Richard Littlemore has posted an annotated transcript of his debate with Monckton, with corrections to Monckton’s numerous false statements.

Andrew Bolt thinks the best argument that Monckton had in the debate with Littlemore was his defamation of one of the funders of Desmogblog, so he repeats it, falsely accusing John Lefebvre of being “a convicted Internet fraudster”, when in fact Lefebvre has not been charged with fraud, let alone convicted of it. I don’t know much about the law, but doesn’t that make Bolt liable as well as Mockton if Lefebvre decides to sue?

Jacob Sullum comments on what Lefebvre was actually charged with:


Although Stephen Lawrence and John Lefebvre are charged with money laundering, there was nothing sneaky about their “conspiracy.” In 1999 the two Canadians co-founded Neteller, an online payment processing company, now based in the Isle of Man, that openly specialized in serving online gamblers.

The FBI’s investigation of Lawrence and Lefebvre, who were arrested last month and face a preliminary hearing in New York next week, consisted mainly of reading their public statements and using Neteller to bet on a couple of football games — a vice that in this country has to rank up there with eating a second slice of Mom’s apple pie while listening to The Star-Spangled Banner. Yes, the feds really blew the lid off this publicly traded company that never made a secret of who its customers were or what it did for them.

The impressive thing about the case, part of the Justice Department’s legally shaky crusade against online gambling, is not the evidence but the government’s sinister spin on it. The feds pretend they’re pursuing criminals while prosecuting honest businessmen for providing services Americans want.

Monckton also claims that Lefebvre is running a solar energy corporation, without noticing that it is obviously a different John Lefebvre.

Comments

  1. #1 bi -- IJI
    August 23, 2008

    What, it’s a different John Lefebvre? Oh frabjous day!

    And Bolt thinks that the “best argument” was bringing up a “criminal” act that has exactly zilch to do with any “AGW bias”? Is he for real or what?

    I understand the Roy Green show will be on again this afternoon. Canadians (and non-Canadians) should consider e-mailing, phoning in, etc., to voice their protests against Monckton and Green’s talking points. If anyone will be phoning in, let me know and I’ll start recording the show.

  2. #2 bi -- IJI
    August 23, 2008

    (E-mail: Roy dot Green at corusent dot com. You probably want to carbon-copy it to someone else too, for good measure. (I know I will.))

  3. #3 Alex
    August 23, 2008

    Monckton claimed in an interview with The Observer last year that he advised the British government to contaminate Port Stanley’s water supply with diahorrea-causing germs. Presumably drivel, but on the face of it he’s confessed to violating the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention.

  4. #4 Hank Roberts
    August 23, 2008

    Heartland’s hypocrisy is — I’d say amazing, but it’s so typical.

    Why Prohibitions on Internet Gambling Won’t Work
    http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=14715

    The proposed law was opposed by Heartland for years, because it was an unwarranted intrusion on freedom.

    Until they saw it used as an unwarranted intrusion on the freedom of someone they didn’t like.
    And after that, the’ve been in favor of it, and now call it “money laundering.”

    Hypocrites.

  5. #5 Mike C
    August 23, 2008

    He faces 20 years for money laundering.
    John, meet Tyrone, Tyrone, meet Mrs. Tyrone.
    depp=true
    notiz=[Please do not feed the troll]

  6. #6 dhogaza
    August 23, 2008

    He faces 20 years for money laundering.

    Charged. Not convicted, as Monckton claims. The actual charge is actually less important than the claim that he’s been convicted.

  7. #7 bi -- IJI
    August 23, 2008

    Apparently Roy Green just can’t let it go. Do these talk show pundits have control freak syndrome or what?

  8. #8 Ian Gould
    August 23, 2008

    “He faces 20 years for money laundering. John, meet Tyrone, Tyrone, meet Mrs. Tyrone.”

    Remember folks, rape is never ever funny – except when it’s prison rape in which case it’s fucking hilarious.

    Let’s hear it for Mike C who’s proven that even if you’re already living in a sewer there are always new depths to which one can sink.

