UPDATE: it seems the language was lifted from a “Skeptical Science” web page, see below.
Steve McIntyre had a busy day yesterday. While yesterday there was an incorrect story called “Michael Mann Faces Bankruptcy as his Courtroom Climate Capers Collapse“ being pushed by John O’Sullivan at Principia Scientific International (aka PSI and The Slayers) claiming Dr. Tim Ball had defeated Mann’s lawsuit, Ball confirms through communications with McIntyre yesterday that while stalled, Mann’s lawsuit is still very much on. Also, for those who don’t know, we’ve heard that Dr. Mann’s legal bills are being paid by the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund, where we’ve been told there are some deep green pockets contributing, so he isn’t facing bankruptcy, at least not yet.
I find the name a bit of a misnomer, since AFAIK, no climate skeptic scientists are suing alarmist climate scientists, We have only Dr. Mann’s and Dr. Weaver’s lawsuit (also against Tim Ball). Perhaps it should be named the Climate Science Legal Offense Fund.
In a parallel Mann legal arena, Steve McIntyre now shows that in his legal reply to the NRO/Steyn lawsuit, Dr. Mann or his attorneys altered a quote from the Muir Russell inquiry that didn’t exist. Add this to the fake “Nobel Laureate” claim in Mann’s original lawsuit (a claim which he eventually removed in an amended complaint, on Facebook (before and after), and at RC without notice), and a pattern begins to emerge that might not be looked on too kindly by a presiding judge.
He writes:
In my most recent post, I showed that Mann’s claim to have been “exonerated” by the Oxburgh inquiry had no more validity than Mann’s claim to have won a Nobel prize. In today’s post, I’ll continue my series on the “investigations” by showing that Mann’s claim to have been “exonerated” by the Muir Russell inquiry is equally invalid.
In their memoranda supporting their original motions to dismiss, both National Review and CEI had observed (correctly) that the Muir Russell panel had limited their findings to “CRU scientists” and contested Mann’s assertion that the Muir Russell panel had made any findings regarding Mann himself, let alone “exonerated” him.
In Mann’s Reply Memorandum, he vociferously rejected the (correct) assertion that the Muir Russell had not exonerated Mann himself, describing such assertion as merely an attempt to “obfuscate and misrepresent”. Mann supported this bluster with an apparent quotation from the Muir Russell report, but the phrase within the quotation marks does not actually occur within the Muir Russell report. As shown below, Mann and/or his lawyers subtly altered the quotation to more supportive language.
Full story: http://climateaudit.org/2014/02/21/mann-and-the-muir-russell-inquiry-1/
Manwhile: Steyn countersues Mann for 10 millon dollars (hilarious reading, highly recommended)
UPDATE: Shub Niggurath finds the apparent source of the language, he writes:
The doctored quote in Michael Mann’s legal reply brought to attention by Climateaudit is doing its rounds now.
Doctored quotes? Guess where my first reaction was to look.
Sure enough, this is what one finds on Skepticalscience:
See his post here: http://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2014/02/22/the-michael-mann-scientists-rigor-and-honesty-quote/
UPDATE2: Some language was updated and added in the Nobel Laureate paragraph for accuracy and broader citation.
97% of D – Bags agree: “Mann is one of us”.
When we first attempt to deceive.
All down hill from there, all of them.
Lie based total.
And don’t think Mark Steyn and crew won’t pounce on this.
Subtly adjusting the facts to make your case better? Sounds like Mann is demonstrating a pattern. It would appear that he doesn’t think the facts matter.
Yet there will be different “Strokes” from some folks.
Shouldn’t the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund be paying Tim Ball’s defense?
It is an ethical violation to knowingly mislead the court. Altering published statements to appear more supportive than they really are probably qualifies as a violation, but this type of thing happens too often without significant consequences. But, as you noted, it will cut into their credibility with the court.
oops… shoulda read the whole thing :-[ nevermind.
Guess Mann has to amend his complaint. Again.
Only the law abiding abide the law. Good people ought to be armed as they will, with wits and guns and the Truth.
Friends:
The following is a copy of a post I made in the previous thread because it has not obtained an answer perhaps because nobody can answer it or someone who can has not seen it.
