Rhonda, both in terms of timing and content,
your 21 Apr 2009 article is all about the lawsuit.
I find it surprising that someone who is in journalism would object to a characterization of the article as a "press release". Are you contending that a "press release" is some lesser form of journalism and cannot contain "serious discovery and research" ?
On reflection, there is little point in my continuing any sort of discussion with you concerning this topic because it appears to me that, in this area, if someone is not for your position, you deem that someone to be against your position. In short, that someone is "either with us or against us" (sound familiar ?). Both of us have better things to do with our time.
Regards
Mike
For anyone who is interested,
the Supreme Court (NY's trial court) for New York County (aka Manhattan) has a docket entry system similar to PACER, but free - the docket card for INDEX NO.: 105519-2009; PLAINTIFF: MANDINGO, HENEP ISUM; DEFENDANT: ADVANCE PUBLICATIONS, INC., has three pleadings of material interest:
Summons and Complaint 10/19/2009 - by pls (also on the Stinkyjournalism site as previously posted)
Answer 10/15/2009 - by defs.
Notice of Motion 11/30/2009 - by defs (for Summary Judgment).
The Motion for SJ cites a number of pleadings that are not listed on the online docket card:
Quote:
... affidavit of Jared Diamond, sworn to on November 20,2009, the affidavit of Thomas Summer, sworn to on November 18,2009, the affidavit of Pamela McCarthy, sworn to on November 20,2009, the affidavit of Peter Kovacs, sworn to on November 12,2009, and the affirmation of Carolyn K. Foley, dated November 23, 2009, and their accompanying exhibits, and upon the accompanying Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants Advance Publications, Inc. and Jared Diamond’s Motion for Summary Judgment ...
The motion was noticed for February 8, 2010; adjourned to April 5, 2010; and adjourned to May 18, 2010 (docket entries). Deposition deadlines are set for Tuesday, May 29, 2012; so, this case has got a long way to go.
That's all, folks
Mike
Affidavits of Jared Diamond et al
I have read these affidavits listed above. They deal solely with procedural issues, such as statute of limitations for the magazine and DVD and whether or not the right party was sued. However, the interesting one is by Jared Diamond.
Instead of listing his research methods, arguing or providing evidence that what he wrote was true..Diamond writes: "I prepared the Article based in large part on information the plaintiff Daniel Wemp told me. At the time I prepared the Article and submitted it to The New Yorker, I believed it to be a true and accurate account of events as Daniel Wemp had told them to me."
That was it. No other evidence or arguement is offered. See link
http://www.stinkyjournalism.org/imag...ed_Diamond.pdf
Rhonda, thank you for the link
You correctly carved out the only material portion of Diamond's affidavit:
Quote:
I prepared the Article based in large part on information the plaintiff Daniel Wemp told me. At the time I prepared the Article and submitted it to The New Yorker, I believed it to be a true and accurate account of events as Daniel Wemp had told them to me.
Odd affidavit in the context (it doesn't take on the amended complaint para by para). The obvious defense being asserted is "I was misled by Wemp"; so, therefore, an "absence of malice" (Paul Newman and Sally Fields ;)).
IMO: I'd say (but I shouldn't read tea leaves) that there is nothing in this affidavit for a judge to bite on so far as summary judgment is concerned. For a defendant to prevail on summary judgment, no material issues of fact can exist and, on those uncontested facts, the defendant must be entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
IMO: The amended complaint (by Richard Asche, who has good creds) lays out the various article passages that Diamond (based on his affidavit) presumably will testify were told him by Wemp. The complaint alleges that Wemp did not say what the article claims he said. Hence, questions of fact exist as to what Wemp told Diamond (Diamond: he told me "A"; Wemp: I did not tell him "A"); and the case should go to the jury. However, since "Judge McCarthy" ain't hearing the motion, his opinion ain't worth spit.
The motions based on NY's 1 year statute of limitations are important, since if that statute was blown (late filing), the case can be tossed regardless of its merits. The SJ Motion mentions a defendants' Memorandum of Law filed. If you have a link to that, it would spell out the defendants' theories more clearly. And, if Asche has filed a responsive Memorandum of Law, a link to that would be most enlightening.
