Chuck Colson claims to have found God, while in prison, and changed his ways. He’s got a newspaper column and radio feature called “Breakpoint” which generally covers issues at least tangentially related to ministry and church work.
But he’s either fallen victim to a great hoax, or he’s in on it and spread it.
Ed Brayton at Dispatches from the Culture Wars alerted us to Colson’s “Breakpoint” commentary dated February 2, in which Colson repeats the disproven claims that Judge John E. Jones of the Middle District of Pennsylvania “plagiarized” significant portions of his decision. The charges are completely out of line, and have not held up under scrutiny. The claims were invented by people at the Discovery Institute who have no knowledge of how federal civil trials work, who misinterpreted trial procedures, and who made an invalid count of the words in the decision (failing to account for most of the 129 pages of the work for reasons that have never been explained).
If this catches you unaware of the issue, you can catch up with several posts. Attorney and Panda’s Thumb contributor Tim Sandefur explains how the charges are false here. Sandefur’s earlier explanation of the statistical errors behind the false claims is here (also at Panda’s Thumb).
You should act. If your local newspaper carries Colson’s column, notify them of the hoax. Give them the links above, and urge them to contact the press people at the National Center for Science Education for comment. Tell them they can quote Panda’s thumb, and that they can contact Sandefur, Brayton, or me, for comment.
Similarly, if your local radio station carries Colson’s commentaries, notify the station. Stations need to check to be sure they are not broadcasting hoaxes for license renewal reasons (though the FCC polices this issue rarely, and not often well).
Were Colson a practicing attorney, of course, he’d probably remember how federal trial procedures work, and not make such errors.
You can help him recall.
Millard Fillmore's Bathtub 
–DI’s press releases claimed “plagiarism,” which is not evidenced in any way. DI’s press release went to great lengths to make it appear Judge Jones did something perhaps illegal, perhaps unethical, but wrong in any case.–
You continue to make that false charge even after I have quoted statements from DI and Colson expressly denying charging Jones with plagiarism and unethical conduct. You are just wasting my time here. Nonetheless, I will continue this reply.
–Larry, there is not a single decision which supports any of your claims in any way. If you disagree, please cite the case and tell why you think it supports your claim.–
My claim is that the kind of copying that Jones did is frowned upon in the courts. The cases and a discussion of how they support this claim are here —
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/12/judges_copying_of_aclu_highly.html
–by the way, they were written by a distinguished law firm from Philadelphia, representing Ms. Kitzmiller and the other parents, and not by the ACLU, so your calling them “ACLU’s findings” is wrong —
That is really nitpicking. It is just a short way of saying “ACLU et al’s findings,” just as “Kitzmiller” is a short way of saying “Kitzmiller et al.”
–Of course, there was no appeal because the defense case was so bizarre that even the very conservative voters of the district rejected it —
The decision to not appeal was made by the school board — the electorate never directly voted on whether to appeal.
–Your side lost the case, as it should have. All your complaints now are sour grapes.–
Your side lost the debate over Judge Jones’ copying. Get over it. All your complaints now are sour grapes. Your complaints only show your desperation.
–And as if to highlight my observation that you and DI fail to understand the courts, you ask about the Judicial Conference as if you’ve never heard of it.–
I never said or implied that I never heard of the Judicial Conference — and whether or not I heard of it has nothing to do with my general understanding of the courts and even less to do with DI’s understanding of the courts.
LikeLike
Larry, what part of “following the rules of civil procedure” is unclear to you? Jones’ use of the findings of fact is exactly what is expected under the law. Every case you and neophyte lawyer Luskin cites fails to support your claim — none of them says that a judge may not adopt exactly, one side’s proposed findings of fact. By that standard, Jones was quite reserved, since he did not adopt exactly either side’s proposed findings. Perhaps closer to the odd thing you seem to be arguing, there is no requirement that a losing side have anything adopted. Simply put, the defendants lost the case. Each part of the defendants’ case was found to suffer from prevarications — there is no obligation under the law that liars get any compromise in the findings (a point I made earlier, which you’ve not addressed). Frankly, your suggesting that any part of the defendants’ proposed findings of fact should have been used indicates a severe lack of understanding of what a trial is, and how our justice system works. The losers don’t get to cut their losses by forcing the winners to compromise. Sandefur and Brayton have cited numerous cases precisely on point, supporting exactly what Jones did, selecting from the best of the proposed findings of fact in order to create that section of the decision.
Larry, there is not a single decision which supports any of your claims in any way. If you disagree, please cite the case and tell why you think it supports your claim.
Jones’ use of the plaintiff’s proposed findings of fact — by the way, they were written by a distinguished law firm from Philadelphia, representing Ms. Kitzmiller and the other parents, and not by the ACLU, so your calling them “ACLU’s findings” is wrong — is not frowned on by any court, and would have been a point for appeal had it been. Of course, there was no appeal because the defense case was so bizarre that even the very conservative voters of the district rejected it, and they turned out the bozos who created the policy in the election (that’s an ad hominem argument, Larry — now you know what one really looks like; and I apologize to all clowns who take offense).
The parents’ proposed findings of fact should have been used — the parents won. In courts, the winner prevails, not the loser. This is not rocket science. It’s not even evolution. I’m not sure why you guys appear to be unable to understand it.
Your side lost the case, as it should have. All your complaints now are sour grapes. That your complaints are based on misreadings of law, and that your complaints involve attempted character assassination of a good judge, only underscore the point that intelligent design is morally vacuous.