Richard
——————————————————-
richardscourtney says:
February 22, 2014 at 1:17 am
Friends:
I write to ask a genuine question. I am not a lawyer and not an American so I have zero understanding of the US law and US legal system.
In the UK the ‘sides’ in a legal case going to trial each provide a bundle of documents to the judge who assesses those documents before the trial. Any difficulties and/or clarifications are requested by the judge as part of his/her preparations for the trial. Importantly, the bundles contain the evidence which the trial will assess, and the judge needs to agree any additional evidence if it is to presented in the trial. The judge will demand explanation if there are errors of fact in the bundles and – on the basis of the explanations – will permit corrections before the trial or will insist that the errors be put to the trial because the errors are material to the case.
Is this similar to the US legal system and if not in what way(s) does it differ?
I ask my question for two reasons. Firstly, the Mann vs Steyn case has importance beyond the US so I would like to understand the issues of the case. And, secondly, there does seem to be a clear error in the information provided by Mann (from his lawyers) in that a misquotation was provided and the reason, purpose and nature of the misquotation would seem to be pertinent to the case: if the misquotation is not pertinent then there would seem to be no reason to have not provided the correct (and full) quotation except incompetence by Mann’s lawyers.
With thanks in anticipation to anybody who can provide an answer to my question with explanation of the answer
Richard
I would not be surprised to read that funders of the “Climate Science Legal Defense Fund” include the American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Geophysical Union (AGU), American Meteorological Society and American Institute of Physics (AIP). AGU’s participation would explain AGU’s fees increases (including membership fee) that started at the end of 2012! This year, AGU is doing away with the “complementary” subscription to the AIP “Physics Today.”
Filing a false claim to a court is a serious crime. The attorney will have two choices: 1. Confess to the judge wherupon he will be disbarred and fined, or, 2. Throw Michael Mann under the bus and give him 100% credit for the inclusion of the altered quote. I vote for number 2 with quite a cascade of negative consequences rapidly following, the greatest of which will be the countersuit and subpeonas to both the University of Virginia and Mann to produce all that he is hiding. At this point, “I lost it” will not work, nor will delay, obfuscation and the like. As is always the case, the attempted coverup will ultimately do him in. Lastly, Mr. McIntyre doesn’t miss anything!
There is a wonderful expression “being cavalier with the facts.”
Sounds like Mann is this both in his ‘research’ and his lawsuits.
There is a difference between a “misquote” and one that is intentional. When the misquote takes a negative statement and makes it positive for the litigant, the judge will not see this as an accident, but an attempt to deceive the court and bad things follow. There is a difference between the opinion that the inquiry exonerated you and providing false evidence to support it.
How can Mann’s legal bills be paid by the “Climate Science Legal Defense Fund”, when he is on the offensive in all instances, and just plain offensive otherwise?
This person – Michael Mann, I think his name is – certainly puts on an interesting show.
The name “Climate Science Legal Defense Fund” is appropriate. They’re defending against science.
richardscourtney – In U.S. court proceedings there is a “discovery” phase, during which evidence and documents are gathered and presented. This trial has not yet reached that phase.
Facts, tree rings, at this point what difference does It make?
Both are soluable in the Mikey’s mind.
Hmmm … rather the “Climate Science Legal [strike]Defense[/strike] Offense Fund”
.
The dodging, the weaving, or the artful pirouetting* (‘spinning’) of the truth?
Wait til the kimono is fully opened …
.
* a rapid whirling about of the body; especially : a full turn on the toe or ball of one foot in ballet.
The elegant pirouettes of the prima ballerina.
The “Climate Science Legal Defense Fund” is actually part of PEER, which is a 501 c(3), and contributions to the fund are stated to be tax exempt, under 501 c(3) (Federal EIN 93-1102740)
Here’s their latest (2012) 990 form:
http://990s.foundationcenter.org/990_pdf_archive/931/931102740/931102740_201209_990.pdf
They spent $215,731 on legal and the fund received $222,375.
i thought for 501 c(3) you could not donate for a specific purpose, at least that’s how it was in the one I was involved in.
I wonder what their 1023 form says, it’s not obviously on their website..
