Reports are intellectually bogus

I am watching a lawsuit over a Sandusky comparison, and I find this in the court complaint:

Mr. Lowry's statement, published by NRI on National Review Online, calling Dr. Mann's research "intellectually bogus" is defamatory per se and tends to injure Dr. Mann in his profession because it falsely imputes to Dr. Mann academic corruption, fraud and deceit as well as the commission of a criminal offense, in a manner injurious to the reputation and esteem of Dr. Mann professionally, locally, nationally, and globally.

Really? That phrases imputes a criminal offense? Is it a crime to be intellectually bogus?

Google says that I have used the word "bogus" 585 times. (Google overcounts.) When I say research is bogus, I usually mean that the results are not what they appear to be, usually because of sloppy methods, biased work, overstated conclusions, or even outright dishonesty.

If I say that a court psychologist, like Ken Perlmutter, Faren Akins, or Bret Johnson, writes an intellectually bogus report, then I am not accusing them of a criminal offense. Maybe it ought to be a crime to give such bogus opinions to the court, but they have not been prosecuted, as far as I know.

I say that their reports are bogus because they are not grounded in any generally recognized expert knowledge. I would say this whether the root cause was their stupidity, dishonesty, sloppiness, greediness, or corruption. Or their religion, feminism, politics, or anything else.

I know that the reports are bogus because they are contrary to basic psychology, law, and common sense. In Perlmutter's case, he admitted under oath that his report was bogus. (That was not his word, but he used equivalent words.) So I do not see anything wrong with calling their reports bogus on my blog. But I will keep an eye on this lawsuit, in case someone finds a law against telling the truth.

Here is some skeptical analysis about the lawsuit.Cuisinart Smart Stick Stainless Steel Hand Blender & Chopper (Google Affiliate Ad)