And as if to highlight my observation that you and DI fail to understand the courts, you ask about the Judicial Conference as if you’ve never heard of it. Here, go see: http://www.uscourts.gov/judconf.html
Judge Jones’ opinion does not “suck.” Losing sucks, and your side lost. Your side lost big. Your side lost so big that it overwhelmed the giant sucking sound of jobs being lost to Mexico for several months. Suck-ola, indeed.
If you don’t want to be on the side that loses, and therefore avoid that “sucking” feeling in the future, stop saying stupid things and advocating bad actions. Change your story and stop asking school boards to act out your wishful thinking for you.
Your saying that a well-written, tightly-reasoned decision “sucks” tells us more about how far out of the loop intelligent design thinking is.
What hole has anyone poked in the decision? So far there is only your whine, unjustified, unevidenced, and calumnous, that Judge Jones didn’t compromise with the losers in the findings of fact. That’s not a hole in the case. That’s a hole in the collective head of intelligent design.
You miss the point — broadcasters have a duty to make sure their broadcasting is not grossly misleading, because they have a federal license, because they use the airwaves that belong to the public. Bloggers’ duty to get things right is based on good intentions. The internet is not licensed broadcasting, and bloggers don’t use the public airwaves. Blogging is not under the jurisdiction of the Federal Communications Act. Sure, bloggers have been sued for libel. Broadcasters, too. That’s irrelevant.
DI’s press releases claimed “plagiarism,” which is not evidenced in any way. DI’s press release went to great lengths to make it appear Judge Jones did something perhaps illegal, perhaps unethical, but wrong in any case. The DI claims are wrong. They are hoaxes. Either those people are stupid — which you claim is not so — or they are committing calumny. If they intend to mislead — and that is your claim, since you refuse to allow rank stupidity as the cause — it’s a hoax.
A hoax is defined generally as “an act intended to decieve or trick, either as a practical joke or a serious fraud” (American Heritage Dictionary).
You’d better hope the DI’s release has an April 1 date on it.
LikeLike
Ed Darrell said,
–What is DI’s complaint about Jones’ decision, then, Larry? What’s yours?–
In regard to the charge of copying from the ACLU, our complaint is that Jones did the kind of wholesale, one-sided, and uncritical copying that is rightfully frowned upon in the courts. Also, we have many other complaints about Judge Jones’ decisions in the Dover case. These complaints are too numerous to go into here, but some of these complaints are listed on —
http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2006/04/traipsing-into-breathtaking-inanity.html
–WorldNutDaily is not read in the Judicial Conference, I must tell you.–
What is read in the Judicial Conference? Why would the Judicial Conference evaluate the Dover case?
— Judge Jones’ opinion will carry great work, because it’s a great decision.–
The opinion sucks — and my blog shows that there is a lot more wrong with it than just the one-sided copying in the ID-as-science section.
— That’s what really galls you, I’m sure.–
No — what galls me are the lame defenses and widespread praise of the lousy Dover opinion. But unlike you, I think that others have the right to spread their opinions about the case.
What galls you is that critics of the Dover opinion are poking all sorts of holes in it.
–Blog services aren’t covered by the Federal Communications Act.–
I never said they were. I was just making a comparison.
BTW, several bloggers have been sued for libel, so this is an evolving area of the law — see
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20061003/1a_cover03.art.htm
–And Larry, my posts pass all the standards of the ethical strictures of the Society of Professional Journalists — calling something a hoax that is accurate, does not make it a hoax. —
Wrong. You claim that the DI study is a hoax, even though the study shows the two texts side by side so that readers can decide for themselves what the extent of copying was. You falsely charge that DI and Colson accused Judge Jones of plagiarism and unethical conduct, even though both DI and Colson posted statements to the contrary.
LikeLike
What is DI’s complaint about Jones’ decision, then, Larry? What’s yours?
WorldNutDaily is not read in the Judicial Conference, I must tell you. Judge Jones’ opinion will carry great work, because it’s a great decision. That’s what really galls you, I’m sure.
Blog services aren’t covered by the Federal Communications Act. And Larry, my posts pass all the standards of the ethical strictures of the Society of Professional Journalists — calling something a hoax that is accurate, does not make it a hoax. The misleading material put out by DI is hoax, however — voodoo history at best. Check it out.
LikeLike
Ed Darrell said,
–Larry, there is no way on God’s green Earth that what Jones did was “plagiarism” as DI tried to label it. There is no way it’s wrong — one test, of course, would be to see whether DI or the defense in the case was concerned enough to call the group that polices judicial ethics. And of course, they did not.–
Neither DI nor Colson is accusing Judge Jones of plagiarism or unethical conduct in the legal senses of those terms. Here is what DI said —
Are you accusing Judge Jones of plagiarism or any other violation of judicial ethics?
No. As the report reads, “Proposed ‘findings of fact’ are prepared to assist judges in writing their opinions, and judges are certainly allowed to draw on them. Indeed, judges routinely invite lawyers to propose findings of fact in order to verify what the lawyers believe to be the key factual issues in the case. Thus, in legal circles Judge Jones’ use of the ACLU’s proposed ‘Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law’ would not be considered ‘plagiarism’ nor a violation of judicial ethics. — from
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/12/media_backgrounder_on_kitzmill.html
— and here is what Colson said —
As World magazine noted, none of what Judge Jones did in the Dover decision amounts to a violation of judicial ethics. But other judges will hardly be impressed, which is a good thing since the press are saying this is a precedent for future cases. –from http://www.breakpoint.org/listingarticle.asp?ID=6051
You are the one who is trying to spread a hoax. Should your blog service therefore censor your comments?
LikeLike
In practice, the radio station has a duty to make sure that it’s not broadcasting false stuff. Colson’s claims are false. You do the math.
