphatically on side.
  
Finally, I hope matters progress satisfactorily with respect to the case.
Is there any way one can keep tabs on it?
  
Salutations and all good wishes
  
RW
================ 

 From: Tim Ball
Date: 26 April 2012 17:59
Subject: Re: John O'Sullivan, known and revered by all
To: Rupert Wyndham …
Cc: "S. Fred Singer" …

 Thanks for your concerns about my associations and views.

 I was made aware of the charges against O'Sullivan almost from the start. I checked as much as possible because as Fred is painfully aware there are a lot of deviously clever people who spin stories knowing that once it is on the web it has legs. My lawyer has also down extensive checks. It was said, a lie is halfway round the world before the truth has its boots on. With the internet it is all round the world from a multitude of sources before the truth is booted.

 I legally disassociated myself from O'Sullivan very early and though he provided commentary he never acted as legal counsel.

 I cannot disconnect myself from the book as it is in the public record. I also stand by my decision to participate in the book. It was taken because as a climatologist trying to fit all the pieces in the puzzle I found it impossible to fit many, but especially CO2.

 I spoke about this problem of climatology being a generalist discipline in an age of specialization when I was honoured to share a keynote platform with Fred at the first Heartland Conference in New York.

 I have known from the start of my studies that I had to seek information and advice from specialists when researching, publishing or considering weather and climate problems.

 I realized that proof of my concerns was the discovery of the hockey stick errors by a statistician. When McIntyre first saw the hockey stick graph he did not know it was about climate but immediately knew it was a corrupted graph and suspected how it was achieved. A suspicion he went on to prove.

 I am not a physicist and cannot say whether the claims about CO2 as a greenhouse gas satisfy exponents of that specialization. I know I was disconcerted when years ago (in Calgary) I heard Patrick Michaels say we should concede human CO2 added to the greenhouse warming of that gas because it was politically unwise to say differently.

 I approach the problem from the other end. All records of any duration for any time period show temperature increases before CO2. The recent attempt by Shakun et al to show that the ice core record in fact showed CO2 increase preceded temperature increase was proof that it is seen as problem by proponents of AGW. As you likely know Shakun was quickly dismissed, http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/08/did-shakun-et-al-really-prove-that-co2-precede-late-glacial-warming-part-1/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/18/more-fatal-flaws-in-the-shakun-et-al-nature-paper-claiming-that-co2-preceded-late-glacial-warming-part-2/

 I have watched them change from talking about the effect of CO2 to climate sensitivity. I had also watched the measure of that constantly decrease http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/19/lower-climate-sensitivity-estimates-new-good-news/

 What many don't know is that I attended three different meetings at the last Heartland in Washington outside of the official forums and each was discussing whether or not CO2 was a greenhouse gas. At one meeting there were eight people, all engineers and physicists who had only recently looked at climate science and said they could not believe how bad the science was especially with regard to CO2. The discussion among all three groups (independently) was that CO2 was not a greenhouse gas and may be a cooling agent.

 What is especially disconcerting is the idea that anyone who dares to question what is considered skeptical science needs to be isolated and attacked. The idea that those in the skeptics groups should not continue to be skeptical is unacceptable.

 H. L. Mencken said you can divide the world into two groups, those who will divide the world into two groups and those who won't. So far there are two climate groups, those who support the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis, warmists, and those who don't, skeptics. For me such narrowness is as dogmatic as the climate science that has perverted, corrupted and used it for a political agenda. It perpetuates the thinking that permeates so much of political thinking today, namely, if you are not with me you
must be against me.

 Use of the consensus argument is proof of the politicizing of climate science as I explain here; http://drtimball.com/2012/consensus-argument-proves-climate-science-is-political/
I reject application of the idea to any group in a science debate.

 I will continue to practice science by being a skeptic and make no apologies. I will continue to seek responses from specialists about each element of the climate system. Meanwhile I wait for a record that shows a CO2 increase precedes a temperature increase - not one generated by a computer or simulated in a lab but measured in the real world.

 Thanks for your concerns and support (especially the financial contributions). I am not trying to be difficult, I have enough problems as it is, but as scientists it is essential we keep our minds as open as possible, otherwise the science is settled and true debate is over.

 Tim Ball

 On 2012-04-26, at 7:44 AM, Rupert Wyndham wrote:

 Prof Ball

 For your info.

 ATB

 RW

 ---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: S. Fred Singer …
Date: 26 April 2012 12:27
Subject: Re: John O'Sullivan, known and revered by all
To: Rupert Wyndham …

 I share yr concern
Fred
timothyball@…
**************************************

 At 02:53 AM 4/26/2012, you wrote:

 Hello Fred

 Joe, I'm gratified to say, was pleased with the blast of the popgun directed at Oxford Amnesty Lectures - no reply as yet from Dr. Costello.

 In the meantime, there's been a little rustling in the bushes originating with Mr. O'Sullivan. Tim Ball is the person about whom I express astonishment at his association with this redoubtable intellectual and scientific heavy weight. I'd like to ask him, but don't seem to have an email address. Perhaps you'd be kind enough to forward on this message.

 For TB personally, I have to add that I'm slightly alarmed. It was O'Sullivan, if memory serves, who first alerted me to Michael Mann's action against him, and provided details of how contributions might be made to the TB 'fighting fund'. Contribute I did in a modest way, and would have done more had the answers to certain questions been forthcoming - noteably from Ross McKittrick. My concern for TB is that having O'S on side as a putative legal adviser/possible witness, which I seem to remember was his (O'S's) claim, could lead to a blood bath in court not seen since the heyday of the Colisseum.

 Oh well, hey ho.................

 ATB
…

 ------------ -------------- ------------ 
*From:* Rupert Wyndham …
*To:* JOHN OSULLIVAN …
*Cc:* … peter.ridley@…; … judith.curry@…; …askolnick@roadrunner.com; … houston2000@…
*Sent:* Wednesday, 25 April 2012, 18:15

 *Subject:* Re: Response to John O'Sullivan Issues Pre-litigation Defamation
Warning to Dr. Judith Curry
Mr. O'Sullivan (the invariable upper case is illuminating)
You also called Mr. Ridley a 'con artist'. That is highly defamatory*;* … see original E-mail below … 
You are a blow hard, and you've been rumbled!
RW

 ----------- -------------- ------ 
On 25 April 2012 14:56, JOHN OSULLIVAN …wrote:
Mr. Wyndham,
I call Ridley and Skolnick liars because they are. Your attempts at playing armchair lawyer are as laughable as theirs. As I've said umpteen times  - either put up or shut up. The same goes for you, too. You're a joke.

 John
www.slayingtheskydragon.com

 ------------ -------------- ------------ 
From: Rupert Wyndham …
To: JOHN OSULLIVAN …
Cc: "peter.ridley@…; … judith.curry@…; askolnick@…; houston2000@…
 Sent: Wednesday, 25 April 2012, 12:33
 Subject: Re: Response to John O'Sullivan Issues Pre-litigation Defamation
Warning to Dr. Judith Curry

 Mr. O'Sullivan

 By a long chalk, not for the first time your abrasive language and attitude … see original E-mail below … 

 In the meantime, speaking for myself, this episode simply serves to reinforce the impression that I have harboured for a long time, namely that you are very largely a self-inflating sac of bombast and blather.

 RW

 ---------- --------------- ------------ 
On 25 April 2012 10:08, JOHN OSULLIVAN … wrote:
Ridley,
You are a proven liar and a con artist who spends his life trawling the gutter looking for dirt. You and your partner in crime Skolnick are a joke. No wonder nobody takes you seriously.

 -------------- --------------- ------------- 
From: Pete Ridley …
To: john0sullivan@…
Cc: judith.curry@…; askolnick@…; rupertwyndham@…; houston2000@…
 Sent: Wednesday, 25 April 2012, 9:25
 Subject: Response to John O'Sullivan Issues Pre-litigation Defamation
Warning to Dr. Judith Curry

  Hi John, in your FORMAL ‘TAKE DOWN’ NOTICE to Professor Curry you said of me
… (see original E-mail below)  … FORMAL ‘TAKE DOWN’ NOTICE to Professor Curry.

 Best regards,
Pete Ridley

 **

 **S. Fred Singer, PhD
Chm, Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)
1600 S. Eads St., Suite 712-S
Arlington, VA 22202-2907

1-703-920-2744
===================== 



 Message Received: May 30 2012, 05:45 PM
 From: "Pete Ridley"...
 To: ....
 Cc: 
 Subject: Re: Professor Judith Curry threatened with blog closure attempt – Update #3

Hi again ...,

You commented in your earlier E-mail about “ .. the position championed by Alan and Hans and disseminated so effectively under John's leadership .. ”. Not everyone shares that opinion and I quote several examples from a couple of highly respected CACC sceptics:
 - “ .. Like I said in my original blog post on the skydragons, debunking everything that is wrong in that book would take weeks.  Not that it is difficult to debunk, but the sheer volume of things that need debunking would take weeks .. ” (Professor Judith Curry on 9th October 2011in an E-mail),
 - “ .. IMO, this group has damaged the credibility of skepticism about climate change and provides a convenient target when people want to refer to “deniers” and crackpots .. ” (Professor Judith Curry on 15th Oct. 2011 “Letter to the dragon slayers”),
 - “ .. The so-called "dragon-slayers" are an idiotic distraction and I do not support them or anything they do .. ” (Lord Monckton on 9th March 2012 in an E-mail),
 - “ .. the moderators are going to have to do something about the tiresome clique .. It is beginning to look as though the soi-disant “dragon-slayers”, who deny the existence of the greenhouse effect, are intent not on rational, scientific debate but on outright sabotage .. ” (Lord Monckton on 10th March 2012 at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/10/moncktons-schenectady-showdown/).
 - “ .. You are right about the undesirability of being seen to be associated with the sky-dragon loonies .. ” (Lord Monckton on 15th April 2012 in an E-mail,

That choice of “soi-disant” (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/soi-disant) by Lord Monckton to describe the “Slayers” would appear to be relevant to John O’Sullivan’s claims about his qualifications and achievements as a litigator.

I anticipate that you will continue to defend the “Slayers”/PSI group but please try reading what is on my blog with an open mind.

Best regards, Pete
==================== 




Message Received: May 11 2012, 09:18 to 09:44 PM

From: peter.ridley@... 
To: Maurice Rich...
Cc: tom@... tom_neveu@...; tom@...; myresort@...; john0sullivan@...; houston2000@...; alleyd@...; anniegrant143@...; bbr14908@...; bocky1961@...; jbell37@...; jeanette47@...; jrogers@...; lorrainehinge@...; mspiggy@...; orion@...; ray@...; spartans500bc@...; tony@...; v_majkus@...; .hanssch@..., .morano@..., catalyst@..., dav1dosull1van2@..., kevinjklees@..., ACaruba@..., lucia@..., judith.curry@..., PF.SMP@...; ken@...; info@...; rsowell@...; hugosanders@...; nasifnahle@..., alan618034@..., claesjohnson@...; rupertwyndham@...; timothyball@...; singer@...; jdssps1@...; germanclimateblog@...; omatumr@...; Charles.R.Anderson@...; geraldo@...; red@...; piers@...; bobashworth@...; sr2@...; dalker@...; clifftent@...; dougcotton@...; paul.reiter@...; lhissink@...; aaprjohn@...; rtfs722@...; m.staplehurst@...; a.easby@...; allmarriotts@...; Steves.26@...; rdcain@...; askolnick@...;  theosullivanclan@...
Sent: Thu, 11th  May 2012 ???
Subject: Re: Elite Openly Flaunts Plan To Turn Cities Into planned-opolis

 ATTACHMENT: Lying climate scientists-2012_05_07.doc

 Hi Maurice, long time no speak.

