Attention to those who are new to the shenanigans of the infamous crackpot and fraudster Mohamed El Naschie. Begin by reading Introduction to Mohamed El Naschie. To access the legal judgment on which this post is based, see El Naschie loses; Nature wins where you can choose among doc, pdf, and html formats.
2. "The Claimant appears in person, assisted by his former wife, Lydia Thorsen-El Naschie." We didn't know this.
3. "The Claimant describes himself in the Particulars of Claim as an eminent and highly respected academic, scientist and scientific publisher in the fields of Structural Engineering, Applied Mathematics, Applied Mechanics and Nuclear and High Energy Physics. These claims are not admitted by the Defendants." HAHAHA
11. "His belief, and that of some of his witnesses, that there is an overarching conspiracy between the Defendants and other newspapers, journals and individuals who are said to have plagiarised his work...(Besides Ahmed Zewail, as noted in the previous link, so are Jerzy Jurkiewicz, Renate Loll and Jan Ambjorn in a separate case.)"
15. Apparently Dark Brotherhood (his admirers, the E-infinity group) members Ji-Huan He and Leila Marek-Crnjac submitted written testimony.
16. In addition to Otto Rössler, who we knew about, Dark Brotherhood members Scott Olsen and Garnet Ord testified! HAHAHA what a freakshow.
17. Brotherhood member Ms Anke Boehm provided hearsay evidence. (It becomes apparent that she avoided testifying in person because she didn't want to be cross-examined, especially about the use of fake names.)
19. El Naschie "has also asserted at various times that documents disclosed by the Defendants are forgeries." HAHAHA
40. "Dr Marek-Crnjac works at the Institute of Mathematics and Physics at the University of Maribor in Slovenia." No. She's a high school teacher actually. Then there's this gem: "Professor He says he is the founding editor of a major journal published by Freund in Israel and he is or has been on the Editorial Board of numerous international Journals for physics and Non Linear Dynamics, though so far as I am aware, these have not been specified." LOLOL
45. "Dr Marek-Crnjac referred for example to the Claimant as “the master”. As can be seen from the Article itself, Professor He compared the Claimant to Einstein and Newton." Valentine.
56. Though the Claimant sought to cast aspersions on Professor Keating's bona fides in his closing submissions, he certainly did not do so when cross-examining him, describing him for example, as "a good man" and a "top man"
83. El Naschie in a 2007 email to Elsevier: "I worked for 15 years to establish C&F (sic) as the leading periodical on the subject with the highest impact factor in all mathematical journals of Elsevier. Only another Journal published outside Elsevier has an impact factor of 4.5. This is the Journal of Prof. Ji-Huan He who I was able to persuade to give us a hand In CS&F." COMEDY GOLD
106. "It is apparent that the Claimant had little if any interest in the norms of scientific publishing or the ethical considerations which underpinned them."
114. "This argument does not assist the Claimant on the facts either. We are not living in the age of Galileo."
120. Turok's list of defects of El Naschie's papers is amusing, including "Strongly expressed conclusions, unsupported by any, or any intelligible process of logical reasoning; in particular, the repeated unexplained reliance on numerical coincidences in support of the assertion that the Claimant’s “E-infinity theory” is correct"
132. Instead, the following style of argument is adopted: a series of numbers is quoted from disparate sources: the mathematical theory of fractal sets, the spectrum of string theory, the dimensions of various symmetry groups, the fundamental coupling constants in particle physics and their running with energy and even experimental data taken on the properties of knots in ropes. There is then a claim there are remarkable numerical coincidences between all these numbers, and that these coincidences point to the correctness of the "E-infinity theory". But after reading all 58 papers, Professor Turok was still none the wiser as to what the Claimant's "E-infinity theory" actually is.
138. "Article 7, two pages long, claims to provide it. Yet it does not." Hehe. Also, Turok blast's El Naschie's name dropping of certain Nobel laureates.
139. Turok on an El Naschie paper: "none of the things mentioned in the abstract were actually discussed in the paper"
141. "Professor Turok searched this article in vain for a derivation of Newton's constant, but found only a series of odd non-sequiturs."
142. In section 2.1 of the article the Claimant writes down a quadratic equation, which is not justified, which is trivial numerology of no significance and which would not be publishable in any serious scientific journal.
143. Turok repeats a crticism of El Naschie by El Naschie Watch reader Zahy, who sometimes laughs at El Naschie's attaching importance to knots tied in ropes.
145. Professor Turok described this paper “as merely a collection of buzzwords.”
146. Some of the articles contain a series of randomly connected buzzwords which mean nothing in the context in which they are used.
