Sunday, June 12, 2011

El Naschie vs. Nature BOMBSHELL!

Shrink makes a killer find. I am posting this initially without comment just to get it out there.


Background:
  • February 14, 2009: Fight!
  • March 2, 2009: He's toast
  • February 18, 2010: El Naschie vs Nature news
  • April 1, 2010: El Naschie wins law suit against Nature!
  • April 17, 2011: El Naschie vs. Nature law suit news

  • And here it is:
    El Naschie vs Nature

    The judge is The Honorable Sir David Eady. Click the pic for full size.


    The case is to be tried, without a jury, "over a period of 15 to 20 days beginning on 31 October of this year" according to Paragraph 1.

    Aidan Eardley is the Taylor Wessing barrister defending Nature (Defendant).


    There is also a solicitor on the case for Taylor Wessing, Mr. Niri Shanmuganathan.


    El Naschie (Claimant) says he has no money and is acting as his own lawyer! This is odd, because El Naschie frequently brags about being rich, as in the Elbeet Beetak video. And of course he has various luxurious properties including his two-million-pound house in Surrey.

    2. In a letter to the Master dated 19 April of this year the Claimant described himself as being without funds and as living in this jurisdiction only sporadically. The Defendants might be thought therefore to find themselves in a rather unenviable position, in that even if they succeed, there is little prospect of recovering costs.

    El Naschie's first law firm was Howrey. They parted ways on August 19, 2009. Then Collyer Bristow took over to represent El Naschie. But according to Paragraph 6 they no longer represent him:

    6. The applications are supported by a witness statement from the Defendants' solicitor, Mr Shanmuganathan, from which it emerges that the Claimant originally had the advantage of a conditional fee agreement with Collyer Bristow, who came off the record in July 2010, stating that they had not had sufficient instructions to be able to progress the matter. From about the end of September of that year, the Claimant began to conduct the proceedings on his own account. The Defendants complain that the Claimant has mishandled disclosure of documents and, furthermore, has sought to introduce time-consuming issues which have no relevance to the dispute.

    Already this is sounding bad for El Naschie.

    El Naschie's case is spelled out in Paragraph 4. Nature's defense is spelled out in Paragraph 5. It is a defense of justification, i.e., they say they were justified in saying what they said in Quirin Schiermeier's Nature article.

    Much, or most, of this document is dedicated to listing grievances that El Naschie wants to bring up in trial. One after another Mr. Justice Eady says they will be excluded. This is a disaster for El Naschie.

    As Zahy said in a comment, El Naschie Watch is mentioned many times. El Naschie says in Paragraph 17:

    It must be said here that Ms Boehm has indeed suffered intimidation in the form of aggressive phone calls [not from anyone at El Naschie Watch] and having her picture put on the despicable blog called El Naschie Watch. In fact the same can be said for the majority of my scientific colleagues and potential witnesses for this case, especially Prof Ji Huan He in Shanghai, China, who is very active and successful in this new field and one of my main colleagues and supporters. They have all suffered harassment and intimidation at the hands of this blog and its owner(s). At this point in time we cannot dismiss the possibility of the Defendant(s) involvement in some way. I say that with the greatest regret and no personal offence is intended because in the past I held Nature and all the Editors, particularly the Editor-in-Chief in the highest esteem as I am sure is evidenced in my early correspondence with them.

    And in Paragraph 20:

    I invite the solicitors of Nature as well as the honourable Court to look into the details of a blog called El Naschie Watch All The Time where virtually thousands of immoral allegations and pornographical pictures are published to ridicule and defame me as well as insulting my colleagues and supporting staff for instance Frau Boehm. Lydia El Naschie and my daughters did not escape being slandered by these animals either. I am afraid much of what Nature's solicitors have alleged against me is the stuff published on this despicable blog run by a shadowy creature who seems to be connected or may be connected to Christoph Drosser of Die Zeit – which is again owned by the Defendant and therefore Drosser is a servant of the first Defendant. No one knows exactly who is financing these internet criminals or who is behind it for the last two years. However some people think it is easy to guess.