 I fully agree about Professor Curry and Dr. Spencer being willing to encourage open debate and not only about the science. In my opinion the Slayers don’t appear to like having open discussions about all of the shenanigans that go alongside the science. As an example on 7th May I submitted a comment in three parts (see attachment) to the “Lying climate scientists lie again – about death threats, this time” thread (http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/home/10155-lying-climate-scientists-lie-again-about-death-threats-this-time) at Climate Change Dispatch. The first part was about Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change (CACC) supporter Professor Stephen Schneider’s attitude of encouraging fellow scientists to keep their uncertainties about CACC to themselves and promote the scare story. There was no problem with getting that one posted because it was commenting about a CACC supporter so the blog moderator left it intact.

 The next two parts were about the other side of the coin, the sceptics, specifically mentioning the treatment of Professor Curry by others, including the lead Slayer, PSI “Legal Consultant and” CEO John O’Sullivan. The moderator deleted those parts so I pondered about whether or not there was a connection between the owner and the Slayers. I found a comment from a Tom which appeared to be a response from the blog moderator/owner and recalled that at one time (24th July 2011) a Tom Neveu was listed on the PSI web-site among the founding members. I also recalled that when challenged to provide some evidence of his claimed successful litigation John said (29th Sept. 2011) QUOTE: .. I recently achieved for Mr. Neveu the favorable outcome he sought in a .. lawsuit in the United States District Court, Nevada. .. For further verification Mr. Neveu can be contacted at .. tom_neveu@comcast.net .. UNQUOTE.

On the current PSI web-site there’s only a QUOTE: .. Webmaster & Founder Member: Tom Richard (U.S.). Tom is the driving force behind Neveu Design (Boston, Mass). A master of graphic design, web design, and print design services Tom’s professional expertise has made the PSI website not only highly functionable but adaptive to the growing demands of an ambitious and globally-expanding science publishing and communications hub .. UNQUOTE (http://principia-scientific.org/about/why-psi-is-a-private-assoc).

Not knowing then who is the owner of Climate Change Dispatch but suspecting a connection with PSI I E-mailed info@climatechangedispatch QUOTE: .. It appears that you don't like the truth on this blog. I posted a set of three comments on the  - Lying climate scientists lie again ­ thread and twice you removed Parts 2 & 3. It says a lot about you .. UNQUOTE.

The response was QUOTE: .. Please read the Terms of Service for comments and STAY on topic. Your first post was on topic, your second two were not .. UNQUOTE - talk about bias!

Who was that E-mail from! - surprise surprise, one Tom Richard. Not mentioned on the PSI web-site but very important, Tom appears to be not only a master of graphic design, web design, and print design but also a master of censorship.

John O’Sullivan proclaims on the PI web-site that QUOTE: .. Further landmark achievements are sure to follow as long as openness and transparency reigns .. UNQUOTE (http://principia-scientific.org/about/principles-of-association) and that PSI’s members are QUOTE: .. advocates of transparency and accountability in science .. UNQUOTE (http://principia-scientific.org/about/why-psi-is-a-private-assoc). Perhaps one of the CCs will be good enough to shed some transparency on the connection between Tom Neveu, Tom Richard and Neveu Design.

For those who haven’t done so yet I invite you to have a read of my article “Professor Judith Curry threatened with blog closure attempt” (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/professor-judith-curry-threatened-with.html) which has attracted a lot of attention.

Best regards, Pete Ridley
=================== 


From: Maurice Rich...
To: peter.ridley@...
CC: myresort@...; houston2000@...; a.easby@...; alleyd@...; allmarriotts@...; anniegrant143@...; bbr14908@...; bocky1961@...; jbell37@...; jeanette47@...; jrogers@...; lorrainehinge@...; mspiggy@...; orion@...; ray@...; spartans500bc@...; tony@...; v_majkus@...; hanssch@...
Sent: Thu, 10 May 2012 23:49
Subject: Re: Elite Openly Flaunts Plan To Turn Cities Into planned-opolis

I did read your original post + links mostly & reread it later upon reading the response. I was indeed a little surprised at the response.
I follow Judith Curry a fair bit & am somewhat surprised & a little incredulous at the attack/challenge on her as well as others like Roy Spencer by PSI.
I am inclined to agree that recent offerings issued from PSI are doing damage to most Skeptics & this is stated by a couple (few?) on your links.
What I like about Spencer & Curry is they are open to both sides of the debate & to review it completely & properly. They're honest & open about their views & explain them very well. As much as possible & as much as they're allowed to they're both challenging their peers to do the same.

regards,

Maurice H Rich
=================== 


 Message Received: May 09 2012, 09:02 PM
From: "Pete Ridley" ...
To: timothyball@...
Cc: singer@...
Subject: Re: Professor Judith Curry  threatened wi th blog closure attempt - thread update

