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
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: