Marquette Buys Google Ad to Attack Warrior Blogger

Marquette, knowing they have been taking a public relations beating over their attempt to fire this blogger, has bought a Google ad to point people to their biased and selective page of “resources” on our case.

We do not know how much they are paying per “click through,” but the top position in a Google search does not come cheap.

Click to Enlarge

This ad may not show on every Google search, since even Marquette, which has paid well up into six figures in legal fees in an attempt to fire us, may not have set the “budget” high enough to show on every search. But then, they might raise it.

After all, the money doesn’t come from the pockets of the bureaucrats trying to fire us. It comes from students’ tuition money, and perhaps from endowment given by alumni who thought they were giving to improve the educational experience for students.

Libel

One utterly libelous thing Marquette has posted is the claim that we “doxed” the instructor about whom we posted, one Cheryl Abbate.  Abbate, remember,  told an undergraduate that he was not allowed to express opposition to gay marriage in class since it would be “homophobic” and would “offend” any gay students in class.

“Doxing” is defined as follows:

To dox someone is “to publicly identify or publish private information about (someone) especially as a form of punishment or revenge.”

We, of course, did no such thing. Rather, we linked to Abbate’s toxic feminist essay “Yes All Men… Contribute to the Prevalence of Rape,” published on her blog. If somebody dug around her blog, they could have found her e-mail address.

But just how is an e-mail address somebody publishes on their own blog “private information?”

Marquette, quite simply, is lying about this.

But that increasingly characterizes their jihad against this blogger. Marquette has falsely claimed that Abbate received threats. They claimed that Abbate had to leave Marquette because of our blog post.

The real impetus for the jihad was our several years of exposing misconduct at the University, and revealing the multiple ways Marquette has trashed its supposed “Catholic identity.”

Trayvon Martin Prosecutor Tries to Silence Critic

We have blogged about how Harvard Law School professor Alan M. Dershowitz criticized the prosecution of George Zimmerman for the shooting of Trayvon Martin.

Now it seems that the prosecutor Dershowitz criticized, one Angela Corey, has tried to get Dershowitz silenced. From Front Page Magazine:

State Attorney Angela Corey, the prosecutor in the George Zimmerman case, recently called the Dean of Harvard Law School to complain about my criticism of some of her actions. She was transferred to the Office of Communications and proceeded to engage in a 40 minute rant, during which she threatened to sue Harvard Law School, to try to get me disciplined by the Bar Association and to file charges against me for libel and slander.

She said that because I work for Harvard and am identified as a professor she had the right to sue Harvard. When the communications official explained to her that I have a right to express my opinion as “a matter of academic freedom,” and that Harvard has no control over what I say, she did not seem to understand. She persisted in her nonstop whining, claiming that she is prohibited from responding to my attacks by the rules of professional responsibility—without mentioning that she has repeatedly held her own press conferences and made public statements throughout her career.

Her beef was that I criticized her for filing a misleading affidavit that willfully omitted all information about the injuries Zimmerman had sustained during the “struggle” it described. She denied that she had any obligation to include in the affidavit truthful material that was favorable to the defense. She insisted that she is entitled to submit what, in effect, were half truths in an affidavit of probable cause, so long as she subsequently provides the defense with exculpatory evidence. She should go back to law school, where she will learn that it is never appropriate to submit an affidavit that contains a half truth, because a half truth is regarded by the law as a lie, and anyone who submits an affidavit swears to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Before she submitted the probable cause affidavit, Corey was fully aware that Zimmerman had sustained serious injuries to the front and back of his head. The affidavit said that her investigators “reviewed” reports, statements and “photographs” that purportedly “detail[ed] the following.” It then went on to describe “the struggle,” but it deliberately omitted all references to Zimmerman’s injuries which were clearly visible in the photographs she and her investigators reviewed. That is Hamlet without the Prince! The judge deciding whether there is probable cause to charge the defendant with second degree murder should not have been kept in the dark about physical evidence that is so critical to determining whether a homicide occurred, and if so, a homicide of what degree. By omitting this crucial evidence, Corey deliberately misled the court.

Corey seems to believe that our criminal justice system is like a poker game in which the prosecution is entitled to show its cards only after the judge has decided to charge the defendant with second degree murder. That’s not the way the system is supposed to work and that’s not the way prosecutors are supposed to act. That a prosecutor would hide behind the claim that she did not have an obligation to tell the whole truth until after the judge ruled on probable cause displays a kind of gamesmanship in which prosecutors should not engage.

The prisons, both in Florida and throughout the United States, are filled with felons who submitted sworn statements that contained misleading half truths. Corey herself has probably prosecuted such cases.

Ironically, Corey has now succeeded in putting Zimmerman back in prison for a comparably misleading omission in his testimony. His failure to disclose money received from a PayPal account requesting donations for his legal defense made his testimony misleadingly incomplete. In her motion to revoke his bail, Corey argued that Zimmerman “intentionally deceived the court” by making “false representations.” The same can be said about Prosecutor Corey. She too misled and deceived the court by submitting an affidavit that relied on a review of photographs and other reports that showed injuries to Zimmerman, without disclosing the existence of these highly relevant injuries.

Even if Angela Corey’s actions were debatable, which I believe they were not, I certainly have the right, as a professor who has taught and practiced criminal law nearly 50 years, to express a contrary view. The idea that a prosecutor would threaten to sue someone who disagrees with her for libel and slander, to sue the university for which he works, and to try to get him disbarred, is the epitome of unprofessionalism. Fortunately, truth is a defense to such charges.

I will continue to criticize prosecutors when their actions warrant criticism, to praise them when their actions deserve praise, and to comment on ongoing cases in the court of public opinion. If Angela Corey doesn’t like the way freedom of expression operates in the United States, there are plenty of countries where truthful criticism of prosecutors and other government officials result in disbarment, defamation suits and even criminal charges. We do not want to become such a country.

Of course, Dershowitz’ right to speak freely is not in danger. Not only will Harvard refuse to sanction him in any way, a Supreme Court decision called Sullivan makes it extremely hard for a “public figure” to sue for libel. Angela Corey is most certainly a “public figure.” Further, even without Sullivan, telling the truth is an absolute defense against a libel suit. And what Dershowitz wrote is true.

But this incident tells us a lot about Angela Corey. If she is so lacking in respect for the free speech rights of Alan Dershowitz, how concerned will she be about the rights of George Zimmerman.

If she is so cavalier about the law surrounding free expression, how respectful is she about the civil liberties of suspects?

And if she is so petty that she tries to silence a critic like Dershowitz, how likely is it that the prosecution of Zimmerman will be driven by personal pettiness and ego, rather than legal professionalism?

Eventually, the evidence in the Trayvon Martin case will be tested in court. But the criminal justice system can impose a lot of pain on people who are ultimately acquitted, and this is especially likely when there is a renegade prosecutor.