Larry, there is no way on God’s green Earth that what Jones did was “plagiarism” as DI tried to label it. There is no way it’s wrong — one test, of course, would be to see whether DI or the defense in the case was concerned enough to call the group that polices judicial ethics. And of course, they did not.
Colson’s spreading a hoax. In your case, even if you sincerely believe the hoax, that doesn’t make it okay.
LikeLike
–The FCC has stated publicly that “rigging or slanting the news is a most heinous act against the public interest.”–
Actually, a radio station would be “rigging or slanting the news” if it did not correctly report Colson’s views about the Discovery Institute study. And if Colson has his own radio program, a radio station would have even less control over that than the station has over its own news programs.
LikeLike
One could start one’s education on broadcasters’ responsibilities here, at FCC’s website: http://ftp.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/journalism.html
LikeLike
Ed Darrell said,
–Judges are not allowed to participate in such public tussles.–
On the contrary, I have seen judges participate in a lot of “public tussles.” For example, former SC justice O’Connor’s public comments about the judicial independence issue are well known (of course, she’s retired, so I guess that gives her more freedom to speak her mind). As for Judge Jones, he has been criss-crossing the country giving lectures about this issue. SC CJ John Roberts recently made public comments about judge’s salaries supposedly being too low, and those comments certainly involved a conflict of interest on his part. But maybe it is OK for judges to make public comments so long as those public comments do not directly concern the cases that they are judging, have judged, or might judge in the future. But Judge Jones, contrary to what he has claimed, has made a lot of direct public comments about the Dover decision. In his “true religion” speech at Dickinson College, he said things about the establishment clause that he would not have dared put in the Dover opinion — he essentially said that organized religions are not “true” religions. He said that one of the reasons why he ruled on the scientific merits of ID and irreducible complexity was that both sides asked him to do so. He consented to be interviewed for a new book about the trial, “Monkey Girl.” In one of his speeches, he complained that all the media criticisms of the Dover decision ignored the “importance of precedent, how judges work, the Rule of Law.” During the trial, he said that he considering watching “Inherit the Wind” again to get “historical perspective” or something like that. Then when confronted with the DI’s charges of wholesale, one-sided, and uncritical copying, he clams up. BTW, some SC justice — I think it was Stevens — made a public statement defending the Kelo v. New London eminent domain decision, so that is another example of a judge making a direct public comment about a specific case.
–Discovery Institute’s legal analyses are notoriously wrong — as the decision in the Dover case amply demonstrated.–
That’s begging the question. Anyway, as an attorney, have you ever argued in court that your adversary’s arguments should be ignored because your adversary had made bad arguments in the past or had lost cases in the past or something like that?
–Luskin’s claims, if made by a lawyer, tend to violate the ethical canons of lawyers, which call for lawyers not to heap scorn on the judicial system, nor to attack judges, nor to participate in hoaxes that tend to disparage our legal system unnecessarily.–
There you go with that “hoax” thing again. There was no “hoax” — everything was above board.
Your standard of ethical conduct is impossible to meet. Any criticism of a judicial decision could be considered to “heap scorn on the judicial system” and to “attack judges.”
–DI has done a lot of research to rationalize their bad legal advice. —
The DI’s arguments and citations are on target whereas the DI’s critics desperately resort to frivolous and nitpicking counterarguments, e.g., saying that Jones did not copy the entire ID-as-science section of the ACLU brief, that other parts of the Dover opinion may be original, that Jones changed a few words or sentence structures here and there, etc..
— That doesn’t make their research good, nor does it change the tenor of their legal advice which, if given by a lawyer to a client, could make the lawyer liable for malpractice. —
It is certainly not legal malpractice to come out with good arguments against a decision against one’s client.
LikeLike
Larry, attorneys and lawyers have written standards of ethics to follow. Judges are not allowed to participate in such public tussles. Judges don’t have press agents. You really should read up on ethics and ethics in the practice of law.
Discovery Institute’s legal analyses are notoriously wrong — as the decision in the Dover case amply demonstrated.
Luskin’s claims, if made by a lawyer, tend to violate the ethical canons of lawyers, which call for lawyers not to heap scorn on the judicial system, nor to attack judges, nor to participate in hoaxes that tend to disparage our legal system unnecessarily. It’s a high ethical standard, one that most creationists I am sure cannot fathom.
DI has done a lot of research to rationalize their bad legal advice. That doesn’t make their research good, nor does it change the tenor of their legal advice which, if given by a lawyer to a client, could make the lawyer liable for malpractice.
Never did bother to check out how broadcasting is regulated, eh? Any lawyer who cares about the law, his client’s broadcasting license, and the facts, would advise a broadcaster to avoid broadcasting hoaxes. It’s not just profanity that gets the ire of the FCC up, though one might add, not often enough.
LikeLike
I should add that if the DI study were a “hoax” as you claim, Judge Jones would be denouncing it himself.
LikeLike
Ed Darrell said,
–Brayton is not an attorney — but neither is he making unethical claims. —
OK, so it has nothing to do with being a lawyer or having courtroom experience — it is about “making unethical claims.” But there is nothing unethical about Casey Luskin’s claims — everything is above board.
–I am a lawyer, Larry. I care about the legal arguments. —
You’re a lawyer? I can’t believe it. What lawyer would say that a radio station could get in trouble for broadcasting Colson’s ideas?
–And I also care when lawyers mislead unsuspecting non-lawyers like you. —
I am not as ignorant of the law as you think I am. Though a non-lawyer, I do have a fair amount of experience in the courts. I have spent hundreds of hours doing legal research in law libraries and I prepared two appeals to the US Supreme Court. And it should be obvious from my own writings that I know what is going on.
