Canada Bar Association Rules ‘No Misconduct’ by Tim Ball’s Legal Team
Image via Wikipedia
CCD Editor's Note (added 11-12-2011): Based on the spurious ramblings of Mr. Skolnick regarding John O'Sullivan in the comments below, I have attached here a letter showing that John is an NYCLA member and is in good standing since Oct. 2011. I can also attest to the fact that John was instrumental in helping to successfully defend this site against a baseless lawsuit in his capacity as its legal advisor. Any statement by Mr. Skolnick regarding his credentials, ability, or education are simply untrue. Though loathe to squelch free speech, continued falsehoods by Mr. Skolnick in his comments will find himself banned from this site and his comments deleted as per the site's TOS.
* * * * *
The Law Society of British Columbia (LSBC) has now ruled that green activist Andrew Skolnick’s official complaint concerning Dr. Tim Ball’s libel attorney, Michael Scherr and science writer, John O’Sullivan, was baseless.
Andrew Skolnick had filed the complaint against Dr. Ball’s legal team as part of a coordinated attack stage managed by lawyer Roger McConchie, representing disgraced climatologist, Michael Mann.
Specifically, the LSBC has affirmed there is no evidence to support Skolnick’s malicious allegation that anyone “knowingly asserted something for which there is no reasonable basis in evidence.”
The bungled attempt sought to muddy the waters in the ongoing Dr. Michael Mann-v-Dr. Tim Ball libel case now before the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Canada. I am delighted that the matter has finally been cleared up and that Mr. Skolnick’s gambit to derail my relationship with Dr. Ball has failed. I can now move forward in earnest free to expose those who act to support grotesque climate fraud. The LSBC finding vindicates what I have always publicly stated about myself in my website biography on Suite101.
Since May 2011, when Mr. Skolnick first learned that Dr. Ball engaged me, he has sought to make capital out of our ‘professional relationship’ by imputing that I falsely asserted my standing was that of a fully licensed attorney. I have repeatedly denied those allegations and challenged Mr. Skolnick to provide evidence such as weblinks to statements I've made to back his bogus claims.
I have been explicit several times, on various websites about my qualifications and experience. In answer to those who have asked me, I have repeatedly advised that I hold both a law degree and a bachelors’ arts degree. After graduation I attended teacher-training college in Sussex, England where I obtained my Post-Graduate Certificate in Education (PGCE). As such for 20 years I taught at various institutions in the UK including Nene College, University of Northampton and high schools in the East of England.
I have also engaged in litigation over a 13-year period in the New York Court system, either on my own behalf, pro se, and/or as de facto in house attorney alongside licensed attorneys. Under New York’s rules of civil procedure (CPLR) with the qualifications I posses, I am fully entitled to engage in such professional legal services.
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. This, we believe, ensures the best possible outcome for Dr. Ball in his legal battle against Dr. Michael Mann as well as the separate lawsuit he defends against Dr. Andrew Weaver.
Moreover, so confident am I in the merits of Dr. Ball’s legal arguments and the abilities of Michael Scherr to represent him, that I have formally offered to be held wholly liable to Dr. Ball (a 'hold harmless' indemnity) for certain matters concerning my conduct in the event the B.C. Supreme Court rules I have acted unlawfully.
Skolnick has further sought to tarnish my reputation by claiming that my dismissal from my employment as science writer with Suite101 is due to misrepresentation of my credentials; this is another lie.
Suite101 have now admitted that they dismissed me (I argue, unjustly) from my employment solely due to matters connected to my publication of controversial new evidence from JAXA’s IBUKI satellite.
Pro-green co-writers at Suite101 appear to have lobbied for my dismissal as they took exception to my revelations that discredit UN man-made global warming claims.
My JAXA article shows there is no scientific basis for western policymakers to impose ‘polluter pays’ carbon taxes on their citizens because the JAXA data proves there are far fewer carbon emissions from industrialized western nations than undeveloped Equatorial regions. Dr. Ball has now published a compelling article adding weight to my story.
As the evidence grows that Mr. Skolnick has no basis in fact for slurring my reputation I shall now be considering my options for a libel suit against him. I conclude with this plea: please punish the fakers and fraudsters and either donate to Dr. Ball's legal fund or help to publicize Skolnick’s, Mann’s and co.'s cynical misuse of the legal system. The slur tactics of global warming fraudsters cannot be allowed to obfuscate the facts.
Comments
He prefers just to give you his interpretation and just one badly truncated quote, which he completely misrepresents: The quote, "knowingly asserted something for which there is no reasonable basis in evidence,” refers to Pearlman Lindholm attorney Michael Scherr -- not to Mr. O'Sullivan! On the contrary, the Law Society's letter clearly documents Mr. O'Sullivan is NOT and has NEVER worked for Pearlman Lindholm as he falsely claimed in his online resumes. (Note: althoughthe letter is marked "Confidential," I obtained the Law Society's permission to publish it. Unlike Mr. O'Sullivan, I play by the rules.)
www.aaskolnick.com/global_deniers/BC_LawSociety_4-nov311_Skolnick.pdf
Recently, Mr. O'Sullivan began deleting some credentials from his online resumes. He has deleted his claims about working as a "legal counsel" for Pearlman Lindholm as well as being a member of the American Bar Association -- apparently in response to the Law Society of British Columbia investigation and, I suspect, contact from the American Bar Association.
After removing his false claim of membership in the ABA, he added membership in the New York County Lawyers Association, which is equally false -- according to the association's membership director.
The following screen capture of his Suite101.com bio from several months ago shows how he deleted the incriminating false credentials:
www.aaskolnick.com/global_deniers/suite101_May27.2011_johnosullivan.jpg
His current bio:
john-o-sullivan.suite101.com/
And the screen capture of his previous LinkedIn resume shows the same attempt to remove the incriminating false credentials:
www.aaskolnick.com/global_deniers/LinkedIn_5_27_johnosullivanprofile_capture.jpg
www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=64434874&authType=name&authToken=0rq9&locale=en_US&pvs=pp&trk=ppro_viewmore
Andrew Skolnick are you saying that is not what they "Found"?
There is a good reason Mr. O'Sullivan never fact checks his work. If he took all the errors and falsehoods out of his articles, they would be even shorter than Tweets.
Looks like Andy 'don't like the decision' and is still a tad bitter.
Can't have that come out just before Durban now can we?
"I can confirm that John O'Sullivan is no longer an active freelance contributor to the site. Beyond this, Suite101 declines to comment further."
His Suite101.com bio -- which was edited to remove his false claims of working for Pearlman Lindholm as a "legal consultant" and a member of the American Bar Association -- was not removed. However, only two of the more than 60 articles he wrote for them remain. The rest were deleted.
john-o-sullivan.suite101.com/articles
As far as I know, Suite101.com was Mr. O'Sullivan's only paying online writing gig, though it doesn't pay very much -- on average about $15-25 per article (which, for a careful writer, works out to be about minimum wage). It must still be a significant loss.
www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8BQpciw8suk
He stills says Mann's work is not worth reviewing and that climategate showed attempts to hide and distort data.
And he is a warmist.
If Mann's work was above board he would not be trying so hard to hide it. Any reasoning person knows this.
All this bickering does not change the fact that Mann is hiding his work because he commited fraud on the taxpayer. Erasing the well established MWP from the record is indeed fraud.
I don't care if John kicks his dog at night. And Skolnick is throwing everythingat the wall hoping soemthing will stick.
Stick the hockeystick!
