Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
My friend Peter Irons has informed me that Stuart Pivar has withdrawn his libel suit against PZ Myers, which finally frees me up to say what I have been dying to say since the first moment this complaint was filed. Stuart Pivar is not only a crackpot, he's a fraud and a bully. There are few things I despise more than someone who uses the legal system as a weapon against those who criticize them. I speak out against this behavior in every single instance, whether it's hate speech codes on college campuses or this kind of private civil action designed to silence criticism.
Mr. Pivar, the only person you damaged in the end is yourself. By acting like a crackpot, you only confirmed what PZ wrote about you. You tried to use the legal system as a weapon and you shot yourself in the foot. In the process you have only shown your own rank ignorance of libel law and your authoritarian desire to silence those who dare to give negative reviews to your blather. You are loathsome and this incident should hang like an albatross around your neck for the rest of you life.
And while I'm at it, a few words need to be said about the attorney who filed this suit, Michael Little. This suit wasn't just frivolous, it was outrageously frivolous. There wasn't a chance in hell that it was going to survive a motion to dismiss. Read the complaint. I've read thousands of complaints and this is one of the worst written and argued pieces of legal writing you will ever come across. Worse yet, Little admitted to Irons on the phone that he knew it was a losing suit.
Lawyers take a lot of grief in our society for being ambulance chasers who would file any suit someone will pay them, no matter how ridiculous it is. A great many of my friends are attorneys and none of them fit that profile; Mr. Little clearly does. Not only should Mr. Little be haunted by his behavior here, he frankly should be facing sanctions for filing it; it's that frivolous. I'm not an attorney and I guarantee you that I could have represented myself in this case and gotten that complaint dismissed, which is exactly what I would have done had it been filed against me. Pivar and Little should be ashamed of themselves, but I doubt they are.
Oh, it should be noted that Little is now threatening to sue Peter Irons as well. He's having a good laugh over it.
Update: I must amend this statement a bit for the sake of accuracy. After consulting with Peter Irons I see that I overstated what he told me about his conversation with Michael Little. I wrote above that Little "admitted to Irons on the phone that he knew it was a losing suit." The actual wording that Irons passed on to me was that Little told him that when Pivar first approached him about the suit, "I was initially very skeptical." He further quoted Little as saying, "I don't know how far we'll be able to take it [the suit]." That is not quite the same thing as my above paraphrase and I apologize to Little and Irons for the mistake.
Comments
Speaking of bullies, check out this article:
Upstate NY sheriff and 5 underlings accused of misconduct
Posted by: ivy privy | August 29, 2007 9:26 AM
Oh, it should be noted that Little is now threatening to sue Peter Irons as well. He's having a good laugh over it.
Counselor Irons, truly, yours is a dizzying intellect. May you have as much success as did Vizzini.
Posted by: BobApril | August 29, 2007 9:40 AM
Oh, crap. I meant Counselor Little, of course.
Posted by: BobApril | August 29, 2007 9:44 AM
Leo Connolly, 65, who took over as sheriff of Seneca County in 2004, told his undersheriff, James Larson, to slap the private residents "with whatever violation of law he could" in retaliation for their political attacks on a popular Web site in the Finger Lakes region, prosecutor R. Michael Tantillo said.
The scary thing about that is that if the law enforcement trying to do this are even a little bit smart and cagey about it, they will succeed. There are so many laws on the books, including so many stupid and petty laws, that most of us routinely break them all the time.
The only ones I'm fully aware of for myself are the downloading of DeCSS and other similar software for doing things like watching DVDs on my Linux machines. (I don't think using DeCSS is illegal, but downloading it is.) I may have used an open unsecured wireless connection here or there, which is considered "theft" in some places. And that's just the computer nerd stuff. I don't pay enough attention to all the rest, but doubtless there are other things I could find that I'm guilty of if I were to take the tremendous amount of time needed to pore through the federal, state, and municipal codes that I'm supposed to be subject to.
The Constitution is a nice document: short, quickly readable. The various statues and codes that we're all responsible for obeying are far too long and arcane, and "common sense" does not always give you the right answer.
-Rob
Posted by: Rob Knop | August 29, 2007 10:00 AM
Rob -
Or just follow someone in an unmarked cruiser and rack up the moving violations. How many out there never speed, weave, fail to completely stop at Stop signs, never fail use their turn signals, etc.
Ed writes:
Oh please Mr. Little...please sue! That would be fun.