  9. #9 Mike C
    August 23, 2008

    Ian Gould, you must be Tyrone’s Ex because you seem to have an intimate knowledge of what he is about to get. If you can’t do the time then don’t do the crime. Be glad that T-bone will take him in rather than leaving him to be the “John” of the whole cell block.
    depp=true
    notiz=[Please do not feed the troll]

  10. #10 dhogaza
    August 23, 2008

    OK, so Mike C is a dude who thinks rape is not only hilarious, but a Good Thing!

    Do you know any women, Mike C? Care to share particulars? You’ll only laugh if they’re raped, after all.

    And you are still butt-fucking (just to keep the theme in line) clueless over the fact that being charged doesn’t mean one is guilty.

    Though a Consitution-hating butt-fucking (just to keep the theme in line) clueless fascist like you regrets the fact that the man gets to defend himself in his trial.

  11. #11 Ian Gould
    August 24, 2008

    By virtue of his denial of the Eternal Truth of the supremacy of the Amerikanischer Volk, LeFebvre is of course already guilty of the worst possible crime in the eyes of Mike C and his ilk.

    Now it’s just necessary to work out what ADDITIONAL crimes the com-symp hippie fag race-mixer is guilty of.

  12. #12 Steve L
    August 24, 2008

    I’d like to know why Mike C chose the name, Tyrone.

  13. #13 Mike C
    August 24, 2008

    Why even call him John. Not only is there a money laundering charge that carries 20 years, but there’s a RICO charge too, that’s 102 years, each count. Oh boy, let’s just get him used to the name he’ll get have for a long time; Bitch. Long hair and some money, just what the boys on the cell block want. You know he’ll get slapped around and his things taken from him. Until T-Bone puts his loving arms around him.
    depp=true
    notiz=[Please do not feed the troll]

  14. #14 Ian Gould
    August 24, 2008

    Anyone get the feeling Mike C spends a LOT of time thinking about gay prison sex?

    And I mean A LOT.

  15. #15 Mike C
    August 24, 2008

    Ian’s just jealous, T-Bone is doing a McCain and dumping Ian for a bitch with mo-money
    depp=true
    notiz=[Please do not feed the troll]

  16. #16 Interrobang
    August 24, 2008

    Speaking as someone who survived an attempted rape, I just want to say, I’m not going to say “Fuck you,” because I hope nobody ever fucks you again, Mike C. I don’t know what kind of sick you have to be to hope someone gets raped in prison, but you have to be extra sick to think that being raped in prison is the kind of thing you should just be able to excuse by saying “If you can’t do the time then don’t do the crime.” Jesus. Seek professional help.

  17. #17 bi -- IJI
    August 24, 2008

    I guess Mike C was just thinking that if he keeps persisting really, really hard in fantasizing about prison rape, then his efforts will create a powerful force field of morphogenetic ψ-rays that’ll help kill off the next climate regulation bill.

  18. #18 Mike C
    August 24, 2008

    It’s going to be the new rap song on cell block 6; John Le Flavor of the month. Don’t take it so hard, guys, T-Bone might be a gentle romantic.
    depp=true
    notiz=[Please do not feed the troll]

  19. #19 Dr Dave
    August 24, 2008

    Mike C,

    For goodness sake please take your pathetic trolling elsewhere. It’s not big and it’s not clever.

  20. #20 sleepy
    August 24, 2008

    You might as well crawl back where you came from Mike, those not just too disgusted are laughing at you, not with you.

  21. #21 Mike C
    August 24, 2008

    We”ll all pich in for a care package for John, I’ll start it off with vaseline and soap on a rope.
    depp=true
    notiz=[Please do not feed the troll]

  22. #22 bi -- IJI
    August 24, 2008

    I just sent an e-mail to Roy Green regarding his treatment of the Littlemore vs. Monckton debate, and his follow-up yesterday.

    Still yet to talk about Monckton’s claims regarding Lefebvre, but I’m guessing that someone’ll get to that pretty soon…

  23. #23 Eli Rabett
    August 24, 2008

    eayeooeyaioeeeeeeeee Trolls need vowels.