The complaint I filed with the Law Society was against John O'Sullivan, not Mr. Scherr. But O'Sullivan is NOT a lawyer in BC -- or anywhere else that I can find. Therefore, the Law Society launched an investigation of Mr. Scherr's conduct in this matter, since he IS a BC attorney. And it concluded that it found no evidence that Mr. Scherr knew about Mr. O'Sullivan's misconduct involving his false claims to be an attorney representing Tim Ball in "Vancouver Supreme Court"[sic] and employed as a "legal counsel" at Pearlman Lindholm.
As Mr. Scherr's statement to the Law Society proved, Mr. O'Sullivan was indeed lying about his employment as legal counsel at the law firm.
Read it again and this time PAY ATTENTION to how Mr. Scherr covered his kiester -- by stating he had no idea Mr. O'Sullivan was falsely claiming to be working for his law firm.
I expected such sophistry from Gator. Amirlach and Red Jeff, I don't know what your problem is. Read the letter and pay attention to what it says about John O'Sullivan -- the one who actually claimed all those bogus professional credentials -- NOT Mr. Scherr, who, unlike Mr. O'Sullivan, is an accredited attorney, who doesn't have to keep rewriting his resumes every time he's caught lying.
You should note the scolding he caught. When a law society calls a complaint "professionally embarrassing," the lawyer better pay attention; the next time they won't necessarily give him the benefit of doubt.
"I have no doubt," the investigator concluded, "that in addition to the professional embarrassment this complaint has caused him, it has also provided a valuable lesson which will cause him [Mr. Scherr] to reflect on when it is important to embark on a line of inquiry in the future."
And in her letter to Mr. Scherr, the investigator states, "I confirm your advice that this complaint served as a valuable lesson to you." I hope he takes that lesson to heart, considering the fact that Mr. O'Sullivan is STILL claiming to work for his law firm as a "legal counsel," which he assured the Law Society is not the case.
Your suit was an abject failure. Learn a lesson, mature and be a wiser man for your mistakes. You cannot continue to flog your dead horse.
Bingo!
"Despite the 'warning' you [Andrew Skolnick] provided to Mr. Scherr as to your doubts about Mr. O'Sullivan's claim that he was a lawyer, the evidence does not support an allegation that [Mr. Scherr] 'knowingly permitted a party or witness to be presented in a false way.' It's easy to see, in retrospect, that it would have been wise for Mr. Scherr to inquire and seek verification from Mr. O'Sullivan as to his professional status prior to filing the Response. His failure to do so at the time, however, does not 'display gross culpable neglect of his duties as a lawyer.'"
Embarrassing finding for Mr. Scherr, utterly damning for the humbug passing himself off as an attorney defending Tim Ball in court and working for Scherr's law firm as a "legal consultant.
Now that Mr. Scherr knows what Mr. O'Sullivan has been doing, let's see how long it takes him to stop the humbug from continuing to claim he's working for Scherr's law firm as a "legal consultant."
That's rich coming from someone who defends liars and frauds.
Let's see Andrew, can you prove the MWP did not happen?
Fool!
I haven't a clue what "MWP" has to do with the false and dubious professional credentials in John O'Sullivan's resumes and bios. If you see a connection, enlighten us.
Would it explain why Mr. O'Sullivan falsely claimed, until recently, that he is a member of the American Bar Association? Or that he published articles in National Review and Forbes magazine?
Or that he works for the law firm Pearlman Lindholm as a "legal consultant?"
Right, I didn't think so.
So well informed!
When is that Mann Discovery Again?
www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=-1k4mFZr-gE
www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfafW_3oJ3Q&feature=related What Hocket Stick? I dont see any Hockey Stick!...
No wonder they are fighting Tooth and Colonic to keep from releasing Mann's data. I wouldn't admit i knew Mann either.
ATLANTA (CBS Atlanta) –
The home base for Occupy Atlanta has tested positive for tuberculosis.
The Fulton County Health Department confirmed Wednesday that residents at the homeless shelter where protesters have been occupying have contracted the drug-resistant disease. WGCL reports that a health department spokeswoman said there is a possibility that both Occupy Atlanta protesters and the homeless people in the shelter may still be at risk since tuberculosis is contracted through air contact.
atlanta.cbslocal.com/2011/11/10/tuberculosis-breaks-out-at-occupy-atlantas-base/
Can't wait to hear the conspiracy theories!
Despite your bleating was your claim dismissed or not????
Based on Ruth Long, Staff Lawyer, Professional Conduct (Law Society of British Columbia) "I am satisfied that the concern raised in this complaint has been adequately drawn to Mr. Scherr's attention through this process and does not support an allegation of professional misconduct."
Ruth thinks your arguement is unsupported.
As for reading the whole letter, how do you think I got to page 5 (HINT HINT HINT I read pages 1-4 first!!!)
PS... are you also Drewski (AKA the Cool whip cowboy) on this site?
Here is some interesting information about our friend, maybe you can think of a better title.
www.mail-archive.com/fairfieldlife
Quote:That should do it!
To my mind, Skolnick's statement that the suit was dismissed without prejudice
is a good example of the sort of misleading half-truth common among critics of Transcendetal Meditation and their web sites. Most readers would assume, as you did, that the suit was
dismissed for one of three reasons that courts are allowed to dismiss lawsuits:
lack of evidence, lack of credible evidence, and failure to state a valid claim. In every case, it signals that the suit was without merit.
And I believe that most readers aren't aware that when a suit is settled out of
court, according to the settlement agreement the plaintiff either requests that the suit be "dismissed with prejudice," which means that the plaintiff forgoes the right to sue again on the same issue, or that it be "dismissed without prejudice," which means that the plaintiff retains the right to sue again on the same issue.
The parties to the suit agreed to a confidential settlement, and per that
agreement, the plaintiff requested that the suit be dismissed without prejudice. I have in hand the order that Judge Charles P. Korcoras issued in response to the rquest. Here is the text in full:
"This cause of action is hereby dismissed without prejudice and with leave to reinstate if settlement is not effectuated. All pending motions are hereby moot." This meant that if the
defendents didn't follow through on their part of the settlement agreement, the plaintiffs could reinstate the suit.
Of course, in my opinion, when Skolnick writes, as he has often done, that the
suit was dismissed without prejudice and doesn't mention the settlement, he is
intentionally misleading readers. He is technically correct, but most readers don't understand that this sort of dismissal typically indicates that the suit was settled, and most readers would be confused by the counterintuitive phrase "dismissed without prejudice," assuming it means the opposite of what it is actually saying.
I can see why you choose the name of a cold-blooded, reptilian-brained predator. It's so appropriate to your words and deeds.
All suits dismissed without prejudice contain the words Judge Korcoras included, because that's the nature of dismissals without prejudice. Judges love such dismissals. By telling the parties to take it out of here and try to work it out yourselves, judges are able to quickly lighten their case loads.
You've got your head stuck in your back pocket if believe the suit was settled. And your statement is nonsense: when a settlement is reached, the judge will dismiss the suit WITH PREJUDICE.
No one settles a suit giving the plaintiff the option of refiling it, hoping to squeeze more out of the defendants.
Your statement, "The parties to the suit agreed to a confidential settlement, and per that agreement, the plaintiff requested that the suit be dismissed without prejudice," is utterly idiotic.