Posted by: Dave S. | August 29, 2007 10:18 AM
Good for PZ - one should never have to worry about standing up to crackpots. It's especially nice when said crackpot hands you evidence of his crackpottery on a silver platter.
But I have a legal ethics question here. If you have a client come to you with a case that you can see is not only unwinnable, but also frivolous, and you inform the client that it's frivolous and he wants to do it anyway - do you refuse? Or do you do what your client asks for and file the suit? I'm not saying that's what happened here, but I'm wondering where the legal profession sees the ethical weight bearing on this type of situation - on the client who knowingly wants to push forward with a frivolous suit or on the lawyer who does what the client wants.
Posted by: NonyNony | August 29, 2007 10:46 AM
NonyNony wrote:
You refuse. An attorney not only represents his client, he is also an officer of the court and he has an ethical responsibility not to file clearly frivolous suits. That's why the law allows for sanctions in such cases.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | August 29, 2007 11:33 AM
Rob wrote:
In some of my silly idealistic phases, I've sometimes thought that, in addition to a monetary budget, there ought to be a statutory budget. There ought to be an amendment that says that the total amount of criminal statutes or regulations that one must follow is limited to 5,000,000 words (or some such number).
Any statute or regulation that went over that budget would be unlawful and unenforceable. Period.
Posted by: Ahcuah | August 29, 2007 12:15 PM
There's yet another reason Pivar's case may well have been tossed right out of federal court: lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Pivar alleged diversity jurisdiction, asserting that he is a citizen of New York and that Seed Media Group, LLC, is a Delaware LLC with its principal office in New York City. For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, LLCs are citizens of the states of which the members of the LLC are citizens. Thus, if Seed Media has any members who reside in New York state (which is likely, given that its HQ is in NYC), there would be no diversity jurisdiction and the court would dismiss without even reaching the merits.
Posted by: knutsondc | August 29, 2007 1:13 PM
My friend Peter Irons has informed me that Stuart Pivar has withdrawn his libel suit against PZ Myers
...can you do that? I mean, I really don't understand legal issues, but my understanding is that if you file lawsuits that would have the effect of silencing critics, but then withdraw them when the other side doesn't back down or things otherwise don't go your way, you're committing something like barratry. Has PZ incurred legal expenses so far? Is PZ in a position to countersue?
Posted by: Coin | August 29, 2007 1:32 PM
Ed wrote:
Indeed, this is required by Disciplinary Rule 7.02(A) of the New York Lawyer's Code of Professional Responsibility:
Similar rules can be found in other jurisdictions.
Posted by: Kenneth Fair | August 29, 2007 1:56 PM
Coin: yes, indeed, he can do that.
At this point, I don't believe PZ has incurred any legal costs -- at last word, he had not even been served with the complaint, and the local rules allow you to file an answer or dispositive motion within 60 days of service if you are out-of-state.
But even if PZ *had* incurred such costs, Pivar would have been permitted to withdraw his suit without penalty. That's an unfortunate consequence of what I believe is generally a sensible legal system here in the U.S.; that is, one that rejects the premise of "loser pays" so common in Europe.
The downside is that there are no real effective counterweights against filing frivolous lawsuits. The upside is that people aren't deterred from filing meritorious suits against deep-pocketed defendants by the spectre of some court shifting legal costs after the fact. I think the tradeoff works, although obviously I think what Pivar did here was beyond obnoxious and beyond unethical.
-Andrew
Posted by: Andrew | August 29, 2007 2:04 PM
Good result - over here in the UK those who wish to suppress free speech and have access to legal resources are able to throw their weight around more effectively.
Posted by: Richard | August 29, 2007 3:06 PM
knutsondc,
PZ was a named defendant in addition to Seed, and he's a Minnesota resident.
Posted by: AEB | August 29, 2007 8:27 PM
AEB, adding PZ as a defendant doesn't solve the lack of diversity problem (assuming that any of Seed's members are from New York). Under the so-called "complete diversity" doctrine that's been the law since the Supreme Court decided Strawbridge v. Curtiss in 1816, if any defendant has the same state citizenship as the plaintiff, diversity is destroyed and the case must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Thus, Seed's New York citizenship would be fatal to diversity jurisdiction regardless of PZ's citizenship.
Posted by: knutsondc | August 29, 2007 8:57 PM
Stuart Pivar's "Lifecode" book is on Amazon. If we all pull together we can make "classic crackpot" (the phrase that Pivar was suing PZ for, for those just tuning in) the number one tag.