  24. #24 Hank Roberts
    August 24, 2008

    You’re recommending he be vowelated?

  25. #25 Lance
    August 25, 2008

    Being a consistent libertarian I think what Lefebvre did was fine, uh except for it being against federal law and all.

    So Tim, are you now calling for everyone to endorse libertarian policies such as legalizing gambling, drugs etc.? Or is it just when founders of alarmist climate blogs get caught that you excuse openly defying federal law?

  26. #26 bi -- IJI
    August 25, 2008

    Lance:

    The fact is, what Lefebvre did wasn’t even as serious as what Sullum suggested. From what I understand, his company was legally registered in Canada and the UK, but not the US. If this is so, it’ll mean that US laws don’t even apply to him in the first place, and the FBI were operating way outside their jurisdiction.

  27. #27 bi -- IJI
    August 25, 2008

    Lance:

    In addition — and I think this is Lambert’s main point — is that the “crime” that Lefebvre was charged with was not “fraud”, contrary to what Monckton and Bolt claimed.

    So yeah,

    1. Lefebvre didn’t break any laws;
    2. he’d been charged, but the charge was not about “fraud”;
    3. and besides he was not convicted.

    Monckton and Bolt’s claims that Lefebvre is a “convicted Internet fraudster” contains 3 lies packed into 3 words.

  28. #28 bi -- IJI
    August 25, 2008

    And of course, if I count fallacies in addition to falsehoods, there’s this extra fact:

    4. Lefebvre’s online gambling business has zilch to do with any “AGW bias”.

    That’s 4 fallacies packed into 3 words, a pretty impressive feat.

  29. #29 Lance
    August 25, 2008

    bi,

    I am aware of the reasons for Tim’s post. I also agree that Monckton exaggerated the offense. Much as DeSmogBlog exxagerates the funding given to Lindzen and other skeptical scientists.

    My question still stands, does Tim agree that gambling should be legalized. This is the crux of the issue, for if you believe that gambling is wrong then whether LeFebvre was under the jurisdiction of US law is beside the point.

    Just curious.

  30. #30 PS
    August 25, 2008

    No, No! See the fraud is that Canada is a sovereign nation not subject to US laws. At least in the view of the FBI.

  31. #31 Cyrus Pinkerton
    August 26, 2008

    Lance writes:

    Being a consistent libertarian…

    Bob Barr, Libertarian candidate for President, recently said:

    Former Vice President Al Gore and I have met privately to discuss the issue of global warming, and I was pleased and honored that he invited me to attend the ‘We’ Campaign event. Global warming is a reality as most every organization that has studied the matter has concluded, whether conservative-leaning, liberal oriented or independent.

  32. #32 Tim Lambert
    August 26, 2008

    Lance, gambling *is* legal. US law does not apply outside the US.

  33. #33 Lance
    August 26, 2008

    Tim,

    “Lance, gambling is legal. US law does not apply outside the US.”

    Hey, tell that to the feds. If it was that simple the man wouldn’t need a lawyer.

    I see you are dodging the actual question. Do you think gambling should be legal? Try not to equivocate the answer into submission. A simple yes or no is all I’m looking for.

  34. #34 Lance
    August 26, 2008

    Cyrus,

    So if I found a leftist that said AGW was a crock, Alexander Cockburn comes to mind, you would change your mind right?

  35. #35 Hank Roberts
    August 26, 2008

    Lance, read the older Hyopocri, er, Heartland website about the original form of that ‘Internet gambling’ bill. Look at what got taken out (even the rethugs couldn’t stomach what the Administration wanted). Note the remainder got attached as a rider to the Port Protection Act, the only way to pass it to protect the casinos it’s meant to help out.

    The original form included having the government check your credit card transactions every month to see if you were doing anything suspicious.

    Do you understand what kind of law this is?

    Think about whose side you’re on.

    “Just because you’re on their side doesn’t mean they’re on your side.” — T. Hayden Elgin, “Making Light”

  36. #36 Steve L
    August 26, 2008

    #29 Being a bit thick, maybe, I don’t see how one’s beliefs about gambling being right or wrong should affect the validity of one’s concerns about someone having their name attached to something that person did not do. Perhaps the question should be, Would Tim complain if Monckton and Bolt reported that Lefebve ran an internet gambling payment site that the US feds didn’t like? Seems to me, one can be against inaccurate description of an act regardless of whether one approves or disapproves of that act. Please explain your logic.

  37. #37 Lee
    August 26, 2008

    I see Lance has been busying himself here again, so I thought perhaps he might need a reminder that he has still not answered some old questions over on the Lomborg thread.

  38. #38 Ian Gould
    August 27, 2008

    “Do you think gambling should be legal?”

    Asking an Australian this is like asking a fish if they think water should be legal.

    But they as a good Merkan all Lance needs to know about any foreign country is that they’re full of dirty foreigners.\

    It’ll no doubt astonish Lance ot learn that we heathren scum ground down beneath the irton heel of the green Nazis are actually far more libertarian on most social issues thsan the US.

    But this would suggest that there are some ways in which America isn’t obviously superior to every other country in the world, so it’s obviously more commie lies.

  39. #39 Hank Roberts
    August 27, 2008

    Since you folks utterly defeat the otherwise useful killfile by quoting wossname, I may as well reply.
    Do I think gambling should be legal?
    I think you should look at who paid the lobbyists to make _Internet_ gambling illegal.
    Hint — the money came from ordinary grassroots citizens.
    It was collected from them by automatic machinery in large hotels in Las Vegas and bundled there.

  40. #40 Ian Gould
    August 27, 2008

    Oh and to prevent Lance becoming (more) confused, operating an internet gambling site within Australia is illegal (thanks to the former right-wing Federal government).

    Running an offshore gambling site from Australia or patronising such a site is legal, this was a typically half-witted attempt to protect the monopoly profits of the big Australian gambling companies.

  41. #41 Cyrus Pinkerton
    August 27, 2008

    Lance writes:

    *So if I found a leftist that said AGW was a crock, Alexander Cockburn comes to mind, you would change your mind right?*

    Lance, do you really think Alexander Cockburn is the US Presidential nominee of a major “leftist” political party? If so, that would explain your peculiar comment; if not, your reply is simply goofy.

    In the future, you would be well served by thinking before posting.

  42. #42 Lance
    August 27, 2008

    Lee,

    I am actually very interested in continuing our discussion. I am currently researching the issue before commenting further.

    Hank,

    As I said I am all for gambling, or at least the right of adults to engage in it. Since I am a college math instructor, among other pursuits, I can’t really delude myself into doing it with my own money however.

    I detest “W” and his merry band of corporate shills. The Republicans pretend to be economic libertarians until they gain access to power, however once entrenched they dole out corporate welfare to their donors and benefactors. They are hardly my “side”.

    Unfortunately the Democrats, while paying lip service to personal liberties, are all too eager to grant more and more power to the federal government to constrain every other facet of human endeavor. Like the Republicans they are also more than eager to pander to corporate interests so long as those corporations make sizable donations to the DNC.

    Sadly Barr is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, unless he has had a soul transplant, and is no more a libertarian than Ralph Nader.

    Cyrus,

    Your point was that Barr had sipped the AGW Kool-Aid so I should drink deeply as well. As far as being the nominee of a “major” party, uh you were talking about the Libertarian party right?

    Before Barr entered the “race” the leading candidate, Wayne Allen Root now his VP pick, had secured all of $2,700 in public donations on his web site. Also Mr. Root supports prayer in school not exactly the hallmark of a real libertarian.

    The Libertarian party seems to have been hijacked by a couple of conservatives that wouldn’t know real liberty if it bit them on their fat rich white asses.

    So you see Cyrus not only is Barr not the candidate of a major party he isn’t even a Libertarian by most objective standards. Perhaps you should do a bit more “thinking before posting”.