About 15 years ago, Deepok Chopra's attorney lied to Newsweek that there was a "settlement for an undisclosed amount," but Newsweek had to print a retraction. The affair is described in the National Association of Science Writers Newsletter: www.aaskolnick.com/naswmav.htm
TM cult members and others who claim the suit was settled have a very difficult time explaining why nothing in my articles on Chopra and the TM cult was ever retracted, why no apology was ever issued, and why I was able to continue exposing the deceit and fraud perpetrated by TMers.
When libel suits are settled, they always include a retraction, an apology, and an agreement not to publish further comments about the plaintiffs.
I'm taking time to explain all this, knowing that facts will have little appeal to a reptile, because facts are important to more highly evolved readers.
Quote:Meaning exactly what it says. But apparently you fancy yourself as a lawyer as well as a journalist now?
Where are the links to the Newsweek retraction? There should be something more you can provide to prove your point than a link to something you wrote yourself.
Where is the evidence? I'm not going searching for it because I could care less. But if you intend to claim things happened a certain way and that you know the facts then you should provide them. Objective facts, not your own version of them.
No sophist, that is what is known as a lie of omission. When I first read the Wiki info on your settlement, I was not aware that you were forced to settle.
Lefists are duplicitous to the core.
Quote:Dumb and dumber!
I'm kind of curious as to why you have such an axe to grind with John? What does it matter to you who Dr. Ball chooses to help defend him from a “Law Suit Used to Suppress Free Speech and Public Debate of Climate Science”?
ATLANTA (CBS Atlanta) –
The home base for Occupy Atlanta has tested positive for tuberculosis.
The Fulton County Health Department confirmed Wednesday that residents at the homeless shelter where protesters have been occupying have contracted the drug-resistant disease. WGCL reports that a health department spokeswoman said there is a possibility that both Occupy Atlanta protesters and the homeless people in the shelter may still be at risk since tuberculosis is contracted through air contact.
Can't wait to hear the conpiracy theories!
TB, deaths, OD's, rapes, assaults, arrests, theft, genuine racism, God the list is endless. If the political slant was reversed there'ld be Hell to pay.
Imagine being one of the supposed 'state directed infiltraitors' of the Occupy (bowel) movement sent to 'cause mayhem' and blame it on the peace-loving squaters errrr activists. You couldn't pay me enough
As for DrewskiTwoski (Trotsky?) I'ld expect no less from a pseudo-superhero out to save the world from itself, deluded to the point where he's convinced himself that he's 'in on' something the rest of us can scarcely understand. He will be humanities savior and it's all up to him!
I like as new monikers AskOl'Nick or ars errr 'Kiester'holenick. Then again nothing will compare to Clusterpuck!!!
There's a lesson in this for you: Lawsuits are not 'Fact Sheets' or proof of anything. It goes for both sides in any case.
If you would do your homework and not swallow whole the tripe belted out by your mob of shysters, maybe you would just shut up more often, or go bother someone else.
Quote:
And now in his banner headline above, he says it's the Canadian Bar Association -- which is also about 2500 miles east of the Law Society of British Columbia. Yes, the mind of Mr. O'Sullivan is a consistent mind. Consistently and persistently wrong.
I've tried to teach him the name of the court where he claimed to be defending Tim Ball. It's the Supreme Court of British Columbia, I've informed him repeatedly, but he keeps calling it the "Vancouver Supreme Court."
And several times I've instructed him that the law firm, at which he claims to work as a "legal counsel," is in Victoria, NOT Vancouver. But he's just not going to budge. He says it's in Vancouver and after all he's the one working there, right?
Well, actually, wrong. As the Law Society of British Columbia determined, Mr. O'Sullivan's claims about defending Tim Ball in "Vancouver Supreme Court" and being employed as a a legal counsel at Pearlman Lindholm are untrue.
At least he has consistency working for him if nothing else.
He's far more comfortable in places with people who pat him on the back than he is in forums where anyone questions his academic and professional credentials.
When provoked enough, he'll pop up in a group where he feels safe and post a vituperative rejoinder. But when I appear, he disappears. Some might call this the Superman phenomenon -- you know, Clark Kent and Superman never being observed in the same place at the same time.
I've even tried to engage Mr. O'Sullivan in a private email discussion. He won't respond.
I would LOVE to debate Mr. O'Sullivan about his credentials here. But it's not going to happen.
Just ask him.
What do you think of this?
Quote:So the University "investigators" looked at Mann's ability to obtain funding as a measure of his integrity while then stating it was due to his standards "for proposing research."
They were supposed to be investigating how he CONDUCTED his research, not what he proposed to research and how much funding the proposal received.
This is what drewski using his "ostrich principle" of logic will never understand:
In order for a person to be exonerated in an investigation they have to first be investigated. When the "investigating" committee fails to in fact investigate anything then their ruling means nothing.
As I have said before, Mann has never been exonerated because the charges against him were never investigated.
How much different from the "Winning" Hockey Stick Team was it? Well besides the sexual misconduct...
Both brought in Tens of Millions.
Why not just let Tim Ball defend himself whichever way he wants.
I notice you once gave a talk at a seminar called “How Law Suits Are Used to Suppress Free Speech and Public Debate” in 1998. I gather you were against such suits then.
Could you please let us know under what capacity you are involved with this case?
What is your interest and why are you involved?
My interest is to expose the misconduct of John O'Sullivan. I have never written on climatology or global warming until Mr. O'Sullivan dragged me into this fight with his audaciously false accusations and bogus credentials.
In May, Mr. O'Sullivan, claiming he is a science journalist with a slew of impressive credentials that proved to be false, started a discussion on the LinkedIn science and technology writers' group, accusing us of helping to perpetrate what he called the global warming "hoax."
When we looked at the academic and professional credentials in his LinkedIn bio, we smelled a rat. And the more we challenged those credentials, the more he squealed and threatened to sue.
As my 20-year history as a science journalist and investigative reporter will show you, I have a problem with quacks, frauds, and humbugs. My work has earned awards from many journalism and humanitarian organizations, including Amnesty International, the American Medical Writers Association, Harvard University's Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy, and other groups. In 1999, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch nominated me for a Pulitzer Prize in Investigative Reporting. So I know something about exposing frauds and humbugs.
Mr. O'Sullivan and his friends here believe it’s only fair and appropriate to question the honesty of climatologists, never their accusers. They clearly live in their own little world, where they think they need to look up to see down. No wonder it’s so easy to trip them up.
Why have you repeatedly misrepresented the truth about your lawsuit?
Pot meet kettle.
Surely there must be a story there for an "investigative" journalist? Or do you "investigations" only consist of looking the other way for anything that fits in with your ideology?
For someone who claims "it's so easy to trip them up" you seem to be in complete denial of how easily you yourself are tripped up aren't you?
So who lives in their own little world, it would appear to be the "journalist" who lost a lawsuit yet still thinks he has a case.
Let me repost here what I had posted on Judy Curry's Sky Dragon Slayer discussion:
Quote:So with that said, Robert, please explain what lawsuit this "journalist" ever lost. Or would you like to withdraw your false accusation?
Of course, in my opinion, when Skolnick writes, as he has often done, that the suit was dismissed without prejudice and doesn't mention the settlement, he is intentionally misleading readers. He is technically correct, but most readers don't understand that this sort of dismissal typically indicates that the suit was settled, and most readers would be confused by the counterintuitive phrase "dismissed without prejudice," assuming it means the opposite of what it is actually saying.
Sophist.
I am under the impression you lost (as in to LOSE not to LOOSE) the lawsuit, i.e. because you appear to be so interested in it I assumed you were the plaintiff.
So tell us if you are not the plaintiff why you are so concerned with this matter?