–and of course, you fail to note that Sandefur and I are lawyers who agree with Brayton nearly completely on this issue.–
Luskin has backed up his arguments with numerous citations of precedents and other authorities. You, Sandefur, Brayton, and Elsberry are just making frivolous criticisms of Luskin’s arguments, e.g., you are saying that Jones did not adopt the entire ACLU brief, that Jones did not really copy the ACLU because he changed a word here and there, etc..
–Their statisitics are wrong, and hoaxed up.–
I agree that word counts don’t tell the whole story, but Elsberry and Brayton have used word counts of their own to try to discredit the DI report. The DI report shows the corresponding sections of text side by side so that readers can judge the extent of copying for themselves.
–Their legal analysis is wrong. —
Wrong. Their legal analysis is very good — they have obviously done a lot of research to back up their legal claims.
LikeLike
Ad hominem? No — I don’t criticize Luskin except with the facts. Luskin has never practiced. He’s never been in a courtroom as an attorney that anyone can tell. He’s never put his card on the line that anyone can tell.
Speaking as a Christian, Larry, I wish Luskin would go study ethics. Speaking as a lawyer, I wish his local bar association would have a chat with him about ethics, too.
Brayton is not an attorney — but neither is he making unethical claims. I’ve watched Brayton discuss heavy legal issues with groups of law professors. He acts more like one schooled well in the law than the DI guys. Brayton says nothing that is not confirmed in the law books, by law professors — and of course, you fail to note that Sandefur and I are lawyers who agree with Brayton nearly completely on this issue.
I am a lawyer, Larry. I care about the legal arguments. And I also care when lawyers mislead unsuspecting non-lawyers like you. Luskin’s work, and the published work of every other lawyer at DI who urged school boards to push intelligent design, is shameful. They should repent.
Stick to the facts of the cases. The charges from the DI are scurrilous and wrong. Their statisitics are wrong, and hoaxed up. Their legal analysis is wrong.
Worse, we know they know it’s bad. And still they defend it. It’s a performance full of shameful acts.
Stick to the facts of the laws. Stick to the facts of science. Stick to the facts of the cases. Stick to the facts. If we were to stick to the facts, creationism would blow away.
LikeLike
Ed Darrell said,
–Go check out the Federal Communications Act and litigation surrounding it. You’ll love the Red Lion case, Larry.–
The Red Lion case is just about the equal-time or fairness doctrine, saying that broadcasters have to give free equal time for rebuttals of accusations. Got nothing to do with whether the DI’s or Colson’s views may be broadcast.
–Luskin’s stuff is off the wall, wacko. He’s never practiced, never been in a courtroom, and I would wager he’s never had to put his bar card on the line.–
That is just an ad hominem attack. And is Ed Brayton an attorney? Yet you support his lame rebuttals of Luskin’s arguments. Wesley Elsberry is not an attorney either. And when I read legal arguments, I care nothing about the credentials or background of the writer unless the writer is speaking from personal experience.
BTW, two of my preceding long posts are duplicates and should be deleted.
LikeLike
Oh, and Luskin is a practicing member of the bar? Well, yes, you’re making a case that they know what they’re doing at DI — and so they are evil, and not merely foolish.
Luskin’s stuff is off the wall, wacko. He’s never practiced, never been in a courtroom, and I would wager he’s never had to put his bar card on the line. My understanding is that he’s licensed in California, not Washington.
Luskin is acting irresponsibly, too. He has the credentials to know better. Is he a fool, or is he trying to take you for one, Larry? Which is it?
LikeLike
Your posts have a lot of links, and my spam filter assumes your posts are spam — doesn’t even send them to moderation.
You’re right, radio stations have a right to broadcast Colson — but they also have a responsibility with that right. Colsons stuff is false. It’s a hoax, and it is irresponsible to broadcast it.
Go check out the Federal Communications Act and litigation surrounding it. You’ll love the Red Lion case, Larry.
Gotta run
LikeLike
I am trying to post a comment here, but it won’t appear and I get no error message. What gives?
LikeLike
Ed Darrell says (February 4th, 2007 at 10:50 pm) —
—Copying material that is intended to be copied by federal court procedural rules is not plagiarism, as the Discovery Institute scurrilously charged, nor is it wrong. —
“Federal court procedural rules”? There is nothing in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure about these post-trial “proposals of findings of fact and conclusions of law.” These post-trial briefs are allowed but not required in Judge Jones’ own Middle District of Pennsylvania federal court — see
http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2006/12/is-plagiarism-by-judges-standard.html
Though this material is intended to be copied, the precedents and dicta cited by Casey Luskin make it clear that the kind of wholesale, one-sided and uncritical copying that Jones did is frowned upon by the higher courts — see http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/12/judges_copying_of_aclu_highly.html
Also, DI has expressly denied that it is charging Jones with “plagiarism” — the DI’s Casey Luskin wrote,
“Are you accusing Judge Jones of plagiarism or any other violation of judicial ethics?
No. As the report reads, “Proposed ‘findings of fact’ are prepared to assist judges in writing their opinions, and judges are certainly allowed to draw on them. Indeed, judges routinely invite lawyers to propose findings of fact in order to verify what the lawyers believe to be the key factual issues in the case. Thus, in legal circles Judge Jones’ use of the ACLU’s proposed ‘Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law’ would not be considered ‘plagiarism’ nor a violation of judicial ethics.” — from http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/12/media_backgrounder_on_kitzmill.html
Ed says,
—It’s not a lack of originality, as DI has retreated to claiming. —
How can you say that there is no lack of originality when virtually all of the ideas in the ID-as-science section were copied from an ACLU brief and Jones even followed the same organization as the ACLU brief, copying the ideas in order? However, it is not the lack of originality that I object to — what I object to is the extreme one-sidedness of the copying.
