From the “chilling effect” of sunlight department, Steyn writes:
Many “climate skeptics” wonder why the defendants would want to get the complaint dismissed rather than put Mann through a trial in which he would have to take the witness stand and discuss his work under oath. I can understand their enthusiasm for this but for me the priority has always been the broader cause of free speech:
Defendant Steyn stands by his words and is willing to defend them at trial and before a jury, should it come to that. However, as a noted human-rights activist in Canada and elsewhere, he believes that the cause of freedom of expression in the United States would best be served by dismissing the amended complaint, and that a trial would have a significant “chilling effect” in America of the kind the Anti-SLAPP laws are specifically designed to prevent.
The “chilling effect” is a bigger threat to civilized society than all Dr Mann’s warming. But the judge chose instead to put us on the road to a full-scale trial. So be it.
As readers may have deduced from my absence at National Review Online and my termination of our joint representation, there have been a few differences between me and the rest of the team. The lesson of the last year is that you win a free-speech case not by adopting a don’t-rock-the-boat, keep-mum, narrow procedural posture but by fighting it in the open, in the bracing air and cleansing sunlight of truth and justice.
=============================================================
Unfortunately, the motion was denied.
Read the whole thing here: http://www.steynonline.com/6025/trial-and-error
![RoadCones-300x224[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/roadcones-300x2241.jpg?quality=83)
Mann would be a fool to pursue the case further, but then again, his ego is often so large that I surmise the state department of transportation must be forced to put out orange traffic cones ahead of him when he travels, so I doubt it will happen.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Please don’t move for dismissal until after the discovery process is finished!
This is a golden opportunity that should not be squandered.
There is also the issue of the money. While Steyn is no pauper, he is also not Warren Buffett. The rest of us with no money skin in the game may root for a trial where the dirt of Mann is exposed, but it is not our money being used to air the dirty laundry.
Re: “Mann …, his ego is
oftenso large that the department of transportation has to put out orange traffic cones ahead … .” LOL.Waaatch out, everybody! GIANT MANN BLIMP headed your way!!!!
Aaaaaaaa! Here comes Climate Clown!!!! Run! “Hey, Carol…. HEEEELLLLP!”
Steyn has a fair point, the Just-us system is not the friend of free citizens nor justice.
It is a bureaucracy apparently designed to crushing any who dare to rock the ship of state.
CYA, scratch the big boys back seeming to be the take away message of late.
The state does not fear the citizen.
This could be a serious mistake.
Fair comment and mockery will do more to expose the fools, delusional, those wanna be masters of the world than any institutional process.
This isn’t a game of checkers, The biggest threat here is of Steyn going to court and losing. That would be a catastrophe. To avoid it, Steyn must take every opportunity he can to end the case as early as possible.
The best defense is a good offense. I would sure like to see a countersuit against Mann for the many potentially libelous comments he has made of others who disagree with him.
In other news our very own Anthony’s web site gets a mention. All is not what it seems if you only delve a little deeper:
http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=84653
Humm Mann is suing – will he sue all that say his data set was gamed . . why did EA University provide the base research and the data so that a real peer review could be conducted by other scientists – well could it be that they knew the data was a false premise and could not provide a proof for the base hypothesis of AGW?
What complete ship of fools IMO – just look at the AGW research group that got stuck in ice that was not supposed to exist in their published consensus of Scientists. I have not seen one explain how the ice that was not there locked up three ships including ice breakers in the non ice?
Mann is to big to fail. He would be a martyr to the cause if he lost. And then celebrated like Peter Gleick. Cocktails all round.
Steyn would be impoverished with his reputation in tatters.
This is not an even fight – one side can’t lose.
It is better not to fight if you are the little guy.
But it’s more fun if you do…
Will the original complaint be admissible as evidence in the trial? I can think of no better clear cut example of Mann’s tendancy to exaggerate (to put it lightly) than characterizing himself as sharing the Nobel prize with other IPCC authors.
I’m a big Steyn fan, but I found his article confusing. He wanted the complaint dismissed because of the chilling effect the cost and effort of a trial would have on free speech. Yet now he’s glad the motion to dismiss was denied because it better serves the cause of free speech to fight in the open, bracing air, etc. I’m not accusing him of hypocrisy or contradiction, I just don’t get what he’s saying. I’d also like to know what happened between him and his co-defendants. Their law firm apparently dropped him from the team, but I’ve not seen anything that explains why.
Free speech is not only dear but also expensive.
Bart says:
January 23, 2014 at 12:09 pm
That’s not how civil tort law works. Steyn has no standing to sue Mann for libel committed against others; he could only bring suit for damages he (Steyn) suffered as a result of wrongful acts committed by Mann. Others may have grounds to sue Mann, but they would have to bring the suits; Steyn can’t do it for them and unless he is willing to pay their legal fees, I doubt any such suits will be brought if they haven’t been already.
In any case, even if the plaintiff in one libel suit is himself a defendant in another libel suit, the outcome in the second case has no effect on the outcome in the first. Think about it: if I’m brought to trial for robbing your house, my defense is not bolstered if you are also prosecuted for robbing your neighbor’s house.
