It’s a sure thing. Rebecca Watson tallies up the cost of dealing with Ben Radford’s legal blustering — but it’s incomplete. Not just because Radford never lets it end (he settled with Karen Stollznow and signed an agreement that the matter was formally closed and not to be discussed publicly any further…and then started barreling about threatening people about the subject he wasn’t supposed to discuss), but we don’t have the other side of the legal costs. How much has Radford thrown away on his crusade? I hope and suspect that it has been a lot more than anyone else has spent.
I’m confident that his lawyer is a very happy and successful person, at least.
Who? Ben Radford? Oh, yeah. I seem to remember he treated his girlfriend badly. I think I heard he was abusive or something. That’s the only thing I can associate with the name Ben Radford in my memory at least.
At least four women have complained to Center for Inquiry higher-ups about sexual harassment by Ben Radford. Also, The Friendly Atheist, Hemant Mehta, is among those atheist leaders who support the cover up of Radford’s abuse. Everything seems to be working out great for Radford, CFI and Mehta, so good for them, I guess.
IANAL, but if a party to a non-disclosure agreement goes ahead and blabs, doesn’t that render the agreement null and void? Is there any possibility Radford has left himself open to being sued?
Is there any possibility Radford has left himself open to being sued?
In the US anyone can be sued any time, pretty much. It then becomes a contest of money and endurance. Oh, yeah, there may be something to do with justice somewhere in there, but it’s a minor bit player at best.
PZ’s right: the only winners are the lawyers.
Yes, we would have a fine justice system if we just got rid of all the lawyers, judges and anyone else with a law degree. After all, all those lawyer-hating folks who haven’t read a single case nor done a lick of legal work are the REAL legal experts, anyway.
Amused @5: that’s a fine strawman you’re beating up.
Could the legal system be more just and predictable, the outcomes determined by the merits of the case, not the wealth of the parties and knowledge of arcane legal details? Is this an unrealistic or radical idea? What if the system would be set so that rich bloodsuckers would not be able to ruin a someone using frivolous lawsuits.
people complain about lawyers and the complexity of the law are never it seems averse to recourse to courts for the regress of wrongs nor seem to be aware that the law got that way through case law. I hope his lawyers are satisfied that they have a long term client.
If a party to a settlement of a law suit that has a non-disclosure clause break that part of the settlement is the other party freed from that part of the settlement as well allowing them to freely disclose those matters previously held under none-disclosure ?
uncle frogy
I regret every nickel I’ve given to the Center of Inquiry and their magazine. From having to have mediated a solution to an ongoing sexual harassment case you have to get everything out in the open or the offender will just return to his old ways with another woman.
Kinda gave a whole new meta-meaning to ‘Monster Talk’.
@Amused,
Lawyers are hardly an oppressed occupation. 39% of the members of the House of Representatives have a law degree, and 57% of the Senate hold one. This overrepresentation is one reason many people suspect it is so difficult to rein in the use of SLAPP lawsuits.
There are a few big gaping holes in the ethical standards for the practice of law whose closure would improve things enormously (like, the lack of any supervenient obligation to serve the cause of justice, for instance), but unfortunately, pointing this out even in company whose principles should make them receptive seems mainly to produce, if not outright strawmen like yours, shrieks of “BUT NOT ALL LAWYERS”…
…and pointed ignoring of the question of why this is any less of a timewasting non-sequitur than “BUT NOT ALL MEN” or “BUT NOT ALL WHITE PEOPLE”
illdoittomorrow @3: “IANAL, but if a party to a non-disclosure agreement goes ahead and blabs, doesn’t that render the agreement null and void? Is there any possibility Radford has left himself open to being sued?”
unclefrogy @8: “If a party to a settlement of a law suit that has a non-disclosure clause break that part of the settlement is the other party freed from that part of the settlement as well allowing them to freely disclose those matters previously held under none-disclosure ?”
IANALwait, no, IAAL, and the answer to both those questions depends on the details of the settlement agreement. Both parties wouldn’t necessarily be subject to the same non-disclosure provisions – they might be, but it’s not certain. Likewise, breaching a non-disclosure provision might or might not open someone up to a breach of contract claim. And just because one person breached a non-disclosure provision doesn’t necessarily mean that the other person is free to disclose. Without seeing the agreement itself, it’s impossible to say what the effect might be.I don’t really know anything about the law in this regard. I have some questions to anyone who does know. Any chance that she could make use of a SLAPP law? Or could she preemptively sue to seek a declaratory judgment that she has done nothing wrong to avoid this looming threat of a lawsuit?