Dead Sea Scrolls Development: Raphael Golb's Appeal Brief, March 2011

Latest developments in the Dead Sea Scrolls trial of Raphael Golb:

Raphael Golb's attorney Ron Kuby has filed his Appeal brief, to the First Appellate Division of New York:

http://raphaelgolbtrialtranscripts.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/raphael-golb-appeal-brief2.pdf
....................

from Raphael Golb's Appeal brief: the Tucker Carlson hoax emails: 

Tucker Carlson opened a fake website/email for "Keith Olbermann." "Olbermann" answered a reporter, who believed him, with outrageous emails. "...it's amusing as hell," said Carlson.


http://www.observer.com/2010/media/tucker-carlson-has-some-fun-keith-olbermanns-expense

"The opportunity to acquire KeithOlberman.com arose 

and we felt it was a market niche which we could enter and dominate 

and it would be a public service so we did it. 

Plus it's amusing as hell." -Tucker Carlson

If the court of Appeals does not overturn the Dead Sea Scrolls case, then people like Tucker Carlson stand in danger of being sent to the State Penitentiary for this "amusing" behavior.

The jist of Kuby's argument seems to be that what Raphael Golb did on the internet was simply not a crime.

Dead Sea Scrolls: Two Nov. online Articles by Golb, Golb

Raphael Golb was given permission to write.
Judge Berkman, in her November sentencing, gave him permission to write about his case.

So he wrote this:
"The Dead Sea Scrolls Scandal: How I Was Convicted of a Crime" Nov. 2010:

http://www.sirpeterscott.com/images/golbstatement.pdf

Here Raphael provides a multitude of details, most of which will be quite new to readers- much was even new to me too.
Raphael's essay ties together loose ends; shows everyone's part in the case; etc; and it will be clearer how the case was too complicated for a jury.

A great deal of his account, you will find, this blog of mine had gotten wrong, or halfway wrong, or hadn't known about at all. I apologize! There are folks who believe I get my info direct, so I repeat that this blog is my personal understanding- which I interpret my own way, clear with no one, and no one corrects me. I'm sure I'm often mistaken.

-------------------
Originally there was a second article by a "Golb"- the father this time- which I was pressured into taking down, by the types of comments I received. It was a link to Raphael Golb's father's reaction to a document that the prosecution used in the trial as evidence against his son.

I felt it was relevant to publish the father's response to this piece of trial evidence which may have influenced the decision to sentence his son to prison.
Before I say more about this, I want to advise:

WHAT SCHOLAR IS "RIGHT" OR "WRONG"- what scholar did or did not "plagiarize"- and even whether Raphael's accusations are true OR FALSE (a civil matter, not a criminal one)- actually HAS NO RELEVANCE TO THE CASE, or the questions i'm trying to raise. 

Because I don't focus on facts or people's opinions about those facts. I focus on HOW Raphael expressed himself: I focus on "internet impersonation."

cont'd