Mann’s not a fool. Steyn will ultimately “win” because the suit is so stupid, but it’ll cost him a couple million for God knows what and cow any other critics of Mann from stepping up. Anti-SLAPP was supposed to prevent such nonsense, but obviously Bernstein has other ideas.
I would not trust our ‘Justice’ system to give a fair trail to anyone.
This is a heads Mann wins tails Mann wins situation.
Dear Mark Steyn,
That you chose to do what was best for Freedom of Speech (versus exposing the l1es of a known l1ar re: AGW) is your business, and not ours. We lovers of liberty will continue to back you 100%. You are one of our finest warriors on the front lines of the perennial battle for truth. You deserve nothing but our respect and our gratitude.
Life is short. You have better things to do with your time — like enjoying your family. Good people not only have the courage to fight against ev1l, they have the wisdom to discern when to walk away from a fool.
I know you don’t like rock music like I do, but, consider this one of my numerous letters to Mark’s Mailbox and take this as encouragement from your longtime unilateral friend. You’ve made a tough call. Now, ….
Don’t Look Back — (“there’s no game to play”) — Boston
Navy Bob, look at it this way. Steyn is glad that the cause of free speech is going to be supported by this going to trial, but he laments the fact that it is going to take a year of his life and probably a million dollars to do it, money of his and his supporters which could be spent more effectively elsewhere. No sane person would want to subject themselves to that kind of circus if there is any way it, but once you’re pulled into it, you might as well make the best of it.
Steyn is right to attempt to dismiss. There are so many unknowns going into a trial – it is the reason that only a small percentage of complaints are ever actually tried. I have been an expert witness for about 50 legal matters (suits, if you like), have been deposed about a dozen or so times and to trial twice. So, most matters settle early, some get serious and almost all settle after the two sides get to weigh each others’ cases.
That being said, I would not wish this issue to go to trial. Trials are VERY unpredictable. You can’t even predict what lines of evidence are going to be admitted, you can bet that Mann’s attorneys would be working to exclude a lot of evidence, and there is no way to predict whether the judge will indeed exclude some. I am in no way confident in the results of a trial on this one.
Sorry to be a downer, but I have had the rug pulled out from under me on most of those 50 or so occasions in which I was involved. I was certain of my part in the case, yet the case settled and I never got to get a ruling on how right I knew (thought) I was. That was because the attorneys, you know, those people whose careers are based on knowing the court system, find the courts too unpredictable to bet their cases on having them heard, and would rather settle than risk a bad judgment – and they were just as confident in their legal arguments as I was in my technical arguments. That ought to be enough of a warning to us non-attorneys that the judicial system is unpredictable at best, even for the most iron-clad of cases.
There is still a very good chance this will settle which is my hope.
I’m such a Steyn fan and this just reminds me why. But I’m fearful of reality, especially as I read “The Aquariums of Pyongyang” on the duped Koreans living in Japan returning to the North and ending up in the prison camps. I agree with him, the U.S. court system is no place for rubes. It’s a deliberate procedural mine field designed to protect the lawyer’s guild and the weasel-y.
God be with you Mr. Steyn. Send him money.
{ooops! forgot to sign my letter}
Sincerely yours,
Janice Moore
The US civil court system is a place where two embattled sides pay out obscene amounts of money in legal fees until someone goes bankrupt and the person with the largest wallet wins. The role of the judge in all of this, especially in the first few years of trial, is to make bizarre rulings which prolong the agony as long as possible. Almost never will anything at all be decided in the first couple of years. Cases seldom make it all the way through to judgement (reaching a final judgement could take a decade and is mind bogglingly expensive for both sides). Most cases end in a settlement when the two sides agree that they’ve had enough and negotiate an end to it.
The legal system isn’t justice – it is a tarpit. Those who step into it voluntarily are idiots. If you ever find yourself dragged in there, get out as fast as you can by any means possible before your wallet bleeds out.
Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7 says:
January 23, 2014 at 12:24 pm
“…he could only bring suit for damages he (Steyn) suffered as a result of wrongful acts committed by Mann.”
Has he not claimed Steyn and others are engaged in a massive conspiracy funded by Big Oil?
“…the outcome in the second case has no effect on the outcome in the first.”
Not the point. The point is the same one for which Mann instituted his suit: to chill the freedom to speak of the other side. To force them to back down on their assault against civilized society.
They’ve thrown away the rulebook, and intend to run roughshod over anyone who stands in their way. This is a streetfight – if you don’t adopt their tactics in return, you lose. A bully will continue to be a bully until he gets a punch in the nose. I would pay good money to see someone (metaphorically and in a legalistic sense) land a good haymaker upside Mann’s vicious little mug.
Tom G(ologist), so by “good chance this will settle,” you mean, “good chance Steyn, NR, etc. will pay Mann”? Or they’ll walk away from each other?
How settle?
What is that old saying about tell a lie often enough…
…Mann that is