UPDATE: It is revealed that Mann gets $10,000 speakers fees, but he’s worried about some calendars I made. See below.
From the “we are still laughing at him” department, comes this news via LeClair Ryan who writes:
=============================================================
As I predicted last month, Michael Mann’s suit against the National Review, Competitive Enterprise Institute and two of their contributors, has resulted in an anti-SLAPP motion filed by the defendants, along with a companion Rule 12(b)(6) motion.
The Mann complaint is 24 pages long, and contains more than 100 paragraphs of allegations and assertions. The gravamen of the suit is that Mann, who is allegedly “well known for his work regarding global warming,” (which would seem to make him a public figure requiring him to demonstrate actual malice), was allegedly defamed by a blog post that accused him of “academic and scientific misconduct.” (Mann alleges that he had been previously investigated – and cleared). The original post at issue, by defendant Rand Simberg, is here; the other post at issue, by defendant Mark Steyn, is here. The complaint asserts claims for libel and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Not to be outdone, the anti-SLAPP brief runs 60 pages, with more than 28 pages of that submission chronicling the factual background against which the allegedly defamatory publications were made and the suit brought. After that extended background section, the brief succinctly (and thankfully!) shows that, because the suit arises from an act in furtherance of the right of advocacy on issues of public interest (the blog post, commenting on the global warming debate and Mann’s role in it), the statute applies and requires dismissal of the suit unless Mann can show that he is likely to prevail on the merits. (The brief is also discussed by the Volokh Conspiracy here)
…
In a companion Rule 12(b)(6) memorandum, the defendants argue that, for all of the foregoing reasons, the suit should be dismissed. They further argue that Mann has failed to allege facts to support a finding that they acted with actual malice and, instead, offers only conclusory allegations that they acted “maliciously” or “with actual malice,” and that, for this additional reason, the complaint must be dismissed.
Full story at LeClair Ryan
==============================================================
UPDATE:
Climate Alarmist Michael Mann Charges $10,000 Speaker Fee
Prominent global warming alarmist Michael Mann, who often asserts that scientists who are skeptical of his alarmist global warming theories are motivated by making money, charges $10,000 plus expenses for speaking fees, Media Trackers Florida has learned. The revelation about Mann’s exorbitant speaking fees comes as Mann prepares to give a global warming presentation at a taxpayer-funded Florida public college. Mann will be speaking at Valencia College Thursday, January 17, at 1:00 pm.
Mann’s agent, Jodi Solomon, said in a phone call earlier this month that Mann would charge $10,000 plus travel expenses to address a meeting of Florida air conditioning specialists.
UPDATE2: 1/17/13 10AMPST
Dr. Mann writes on his Facebook page:
Jodi Solomon has today issued a statement contradicting Ms. Carducci’s assertion and condemning her apparent misbehavior:
“Media Trackers got their facts wrong. Jodi Solomon Speakers was NOT involved in setting up the speaking engagement for Dr. Mann at the Sports Turf Managers Association (SMTA). We log in every call and email that comes into our office, and there is no record that Media Trackers was ever in touch with us. If they claim otherwise, they did so by misrepresenting themselves to us.”
[I think perhaps the way Media Trackers is structured, as independent investigators, they are looking for the wrong phone call. – Anthony]
Dr. Mann also writes:
…indeed Jodi Solomon Speakers Bureau does typically negotiate a speakers fee for engagements they book for me.
But in reality, I am doing the SMTA event pro bono (other than travel expenses) and Ms. Carducci’s claim that I am receiving 10K for the event is pure fiction.
UPDATE3: 1/17/13 240PM PST It seems the only “pure fiction” is Dr. Mann’s cavalier interpretations:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
If one has something to say, say it. The story has too much CYA language: it uses ‘allegedly’ [or variations] eleven times. Too much for my taste.
Some say the judge is in Mann’s pocket. This will be a test of that. If this is not a case in which the defendants deserve protection from SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) legislation then the law is useless.
I am only surprised it took them this long to file the anti-SLAPP motion.
I will be a bit sad if this gets dismissed… all that juicy discovery… hopefully Tim Ball’s lawsuit will produce said discovery and put a huge nail in the public figurehead/propaganda of global warming.
SLAPPed Silly?
Nah – he was that way long before the lawsuit..
So you lose a bet and your choices are:
1) Sue Mark Steyn.
2) Fight a bear barehanded.
3) Retrieve a salmon from a great white’s stomach.
I know what I’d do.
If the case is dismissed, there goes “discovery”!
The Warming Mann is becoming the Whining Mann.
It ain’t over yet. The next event is a “Initial Scheduling Conference January 25, 2013”.
A SLAPP is:
As evidence that Mann et al are attempting to “censor, intimidate, and silence critics” see this, from an open letter written by the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.
I don’t think that is parody. I wrote about it here.
Yes, when you encounter Dr. Mann, there is always some (anti) Slap sticking.
David L.
This applies only to the CEI case. The Steyn case is separate and would continue, Steyn would sill get discovery.
Leif, that’s all legalese. In legalese, nothing actually exists until proven in a court of law. There is no truth or lie, just what you can prove, or convince a judge or jury to believe.
I agree with Temp. I ponied up cash because I want to see discovery. Granted I did not poney up that much cash so I guess it is up to NRO to decide.
Why would you even ask for dismissal unless what you could gain – discovery – wasn’t what you wanted anyway? In fact, if that isn’t what they wanted, why not just go kiss his butt and drive on, never looking back? I don’t understand this action at all. Then again, when it comes to “the legal arena” and what they laughingly refer to as “justice,” there is far more room for NOT understanding than understanding anyway, since nothing any longer relies on logic and facts.
Have you ever walked the night alone
Like a Mann against the world?
No one takes your side,
A boat against the tide.
When your faith is shaken,
You start to break,
And your heart can’t find the words.
Tossed upon the sand,
I give you a Mann against the world.
All the people cheer till the end is near
Then the hero takes a fall.
They’ll drag you through the mud.
You’re only flesh and blood.
Oh I’ve walked the path from dark to light
And have yet to come to terms.
Alone I take my stand,
I’m only a Mann against the world.
(Lyrics by PETERIK, JAMES M/SULLIVAN, FRANK/JAMISON, JIMI: “Man against the world” performed by Survivor)
temp wrote:
Even if the case is not dismissed by an Anti-SLAPP ruling, I don’t think there will be much discovery.
Mann’s lawyers are arguing that describing the “hockey stick” as “fraudulent” is an accusation of “academic fraud”. There would only be a need for “juicy” discovery if Steyn et al went along with that and attempted to prove “academic fraud”. I don’t think that will happen.
Tim Ball’s case is different. He is going for discovery.
Another disappointing result. I said the day that mann threatened to file that an anti-slapp would be the outcome but I didn’t think that they would move to dismiss. I was hoping he’d be forced to finally have that day in court that he never seems so fond to reach.
With this and Heartland seemingly unwilling to pursue Gleick it’s all a bit of a damp squib.
I am only surprised it took them this long to file the anti-SLAPP motion.
Did they take so long? I thought I read about this a month or so ago, and the Certificate of Service says the motion was delivered Dec. 14, 2012.
@MJW – I guess in legal time, it was fast. But given normal time, I would have expected it to be filed within a week.
WOuldn’t it be better to see this through? This gets dismissed and it will look like some sort of “legal technicality.” Certainly Mann will claim that. I understand that the defendants are in some jeopardy, but they’d be doing the world a great favor if this could get to the discovery process.
@ur momisugly philjourdan
It looks like the anti-SLAPP was filed a month ago as Simberg’s deadline to file was December 14th.
Given Al Gore has excited the scene stage left with bags full of oil money, two weeks ago. The MET climbs down and revises the long range forecast downward and acknowledges 16 years of no warming. The New York Times is dismantling its environmental desk. Hansen climbs down and acknowledges no warming….
If I was Mann I would be looking for a place to retire outside the USA NOW. His lawyers are paid for by someone else not him. Any time now that funding can get yanked and I would not be surpirsed if Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli might not find another way to go after him again.
With his personality Mikey has not made friends and he might just find himself the goat.
With all these sticks, slapping and a beard to boot – one would think Mann has suddenly got into Morris Dancing…
No matter the merits either side mayperceive, it is only prudent and professional to seek dismissal. Civil court can be both forum of discovery as well as graveyard of truth. Getting a SLAPP ruling against Mann shows how petty and threadbare his complain is. It is not a ‘technicality’. If the motion is granted, it shows that once again Mann is making claims that do not hold up under scrutiny.
The “hockey stick” is academic fraud!
Seek discovery – Mann is depending on them not going the distance.
Motions mean nothing, rulings mean something. This is a motion.