i disagree on the dismissal. some of the charges, maybe. but as for the big ones, they’ll continue on to trial. the golbs wanted a soapbox to hold a referendum on the dead sea scrolls, the academy, plagiarism, etc. like always, they just want the media attention, and will use concepts like ’scientific integrity’ and ‘free speech’ as vehicles to promote their personal agendas.

anyone can see that the intent was to bring career harm to those they attacked. and if they ask me to testify, i can specifically enumerate the losses in jobs and dollars, as well as the attempt to keep me from receiving my degree that resulted form this campaign. and i’m not even adding loss of time and mental anguish, etc.

you’re correct. the parody argument is nonsensical. but your reasoning made me chuckle.

they are trying for a monetary damage technicality on the forgery and impersonation charges. that is, of course the criteria for a civil suit. so it appears the tactic is to argue that this is a civil matter and not a criminal matter, and then hope no one brings civil charges or that they can successfully argue that there were no monetary ‘damages’ in civil court. that appears to be what they are doing.

I think that most of these counts will be dismissed from the criminal case, however. Free Speech is a fundamental value in our legal system, valued by both the left and the right, the ACLU and the ACLJ. The criminal case will come down to whether impersonating Schiffman was done with some intent to actually harm him.

I don’t think that the argument that it was a parody will get very far. There’s a total absense of any sense of humor.

are they really going to try to make this into a referendum on the dss? on schiffman? because if they try that:

a) i was right. that’s what i said they’d do all along. he know he’s guilty, so they’ll take one last shot at publicity by getting an opportunity in court to say norman golb has been ignored or schiffman ripped him off or both. that’s what they wanted all along.

b) they’ll lose. raphael golb broke the law. he went too far. and he knows it. the ‘freedom of speech’ argument is a weak attempt to blur the civil case with the criminal one.

seriously, the entire intro looks like golb’s version/rebuttal to my http://who-is-charles-gadda.com log.

There are three counts that are not part of the motion to dismiss.

There are some howlers in there, including a reference to Geoff Hudson’s bizarre claims about the Aliases of Jeffrey Gibson. (IIRC Geoff Hudson has accused me of being Jeffrey Gibson, but I think that blog or website is no longer public.)