|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
Talk:Rhawn Joseph
|
This article contains information about one or more living persons. Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats. |
Any chance anyone can actually check if Rhawn Joseph was a neuropsychologist who worked at the VA Palo Alto Health Care System. Apparently there is no record of him his working there. Further research please needed, I could be wrong however. Any can help that would be good! DinoCrisis (talk) 22:35, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Needs more work[edit]
There are a lot of things that should be done to improve the article. For a start, I think that the current tone is too reverent. ;)
His involvement with the Journal of Cosmology deserves to be expanded upon. There's also a section on about his conflict with PZ Myers in the journal's article that probably needs to be moved here.
He also claims that he's suing NASA over their alleged cover-up of alien life - he apparently thinks that the blobs in the STS-75 incident are space-dwelling life forms, not UFOs (like most other fringers) or sublimating ice particles (like most experts). On his website, there's a PDF of a document he apparently submitted to the court. Someone should check in the appropriate databases if such a lawsuit has ever been filed.--ZooGuard (talk) 18:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Lawsuit(s) update[edit]
I decided to do a few searches to see what has happened. I found my old thread in the Saloon Bar (check out the quote). I also found that Rhawn Joseph or someone with the same name has filed an anti-trust lawsuit against Amazon and Jeff Bezos in December 2012. WTF? --ZooGuard (talk) 19:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- Amazon won summary judgment in that case. The Order includes an overview of the case, and a pdf is available from Justia, from that page. Joseph was a pro se litigant, and attempted a class action as such. No, no, and he also failed to file within the statute of limitations. He may have had a point, but not the skill. Lawsuits filed by cranks can be a nuisance, but Amazon could afford the costs, and Joseph was clearly irritating the judge with improper motions. The judge notes that, "the Court finds [Dr. Joseph's pleadings] extremely difficult to follow." (Order, p. 8). --Abd (talk) 19:55, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
- The article has a link to the PopSci article on Rhawn's NASA lawsuit. They have a copy of the Petition for a Writ of Mandamus. The title of the petition screams "Incompetent Crank!" Pro se again, which I could tell, even if he hadn't said so. United States District Court Northern District of California, Case Number: CV 14-00385, filed January 27, 2014. Rhawn Joseph, Ph.D.} Petitioner, v. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Charles F. Bolden, Chief Administrator NASA, respondents. I got the docket ($0.40!). This filing takes the cake:
- 04/04/2014 8 AMENDED COMPLAINT: Defamation, Slander, Libel, Trade Libel, Malice, Oppression, Fraud, Violations of Plaintiff's First Amendment Rights, Personal and Professional Injury, Misrepresentation, Deceit, Interference, Negligence, Wrongful Acts, False Claims, Injunctive Relief against Charles F Bolden, John Callas, Paul Hertz, Rocco Mancinelli, David Morrison, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Steven Squyres. Filed byRhawn Joseph. (srm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/4/2014) (Entered: 04/04/2014
- However, the case settled, and I don't care enough to download the judgment. Funny, the lawsuit itself was news. The settlement, not a hint
- OMFG, there is more. United States District Court Northern District of California Case Number: CV 16 5142 Filed: Sept 7, 2016 Rhawn Joseph, Plaintiff, v. National Aeronautics and Space } Space Administration (NASA), Ingram Industries Inc., Ingram Content Group, Lightning Source Inc., Does 1-100, Defendants. COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Constitutional Rights and Public Trust Action (28 U.S.C. § 1331) } VIOLATIONS OF THE PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE, VIOLATIONS OF PLAINTIFF'S FIRST, FIFTH, NINTH, } AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS. Copy on the Cosmology site. tl;dr. This was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice, January 12, 2017. I have the docket, documents may cost me ten cents per page. I paid for the docket.... fifty cents. --Abd (talk) 21:52, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
- Just when I thought it couldn't get crazier, I read this page: NASA Lawsuit, Life on Mars, The Outcome Cosmology.com January 23, 2017. So I looked again at the docket, and actually downloaded the motion to dismiss. Joseph is clueless about what happened. This was a dismissal with no judicial order, which Rule 41 allows. In this case, defendants had appeared, so their stipulation was needed. So the Court did not "agree" with his claim of judicial misconduct. A clerk simply followed procedure. His reasons were irrelevant, it is even possible that the judge he so complains about did not even see that document. This was just procedure, and the defendants made sure the dismissal was with prejudice, in their stipulation. The Court did not generate a transcript for the hearing that he was so upset about. Why pay for the court reporter to make it? It had all become moot. Joseph thinks he knows what is going on on Mars, but doesn't understand how things work here. The dispute before the judge was about photos being "entered into evidence." This is purely a procedural question. Evidence is entered at trial, not before. He was demanding a jury trial, as I recall. It is the jury that will assess evidence, not the Judge. He was trying to argue his case before the Judge (Magistrate, actually.) --Abd (talk) 01:35, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Locked article[edit]
- This discussion was moved here from RationalWiki:Saloon bar.
Recently I made a single edit on the Rhawn Joseph article restoring a line that was deleted. The article was locked for "Counter-productive edit warring" but only one edit was made to the article. The deletion in question had an edit summary wuth this line "(Removing pseudo-authoritative statement about a presumed unambiguous connection between the nervous system and consciousness, for which there is no empirical proof". Plant consciousness clearly is impossible because plants lack nervous systems. No botanist or neuroscientist would claim plants have consciousness. Judging from the commentary from the other IP they are most likely a promoter of non-materialist neuroscience. I believe the original edit should be restored. I am confused to why someone would lock this article for 4 days and remove valid material. 98.98.210.136 (talk) 17:39, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- From what I can tell, plant cognition is a growing field of research and the matter is far from resolved. (Granted, I wouldn't call plants "conscious.") I am also not an expert by any means. Carthage (talk) 18:13, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Cognition as a process, sure in some analogous ways, consciousness as a term of art from cognitive science? Patently wrong to say plants are conscious. This was a stupid removal and the IP here is totally right. What the fuck, Carthage? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:25, 8 October 2024 (UTC)