Are you not the one who "tiled the complaint"? So while technically not a "lawsuit" you are still the plaintiff and from everything we have seen thus far you lost. In other words there was no basis or evidence found to support you complaint.
Why don't you file another one this time specifically targetting Dr. Ball or Mr. Sullivan?
Awful quick to jump to claims of "false accusation" aren't you? I wonder why that would be, guilty conscience perhaps?
Quoting Robert:
I am not a plaintiff, defendant, or any other kind of party in any suit.
And I "lost" nothing, you twit.
I filed a number of complaints against John O'Sullivan, for his using fraudulent credentials, with a number of organizations, including the American Bar Association and the Law Society of British Columbia.
As a result, O'Sullivan deleted his bogus claim of being an ABA member from some of his bios and the Law Society confirmed in its summary letter that O'Sullivan has indeed been misrepresenting himself an attorney defending Tim Ball in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, and that he works as a legal consultant for Pearlman Lindholm. YET he's continuing to make this fraudulent claim!
www.friendsreunited.co.uk/JohnOSullivan
Did you even bother to read the Law Society findings you so ridiculously misstated?
Did you see the part where Pearlman Lindholm attorney Michael Mann testified that O'Sullivan NEVER worked for the law firm in any capacity?
www.aaskolnick.com/global_deniers/BC_LawSociety_4-nov311_Skolnick.pdf
Or are you just incapable of comprehending written English?
Poor delusional lad is getting pretty flustered... I can see how he lost his case, poor cyberstalker that he is!!!
Perhaps if Old Nick could properly articulate himself first time round he would be understandable!!!
We can certainly tell by all the name calling. Tell us which course you learned that in, was it Journalism 101?
You claim to be an "investigative journalist" do you not? Looks like you picked the wrong line of work if you can't handle being ganged up on by a bunch of "twits" as you like to call us.
Looks like there is more than a slight amount of "twit" in your family tree based on your behavior.
BTW, Alex, I haven't bothered to read it so are you going to withdraw you false accusation of illiteracy?
I'm just trying to piss you off in return for your own efforts.
Quoting Andrew Skolnick:
Then again this 'lawyer' has lost his last 2 legal briefs.... BUT HE COMES CHEAP!!!
The same person who begins his post (the first comment on this thread no less) with the following:
Quote:Is either a liar, or if as he later claimed was "mistaken" can't read very well (as I have stated previously, must be that liberal reading disorder). That he then attempts to accuse others of not being able to read is typical and to be expected.
I'm just trying to see how long it takes for him to implode. I really have better things to do than spend any amount of time reading through his rants. You don't have to, all you need is the general gist of it to come up with something that will get him frothing at the mouth.
They come on sites like this, anticipating to encounter a bunch of unscientific, flat earth, evolutionary rejected yokels. They quickly smarten up and figure out we pay attention. A 'journalist' who mocks our use of the English language yet butchers it to an equal degree should only be laughed at! For Gawd's sake I'm Scottish living in Canada married to a Francophone... English is my 4th language!!!
His scientific understanding is negligible, of that he admits, but his limited vision removes any understanding of the subject he could discover.
It's easy being a skeptic... we find out for ourselves the deficiency of the theory and we can't help but hear the proponents view because it is everywhere. Spouted by 'news' media, Hollywood, academia, government policies and expenditures, simply everywhere. Folk like Old Nick never have the opportunity to hear dissent when they remain insulated to objectivity. By now his blindered view of the world has turned him into a 'superhero' out to save the world from evil. To him we are that evil. That's why his ravings are becoming less coherent, he knows his battle is lost and he has no oratory tricks remaining. The only thing left is for him to attempt to exit the discussion 'gracefully'. Here is my prediction....
1) Tell us we will never learn and he's giving up trying to teach us. 1/4 odds
2) Say he has more important things to do. 1/1 odds
3) Freeze to death this winter barbequeing and wearing shorts. 7/1 odds
4) Slowly fade away. 20/1 odds
5) Admit we are right. 1000/1 odds
Also, if you do want to come to Canada, Saskatchewan is the place you want to be. It has the 4F's of economic success:
Forestry
Fuel (oil sands)
Food (wheat)
Fertilizer (20% of earths potash)
Everything the world needs! If I were a younger man that's where I'd be!
If you bothered to learn anything about the law suits against Tim Ball, you would know that he is being sued for making libelous statements -- not expressing opinions. If you had a clue about libel law, you would know that opinions are NOT actionable. Only statements of facts are actionable -- if they are false and damaging.
Furthermore, the right wing, global warming denying Canada Free Press, which published Ball's defamations against Dr. Weaver, issued a full retraction and apology earlier this year:
www.desmogblog.com/canadafreepress-apology-weaver
So try to get a clue before making further foolish comments.
I don't know a single responsible journalist nor First Amendment attorney who supports the right to slander and libel people. There is NO such right under U.S. law.
If you bother to learn the difference, you'll avoid appearing so ignorant.
It is clear that this action is designed to discourage Tim Ball and others from making criticisms in future.
According to the right-wing, global warming denier Canadian Free Press, Ball is guilty of making false, defamatory statements about Dr. Weaver -- which is illegal in Canada as it is in the U.S.
Try to pay attention, please.
While the Canadian Free Press admitted the charges in Ball's article were false and defamatory, Ball has not.
Dr. Weaver got a retraction and apology from Canadian Free Press. To get Ball to retract his defamations, he had to take Ball to court -- as Dr. Mann also had to do.
It's clear Ball's article and comments were defamatory, however for the scientists to recover damages, they have to prove this in court. That's an altogether different hurdle to clear.
Quote: No one "Denies" Climate Changes. Skeptics have issues with the complete lack of evidence man made Co2 is the cause.
"These are some of the things skeptics don’t deny.
Global temperatures rose about a 0.4C in the last couple of decades of the last century. (Please at least give us credit for being able to understand satellite temperature readings).
Global temperatures have risen since the end of the LIA.
And here are some of the other things we don’t deny.
Temperatures rose at a similar rate between 1850-80 and 1910-40 as they did between 1975-95.
Scientists still have very little understanding of why and how these sort of changes occur.
We can find no correlation between temperature trends and increases in CO2 emissions.
There has been no rise in temperatures in the last 15 years or so.
Scientists have no way of knowing whether the warming trend of the last 160 years will resume and, if so, how long it will last and how much further temperatures will rise." notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2011/10/21/what-sceptics-dont-deny/
So now i'm wondering, with the recent scandal with Penn State, if Mann does actually end up in Pen State will Dr. Ball's statements still be called Libel? wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/10/mcintyre-on-the-penn-state-fiasco/
Propagandistic activism.
And he has shiny sparkly awards to prove it.
CA readers are aware of Spanier’s failure to ensure proper investigation of Climategate emails and his untrue puffs about the ineffective Penn State Inquiry Committee, reported at CA here and by the the Penn State Collegian as follows:
Graham Spanier addressed the inquiry and the panel’s work during the Board of Trustees meeting on Jan. 22. Penn State President Spanier is quoted as saying:
“I know they’ve taken the time and spent hundreds of hours studying documents and interviewing people and looking at issues from all sides,” Spanier said.
Spanier’s claims were totally untrue. Not only did the Inquiry Committee fail to “look at issues from all sides”, they didn’t even interview or take evidence from critics – as they were required to do under the applicable Penn State policy. As I reported at CA at the time:
The only interviews mentioned in the report (aside from Mann) are with Gerry North and Donald Kennedy, editor of Science. [Since they are required to provide a transcript or summary of all interviews, I presume that the Inquiry did not carry out any other interviews.] What does Donald Kennedy know about the matter? These two hardly constitute “looking at issues from all sides”. [A CA reader observed below that "North [at a Rice University event] admitted that he had not read any of the EAU e-mails and did not even know that software files were included in the release.”] They didn’t even talk to Wegman. Contrary to Spanier’s claim, they did not make the slightest effort to talk to any critic or even neutral observer." climateaudit.org/2011/11/10/penn-state-president-fired/
Profit profit profit!!! Hard to believe, the same folk that are protesting corporate profit have no qualms about the institutions they attend wallowing in it.
I really don't give 2 hoots for your petty little squabble with John Sullivan. I do care that Tim Ball gets the best defence possible.
You talk about questioning the honesty of climatologists. I suggest you read Andrew Montford's book "The Hockey Stick" which makes it clear Mann is not the knight in shining armour you seem to think he is.
You might also like to investigate who is funding Mann's legal action and why.
So now you're pretending to know what I think about Dr. Michael Mann? I've never posted any opinion of Dr. Mann, here or anywhere else.
I've explained my professional interest to you. I'm investigating John O'Sullivan for a possible article. I believe a study of his "career" can help shine a lot of light on the gullibility and dishonesty of the global warming denier movement.
I don't know if Dr. Mann is a competent scientist or not. But I'm not at all persuaded by the error-ridden, hyperbolic rants against him coming from Mr. O'Sullivan and his fellow Sky Dragon Slimers.
Climatology has never been one of my beats. Exposing pseudoscience has been, for more than 20 years. And I've seldom seen the depth of dishonesty I've seen displayed by the so-called Sky Dragon Slayers who are led by Mr. O'Sullivan.
Quote:Which would mean you have obviously not looked into those supporting the CO2 cases warming meme have you?
Perhaps you haven't seen the "depth of dishonesty" you are trying to portray because you choose not to look.
Your choice of terms and phrasing shows us exactly what you are, a completely biased activist not really interested in the truth unless it happens to be your version of it.
Everything we have come to expect from the modern journalist.
"Mr. O'Sullivan and his friends here believe it’s only fair and appropriate to question the honesty of climatologists, never their accusers. They clearly live in their own little world"
you were not talking about Mann?
You just keep outing yourself. Sophist.
As your 'court appointed attorney' I suggest you shut up.
Seems Ol' Nick has had legal trouble himself!! "When we looked at the academic and professional credentials in his LinkedIn bio, we smelled a rat." Sure it just wasn't your own BO?
"B-b-but my awards..."
I don't trust a guy fired by the AMA.
Love his quote tho' "Climatology has never been one of my beats... And I've seldom seen the depth of dishonesty I've seen displayed by the so-called Sky Dragon Slayers who are led by Mr. O'Sullivan."
Kinda' makes you wonder how he'd know dishonesty while knowing nothing about the science doesn't it?????
You should browse through this:
www.aaskolnick.com/global_deniers/
He is definitely fixated on John.
Funny how some of the guys who think Deniers should be Jailed also think China is great and accept large donations. www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/1255217346001#1255232075001 Suzuki's claims the developing worlds Co2 emmisions are negligable are clearly false. He refuses to critisise China while accepting over a million a year in funding.
CMS didn't sue me. I sued Correctional Medical Services and another company for defamation and tortuous interference and obtained settlements from both companies.
Even more important, the articles I was fired over received Amnesty International USA's Spotlight on Media Award, Harvard University's Goldsmith Prize for Investigative Journalism Finalist Award, First Prize in Community Affairs/Public Interest Reporting from Missouri Associated Press Managing Editors, Missouri Press Association's Best Investigative Reporting Prize for Dailies, the American Medical Writers Association's John P. McGovern Award for Preeminent Contributions to Medical Communication, and a Pulitzer Prize for Investigative Reporting nomination from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.
So go wipe all that egg off your face, you look ridiculous.
Just as I predicted above.
Leftists giving leftists awards is meaningless. Unless you are a braindead leftist. It is done for this very purpose, so a quack can point to his sparkly shiny awards and say, 'See how smart I am'.
Appeals to authority, blah, blah, blah. I am so very tired of leftists clapping for one another. I have debated Chomsky and saved his email because they broadly illustrate what a shallow parrot he is. You are in great company sophist.
For instance Skolnick's insistance on making a big deal out of the allegation that O' Sullivan had stated that he was involved with "Vancouver Supreme Court", and that this was somehow deceitful because the court is in Victoria.
It is the case that Victoria is on Vancouver Island, and it is common parlance in the British Isles to simply refer to islands by their name. Therefore it would be natural to refer to the court as Vancouver Supreme Court, because that is the name of the island where it is located. I do not believe that any deceit was intended by O' Sullivan on that score.
Again another main plank of mr Skolnick's argument is that O' Sullivan had incorrectly described himself as a counsel or advocate, and that he was not in fact licenced to practice as such in Victoria, BC. Similarly these words have subtly different meanings on opposite sides of the Atlantic Ocean. It is not the case in the British Isles that a Counsel, Counsellor, or Advocate even requires any sort of degree at all, or registration with any "bar association" or "law society" because the use of those words does not imply any such qualification in British English. It may do, but is not denotive.
Nevertheless it is clear and undeniable that O' Sullivan does have a Law degree,
whereas on the other hand Andrew A. Skolnick has no legal qualifications whatsoever. Perhaps Skolnick might beat O' Sullivan in a photography contest, but it is unlikely that he will be able to outmaneuver O' Sullivan who has some long experience in pleading replication, rejoinder, surrejoinder, and rebuttal.
In my opinion, Skolnick thought he could bully O' Sullivan into submission, but that hasn't worked, and now he has painted himself into a proverbial corner.
I don't see any where it say's he couldn't act in an advisory role.
Oh, yeah. From where? From University College, Cork as he claimed back in May on LinkedIn?
www.aaskolnick.com/global_deniers/cork_capture.jpg
Or from the University of Surrey as he's claiming now?
Unfortunately, Mr. O'Sullivan now claims he earned his law degree from the University of Surrey the same time he was earning his art degree from a totally different school!
www.friendsreunited.co.uk/JohnOSullivan
That's the problem with pathological liars, they have a terrible time keeping their stories straight.
And Fred completely misrepresents what I've said about the professional credentials Mr. O'Sullivan has been fraudulently claiming.
For example, any honest person here who can read (there are some, right?) can see for themselves that the humbug is STILL claiming on his Friends Reunited site that he's working as a legal consultant for Pearlman Lindholm -- and then can read in the Law Society of British Columbia's findings how Tim Ball's attorney Michael Scherr O'Sullivan NEVER was employed by his law firm in any capacity.
www.aaskolnick.com/global_deniers/BC_LawSociety_4-nov311_Skolnick.pdf
What I have just "painted in the corner" are two deniers, John O'Sullivan and his apologist friend Fred P, who have little if any regard for the truth.
... the humbug is STILL claiming on his Friends Reunited site that he's working as a legal consultant for Pearlman Lindholm -- and then can read in the Law Society of British Columbia's findings how Tim Ball's attorney Michael Scherr testified O'Sullivan was NEVER employed by his law firm in any capacity.
I agree with your assessment. It does appear that Mr. Skolnick was overly pedantic from the outset in zealously looking for fault rather than simply trying to understand. Rushing to judgment and making false accusations, he dug his hole deeper and has been thoroughly discredited and exposed as a lying zealot with an agenda.
Others have unearthed evidence that Skolnick was fired from his employment as a journalist for improper conduct. It also appears he made fatuous claims to be a "Pulitzer Prize nominee" and despite boasting he won two lawsuits he actually lost them. Such is the measure of the man.
Just the threat of being sued for libel is enough to discourage people from freely commenting. Even more so when the person sueing is well funded (Perhaps Andrew would like to put his investigative powers to the test here to see who is funding Mann and why) and the the one being sued is a retired well respected scientist who will have to dip into his life savings to defend himself.
There is a thin line between fair comment and libel and no doubt the Court will decide whether Ball has crossed this line, but I am afraid the whole business stinks of an attempt to stifle criticism.
Go back to school, Paul.
If a statement of fact is written or broadcast, is provably false, and is injurious to the reputation of a person or organization, it is by definition libel.
"Fairness" has nothing to do with libel.
"Fairness" of a comment is a subjective call. It has nothing to do with defamation.
The law protects people and organizations from defamation. It does not protect them from unfair comments.
You can make all the unfair comments you want about a person or organization with absolute impunity -- as long as you don't state something harmful to their reputation as fact, when it is provably false.
Paul, you really should stop pontificating on subjects you clearly know nothing about.
Here's an example of "fair commentary":
Paul speaks about subjects he often doesn't understand.
This is a commentary based on an opinion. The word "often" involves a judgment not everybody will necessarily agree with. Yet many would consider it a fair judgment considering how many times Paul has misunderstood the things he's commenting on.
Now here's an example of commentary some would likely judge unfair because it's a gross exaggeration:
Paul mugs every noun he uses and steals the meaning out of every verb.
Although it includes words usually used to describe criminal acts, it is not defamatory since readers understand the words "mugs" and "steals" are used in a literary fashion -- not to describe despicable acts, but to express an opinion of Paul's ability with language.
And here is a statement that would be defamatory if used in an actual accusation instead of as a hypothetical example:
Paul mugged the salesman and stole his wallet and watch.
This would be an accusation of a crime -- an alleged fact, either provable or disprovable. If it's a true statement, it would be harmful to Paul's reputation, but not defamation. If false, it would be defamation and potentially actionable. Paul might be able to sue for damages and court costs.
That's Paul's lesson for now. I hope it helps. I'd also like to help him stop murdering the facts -- but that's likely to be a far more difficult task.
What a sophist.
There ya go... Ol' Nick is nothing short of an ambulance chasing defamation litigation seeker!!! In search of another cash cow to sue!
Well old hob I've called the police as I feel threatened! Something disreputable about being fired by the AMA, you know. I'll also be making a human rights complaint to the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal as I'm both human and always right (ask my wife). My lawyer, Thomas Yannucci, knows how to deal with a self described "bubble-head" such as yourself.
Last question... is that a picture of John Wayne Gacy in a clown outfit with Rosalynn Carter or yourself? I can't tell my clows apart!
Besy friends 4-ever J.
`If I was confident I could make enough suing John to not have to work again I would have done so. So I'm waiting till I piss enough people off that someone with enough money says something I can latch onto to get that big payoff.'
Pretty much tells you all you need to know about his ethics.
Like I said before, everything we have come to expect of a modern "journalist".
People rarely get rich suing for libel. They're lucky even to recover all their expenses if they prevail. They sue to defend their reputation and often to punish the defamer, who refused reasonable requests to retract their defamatory statements.
You're smoking the wrong stuff if you think suing for libel will win you a "big payoff."
With relatively few exceptions, judges award successful plaintiffs compensation only for damages that they can prove resulted from the defamation, in additional to court costs. Large punitive damages are rarely awarded.
Still want to make accusations about my reading skills? Can you prove it? I'm sure I could get more out of you in court than you could get out of me.
But that appears to be the kind of game you like playing.
You are most definitely not a part of the "we" here.
So while you want to claim "we're all aware of <insert slur/claim>" about me I suggest you ask some of the regulars here if they agree with you.
I think you'll find that your "we" consists of you alone.
After so many tedious months of hand waving and making bogus claims that I've said things I actually haven't, the bottom line is that Skolnick is reduced to offering as evidence against me a weblink to my Friends Reunited page.
But friends who have known me since I was a boy have told this creep in no uncertain terms that everything I’ve stated on my profile is true.
As the entire edifice of money-motivated fakery collapses at Penn State and the crooks they have shielded are now being exposed to criminal sanctions we see how Skolnick sits so happily beside pedophiles and climate criminals.
Keep up the good work of exposing their blatent hypocrisy as their only strength is the vast echo chamber in which they exist. Forcing them to deal with reality, or the facts, in any way, makes them see the stupidity of their lives.
For that they've made you public enemy #1. Thanks again!
Here's what you have to do to stop me from accusing you of being a humbug and pathological liar:
-- Provide proof you earned your law degree from University College, Cork in Ireland -- or is it the University of Surrey in the UK?
I'm not sure which story is correct. Back in May, you told the Science and Engineering Writers Group on LinkedIn that you have a law degree from the University College, Cork. Now you claim it's from the University of Surrey. Which is it? And you need to provide verifiable proof.
-- Cite the title and date of publication of the articles you published in National Review and Forbes magazine. Be careful, John. If you try to pass off articles written by the National Review's editor-at-large again, they might take action this time.
-- Cite the court case numbers of some of the law suits you say you successfully litigated during a span of 13 years in NY State.
-- Provide proof that attorney Michael Scherr was lying to the Law Society of British Columbia when he testified that you NEVER worked for the law firm Pearlman Lindholm as a "legal consultant" or in any other capacity.
-- Provide proof of your membership in the New York County Law Association.
I hope you realize NYCLA membership is open only to lawyers who have a current certificate of good standing from their bar association, which leaves you out. Oh, and Harriet Astor, NYCLA's membership director said the association has no member named John O'Sullivan. Just so you know.
-- Provide proof that you are a member of the American Bar Association.
These are just some of the false and dubious claims you make in your resumes. If you provide verifiable proof that these are not bogus, I'll apologize to you everywhere I've challenged your honesty and I'll never bother you again.
I'm looking forward to your verifiable proof. As I have for the past 5 months.
Thomas Yannucci Thomas Yannucci Thomas Yannucci Thomas Yannucci Thomas Yannucci Thomas Yannucci Thomas Yannucci Thomas Yannucci
You humbugs you!
As you do in the mangled sentence, "You would be doing Robert, Russ and I a favour..."?
And no, I've nothing better to do.
Question, avoid if you want, do you see yourself as a 'superhero' saving the Earth?
Considering the pride you take from your '68 experience in Chicago (?) and your almost trip to Saigon, could you pinpoint to me when you switched sides and BECAME the establishment?
When did you stop questioning authority and instead become it?
At what point did you become 'The Man'?
It's OK to talk about it, I have a 2 year old upstairs asleep, I can understand an aging hippie going through a second childhood. Do you see it as one more 'kick at the can' having failed the first time round?
Were you into disco? You'll really burn in Hell for that crime!
Having avoided virtually every other point I've made you can do the same with this. I know you read them tho'!!!
Yeah, the old 'Post Disgrace', hated by well over half of St Louisans. Once this proud cities had two newspapers that provided balance to subjects. Now they only have the red rag. Good job My Yannucci! Well played sir.
Good riddance to bad rubbish!
I have never been fired for lying.
You make it so easy to turn you into a frothing at the mouth nitwit showing your true colors.