Posted by: Graculus | August 30, 2007 1:30 AM
When the troglodytes rail against evolution, what they are really objecting to is science and reason. They much prefer the simpler world in which all answers are handed to them by authority figures, to a world in which they have to think for themselves.
I should also say that the conflict between science and religion is real. Religion makes claims about the nature of reality, and if reality is not like they say it is, then their religious/moral beliefs have no justification. Science does threaten religion, which is another reason to support sound science.
Posted by: David Noziglia | August 30, 2007 2:36 PM
I'm a strong supporter of sound science. And not because I think it threatens religion per se, as I think it does not and can not.
Posted by: Dave S. | August 30, 2007 2:56 PM
Something happened to the Amazon customer reviews of this book - there were a bunch up the other day - they have removed them all.
Posted by: sailor | August 30, 2007 4:57 PM
Bravo and 'atta boy, Ed. You did most certainly tell them. Your words carry not only the weight of fact and reason but the pent up feelings of so many of us. Your outrage at this display of schoolyard bullying, sophomoric braggadocio and self-centered grandstanding is a welcome, I hope widely heard, retort to the wearisome and tedious jaberwoky that these cretins and their fellow believers never seem to tire of.
In standing the Golden Rule on its head these two knuckleheads abuse and trample the goodwill of honest and thoughtful people everywhere. For them to even suggest, for the most fleeting moment, that they would resort to courts and tort to respond to unflattering criticism is not only contrary to the basic tenets of their faiths, but also to everything I ever learned about being human, or civilized, or American.
I really don't want to wish them ill, but I can imagine how good it would feel if I knew that they were roasting in the dread heat of humiliation and dishonor.
Thank you for your straight-forward indictment. You are often near eloquent. This time you embody eloquence. Thanks, from many.
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | August 31, 2007 12:10 AM
Something happened to the Amazon customer reviews of this book - there were a bunch up the other day - they have removed them all.
If they went anywhere then they are back.
Posted by: Graculus | August 31, 2007 7:41 AM
Just thought you might be interested to know that it's not only Pivar's lawyer who is incompetent:
Busted: PR Flacks who ran afoul of the science blogosphere, including a brand new flack for Stuart Pivar who showed up right here on this blog
http://blog.sciam.com/index.php?title=busted_pr_flacks_who_ran_afoul_of_the_sc&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1
Posted by: christopher | August 31, 2007 11:55 AM
Amazon can't provide the hardcover which has the reviews, but can ship the spiral bound reissue which has no reviews and also no image. The sole 4-star review positively mentions phlogiston and in other ways could be construed as an effort to ridicule. Only the two versions of this book merit the "classic crackpot" products category at Amazon - seems a little skimpy.
http://www.amazon.com/tag/classic%20crackpot/products/ref=tag_tdp_hd_istp/105-6867745-7530836
Posted by: metarhyme | September 4, 2007 4:09 AM
http://www.amazon.com/tag/classic%20crackpot/products/ref=tag_tdp_hd_istp/105-6867745-7530836
"Explore related products: balloon animals".
I... I guess that actually kind of makes sense.
Posted by: Coin | September 4, 2007 4:35 AM
Mr Brayton, thank you for your apology and withdrawal of your previous comments ' Little admitted to Irons on the phone that he knew it was a losing suit'. I accept your apology and restatement of Mr Iron's comments to you.
I did not make those comments to Mr Irons. What I said to Mr Irons was: 'that I was initially skeptical as to MY abilities to take on his( Mr Pivar's) suit and that Mr Pivar was insistent that I had the ABILITIES to evaluate it.' My comments as to the ultimate denouement of the case were typical British understatement: 'We'll have to see how far we can take it' which meant it would be ultimately for a jury to decide whether PZ Myers comments were libelous or not. That is a far cry from 'I don't know how far we'll be able to take it'. You have already apologised for your loose interpretation of someone's words. The destruction of someone's career is also a serious matter. Just a search of your site under 'Irons' leads me to believe that Irons's call to me on Augsust 20, 2007 was not of the avuncular nature that it purported to be. Neither was the subsequent blog scorching of Mr Pivar in L'Affaire Crackpot'. Therefore I urge you to choose your words more carefully in the future; however I am looking forward to reading your forthcoming best-seller (with Peter Irons) of 'How The Supreme Court should have seen it" with a bonus supplement of recommended additional rules for the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Posted by: Michael Little | September 4, 2007 12:02 PM