Ed says,
—In short, Judge Jones did his job and did it well. His doing his job meant that Casey Luskin and the Discovery Institute were spanked pretty soundly, despite their having deserted the field of action in a futile (and cowardly) attempt to avoid the spanking.—
The withdrawal of DI’s expert witnesses is a completely different matter that has nothing to do with the DI’s charge of copying. And if anyone has deserted the field of action, it is the Thomas More Law Center (the defense counsel), which has said nothing about the case since the day after the Dover decision was released.
Ed says,
—Absolutely none of the precedents DI cited discuss the circumstances of the Dover case — if you’re suggesting that this is not a hoax, then it is a cruel, evil and potentially actionable deception. —
Two cases do not have to be identical for a precedent or dictum to be applicable, as Casey Luskin explains in the following article — http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1209
My own comments about the preceding article are at — http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2007/01/casey-luskin-rebuts-critics-of-report.html
Ed says,
—If you need to see what the precedents really say with regard to Dover, check out Ed Brayton’s Fisking of the DI hoax, and again here. Also be sure to check out Tim Sandefur’s Fisking of the DI claims.—
I have fisked three responses from three different critics of the DI study that charged Jones with improper copying —
http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2007/01/crazy-ed-brayton-again.html
http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2007/01/wesley-elsberrys-nit-picking.html
http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2007/02/fisking-another-lame-defense-of-jones.html
Please excuse my calling Brayton and Elsberry names in the above posts, but these two arbitrarily kicked me off their personal blogs, so I have good reason to be pissed off at them.
Ed says,
—Surely you are not claiming that there are real lawyers at DI approving such claptrap, are you?—
DI’s Casey Luskin is a real lawyer. And you don’t need to be a real lawyer to make a valid criticism of a judicial opinion.
Ed says,
–As to word counts DI dishonestly compared a small portion of the decision — the portion that should have been copied from the proposed findings of fact under court procedures — and claimed instead that the entire decision was copied.–
DI never claimed that the entire decision was copied — now you are one who is making false accusations. In fact, the DI expressly denied that it was saying that the entire opinion was copied —
“Did Judge Jones copy the entire opinion from the ACLU?
Parts of other sections of the ruling were taken verbatim from the ACLU’s proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, but we have not conducted a quantitative analysis of the level of copying in those sections. The report covers only the section of the Kitzmiller opinion which purported to address the question of whether ID is science.” — from http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/12/media_backgrounder_on_kitzmill.html
Ed says,
–The actual decision is about 36,000 words long — so even were the claims of copying correct (and they are not), at worst it would be about one-sixth, or a rounded-to-17%.–
That’s ridiculous, because the DI did not perform a word-count of the rest of the opinion. Even Elsberry’s word-count figure for the entire opinion is 38%. Anyway, it is arbitrary and capricious to say that the DI’s criticism is invalid because it covers only part of the opinion — the part covered is a large (~6000 words) and distinct section of the opinion.
Ed says,
–But as Brayton and Sandefur note, not all the material claimed to be copied by DI is copied. —
I disagree — the DI report shows a side-by-side comparison of what was claimed to be copied, and it is apparent that what was claimed to be copied was in fact virtually copied.
Ed says,
–Worse, DI fails to tell — if they even know — that the proposed findings of fact are supposed to be phrased in the way the attorneys think the judge should find on the basis of what has gone on in the courtroom. —
DI knows, and the reason why they did not mention it — if they did not mention it (I don’t know) — is that it is not relevant to the charge of wholesale, one-sided, and uncritical copying.
Ed says,
–However, I think there is clear intent to deceive on the part of Discovery Institute. —
There was no intent to deceive. The DI study even provides side-by-side comparisons of the texts of the Dover opinion and the ACLU’s opening post-trial brief so that readers can decide for themselves what the extent of the copying was.
Ed says,
–Larry, findings of fact are findings of fact. —
There is a lot of stuff in the ID-as-science section that is not “fact.” Have you forgotten that evolution theory is just a theory and not a “fact”?
Ed says,
–The defendants were connivers, deceivers, and they hitched their fate to bad science for evil purposes.–
If the defense’s arguments regarding ID as science were bad, then Jones should have put them in the opinion just to refute them.
Ed says,
–Why do you think a judge should “compromise” with courtroom liars? —
Why do you think that opponents of the Dover decision should compromise with a judge who is a stupid, biased, dishonest jerk? It is noteworthy that Judge Jones, who has publicly commented directly about the case despite his claim to the contrary, has not publicly responded to the DI’s accusation of improper copying.
Ed says,
–The findings of fact are one-sided for a reason. Judges are supposed to bias the findings to the truth. —
Judges are supposed to show that they have done some independent, critical thinking about both sides’ arguments. Jones did not show this — he just blindly and uncritically copied one side’s opening post-trial brief. So far as the ID-as-science section is concerned, Jones did not show that he even read the other post-trial briefs. I strongly believe that Jones was prejudiced against the defendants; he showed that prejudice in his Dickinson College “true religion” speech, which showed great hostility towards organized religion. He essentially said that organized religions are not “true” religions — see
http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2006/07/judge-jones-wrong-about-founding.html
Ed says,
–I hope reporters do contact the Discovery Institute for comments. It is my experience that most reporters can smell a rat in a story, and they hate to be deceived.–
In this case, the “rat” is Judge Jones and his supporters.
