I am not a lawyer and it may be that case law recognizes some distinction between these accusations. But the way I see it, Fuller’s claim is a distinction without a difference. I would hope the law sees it the same way.

Lay is transitive – it takes an object.
Lie is intransitive – it doesn’t take an object.

Laying a hockey stick on its back describes an action done to the hockey stick.
A hockey stick lying on its back describes a state, a condition. No one is doing anything to the hockey stick.

So here you want lie, not lay. (If you tell your pets to lay down you’ll confuse them. They expect you to say, “Lie down.”)

__________________________________________________

I’m not qualified to understand the niceties of M&M’s complaints against the original hockey stick. What I do understand is that MBH99 was a pioneer work, and that its shortcomings had no effect on the validity of its results, which have been corroborated again and again by other scientists using other methods.
http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/the-hockey-stick

What I also understand is that the fervent opposition to the hockey stick and the resulting vilification of Mann have little to do with valid scientific objections, but everything to do with the inconvenient visual strength and simplicity of the graph as a portrayal of unprecedented warming.

The libels were probably made with the assumption that they could be made with impunity. It’s good for all of us that Mann has defended himself as forcefully as he has.

They feel a desperate need to apply more mud to increase obscurity.

It would be hilarious that they actually think this will make AGW go away — if it weren’t for the fact that their actions are not only failing to make it go away, they’re actually making it worse.

They also write the National Science Foundation “did not conduct an investigation of Mann’s data practices or research because it determined that ‘no direct evidence has been presented that indicates the Subject fabricated the raw data he used for his research or falsified his results.’”

So they are upset because there was not an investigation of how he did something there was no evidence he did? Is that really the crux of this bit? Is that a sign of how desperate they are or of the low quality of their legal representation?