157, 158. Losing his mind? El Naschie asks Turok for a Visiting Scholar post at Permeter; and then complained to the Board of Directors of the Perimeter Institute about what he described as Professor Turok’s “highly irregular and flagrant breach of fairness”
181. Anke Boehm worked for El Naschie full-time for 14 years, and part-time for a further 6.
187. Mervat Hamid (or the last name may be Heddini) is called a "friend of the Claimant". But El Naschie has claimed in more than one case on Egyptian TV that they are married! And he has implied Mervat is the mother of his children. Mrs Sharp doesn't know or doesn't care about this. Also: The Claimant claimed under cross-examination that Ms Boehm's computer has been the target of a "cyberous attack". Haha. On "cyberous attacks" and 13000 emails going missing: El Naschie vs. Nature law suit news
200. Mrs Sharp: "I am satisfied that his papers were not the subject of any or any proper peer review at all."
201-205. The stuff about the review process at CSF is funny, for example:
204. The third example concerns a paper written by Esposti et al, of the Department of Mathematics of the University of Bologna. Their paper (“Sequence distance via parsing complexity: heartbeat signals”) was accepted by a regional CSF editor in February 2007. In July 2007 the authors were told by C. Cole by email that new referees had looked at it and required, as a condition of publication, additional references to papers published in CSF by Hao Bai Lin and others “on DNA and related subjects”. (“Publication will be halted until we receive either your revised manuscript electronically to this office – or an official email from you stating that you wish to withdraw from publication”).
205. The authors then explained in their reply that that their paper did not relate to DNA. Nevertheless they asked to be directed to the papers which the referees apparently had in mind. This was the response from C. Cole. “Our referees are now on a holiday break. Only one of the Referees mentioned DNA – the others just refereed (sic) to many related works published in CS&F. I am sure you will find something on Elsevier’s site Science Direct. Just do what you can and resubmit.” Mr Caldecott described what was revealed here, and rightly so in my view, as disgraceful and utterly improper. Having dropped the completely inappropriate requirement for a reference to DNA – any additional references would do, so long as they were to papers published in CSF. The authors then appear to have called CSF’s bluff – adding a single reference to a work by Hao Bai Lin but published in another journal. It seems probable that the paper then only made it into CSF because, fortuitously, the authors sent it direct to Elsevier, because their email sending it to the chaossf address bounced back.
212. "the Claimant’s papers were bordering on meaningless. Any citation of papers of such poor quality was excessive" Haha
230. "Elsevier’s perception... was that the Claimant was high-tempered, emotional, difficult to handle and litigious..." El Naschie implied he would sue DAMTP because they didn't want him claiming affiliation.
237. "Despite a mixture of threats and flattery from the Claimant (often in the same email) and efforts by Mrs Thorsen-El Naschie on the Claimant’s behalf to get him reinstated, Elsevier’s stance on the termination was resolute: the Claimant had to go."
244-246. El Naschie pretends his homepage isn't his. Mrs Sharp does not accept that. Bizarre new sockpuppet claim.
248, 249. El Naschie Watch reader Zahy remarks that this blog was clearly used as a source of information about the Great Man's CVs. We agree. See Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire, The many titles of Dr. M.S. El Naschie and The great man's CV is full of baloney.
266-270. Great stuff about El Naschie pretending to be a professor at Cambridge DAMTP. El Naschie's blacklisting from the arXiv
271-279. Great debunking of his Frankfurt University affiliation pretense.
280-285. El Naschie's claim of being an "Honorary Professor" at Jiao Tong Shanghai also is untrue! El Naschie Watch didn't know that.
286-312. On El Naschie's use of fake names for correspondence. Hilarious!
303. Mrs Sharp has doubts about the great man's "integrity and honesty": "I do not accept as the Claimant also asserts in his pleadings that these matters are “totally irrelevant” or are otherwise insignificant. In my view the case made here raises serious questions about the way CSF was run and the Claimant’s integrity and honesty, questions which provide a common thread running through many aspects of this case."
304. Indeed given the Claimant's evidence it too was a fiction: he said: "There is nothing called the Editorial Board in reality. There is nothing called the Editorial Board. I am the journal, my Lady. I said it very clearly. This is all façade. This is all decoration…"
307. "As Mr Caldecott commented somewhat dryly in opening, there were at this point apparently a whole shoal of legal advisers without Christian names on the loose at the Claimant’s home in Cobham." The Great Man's house in Cobham: El Naschie's house in Surrey has been found!
310. Lydia Thorsen-El Naschie is outed as the one who sent emails from fake people, and who wrote "viscous" for "vicious" as we sometimes see.
334. "The Baez blog is now no longer available but secondary evidence is. Relevant extracts from it were later reproduced in a blog hostile to the Claimant called “El Naschie Watch”."
341. Greiner told QS that everything the Claimant publishes in CSF is “stuss”, German slang for “rubbish”.
342. "The Claimant also suggested in cross-examination of QS and in his closing submissions that Professor Greiner had sent an email to Ms Boehm in which he had called QS a dirty person (to put it politely). There is no evidence to support this assertion"
350. Reviews of El Naschie papers: The first said: “This paper seems to the reviewer to contain no mathematics.” The second said: “their bringing into the picture a deterministic system forced by random noise does nothing but introduce an additional perversion”. The third said: “There is plenty of wild speculation and misprints, but no rigorous arguments.”
372. "These peculiar communications, the tone of which is somewhat difficult to convey, are not merely relevant to whether the Claimant was given an opportunity to respond, but to the suspicions and reasonable ones as it seems to me, within Nature at the time, that something 'fishy' was going on to put it colloquially."
383. "...the Claimant’s claim is dismissed... the Defendants are entitled to their costs of the action..."