Regards
Mike
Mike, I will look for the MEMO tomorrow--thanks
Hummm. Have to look. I was told the Memo was filed and public. I appreciate that you've read this stuff and offer "IMO" s. Thanks. One question:
Is this case like the Paul Newman movie in that malice is not the bar that must be met because the plaintiffs in his case are without doubt private, not public figures?
The hilarious part of the Diamond's affidavit statement is the tautology (the premise repeated in the conclusion) "He told me this, and at the time I wrote the article I believed what he told me."
This defense may cover the Daniel Wemp problem, that is if Diamond and not Wemp , is believed. However this does not cure the problem New Yorker and Diamond have with the other plaintiff, Henep Isum Mandingo who Diamond never spoke to.
The possible defense "Daniel told me that he killed..." does not also include, as far as I know, "Daniel told me that he and Isum killed ..." when no attempts to do any independent verification was done.
Another interesting point is there is no proof that Wemp said these things in 2001-2002, as the article dates his quotes, since there are no notes or tape recordings. The only notes Diamond took were from one meeting in May 2006.
Diamond had a white AU bird tour guide, David Bishop, with him at all times he was with Wemp, but Bishop says he does not remember anything of what Wemp said.
Wemp has a couple of witnesses (two indigenous men who were working for World Wildlife Fund in 2006, who were also Wemp's employer when he drove Diamond back in 2001-2002) from May 2006 who heard some of what Wemp said and back him up.
-Rhonda
Court Motion and MEMO docs --also I do research in Egypt
Here are the most recent documents RE the Diamond side of the case:
http://www.stinkyjournalism.org/misc...ndum-Part1.pdf
http://www.stinkyjournalism.org/misc...ndum-Part2.pdf
http://www.stinkyjournalism.org/misc...TION-Part1.pdf
http://www.stinkyjournalism.org/misc...TION-Part2.pdf
http://www.stinkyjournalism.org/misc...TION-Part3.pdf
FYI Earlier in the thread someone mentioned that Egyptians don't identify themselves with tribes. Boy is that true. They don't even see themselves as Arabs but as Egyptians. Arabs are people from the desert or the Gulf in their view and parlance.
I have been in Egypt at least 30 times the past 10 years and am working on finishing a book on the true story of the crash of EgyptAir Flight 990, Oct 31 1999. If you recall its the fatal accident off the Atlantic coast of the US where the first officer was accused by NTSB of downing the plane while committing suicide.
BTW We have two more investigations that expose Diamond's errors (fabrications?) forthcoming soon. One involves his famed book Guns, Germs and Steel and the second one is about another indigenous Papua New Guinea tribesman who worked for Diamond and his tribe that Diamond accused in multiple publications of having conducted systematic "genocide" for revenge.
Finally, Mike and Steve, it's no mystery IMO what studies have credibility. There are signposts like transparency of method and providing clear sources and documentation. For example, we not only have photos of Isum walking around (that Diamond falsely reported was paralyzed in a wheelchair for 11 years, "cut" in his spine from Wemp's assassins' arrow), we also have hospital records and XRays that verify his medical history and the dates.
New Yorker's fact checking method, as they admit in multiple places, involved speaking to no witnesses or named indigenous people. The editor said "in this case we consulted a large number of experts in the various fields the material touches on.” In other words, no specific facts were checked... with the people in the article accused of crimes, police, govt agencies, NGOs, missionaries, maps, oil companies or the one expert who is widely known in the field on the specific area of Papua New Guinea, Paul Sillitoe, who even knows Wemp, Isum etc.
We checked with ALL of the aforementioned and have published much, but not all, of this information on StinkyJournalism.org.
Mike, you're not saying there is no truth, are you?
Mike, you wrote: "What is truth?... asked Pilate - no answer is given in the canonical Gospel text. In the area of defamation, we may not have advanced much in 2000 years."
The only reason why I do investigations is because repeatable and knowable facts exist and they are beautiful and powerful. Such facts are truth in my view. At the very least, they are the closest thing on earth to the Platonic notion of truth.