Fatheaded Ed Brayton's untrustworthiness

In a comment under my recent post "Fatheaded Ed Publishes Probable Hoax," W. Kevin Vicklund said,

And once again, Larry stars as the Boy Who Cried "Wolf!". Seeing as every time you have accused Ed of making stuff up you have been proven wrong, why would you expect anyone to believe you if it ever did happen?

It actually did happen in Ed's following statements about whether the Dover School Board could have mooted the Kitzmiller v. Dover case by repealing the ID policy prior to judgment:
.

Board president Reinking noted that legal counsel advised the board that the trial is over and can not change the outcome of any vote.

This is the same position, by the way, that was taken by everyone involved in the case, including the attorneys for both sides. It's the same position taken by the Judge in the case. It's the same position taken by every legal scholar who addressed the issue. There was virtually no chance that the case would be mooted.

For starters, Ed's first statement above is improperly worded -- it should read that the outcome of a vote (on whether to repeal the ID policy) could not change the outcome of the trial, not vice-versa.

Fatheaded Ed's above statements are thoroughly contradicted by a newspaper article. In the newspaper article, only the Dover defendants' lead attorney said that repealing the ID policy immediately could not moot the case, and he was biased because he wanted the case to be appealed, which the new school board was unwilling to do. The newspaper article reported that the plaintiffs' attorneys declined to comment and that the judge only said that the school board election results would not affect his decision (though that statement improperly gave legal advice by implying that his decision would not be affected by repeal of the ID policy, the only way in which the election could have affected his decision). The article reported than an attorney hired by a former board member wrote a report advising the new board that repealing the ID policy immediately might moot the case. Aside from this newspaper article, other attorneys opined that immediate repeal of the ID policy might have mooted the case.

On his blog post about the Ono suit's temporary restraining order, Fatheaded Ed was very indignant about people questioning his credibility:

Apparently I'm not a "reputable person." When a journalist writes a story for a newspaper, they merely cite a document rather than provide links to it. So even if I had cited a newspaper report that didn't show the entire original document, would that really make a difference? Only if you have the presumption that I'm not credible when I report about a document I've seen but a newspaper reporter is. And if you have that presumption of me, I think a little irritation is more than warranted.

Ed, I have that presumption of you. You are not like a newspaper reporter. Newspaper reporters are accountable -- you are not. You are just a BVD-clad blogger -- and an unscrupulous one at that.

With Fatheaded Ed's arbitrary censorship of comments and commenters, Ed's blogs cannot even be self-correcting as to objective facts, let alone present a variety of views.

Ed is the poster child of unscrupulous BVD-clad bloggers -- he wants privileges without responsibilities.

Now the first comment is going to be from Voice in the Urbanness, who will claim that I misinterpreted the newspaper article.
.