Shall we go back through this thread and highlight all the "mangled sentences" coming from someone claiming 20 years as a journalist and reporter? Your editors and proofreaders must really earn their money because writing well doesn't appear to be one of your stronger skills.
Thanks for your words of support. Attacking the messenger rather than the message is ALWAYS the MO of these charlatans. After reading more of Skolnick's BS published above, I've got a few more words to add....
SKOLNICK CLAIM: “ I "lost" nothing.”
O’SULLIVAN REPLY: Yes, you did. You got soundly defeated because you failed to have ANY of your complaint upheld.
SKOLNICK CLAIM: “I filed a number of complaints against John O'Sullivan…As a result, O'Sullivan deleted his bogus claim of being an ABA member from some of his bios….”
O’SULLIVAN REPLY: I deleted my reference to my expired membership of the ABA because it was out of date and I no longer required it for access to the research material I was studying.
SKOLNICK CLAIM: “….. and the Law Society confirmed in its summary letter that O'Sullivan has indeed been misrepresenting himself an attorney defending Tim Ball in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, and that he works as a legal consultant for Pearlman Lindholm. YET he's continuing to make this fraudulent claim!”
O’SULLIVAN REPLY: A lie. I have not misrepresented myself and the findings of the Law Society make no such judgment on my conduct. Pearlman Lindholm paid me for the legal work I performed on behalf of Dr. Ball. That, in itself, reasonably constitutes a professional relationship. Even in the letter Skolnick cites in his link, Michael Scherr affirms there was a “professional relationship” between us and that Dr. Ball paid me for such professional services via Pearlman Lindholm.
To be very precise, I have never claimed to be a licensed attorney and as such cannot be accused of misrepresenting myself. It appears that others, perhaps even Michael Scherr, despite all the communications between us, has incorrectly assumed I was licensed.
[cont.....]
I suggest this is the so-called “embarrassment” Skolnick is so desperate to cling onto. It appears the assumption was made innocently when Dr. Ball instructed Pearlman Lindholm to work with me as his legal adviser. Also, it is probable that my phone conversations and other correspondence with Mr. Scherr affirmed to him I was never anything less than fully qualified.
But fatal to Skolnick’s argument is his persistent and false assertion that I am not now nor have I ever been permitted to practice law. This is patently false. Indeed, under the laws of New York (CPLR) I am more than qualified to work as de facto attorney i.e. ‘in house’ under the supervision of a licensed law practitioner. This is how I have been employed in the past and was assuming I was working for Dr. Ball and Pearlman Lindholm. Clearly, the rules in B.C. are different from N.Y.
Also, I have also written dozens of widely published legal articles cited internationally by other law practitioners. In addition I have taught and lectured at schools and colleges as well as litigating pro se and pro bono at every level of the New York State court system over a 13-year period.
It is Mr. Skolnick who has come out unequivocally as the loser in this confrontation, according to the independent ruling of the British Columbia Bar Association. I am delighted that this shabby attempt to derail the superb working relationship I have with Mr. Scherr and Dr. Ball has utterly backfired on him.
Frankly, such skullduggery and deceit befits a man who aligns himself so gleefully with the climate criminals and pedophiles infesting Penn. State.
Boy, did I hit that nail on the head! In 2004, he stood trial in the UK for sending obscene text messages to a 16 y.o. school girl and soliciting sex from her. The testimony was not consistent enough to convince the court of his guilt beyond a doubt so he was acquitted.
Here's the news story of his trial and acquittal:
www.thefreelibrary.com/SIR+CLEARED+OF+SEX+TXTS.-a0113713467
He then self-published a soft-porn book in which his largely an autobiographical account of the trial and where his character is obsessed with lust for his step-daughter's 16-y-o girl friend, and where he argues with his alter ego over society's unfair and oppressive prohibitions against sex with children.
Here's the soft-porn novel "based on a true story" of his lust for the 16-y-o girl, his trial, and his views of anti-pedophilia laws:
cupboard55vanillagirl.blogspot.com/2008/03/cupboard-55-novel.html
Again he regurgitates the same lie attacking my relationship with Tim Ball as a legal adviser as if I have no such relationship by asserting “you were never part of his "legal team."”
This is a lie easily exposed even from the very letter sent to Skolnick by the Law Society and which he provided in the links above. In that letter Ball’s libel attorney, Michael Scherr, explicitly states, ““He [O’Sullivan] did in fact provide consultation, a fact I did confirm for Mr. Skolnick.”
Thus Skolnick knowingly and intentionally perpetrates a cynical deceit and makes himself look ever more ridiculous. Frankly, the dishonesty of the man is palpable when you follow up his links and check the provenance of his claims.
Above he provides a screenshot to what appears to be an ambiguous comment I made about whether he had “asked Cork about my law degree” as his best proof that I allegedly claimed to have acquired a law degree from there. See here:
www.aaskolnick.com/global_deniers/cork_capture.jpg
We may assume this is Skolnick’s best evidence. But even from that "evidence" I cannot be imputed to have made any such claim.
Then he manufactures some guff about me being a “sports teacher” which is also ridiculous since even Skolnick doesn’t assert I make any claims to have any training in sports.
The tables are now turned. It is Skolnick who is on the defensive. In the interests of balance and fairness it is only reasonable that he, a pet photographer, now explains his shady past, including being fired from his employment and his fatuous claim that he was “nominated” for a Pulitzer Prize.
"Left-wing filmmaker Michael Moore has been touring Occupy Wall Street demonstrations across the country–including some of the most violent, such as Occupy Oakland–urging activists to continue their fight against the wealthy “one percent” of Americans.
Initially, Moore tried to deny that his massive wealth made him a member of that one percent. Even when forced to admit the obvious, Moore suggested that he was not always among the one percent, based on his income: “Other years, like last year, I don’t have a job (no movie, no book) and so I make a lot less.”
The fact is that Moore is so wealthy that he does not need to worry about his income. According to public tax records, Moore owns a massive vacation home on Torch Lake, Michigan–one of the most elite communities in the United States–in addition to his posh Manhattan residence.
Through an independent source, Big Hollywood has obtained exclusive photographs of the house matching the address of Moore’s waterfront mansion. It is the kind of luxurious summer home that 99 percent of Americans can only dream of owning.
bighollywood.breitbart.com/abreitbart/2011/11/10/exclusive-photos-michael-moores-massive-michigan-vacation-mansion-beyond-99-percents-wildest-dreams/
Can anyone make sense of this statement?
Lets see....
So far the "investigative reporter" fails to get the facts correct in his original post and later has to correct himself claiming he was "mistaken."
While the rest of us would see it as he hadn't investigated his material very well before running his mouth.
He also seems to have no problem calling people names and deriding their grammar yet cries like a baby when his own typos and grammatical errors are pointed out.
He claimed John wouldn't respond which was proven to be a lie.
You just aren't doing very well. But you are really good at claiming everyone else has to prove your accusations false rather than you as the "investigative reporter" providing actual proof of your allegations.
Rather convenient. Might that have something to do with why the AMA fired you? Too lazy to do your job properly? Inquiring minds want to know.
Must be something about that name...
I'm still trying to make sense of that statement, as it relates to what I posted.
B-b-but he has awards!
Following a fire in a Chevrolet Volt several weeks after a crash test, government officials are weighing the need for new safety rules that could require first responders to drain electric vehicles’ batteries after a crash.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said today it had investigated a fire that occurred this spring, after the Volt extended-range electric vehicle underwent a 20 mile-per-hour, side-impact test for its five-star crash safety rating. The crash punctured the Volt’s lithium-ion battery, and after more than three weeks of sitting outside, the vehicle and several cars around it caught fire. No one was hurt.