Hi Tim, are you able to confirm what Fred says and if so when did you dissociate yourself from the Slayers because according to the current PSI web-site you are still very much associated with them " .. From the outset PSI was driven by retired Dutch Analytical Chemist, Hans Schreuder, Texan engineer and science writer, Joseph A. Olson and Canada's most popular climatologist, Dr. Tim Ball. Dr. Ball is the appointed Chair of PSI .. " (http://principia-scientific.org/about/principles-of-association).
===================== 



Message Received: May 09 2012, 08:25 to 08:43 PM
From: "Pete Ridley"...
To: singer@..., hanssch@...; houston2000@...; jpostma@...; john0sullivan@..., nasifnahle@..., alan618034@..., claesjohnson@..., jdssps1@..., germanclimateblog@..., omatumr@..., timothyball@..., PF.SMP@..., ruthhertzberg@..., Charles.R.Anderson@..., ken@..., geraldo@..., Fred@..., piers@..., bobashworth@...; sr2@..., dalker@..., clifftent@..., dougcotton@..., paul.reiter@..., tom@..., lhissink@..., aaprjohn@..., judith.curry@..., lucia@...; hugosanders@...; ACaruba@..., kevinjklees@..., dav1dosull1van2@..., catalyst@..., anthony.bright@..., morano@..., mail@..., rtfs722@..., m.staplehurst@...; myresort@...; a.easby@...; alleyd@...; allmarriotts@...; anniegrant143@...; bbr14908@...; bocky1961@...; jbell37@...; jeanette47@...; jrogers@...; lorrainehinge@...; maurice.rich@...; mspiggy@...; orion@...; ray@...; spartans500bc@...; tony@...; v_majkus@...; Steves.26@..., rdcain@..., askolnick@..., rsowell@..., rupertwyndham@..., theosullivanclan@...
Cc: 
Subject: Re: Professor Judith Curry threatened with blog closure attempt – UPDATE # 2

Hi all, I have added UPDATE # 2 to my - Professor Judith Curry threatened with blog closure attempt - article (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/professor-judith-curry-threatened-with.html).

Hi Fred,
I hope that you managed to get to that thread and that you found it of interest. I appreciate that you’re concern may be mainly about the science but as I am sure you are aware the CACC debate is about far more than that. Anything that the supporters of the CACC hypothesis can use against us sceptics is and will be used to the full extent in order to further the varied agenda that are being pursued by them.

In my opinion John O-Sullivan, Tim Ball, Joe Olson, Hans Schreuder and their gaggle of followers are doing more damage than good to our attempts to expose the propaganda that is being foisted upon the general public by the power hungry, the UN, the environmental activists, our politicians and the investors in renewable energy projects. That is the reason I am posting about them and drawing attention to my posts whenever I see it to be appropriate.

I warned the group in Jan. 2011 that CACC supporters would drag out any skeletons that lay hidden in any of their cupboards but for their own reasons they chose to ignore what I said. I am astounded that seemingly intelligent individuals seems to have allowed themselves to be influenced by the founding members of PSI and I intend to continue doing my utmost to provide transparency about the history of PSI for any who might be tempted to join that organisation.

I have just been having a read of the article - Open Letter to Dr S Fred Singer, American Thinker - (http://slayingtheskydragon.com/en/blog/204-open-letter-to-dr-s-fred-singer-american-thinker) by their relatively recent recruit, Pierre Latour and in my opinion it is unnecessarily insulting. He may well be “ .. a recognized authority in process automation technology and successful entrepreneur in several process control ventures .. ” (http://www.controlglobal.com/articles/2004/236.html) but I have found no evidence that he has demonstrate expertise in atmospheric physics or the “greenhouse effect”.

I cannot comprehend why the “Slayers” and other PSI commentators seem unable to recognise that if IR-absorbing gases like H2O, CH4 and CO2 can hinder the passage of energy from earth to space any increase/decrease in the concentration of such gases requires a corresponding increase/decrease in the temperature of the Earth’s system (of spheres) until balance is restored between incoming and outgoing radiated energy.

But I’m just a retired electrical engineer so could be totally mistaken.

Best regards, Pete Ridley
================= 


 Message Received: Apr 30 2012, 11:40 PM
From: "Pete Ridley"
To: "Andrew Skolnick"
Cc: hanssch@..., piers@..., john0sullivan@..., judith.curry@... rupertwyndham@..., houston2000@..., ken@..., claesjohnson@..., timothyball@...
Subject: RE: Tim Ball's "legal team" suffers serious legal set back

 Hi Andrew, I think that it is only fair to copy your E-mail to Hans (Johannes Cornelis) Schreuder and Piers Corbyn. They have been involved recently in the exchanges relating to this issue, including the “FORMAL ‘TAKE DOWN’ NOTICE” that John issued to Professor Curry on 21 April 2012. This may help them to better understand what has been going on recently.

 Of course there are others who John chose to BCc on his “Notice” who should also be made aware of the current position but John has not seen fit to advise us of who they are. After all, he didn’t even see fit to copy us on his “Notice” which I find surprising considering that he was accusing the two of us of defaming him.

 He still has not responded to my invitation to either substantiate his unfounded accusations against me or issue an appropriate apology, but from my past experience with John that does not come as a surprise.

 I am surprised that neither Hans nor Joe have responded in any way to these exchanges, considering their close involvement with John since 2010 in setting up PSI. I recall drawing the attention of John and the rest of his “Slayers” on 28th Sept. to QUOTE: .. “Criminal Justice: Does Silence Mean Guilt?” (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,899502,00.html). Regardless that “ .. The decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States have, in effect, shattered the tacit-admission rule .. ” silence can still leave a strong suspicion of guilt in the minds of the lay public. As I said on 30th Sep 2011, “ .. many are suspicious of those who worship Harpocrates (http://www.whale.to/b/silence.html) .. ”.