    Mr. Justice Eady is excluding these statements about El Naschie Watch as irrelevant. I almost feel sorry for El Naschie in this regard. It is clear to me that the defense made good use of El Naschie Watch in preparing their case, and it seems unfair that El Naschie should not be allowed to, at the very least, vent his anger about us.

    El Naschie wants to talk about Renate Loll and the Scientific American article, but Mr. Justice Eady is excluding that too.

    Throughout the document, El Naschie is beaten up about his failure to provide the Defense with various materials. But in Paragraph 34, Nature's lawyers are being disingenuous, referring to several articles mentioned by El Naschie's witnesses as "unspecified". This may be technically true, but it's obvious to me what all the articles are and I daresay it's obvious to TaylorWessing too.

    El Naschie and Nature are allowed three expert witnesses each, with Nature's testifying first. Paragraph 10 says of El Naschie

    The Claimant is somewhat dismissive of the relevance of expert evidence in this case, largely on the basis that his field of special scientific knowledge is so narrow and fluid that it is difficult for him to conceive of anyone qualifying as having sufficient "expert" knowledge of the field.

    Haha. El Naschie is going to be eaten for breakfast by Nature's expert witnesses.

    El Naschie has said in Rosa Al-Youssef that he expects to win a lot of money for loss of contracts related to commitments undertaken in Saudi Arabia. Paragraphs 25 through 29 make it clear that's not happening. El Naschie has not proved loss of earnings, and so special damages do not apply, only general damages for hurt feelings and loss of reputation.

    A commenter points out that Paragraph 49 mentions four mysterious names.

    49. There is a good deal of muddle and confusion about the use of the names C Cole, P Stanton, P Green and P Cooper. The Defendants ask for, and are entitled to, an unequivocal statement of the Claimant's case in these respects. If and in so far as he only became aware of the true position recently, he should provide an explanation as to how he learnt of this.

    On C. Cole and P. Stanton I find nothing.

    In Fight! P. Green is mentioned in this context:

    In May, Škoda sent letters to members of the journal’s editorial board asking whether they agreed with El Naschie’s editorial practices. In return, he says, he and his institute director received a letter, signed by a P. Green who identified himself or herself as a legal adviser to the editorial board, threatening legal action should Škoda continue sending “defamatory” letters.

    P. Cooper is mentioned in the same post:

    El Naschie, who was born in Cairo and now splits his time between England and Germany, rejects any charges of sloppy peer review. “Our papers are reviewed in the normal way expected from a scientific international journal published by a reputable international publisher,” he told Nature in an e-mail signed by P. Cooper, who claimed to be a spokesperson for the editorial board of Chaos, Solitons and Fractals.

    It would not surprise me if there are no such people as P. Green and P. Cooper, i.e., they are sock puppets of El Naschie, and he is now in the uncomfortable position of having to provide the defendants with contact information for them!

    Shrink finds reference to C. Cole on the Poynder piece Chaos, Solitons & Fractals editor to retire:

    Yesterday I sent a list of questions to the CS&F email address asking M.S. El Naschie to comment. I received a reply signed by someone called C. Cole saying that the questions were extremely easy to answer, but that they would be sent to the editorial board.

    There is little doubt these people are sock puppets. Awkward!

    In a 26 November 2010 Rosa column, El Naschie implied pretty clearly that he'd drop the law suit against Nature if they'd apologize to him. This is related:

    25. I turn to the Defendants' application for summary judgment on the claim for special damages. It appears that at one stage the Claimant was prepared to withdraw this claim, although he was not prepared to accept the costs consequences which would ordinarily follow.

    El Naschie tried to get out of the case, but wouldn't pay Nature's legal expenses.