Great, so now GM is manufacturing overpriced, government subsidized, electrified Pintos with a delayed fuse.
www.freep.com/.../Chevrolet-Volt-catches-fire-weeks-after-crash-prompting-closer-look-safety?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE
It was a great car as long as no one hit you from behind. Lot of trips to A&W in that thing over the summers.
"The Pinto was not to weigh an ounce over 2,000 pounds and not cost a cent over $2,000."
www.youtube.com/watch?v=rX-Zk_LNZWg
www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgOxWPGsJNY
CAFE standards are still responsible for killing Americans to this day.
Turning off her street we had to go up a slight hill past an apartment complex. 30 mph speed limit.
As we approached the complex a big box style freight truck was in front of us about 3-4 car lengths. I was just starting to accelerate and was doing maybe 25.
The truck passes the entrance to the apartment complex and a girl in a 71 or 72 Impala (not seeing us because of the truck) pulls out from the complex right after the truck passes the entrance.
Directly in front of me.
1982 Firebird - Front end totaled.
1971 or 72 Impala - Knocks her hub cap off.
Yea, progress...
www.bing.com/images/search?q=supernatural+impala&view=detail&id=607E2E9D114816EDCB67D147594F937368FDEF3A&first=0&FORM=IDFRIR
”Among the other fraudulent credentials Mr. O'Sullivan claims in his bios is membership in the New York County Lawyers Association. If you take a look at the NYCLA's membership application, you will see that membership is only open to licensed attorneys.”
Moreover, I would like to thank Climate Change Dispatch for also acknowledging that it succeeded in recently defending itself in the Nevada Supreme Court against a vexatious lawsuit filed against it by Righthaven LLC thanks to the legal advice I tendered.
As readers may clearly see from the evidence contained in this thread, it is Mr. Skolnick who is proven to be the real “humbug and pathological liar.”
Andrew tried what seems to be the norm for those supporting the climate "whatever" memes which is make an accusation then try and place the burden of proof that they are not true on the accused rather than do his own work and prove his own claims.
It doesn't work that way in the real world, only in climate "whatever" fantasy land.
In climate "whatever" fantasy land only the supporters of climate "whatever" are innocent until proven guilty, every one else is apparently guilty of whatever slurs or allegations they can create until the accused proves otherwise.
If I was an employer relying on people to provide proof of the claims they made to prevent my business from being exposed to unnecessary legal proceedings I certainly wouldn't hire anyone who operated using Andrew's methods.
Is that a part of why the AMA fired him? I don't know, I can only speculate, but his performance here gives us many examples that may explain why his employment was terminated.
Thank you Tom for exposing Andrew's false allegations.
Around the beginning of October, Mr. O'Sullivan began falsely claiming NYCLA membership in his online bios. On Oct. 11, the NYCLA membership director confirmed to me that Mr. O'Sullivan was not a member. I immediately began reporting yet one more example of his fraud and deception.
In response, about 2 weeks later, Mr. O'Sullivan sent in his application for membership.
You can see NYCLA's welcome letter, which CDC's editor posted, is dated Oct. 28. I therefore inquired with the NYCLA when it received O'Sullivan's application. I finally received an answer 15 minutes ago: O'Sullivan applied for membership nearly two weeks after I had exposed his fraudulent claim of NYCLA membership.
Because he may not have realized this is just another clumsy fraud by Mr. O'Sullivan, I won't blame CDC's editor for participating in this foolish deception. Clearly he needs to act more responsibly by being more careful.
While CDC's editor may follow through with his threat to block me and delete this information, he will have to bear the ignominy of his act of censorship, which will be widely reported elsewhere.
The fact remains, you claim he was not a member because he didn't meet some legal criteria which has been proven false, he is a member, when he became a member is really irrelevant as I'm quite certain he didn't obtain the required legal credentials in that two week period did he?
You really are a poor excuse for a journalist.
As he has had to do for his American Bar Association membership claim, and his claim of being a legal consultant at the law firm Pearlman Lindholm, I expect Mr. O'Sullivan will soon be deleting his NYCLA membership from his online bios.
Unless you are truly dyslexic, that is an incredibly insensitive thing to say, especially to those readers who have to live with it everyday.
He then claimed I had not attended the University of Surrey’s School of Law and I was not a member of the NYCLA but the NYCLA confirmed to him that I am. Time after time, Skolnick is proven wrong. But it does seem true that Skolnick lied when he claims he has a master’s degree, was a “Pulitzer Prize nominee” and won two lawsuits he actually lost. He has threatened to sue me for libel. I’ve challenged him to go ahead and give it his best shot. Judging by his record I’ve little to fear.
Late last month, O'Sullivan applied to become a Provisional Member of the NYCLA -- which is a free membership only open to lawyers who graduated from law school within the past 3 years and are not members of the bar.
However, O'Sulivan, has been claiming in his online bios and resumes that he earned his law degree in 1984! So he appears to have lied in his application claiming he graduated just last year.
That might be true in an even more embarrassing way: I believe he may have purchased a degree from a bogus online diploma mill and cited that as his law school.
You can verify his claim of earning a law degree in 1984 in his LinkedIn bio: www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=64434874&authType=name&authToken=0rq9&locale=en_US&pvs=pp&trk=ppro_viewmore
You can verify NYCLA's membership requirement from its By Laws: www.nycla.org/index.cfm?section=ABOUT_NYCLA&page=BY-LAWS
"Provisional Members. Graduates of law schools who have not been admitted to the Bar of the State of New York but intend to practice law in the State of New York shall be eligible for provisional membership. Such membership shall continue until the member is admitted to such practice, but no longer than the earlier of (i) the date on which such person discontinues seeking admission to practice in the State of New York and (ii) three (3) years after graduation from law school."
And you can verify that he applied as a Provisional Member by calling NYCLA at 212-267-6646
You say John O'Sullivan's own professional bio and New York County Law Association's rule book description of Provisional Membership is "no evidence" for readers to judge whether he submitted a fraudulent application to NYCLA.
Telling a stupid lie like this not only make me wonder how you can look at yourself in the mirror, it makes me sorry for your poor mirror.
Still no explanation for us of why you got fired? Not that what we have seen from you here leaves a lot of questions in that regard.
Now if you are correct how about you do a nice expose on how the NYCLA doesn't properly screen their applicants? That would be a story, but I'm sure you'll just focus on your vendetta with John.
But first provide the evidence you are correct. You know actual documentation rather than just yours claims and interpretations.
Personally I could care less, but it's obviously keeping you awake at night so the sooner you provide that proof the sooner you can move on to attacking someone else and losing sleep over them eh?
1. You first claim John doesn't have a law degree but provide absolutely no proof. Is it too much for you to contact the school and verify that? We don't care, you do so it is your job to provide that proof. Not your "you can call this number and see for yourself" but documented proof (via FAX or Email) so we know exactly who you spoke with, when you spoke with them, and what their response was.
2. Now you claim that John is a provisional member of the NYCLA citing their membership guidelines, but again no evidence is provided of who you spoke to there, when you spoke to them, or what they said. Instead you expect us to call and ask.
This is your little war Andrew, don't expect us to pay for calls to verify your claims, the onus of proof is on you.
For someone who claims to be a professional you sure as hell don't act like one.
Or place a phone call and look up a weblink.