  43. #43 Cyrus Pinkerton
    August 27, 2008

    Lance writes:

    *As far as being the nominee of a “major” party, uh you were talking about the Libertarian party right?*

    No. Do you have a reading comprehension problem, Lance? I mentioned that Bob Barr is the US Presidential nominee of *your* party and that his views on climate change seem to be different from yours. (And your views, you assure me, are consistently Libertarian.) In other words, Barr isn’t simply another Libertarian–he represents *your* party in the most important political contest in the US.

    In response, you draw an analogy between Barr and Alexander Cockburn. This strikes me as a particularly odd comparison since, as far as I know, Alexander Cockburn does not represent any political party as a candidate. You don’t challenge that fact (i.e., you acknowledge that your reply was illogical and irrelevant), but instead post gibberish about the Libertarian Party. Is it too much to ask that you try to make your responses relevant?

  44. #44 Hank Roberts
    August 27, 2008

    > Is it too much to ask that you try to make your responses relevant?

    Well, suppose he were a troll.
    And suppose he were trying to provoke the longest possible digression and highest level of irritation, and going for the maximum number of people who quote something he said and reply to it, keeping score.

    But I repeat myself.

  45. #45 Lance
    August 28, 2008

    Cyrus,

    The fact that I identify myself as a libertarian does not mean that I am a member of the Libertarian party. Even if I were a member of the Libertarian party, which I am not, I would not have to agree with the statements of its nominee for president to identify myself as a libertarian.

    Surely this simple distinction is within even your limited grasp.

    Hank,

    I have engaged in conversations on the topic of this thread. If you disagree with my opinion that’s fine. Calling me a troll because you disagree is juvenile.

  46. #46 Graculus
    August 29, 2008

    If this is so, it’ll mean that US laws don’t even apply to him in the first place, and the FBI were operating way outside their jurisdiction.

    US jurisdiction is global, or hadn’t you noticed?

    The US has even arested people for *not* breaking Canadian law. There’s a reason I won’t cross the damned border anymore.

  47. #47 Lee
    August 29, 2008

    re 42. How’s that research going, Lance?

  48. #48 Dano
    August 29, 2008

    Minor request: no more food for the trolls, plz.

    Best,

    D

  49. #49 TokyoTom
    September 2, 2008

    “As I said I am all for gambling, or at least the right of adults to engage in it.”

    Good for you, Lance. Presumably that means you recognize not only the absurdity of/over-reaching involved in the charges filed against Lefebvre, but also Monckton’s mischaracterization of the charges and the irrlevance of whether Tim Lambert personally opposes gambling.

  50. #50 Lance
    September 3, 2008

    TokyoTom,

    I have already stated that I thought Monckton overstated the charges against LeFebvre, but as LeFebvre said himself he was interested in a PR battle not a scientific debate, so one should expect, but not condone, this sort of exaggeration.

    I don’t see you getting your kimono in a bunch over all the over the top rhetoric claiming that climate change will mean the “end of civilization” or charges that scientists like Lindzen are “paid oil industry shills”.

  51. #51 Lance
    September 3, 2008

    Ooops, the second “LeFebvre” should read “Littlemore”.

  52. #52 bi -- IJI
    September 3, 2008

    Lance chants the usual chant:

    The Alarmists Are Just As Bad… The Alarmists Are Just As Bad… The Alarmists Are Just As Bad… Om… Om… Om…

  53. #53 Lance
    September 3, 2008

    bi,

    You neglected to mention my (multiple) explicit condemnations of Monckton’s exaggerated claims.

    Had I ignored his transgressions you would be justified in your criticism. I am just being consistent, which is more than you can say.

  54. #54 Barton Paul Levenson
    September 4, 2008

    Lance posts:

    I don’t see you getting your kimono in a bunch over all the over the top rhetoric claiming that climate change will mean the “end of civilization”

    Lance, if nothing is done about it, climate change will mean the end of civilization. A complete collapse of our agriculture and economy is a real possibility, especially if we hit 294 K in the mean global annual surface temperature and the oceans start emitting hydrogen sulfide. It won’t happen in our lifetime, but it will happen — if we do nothing to control global warming.

The site is undergoing maintenance presently. Commenting has been disabled. Please check back later!