Perhaps.  I don't know what the Colorado state legal precedent's on both sides' arguments will be exactly, but if the case will center around disproportion, I don't know how good that will look for Churchill, since the report seems to demonstrate more than just careless errors, but indeed, willful distortion.  He might be able to challenge some of the report's conclusions -- particularly thosemade  with what I would call a hyper-positivism (critiqued well by John K. Wilson here: <<a href="http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2006/05/19/wilson">http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2006/05/19/wilson</a>>  But I think overall, the courtroom is not going to really be a place for Churchill to shine.  In fact, given the witnesses that might be subpoenaed, those whom he misrepresented, etc., he might come off looking worse -- and further sully the public image of leftist scholarship in the process. <div>On 6/26/06, JC Helary <<a href="mailto:fusion@mx6.tiki.ne.jp">fusion@mx6.tiki.ne.jp</a>> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> On Jun 27, 2006, at 10:08 AM, Auguste Blanqui wrote: > Ugh, not to revive last week's discussion, but I don't think we could > have asked for a worst "first major academic freedom case" than one > requiring us to defend the likes of Churchill... Well, maybe it is better that way, at least he can sue them is a real court to show that the "punishment" was totally disproportionate to what he actually did. No ? Jean-Christophe ___________________________________ <a href="http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk">http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk</a> </blockquote></div>