    See also:



    Translate English to Arabic
    محمد النشائى El Naschie Watch محمد النشائي El Naschie News محمد النشائى محمد النشائي All El Naschie All The Time محمد النشائى
    StumbleUpon.com

    14 comments:

    1. This an excellent finding. I see El Naschie Watch website is mentioned many times in this report.

      ReplyDelete
    2. I think Taylor Wessing's referral to not clearly identified documents is a clear legal strategy to prove the vagueness of El Naschie's statements. Furthermore, if Taylor Wessing identified the documents that would imply the Defendants read El Naschie Watch. :D

      ReplyDelete
    3. I agree completely, Shrink. But it still makes me feel a little bad for El Naschie.

      ReplyDelete
    4. If you search naschie on BAILII databases, you will find 4 cases concerning El naschie

      Total documents found in BAILII databases: 4


      1.

      Naschie v Macmillan Publishers Ltd (t/a Nature Publishing Group) & Anor [2011] EWHC 1468 (QB) (10 June 2011) (View without highlighting) [100%]
      ([2011] EWHC 1468 (QB); From England and Wales High Court (Queen's Bench Division) Decisions; 31 KB)


      2.

      Petersson & Ors v Pitt Place (EPSOM) Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 86 (19 January 2001) (View without highlighting) [53%]
      ((2001) 82 P & CR 21, [2001] 6 EGCS 160, [2001] EWCA Civ 86, [2001] L & TR 21, [2002] HLR 52; From England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions; 31 KB)

      3.

      Petersson & Ors v Pitt Place (EPSOM) Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 322 (23 February 2001) (View without highlighting) [52%]
      ([2001] EWCA Civ 322; From England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions; 14 KB)


      4.

      Elnaschie & Anor v Pitt Place (Epsom) Ltd [1998] EWCA Civ 806 (8 May 1998) (View without highlighting) [50%]
      ([1998] EWCA Civ 806; From England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions; 26 KB)

      ReplyDelete
    5. Good find, Zahy. Yes, it's a good place to find full transcripts of judgments. There's already a post dealing with "Elnaschie & Anor v Pitt Place (Epsom) Ltd":

      El Naschie's sleaze enters legal pedagogy

      but it lacks the full transcript. Now we have it:

      http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1998/806.html

      ReplyDelete
    6. Oh, that's excellent concerning Pitt Place.

      ReplyDelete
    7. ????? "the use of the names C Cole, P Stanton, P Green and P Cooper" ?????

      ReplyDelete
    8. Thank you for reminding me. I was going to look into those names. Cooper rings a bell.

      ReplyDelete
    9. C. Cole is mentioned by Poynder:

      Chaos, Solitons & Fractals editor to retire

      On P. Stanton I also find nothing.

      There's no doubt: these people are sock puppets of the Great Man. I think we could easily find a dozen individuals who responded and/or sent emails on behalf of the Great Man in the past. In particular I remember one name well: Joan Morris. This lady threatened UC at Riverside (where Baez works) with lawsuit. :D

      ReplyDelete
    10. Incredible! Great find, Shrink. Haha. He's being asked to provide contact info for sock puppets! LOL

      ReplyDelete
    11. Epic. El Naschie's defense in a sentence: "GUYS THE INTERNET IS MAKING FUN OF ME BECAUSE I'M A FRAUD!!! >:(("

      ReplyDelete
    12. Err, I guess "claim" not "defense" to be consistent with the legal lingo.

      ReplyDelete
    13. It is very important that NPG/Macmillan is seeing this case through to the end.

      Recently, Elsevier settled out of court with another crank (for the J.-H. He fans, this involves none other that Y. Rodin and his dump journals): http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/2011/06/08/elsevier-apologizes-for-applied-mathematical-letters-retraction-pays-authors-legal-fees/

      Of course the latter case is emboldening for the crankish undercurrents. Now they know they can get high-powered lawyers and mandate science by court order/settlement...massive kudos to NPG/Macmillan for standing up for the scientific enterprise.

      ReplyDelete