 I remind you of John’s response to Rupert Wyndham on 22 April 2012 “ .. Curry has capitulated and removed her unlawful and scurrilous comments plus a ton of other science-free garbage attacking my colleagues - it's a humiliating climb down. A victory not just for me, but all the Slayers . If Curry manages to refrain from publishing any further libelous content then she won't have to be chastised again by my "hysterical hyperbole." .. ”.

 Can you advise us of when the hearing of the libel action taken by Professor Mann against Professor Ball is now scheduled to be heard?

 Best regards, Pete Ridley
============= 

 Message Received: Apr 30 2012, 08:37 PM
From: "Andrew Skolnick" …
To: "peter.ridley@…
Cc: "JOHN OSULLIVAN" …, "judith.curry@…, "rupertwyndham@…, "houston2000@…, "ken@…, "claesjohnson@…, "timothyball@…
Subject: Tim Ball's "legal team" suffers serious legal set back

 On 4/25/2012 5:08 AM, JOHN OSULLIVAN wrote: Ridley, You are a proven liar and a con artist who spends his life trawling the gutter looking for dirt. You and your partner in crime Skolnick are a joke. No wonder nobody takes you seriously.

Well, Tim Ball's attorney Michael Scherr certainly takes me seriously.  

 Two weeks ago, in support of the libel suit Michael Mann filed against Tim Ball in March 2011, I filed a 180-page affidavit in the Supreme Court of British Columbia documenting Mr. O'Sullivan's bogus law credentials and record of deceitful and fraudulent conduct.

 I was asked to submit the affidavit to help the plaintiff respond to Tim Ball's Notice of Application, which sought to prevent Prof. Mann from including in his civil claim libelous statements John O'Sullivan had published on behalf of Ball -- based on the ridiculous claim that O'Sullivan's communications are protected by "attorney-client privilege." 

 Considering that O'Sullivan's law degree was purchased Jan. 2010 from the online diploma mill "Hill University," which has no known address or phone number,  O'Sullivan has no such privilege.

 The Supreme Court hearing to decide on the defendant's claim of privilege was scheduled for Wednesday, May 2.  That hearing is now off.  

 Prof. Mann's motion to amend his notice of civil claim to include O'Sullivan's defamatory statements will now be granted by consent of the defendants.  This is a major set back for Tim Ball and the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.  Furthermore, Tim Ball can now be compelled to turn over all communications between himself and John O'Sullivan. 

 It a startling admission, it appears even Tim Ball is now recanting his previous claim of gratitude for "the legal advice and expertise of lawyer John O'Sullivan in Britain and Michael Scherr in Victoria."  

 In recent email Ball now says that "though he [O'Sullivan] provided commentary, he never acted as legal counsel."

 It seems like it was just yesterday when John O'Sullivan was advertising himself all over the Internet as a "legal consultant at the prominent law firm Pearlman Lindholm" and a lawyer representing Tim Ball in what he calls "the science trial of the century." It now appears he's a seriously embarrassing albatross hanging from attorney Michael Scherr's and Tim Ball's neck.

 Seriously yours,
Andrew Skolnick
============== 

 Message Received: Apr 25 2012, 06:49 PM
From: "Pete Ridley" …
To: john0sullivan@…
Cc: judith.curry@…, askolnick@…, rupertwyndham@…, houston2000@…, hanssch@…
Subject: Response to John O'Sullivan Issues Pre-litigation Defamation Warning to Dr. Judith Curry

 Hi John, am I to take your E-mail of Apr 25 2012, 03:31 PM “Do not send me any more of your unsolicited emails. Correspondence from you and Ridley is now marked as spam .. ” as being your final response to my E-mail of Apr 25 2012, 09:25 AM.

 If by tomorrow night I hear no more from you regarding substantiation of your defamatory statements about me then I’ll take that as a “yes” and seek further legal advice on obtaining redress for you defamation.

 Best regards, Pete Ridley
=================== 

 From: JOHN OSULLIVAN …
Date: 25 April 2012 18:40
To: Rupert Wyndham …
FORWARDED TO hanssch@tech-know.eu 
Subject: Re: Response to John O'Sullivan Issues Pre-litigation Defamation
Warning to Dr. Judith Curry

Wyndham,
 Speaking the truth is not defamatory. You are an ass and also a liar.

 ---------------- --------------- -----------------  
Message Received: Apr 25 2012, 06:15 PM
From: "Rupert Wyndham"
To: "JOHN OSULLIVAN" john0sullivan@btinternet.com .. 

 Mr. O'Sullivan (the invariable upper case is illuminating) … 
 ..  see original E-mail below …You are a blow hard, and you've been rumbled!

 RW (SEE FULL E-MAIL FROM RUPERT BELOW)
============= 

 Message Received: Apr 25 2012, 03:49 PM
From: "Andrew Skolnick" …
To: "JOHN OSULLIVAN" …
Cc: "Rupert Wyndham…, "peter.ridley@…, "judith.curry@…, "houston2000@…
FORWARDED TO hansschr@
Subject: Re: Response to John O'Sullivan Issues Pre-litigation Defamation Warning to Dr. Judith Curry
  
On 4/25/2012 10:31 AM, JOHN OSULLIVAN wrote: “ .. Skolnick, Do not send me any more of your unsolicited emails. Correspondence from you and Ridley is now marked as spam. I am not interested in your lies and it appears no one else is either .. ”.
  