Ed says,
–And, you’re quite in error: Broadcasters are responsible for everything they broadcast. They are prohibited by law from broadcasting prurient pornography and profanity, for example.–
There are somewhat clear standards for determining what is pornographic or profane, but there is no clear standard for determining what is legitimate criticism of a judicial opinion, and people have the right to express what others think is illegitimate criticism of a judicial opinion.
Ed says,
–They could not broadcast a non-profane hoax about an attack on the nation, nor about a kid being kidnapped.–
Completely irrelevant — there are obvious compelling reasons why such broadcasts are not allowed.
The radio stations’ right to broadcast Colson’s ideas is protected by constitutional freedom of the press.
LikeLike
Ed Darrell says (February 4th, 2007 at 10:50 pm) —
–Copying material that is intended to be copied by federal court procedural rules is not plagiarism, as the Discovery Institute scurrilously charged, nor is it wrong. —
“Federal court procedural rules”? There is nothing in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure about these post-trial “proposals of findings of fact and conclusions of law.” These post-trial briefs are allowed but not required in Judge Jones’ own Middle District of Pennsylvania federal court — see
http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2006/12/is-plagiarism-by-judges-standard.html
Though this material is intended to be copied, the precedents and dicta cited by Casey Luskin make it clear that the kind of wholesale, one-sided and uncritical copying that Jones did is frowned upon by the higher courts — see http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/12/judges_copying_of_aclu_highly.html
Also, DI has expressly denied that it is charging Jones with “plagiarism” — the DI’s Casey Luskin wrote,
“Are you accusing Judge Jones of plagiarism or any other violation of judicial ethics?
No. As the report reads, “Proposed ‘findings of fact’ are prepared to assist judges in writing their opinions, and judges are certainly allowed to draw on them. Indeed, judges routinely invite lawyers to propose findings of fact in order to verify what the lawyers believe to be the key factual issues in the case. Thus, in legal circles Judge Jones’ use of the ACLU’s proposed ‘Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law’ would not be considered ‘plagiarism’ nor a violation of judicial ethics.” — from http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/12/media_backgrounder_on_kitzmill.html
Ed says,
–It’s not a lack of originality, as DI has retreated to claiming. —
How can you say that there is no lack of originality when virtually all of the ideas in the ID-as-science section were copied from an ACLU brief and Jones even followed the same organization as the ACLU brief, copying the ideas in order? However, it is not the lack of originality that I object to — what I object to is the extreme one-sidedness of the copying.
Ed says,
–In short, Judge Jones did his job and did it well. His doing his job meant that Casey Luskin and the Discovery Institute were spanked pretty soundly, despite their having deserted the field of action in a futile (and cowardly) attempt to avoid the spanking.–
The withdrawal of DI’s expert witnesses is a completely different matter that has nothing to do with the DI’s charge of copying. And if anyone has deserted the field of action, it is the Thomas More Law Center (the defense counsel), which has said nothing about the case since the day after the Dover decision was released.
Ed says,
–Absolutely none of the precedents DI cited discuss the circumstances of the Dover case — if you’re suggesting that this is not a hoax, then it is a cruel, evil and potentially actionable deception. —
Two cases do not have to be identical for a precedent or dictum to be applicable, as Casey Luskin explains in the following article — http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1209
My own comments about the preceding article are at — http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2007/01/casey-luskin-rebuts-critics-of-report.html
Ed says,
–If you need to see what the precedents really say with regard to Dover, check out Ed Brayton’s Fisking of the DI hoax, and again here. Also be sure to check out Tim Sandefur’s Fisking of the DI claims.–
I have fisked three responses from three different critics of the DI study that charged Jones with improper copying —
http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2007/01/crazy-ed-brayton-again.html
http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2007/01/wesley-elsberrys-nit-picking.html
http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2007/02/fisking-another-lame-defense-of-jones.html
Please excuse my calling Brayton and Elsberry names in the above posts, but these two arbitrarily kicked me off their personal blogs, so I have good reason to be pissed off at them.
Ed says,
–Surely you are not claiming that there are real lawyers at DI approving such claptrap, are you?–
DI’s Casey Luskin is a real lawyer. And you don’t need to be a real lawyer to make a valid criticism of a judicial opinion.
Ed says,
–As to word counts DI dishonestly compared a small portion of the decision — the portion that should have been copied from the proposed findings of fact under court procedures — and claimed instead that the entire decision was copied.–
DI never claimed that the entire decision was copied — now you are one who is making false accusations. In fact, the DI expressly denied that it was saying that the entire opinion was copied —
“Did Judge Jones copy the entire opinion from the ACLU?
Parts of other sections of the ruling were taken verbatim from the ACLU’s proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, but we have not conducted a quantitative analysis of the level of copying in those sections. The report covers only the section of the Kitzmiller opinion which purported to address the question of whether ID is science.” — from http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/12/media_backgrounder_on_kitzmill.html
Ed says,
–The actual decision is about 36,000 words long — so even were the claims of copying correct (and they are not), at worst it would be about one-sixth, or a rounded-to-17%.–
That’s ridiculous, because the DI did not perform a word-count of the rest of the opinion. Even Elsberry’s word-count figure for the entire opinion is 38%. Anyway, it is arbitrary and capricious to say that the DI’s criticism is invalid because it covers only part of the opinion — the part covered is a large (~6000 words) and distinct section of the opinion.
Ed says,
–But as Brayton and Sandefur note, not all the material claimed to be copied by DI is copied. —
I disagree — the DI report shows a side-by-side comparison of what was claimed to be copied, and it is apparent that what was claimed to be copied was in fact virtually copied.
