At the beginning of March Michael “Mikey” Weinstein’s research assistant, Chris Rodda, posted a lengthy* diatribe that attempted to parse a talk given by the Liberty Institute’s Kelly Shackelford to USAFA cadets during the 2014 NCLS.

Apparently upset that Shackelford was there at all, the MRFF surreptitiously recorded his speech and Rodda attempted to dissect it, labeling it “fear and misinformation.”

The Liberty Institute’s Michael Berry recently responded, essentially noting that Rodda was uninformed, and therefore incorrect, on pretty much every point:

The problem is that Rodda lacks first-hand knowledge (i.e., the real facts) of the matters on which she opined. As an attorney, I can tell you that the law has a strong preference for first-hand knowledge and knowing the true evidence. And because Shackelford was an attorney in nearly every one of the cases he mentioned, he knows the actual facts of each of those cases.

Rodda’s original piece garnered almost no attention, as she has recently struggled to assert the importance of her role in the MRFF. Her article was ignored here largely for those same reasons: It was exceedingly verbose and, to be gracious, full of “opinions” presented as facts.

In one barb, however, Rodda specifically questioned Kelly Shackelford’s integrity:

The reason this particular case was so memorable to me was because it was a case in which Mr. Shackelford was — how shall I put it? — um — not entirely honest with the court…

The Liberty Institute might have won this case, but it certainly appears that Mr. Shackelford and his colleagues weren’t completely honest with the court while it was going on.

Berry responded:

Rodda’s accusation that Shackelford was dishonest with the court in winning this case comes dangerously close to constituting libel. Simply put, a court of law agreed with the facts…Rodda’s “retelling” of the events is twisted to step around the central issues that were verified in court by witnesses under oath.

Rodda’s entire diatribe comes off as unnecessary grandstanding. It’s not even clear, other than organizational hostility, why Rodda wrote the piece at all. She seemed to be stretching to find something to criticize in Shackelford’s presentation — almost as if to justify the secret recording or her continued employment. In the end, she chose her words poorly and probably undermined the MRFF in the long run.

Incidentally, despite having a recording, Rodda didn’t note that Shackelford received standing ovations when he finished speaking — or that the crowd included a “heckler” the Liberty Institute associated with the MRFF.

*Rodda is known for many things. Being concise is not one of them.

ADVERTISEMENT