LOL!  Now that's funny.
  
I think this may be the 5th time you sent me email notifying me my correspondences are "now marked as spam" and will not be read.
  
Yet you're still replying to my emails to tell me my emails will be deleted unread.
  
I have to ask you Mr. O'Sullivan, do you ever speak the truth?
  
Andrew
============== 

Message Received: Apr 25 2012, 03:31 PM
From: "JOHN OSULLIVAN" ….
To: "Andrew Skolnick" …
Cc: "Rupert Wyndham" …, peter.ridley@ … judith.curry@…  houston2000@…
Subject: Re: Response to John O'Sullivan Issues Pre-litigation Defamation Warning to Dr. Judith Curry

 Skolnick,
Do not send me any more of your unsolicited emails. Correspondence from you and Ridley is now marked as spam. I am not interested in your lies and it appears no one else is either.

www.slayingtheskydragon.com
=================== 

 Message Received: Apr 25 2012, 03:22 PM
From: "Andrew Skolnick" …
To: "JOHN OSULLIVAN" …
Cc: "Rupert Wyndham" … "peter.ridley@…, "judith.curry@…, "houston2000@…
FORWARDED TO hansschr@…
Subject: Re: Response to John O'Sullivan Issues Pre-litigation Defamation Warning to Dr. Judith Curry

 On 4/25/2012 9:56 AM, JOHN OSULLIVAN wrote: “ .. I call Ridley and Skolnick liars because they are. Your attempts at playing armchair lawyer are as laughable as theirs. As I've said umpteen times  - either put up or shut up. The same goes for you, too. You're a joke … ”.

 Mr. O'Sullivan,

 Would you please explain to us what you were thinking when you created and published the soft-porn "art work" below,  after your destroyed your teaching career by getting yourself arrested and tried for assaulting, propositioning, and sending obscene messages to a 16-y-o girl?  

 Following your acquittal for lack of evidence, you published what you call “a fact-based crime story of a teacher’s struggle to control his erotic obsession with a schoolgirl”  in which you discussed ad nauseum your sexual fantasies involving a young girl and defended your belief that society is wrong to punish what you called "kiddie fiddlers."

 Just what the hell were you thinking?  Publishing artwork featuring yourself naked gazing at a bare-breasted pubescent girl, who you call your "Forbidden Muse"?  http://www.myspace.com/mrdarrk/photos (subsequently made "private" but alternative at http://www.aaskolnick.com/global_deniers/Forbidden_muse.jpg)

 And you call Mr. Wyndham a joke!  Mr. O'Sullivan, you're an obscene joke that's not the least bit amusing.

 Mr. O'Sullivan, I'm hoping with great anticipation to see you cross examined before the Supreme Court of British Columbia. Now that will be amusing.

 -Andrew

 APPENDED WAS JOHN’S “MUSE” PHOTE.
================== 

 Message Received: Apr 25 2012, 06:15 PM
From: "Rupert Wyndham"
To: "JOHN OSULLIVAN"
Cc: "peter.ridley@..." , "judith.curry@" , ""askolnick@" , "houston2000@peoplepc.com""
FORWARDED TO hanssch@…  
Subject: Re: Response to John O'Sullivan Issues Pre-litigation Defamation Warning to Dr. Judith Curry

Mr. O'Sullivan (the invariable upper case is illuminating)

You also called Mr. Ridley a 'con artist'. That is highly defamatory*;* I trust that you can substantiate the slur. From what has now emerged
- entirely as a result of your own foolishness, let it be added - this appears to be the core of the matter:
- you are a person who has ruined his own career by indiscretions with a young girl only just past the age of consent. To make things worse, you were a teacher at the time;
- you are, I surmise, without means;
- you are a person consumed with bitterness and anger;
- you are devoid of self-restraint;
- you lash out indiscriminately with little forethought;
- in association with others, the identity of one of whom is simply astonishing to me at any rate, you have set out to establish some toytown scientific 'academy' for the purposes of (a) creating employment for yourself and (b) attempting to generate a spurious authority or legitimacy to this group's scientific speculations;
- as your own contribution to this worthy enterprise, apart from the infusion of incomparable managerial skills, you also claim some sort of legal expertise - derived from where is not entirely clear.

In short, you are a person utterly devoid of credibility.

As for me, I have no need to 'put up', as you suggest. In contrast to yourself, I have sought to attack and besmirch the reputations of no-one.
Neither, in passing, have I claimed to be a lawyer. However, during the course of a long and reasonably successful career, I've had occasion to read around certain aspects of the law, towards which you seem to strangely less than familiar, but which are germane to your attemps to bully others, most noteably on this occasion, Prof Curry. Your folly, however, as I'm well aware, extends also to others.

You are a blow hard, and you've been rumbled!

 RW
============== 

 Message Received: Apr 25 2012, 02:56 PM
From: "JOHN OSULLIVAN" …
To: "Rupert Wyndham" …
Cc: ""peter.ridley@…, ""judith.curry@…, ""askolnick@…, ""houston2000@…
FORWARDED TO hanssch@…  
Subject: Re: Response to John O'Sullivan Issues Pre-litigation Defamation Warning to Dr. Judith Curry

 Mr. Wyndham,
I call Ridley and Skolnick liars because they are. Your attempts at playing armchair lawyer are as laughable as theirs. As I've said umpteen times  - either put up or shut up. The same goes for you, too. You're a joke.