Ed says,
–Worse, DI fails to tell — if they even know — that the proposed findings of fact are supposed to be phrased in the way the attorneys think the judge should find on the basis of what has gone on in the courtroom. —
DI knows, and the reason why they did not mention it — if they did not mention it (I don’t know) — is that it is not relevant to the charge of wholesale, one-sided, and uncritical copying.
Ed says,
–However, I think there is clear intent to deceive on the part of Discovery Institute. —
There was no intent to deceive. The DI study even provides side-by-side comparisons of the texts of the Dover opinion and the ACLU’s opening post-trial brief so that readers can decide for themselves what the extent of the copying was.
Ed says,
–Larry, findings of fact are findings of fact. —
There is a lot of stuff in the ID-as-science section that is not “fact.” Have you forgotten that evolution theory is just a theory and not a “fact”?
–The defendants were connivers, deceivers, and they hitched their fate to bad science for evil purposes.–
If the defense’s arguments regarding ID as science were bad, then Jones should have put them in the opinion just to refute them.
Ed says,
–Why do you think a judge should “compromise” with courtroom liars? —
Why do you think that opponents of the Dover decision should compromise with a judge who is a stupid, biased, dishonest jerk? It is noteworthy that Judge Jones, who has publicly commented directly about the case despite his claim to the contrary, has not publicly responded to the DI’s accusation of improper copying.
Ed says,
–The findings of fact are one-sided for a reason. Judges are supposed to bias the findings to the truth. —
Judges are supposed to show that they have done some independent, critical thinking about both sides’ arguments. Jones did not show this — he just blindly and uncritically copied one side’s opening post-trial brief. So far as the ID-as-science section is concerned, Jones did not show that he even read the other post-trial briefs. I strongly believe that Jones was prejudiced against the defendants; he showed that prejudice in his Dickinson College “true religion” speech, which showed great hostility towards organized religion. He essentially said that organized religions are not “true” religions — see
http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2006/07/judge-jones-wrong-about-founding.html
Ed says,
–I hope reporters do contact the Discovery Institute for comments. It is my experience that most reporters can smell a rat in a story, and they hate to be deceived.–
In this case, the “rat” is Judge Jones and his supporters.
Ed says,
–And, you’re quite in error: Broadcasters are responsible for everything they broadcast. They are prohibited by law from broadcasting prurient pornography and profanity, for example.–
There are somewhat clear standards for determining what is pornographic or profane, but there is no clear standard for determining what is legitimate criticism of a judicial opinion, and people have the right to express what others think is illegitimate criticism of a judicial opinion.
Ed says,
–They could not broadcast a non-profane hoax about an attack on the nation, nor about a kid being kidnapped.–
Completely irrelevant — there are obvious compelling reasons why such broadcasts are not allowed.
The radio stations’ right to broadcast Colson’s ideas is protected by constitutional freedom of the press.
LikeLike
Copying material that is intended to be copied by federal court procedural rules is not plagiarism, as the Discovery Institute scurrilously charged, nor is it wrong. It’s not a lack of originality, as DI has retreated to claiming. It is simply good trial practice and careful judging.
In short, Judge Jones did his job and did it well. His doing his job meant that Casey Luskin and the Discovery Institute were spanked pretty soundly, despite their having deserted the field of action in a futile (and cowardly) attempt to avoid the spanking.
Copying the “proposed findings of fact” is indeed copying, exactly as the justice system expects that it should be copied. Absolutely none of the precedents DI cited discuss the circumstances of the Dover case — if you’re suggesting that this is not a hoax, then it is a cruel, evil and potentially actionable deception. If you need to see what the precedents really say with regard to Dover, check out Ed Brayton’s Fisking of the DI hoax, and again here. Also be sure to check out Tim Sandefur’s Fisking of the DI claims.
DI’s claims are not backed by precedent. Were they made by a practicing lawyer, they are scurrilous enough that a diligent bar ethics committee might level some discipline towards the attorney who made such wild claims. Surely you are not claiming that there are real lawyers at DI approving such claptrap, are you? (Evolutionnews is hoax central for creationists; your citing them isn’t exactly making a case in your favor.)
As to word counts DI dishonestly compared a small portion of the decision — the portion that should have been copied from the proposed findings of fact under court procedures — and claimed instead that the entire decision was copied. No nuance there — it was scurrilous in the first place, and then to fail to count MOST of the decision is just out and out lying. Does Colson know that?
Here is what the DI said in their most carefully worded version:
Really? They claim that 5,548 words out of 6,004 were copied — but it is only on reading closely that we discover that it’s out of a “6,004-word section” on findings. The actual decision is about 36,000 words long — so even were the claims of copying correct (and they are not), at worst it would be about one-sixth, or a rounded-to-17%. 17% is significantly different from the 90% + claimed by DI. The “side-by-side comparison” failed to compare 30,000 words out of 36,000, or more than 80%. That’s not a minor error. It’s not a computer count error. It is intent to decieve. It is a hoax.
But as Brayton and Sandefur note, not all the material claimed to be copied by DI is copied. Worse, DI fails to tell — if they even know — that the proposed findings of fact are supposed to be phrased in the way the attorneys think the judge should find on the basis of what has gone on in the courtroom. Did DI seriously think that, after it was discovered on cross-examination that the proponents of the plan on the school board were deceptive and lied in deposition, and that the few scientists put up for examination by the defense were stretching the truth to make their claims, that the judge would NOT deliver a stinging rebuke? Then the poobahs at the Discovery Institute are fools.
