Quote:
Originally Posted by Polycaster
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
The charges have been thrown out, as it is self-evident what the name spells backwards. It is effectively asked and answered. Or to restate it to be in keeping with the DMO theme, it has been axed and answered.
All that remains is whether the accused intended to use the name backwards, but there is no way to determine intent. The court is loathe to ascribe a mental state with no facts in evidence, and so the case is dismissed with prejudice.
Thinking science isn't subjective is objectively crazy. Google 'lysenkoism.' Or 'global warming debunked.'
|
This is a civil trial, and I would argue given the lower threshold for evidentiary proof than a criminal trial, by a preponderance of the evidence a jury could reasonably infer the defendant's intent. In this case, fraudulent misrepresentation. An expert witness could testify as to the statistical improbability of making the name completely randomly without knowledge of the truth. With this information, the jury would infer that a reasonable person in the defendant's position had knowledge that the representation was false.
Add in the compounding circumstance that the defendant had not one, but TWO PhD's (though the jury is still out on the falsity of this claim).
Secondly, to think science IS subjective is objectively nonsense. Google 'denial syndrome', or 'climate change NASA,' 'climate change UN,' 'climate change EPA.'