 John

www.slayingtheskydragon.com
=============== 

 Message Received: Apr 25 2012, 02:48 PM
From: "JOHN OSULLIVAN" …
To: "Andrew Skolnick" …
Cc: ""peter.ridley@…, ""judith.curry@…, ""rupertwyndham@…, ""houston2000@…
FORWARDED TO hanssch@…  
Subject: Re: Response to John O'Sullivan Issues Pre-litigation Defamation Warning to Dr. Judith Curry

 Skolnick,
I'm not interested in any of your lies and it appears no one else is, either.

www.slayingtheskydragon.com
=============== 

 Message Received: Apr 25 2012, 01:13 PM
From: "Andrew Skolnick…
To: "JOHN OSULLIVAN" …
Cc: "peter.ridley@…, "judith.curry@…, "rupertwyndham@…, "houston2000@…
FORWARDED TO hanssch@…
Subject: Re: Response to John O'Sullivan Issues Pre-litigation Defamation Warning to Dr. Judith Curry

 Mr. O'Sullivan,

 Let me know if Mr. Scherr forwarded you a copy of my affidavit for the May 2nd Supreme Court hearing to decide your partner's Notice of Application to exclude all your defamatory statements under a claim of "lawyer-client privilege."  If not, I'd be happy to email you a full copy, since all 180 pages of the affidavit and exhibits concern you. 

 -Andrew

 APPENDED WAS AFFIDAVIT FRONT-SHEET
============== 

 Message Received: Apr 25 2012, 12:33 PM
From: "Rupert Wyndham" …
To: "JOHN OSULLIVAN" …
Cc: "peter.ridley@…, "judith.curry@…, "askolnick@…, "houston2000@… 
FORWARDED TO hanssch@… 
Subject: Re: Response to John O'Sullivan Issues Pre-litigation Defamation Warning to Dr. Judith Curry

 Mr. O'Sullivan

By a long chalk, not for the first time your abrasive language and attitude have constituted a source of extreme irritation. And this is entirely independent of the scientific stand that you promote, a stand which may or may not have merit. I personally regard it as a side show, as you are well aware, and don't much care about whatever metits it may have.

In any event, I have not the slightest intention of wading through this morass of extravagant and paranoid garbage but, as to suggestions that you have been defamed, the following appears to sum up the position pretty adequately:
Since then in numerous blog comments, notably on Professor Curry’s “dragon slayer” threads, I have said “ .. if anything that I have said here is considered to be unfair or  a misrepresentation of the facts, then please let me know and I will consider whether or not a retraction or apology is warranted. The last thing that I wish to do is misinterpret the evidence and present a misleading picture .. ” or similar.

Not once have you (or any of your PSI associates who have been involved in those exchanges) identified anything of that nature.
Certainly, in my opinion, this totally discredits any charges you have made against him and, by extension, against Prof. Curry. You have opprobriously labelled Mr. Ridley a liar. Is this a lie? If not, let me suggest that it is you who should be giving thought to his position.

I might also add that publication of the term 'con artist' I would consider to be highly defamatory. Under the laws of libel I doubt whether you would have any defence against it at all. You should, perhaps, be reminded that, in this country at least, the acceptable defences against a charge of libel are three in number - privilege (not applicable in this instance), that the alleged libel is true and/or that it constituted fair comment. The question would have then to be "Could you successfully avail yourself of either of these two possible defences?" Let me simply suggest that it might be expensive for you if you cannot.

Allow me, furthermore, to remind you too that, but for your originating email on 22 April (if memory serves), I would have been totally ignorant of these supposed libels. By parading them for the world at large you are as much the publisher of such statements as is anyone else. Consequently, if the principle of estopel didn't operate against you, it would be surprising - whaterver may be the merits of the charges you have alleged.

In any event, if you consider that your reputation has been besmirched, stop talking about it; instead get on and act!

In the meantime, speaking for myself, this episode simply serves to reinforce the impression that I have harboured for a long time, namely that you are very largely a self-inflating sac of bombast and blather.

RW
============== 



Message Received: Apr 25 2012, 10:08 AM
From: "JOHN OSULLIVAN" …
To: "peter.ridley@…
Cc: "judith.curry@…, "askolnick@…, "rupertwyndham@…, "houston2000@…
FORWARDED TO hanssch@… 
Subject: Re: Response to John O'Sullivan Issues Pre-litigation Defamation Warning to Dr. Judith Curry

 Ridley,
You are a proven liar and a con artist who spends his life trawling the gutter looking for dirt. You and your partner in crime Skolnick are a joke. No wonder nobody takes you seriously.
============== 

 Message Received: Apr 25 2012, 09:25 AM
From: "Pete Ridley" …
To: john0sullivan@…
Cc: judith.curry@…, askolnick@…, rupertwyndham@…, houston2000@…
Forwarded To: hanssch@… at 09:28 AM
Subject: Response to John O'Sullivan Issues Pre-litigation Defamation Warning to Dr. Judith Curry 

 ATTACHMENT: E-mail to PSI members 2011_01_14

 Hi John, in your FORMAL ‘TAKE DOWN’ NOTICE to Professor Curry you said of me 

 “ .. For the past year .. Mr. Peter Ridley, (has) pursued a bizarre public vendetta against me in the blogosphere .. making such false statements .. See sample evidence here:
http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-193531 
http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-193983
.. Mr. Ridley .. (is) shown to have published numerous false statements -  among them that I have fraudulently misrepresented myself as an attorney. .. Mr. Ridley maligning my good name .. 

 Be advised that a bcc copy of this email has been sent to numerous interested persons so that they may ascertain for themselves your character and true motives in this abuse of your position .. ”.
”.