However, I think there is clear intent to deceive on the part of Discovery Institute. At best it is shoddy, haphazard and error-filled scholarship. At worst it is contrived calumny. I do not believe they are fools. If you wish to make that case, Larry, offer your evidence. Informed attorneys should not, would not and could not write what the DI claims, without intent to deceive. If you can prove they are fools instead, I’ll be pleased to let that judgment stand.
Larry, findings of fact are findings of fact. They are not intended to be findings of what is not accurate, nor are they to be the place that the arguments are explained. That would be in the other 30,000 words of the decision (where Jones thoroughly and adequately explained why the findings went so one-sidedly for the plaintiffs). The defendants were connivers, deceivers, and they hitched their fate to bad science for evil purposes. Why do you think a judge should “compromise” with courtroom liars? We have higher standards of truth in the law than academics and politicians may be accustomed to — which is another reason it seems to me that there was no one with serious legal training informing the Discovery Institute. (They have real lawyers in their authority structure — Slade Gorton for one — though, to be honest, the quality of the people overseeing the work seems to have declined recently, accompanying the institute’s slide to the right and slipping into hoaxing rather than researching.) One rather gets the view that no one is at the helm at Discovery Institute, and the lab rats are running the labs.
The findings of fact are one-sided for a reason. Judges are supposed to bias the findings to the truth. In this courtroom case, the truth was not the side defended by intelligent design advocates and the friends of the Discovery Institute.
I hope reporters do contact the Discovery Institute for comments. It is my experience that most reporters can smell a rat in a story, and they hate to be deceived. Actually, reporters tend to hold it against the deceivers. Yes, by all means, let’s hope the reporters call them.
And, you’re quite in error: Broadcasters are responsible for everything they broadcast. They are prohibited by law from broadcasting prurient pornography and profanity, for example. Were Colson to illustrate his profanity in explicit language rather than banal reasoning and false claims, the radio station would be subject to fines for broadcasting it. But simply because Colson’s being suckered doesn’t include profanity does not excuse a radio station. They could not broadcast a non-profane hoax about an attack on the nation, nor about a kid being kidnapped. This may be somewhat milder by degree, but that is all. It is just as false, and utlimately just as damaging. Broadcasters have a duty and a right to stop broadcasting of material they know to be false. We should ask them to do it.
The claims Colson makes, based on the hoax by the Discovery Institute, won’t check out. Broadcasters who repeat them do so without color of ethics. They should check the claims out, and stop the broadcasts. Radio stations are responsible for what they broadcast. If they broadcast Chuck Colson telling hoaxes, they put their license at mild risk. More, they sacrifice their honor. I hope they’ll act, when informed.
LikeLike
Please delete the preceding post. It was not copied completely. Here is the complete post — I made some changes which I hope will result in complete copying this time.
Ed Darrell says in the opening post,
–The claims were invented by people at the Discovery Institute who have no knowledge of how federal civil trials work, who misinterpreted trial procedures, and who made an invalid count of the words in the decision (failing to account for most of the 129 pages of the work for reasons that have never been explained).–
Copying is copying, whether it is just a section of an opinion or the whole opinion. And the section copied, the ID-as-science section, is considered to be of great importance.
As for not having any knowledge of how federal civil trials work, DI’s accusations are well supported by citations of precedents and other authorities — see
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/12/judges_copying_of_aclu_highly.html
— and —
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/01/a_response_to_darwinist_defend.html
As for an invalid count of words, I agree that computerized word counts can be misleading. But the DI study contains side-by-side comparisons of the texts of the Dover opinion and the plaintiffs’ opening post-trail brief, and the copying of ideas — sometimes verbatim — is obvious. The DI study is at —
Click to access Comparing_Jones_and_ACLU.pdf
I don’t have a big objection to Jones’ copying per se — it is the extreme one-sidedness of the copying that I object to. Virtually all of the Dover opinion’s ID-as-science section was essentially copied from the proposed findings in the plaintiffs’ opening post-trial brief while ignoring the defendants’ opening post-trial brief and the plaintiffs’ and defendants’ answering post-trial briefs. If Jones thought that the defendants’ proposed findings were stupid, he had all the more reason to include them in the opinion in order to refute them. If Jones was really lazy, he could have copied the plaintiffs’ answering post-trial brief”s rebuttals of the defendants’ proposed findings, but he didn’t even do that — and not copying any of those rebuttals suggests that he did not find them to be persuasive. The main post-trial briefs are at the bottom of the list on the following webpage (the plaintiffs filed a brief supporting their opening proposed-findings-and-conclusions brief, so the total number of main post-trial briefs is five):
http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/index.php?path=all_legal%2F2005-11-23_post-trial_FoF/
Ed Darrell says,
–You should act. If your local newspaper carries Colson’s column, notify them of the hoax. Give them the links above, and urge them to contact the press people at the National Center for Science Education for comment. Tell them they can quote Panda’s thumb, and that they can contact Sandefur, Brayton, or me, for comment. —
I don’t think that is going to work. There is no hoax. And the press people are also going to want to contact the Discovery Institute for comment, and IMO the DI’s arguments are far stronger than the arguments of the critics.
Ed Darrell says,
–Similarly, if your local radio station carries Colson’s commentaries, notify the station. Stations need to check to be sure they are not broadcasting hoaxes for license renewal reasons (though the FCC polices this issue rarely, and not often well).–
Radio stations are not responsible for what Colson says.
LikeLike
Howdy Folks. I was wondering if anyone had any details on the Eastern re-union that is being held in Moncton in 2007. Cheers, Dan
LikeLike