 I am disappointed that you saw fit to make those unsubstantiated allegations of defamation against me to “ .. numerous interested persons .. ” without including me in that category. I copy Joe and Hans on this E-mail because I suspect that they have been made aware of your allegations either as Bcc or otherwise. 

 During that past several years we have both engaged in hundreds of E-mail exchanges and blog comments in which we have both openly expressed our opinions, often in strong terms. You should recall that the first time that you made similar allegations of defamation against me was during those “PSI & Due Diligence” exchanges in response to my “PSI & Due Diligence” E-mail of 14th Jan. 2011 (attached) sent to all 21 individuals who were discussing your proposal to set up PSI as a CIC. 

 Your 15th Jan 2011 response included  “ .. 3. PERSONAL SLURS ARE ACTIONABLE UNDER LIBEL LAWS Pete is concerned that PSI founders may be maligned due to our associations with ‘disreputable’ third parties. Pete further maligns me for doing my job as a science writer and legal commentator as if this would bar me from being a director of PSI.
He insinuates that I am a member of a racist organisation. For the record, I’m not the ‘John O’Sullivan’ associated with the BNP. Indeed, by contrast I hold libertarian sympathies. But I am not associated with the US Libertarian Party or any political party.
To slur me in that way, or PSI,  once it is formed as a legal entity, constitutes defamation and is thus actionable under law. Thus, neither PSI nor I need fear direct personal attack .. ”. 

 Not everyone in your group of “Slayers” seemed to agree with you. You should recall the immediate response to my E-mail from arguably your star “Slayer” Professor Claes Johnson “As before I essentially agree with Pete. Claes”. 

 I recommend that (as well as having a careful read of all of the other E-mails that we have exchanged) you look again at my response that same day addressed to all 21 of the others involved in those “PSI & Due Diligence” exchanges, which included “ .. I have not intentionally accused any third party of being ‘disreputable’ and if anyone can point me to where they think that I have done so then I will be happy to rewrite what was said in order to clarify and will apologise if necessary.
I have not deliberately maligned any of you about anything so if you consider that I have then please point me to it and again I’ll be happy to rewrite what was said in order to clarify and again apologise .. 
I am not aware that I have suggested that any member of the group would be barred from being a director of PSI. Again, if anyone considers that I have then please point to where and I’ll be happy to reword what was said in order to clarify and will apologise if necessary.
I have not deliberately insinuated that any member of this group was a member of any racist organisation but simply drew attention to an implied connection which would be used by our opponents. ..
If anyone considers that I have being defammatory about them then it was not my intent ..
I agree that none of us needs to fear personal verbal attacks (“sticks and stones .. ”) but regardless of whether or not any such attack against one of us is justified or “ .. constitutes defamation and is thus actionable under law .. ”  they can have a damaging effect on those with whom we are associated, including PSI. Such attacks can influence those who might otherwise give their support and PSI, whatever its final form, will need all of the support that it can get .. ”.

 Since then in numerous blog comments, notably on Professor Curry’s “dragon slayer” threads, I have said “ .. if anything that I have said here is considered to be unfair or a misrepresentation of the facts then please let me know and I will consider whether or not a retraction or apology is warranted. The last thing that I wish to do is misinterpret the evidence and present a misleading picture .. ” or similar.

 Not once have you (or any of your PSI associates who have been involved in those exchanges) identified anything of that nature.

 Also recall Professor Johnson’s comment on 18th Jan. after you posted your appeal for money on the Gofundme site (http://www.gofundme.com/1v39s&aff=GFMse)  “Hi John: I see that you are already asking for money .. before we have even agreed on what PSI is supposed to be, in particular on the behalf of me as one in the group of people you are referring to.
Is this the way it is supposed work? What will this money be used for? Will I get some money to spend on what? Claes”

I also remind you of the E-mail from Joe Olson, another of your “Slayers” and co-founder of PSI, who said to both of us on 18th Jan. “J & P this research & debate has clarified one side of our proposed operation....i applaud you both for your dedication.... J ”.

 Apart from you and I no other individual involved in those E-mail exchanges made any reference to defamation or libel, the next time libel was mentioned was by you on 27th May “ .. I'm deeply involved in representing Dr. Tim Ball in his two libel cases .. ”.

 In the more recent E-mail exchanges during mid-Dec 2011 there has been frequent accusations about defamation and libel, particularly involving you and Andrew Skolnick but also briefly Professor Nasif Nahle Sabag (quickly resolved between Andrew and Nasif as a simple misunderstanding – surely the best way rather than sabre-rattling). 

 I am not (and have not been made) aware of having made any statement about you or any of your associates (past or present) at PSI that can reasonably be considered defamatory.  Please would you advise which of my comments on Professor Curry’s threads (or elsewhere) you consider to be defamatory so that I can give due consideration to your concerns and consider if any corrective action by me is necessary (see my para. 9). If you fail to do that then I shall consider taking legal action against you for defamation, which I am discussing with my legal advisor.

 Alternatively, if you are unable to substantiate your allegations against me then you can resolve this issue very quickly and easily by simply issuing a written retraction of and suitable apology for your unsubstantiated allegations. If you do so promptly by E-mail to me, open copy (not Bcc) to each and every one of those others to whom you have communicated those allegations, either in writing (directly or as Bcc) or aurally then I will consider taking no further action over what I regards as your defamatory statements about me made in your FORMAL ‘TAKE DOWN’ NOTICE to Professor Curry.

 Best regards,
Pete Ridley


=====================
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Open debate is encouraged but please be civil and if quoting from others please give a citation and provide a link when appropriate.

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Followers