AnonyMoose:
Thankyou for your answer to my question which you provide at February 22, 2014 at 9:01 am.
Clearly, that is a fundamental difference which explains my puzzlement.
Thankyou.
Richard
fobdangerclose says:
February 22, 2014 at 8:20 am
Yet there will be different “Strokes” from some folks.
In the “nik” of time.
From the Climate Science Defense Fund Website:
“Climate researchers are in need of immediate legal assistance to prevent their private correspondence from being exposed to Chris Horner and the American Tradition Institute who are using Freedom of Information (FOI) to harass researchers.”
This is very instructive into their thinking. Taxpayer’s freedom of information rights just don’t exist in their minds. If they think they don’t like working in the public sector under scrutiny, wait till they work in the private sector where results and accuracy matter! These guys wouldn’t last a week in the real world. At least not the one I work in.
Peter Miller says: February 22, 2014 at 8:45 am
Yes “Being economical with the truth” is another good one popular over here.
Is this Mann for real?
“What do you think it’s going to take to get serious political action on climate change in the US?”
[–]MichaelEMannDistinguished Professor of Meteorology Penn State[S]:
“I’ve often said that we need our “Cuyahoga River moment” in the climate change debate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuyahoga_River). Many of us had hoped that Hurricane Sandy was that. But it is much more difficult now to galvanize attention in our highly fractured 24/7 new media environment. Even the worst climate-related disasters disappear from view in a few 24 hour media cycles…”
http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1yj3o7/science_ama_series_im_michael_e_mann
This is part of a continuing pattern. Mann changes his ‘facts’ to suit his objectives, as he did in claiming to be a Nobel Prize recipient. He earns the label of “fraud”. Because that is what fraudsters do, no?
There are so many instances of Mann doing similar things that I am truly surprised that his legal team doesn’t withdraw. But of course, there is big money here, and lawyers are not known for being highly ethical these days.
Regarding the tax-exempt status of donations, if they can do it, why can’t Steyn? I am sure he would receive many more contributions if they were deductible. Steyn should look into this, because what is sauce for the goose…
Karma coming!
Posted here on The Blackboard:
I’ve been a juror on several “inquiries”. From my experience one thing is certain, jurors have no sympathy for pompous, condescending, know-it alls.
@ richardscourtney
Richard, discovery includes written interrogatories, which are requests for information by both plaintiff and defendant lawyers. These questions can be pretty broad, intrusive and burdensome . They are expensive to produce. It’s the punishment side of a lawsuit intended to crush a defendant with work and also financially in addition to actual depositions which can become nasty. Note well the process can take years, even double what Dr. Ball has experienced, before trial. It’s insanely expensive. Nearly all civil litigation in the US is settled or dropped without trial. If insured, defendant’s insurer is usually most interested in minimizing costs/damages and NOT seeking justice for its client.
Shub Niggurath has found some interesting provenance of the quote:
http://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2014/02/22/the-michael-mann-scientists-rigor-and-honesty-quote/
I’d also like to see the IRS 1023 form for the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund. I don’t like the idea that donations to Mann’s defense, who is actually the plaintiff, are being subsidized by the U.S. government through the use of tax deductions via donors to the “cause.”
richardscourtney asks some questions at 8:34 above. First, it’s important to remember that the rules are different for civil as opposed to criminal matters. In criminal court, the principle is “innocent until proven guilty” and “preponderance of evidence”. In civil court, the two sides are assumed to cooperate to find the truth and the standard is 51% evidence in favor of one side over the other.
Regarding discovery, both sides have extensive rights to seek documents from each other to find that “truth”. Unlike in the UK, they provide the documents to each other, not to the judge. They are then allowed to ask each others’ witnesses questions (through depositions) and may be allowed to make a few follow-up questions about documents. The parties’ right to keep asking for more documents is (or at least, should be) limited by the judge. In theory, this prevents abuse and discovery extortion. In practice, well, it’s there is a proposal under consideration right now to rebalance the Federal discovery rules. And the exact balance varies a great deal by jurisdiction.
Regardless, it is the parties’ responsibility to ensure that the documents they have are complete enough to address all material issues and errors. If they fail to ask the right questions or if they don’t think to ask for the right documents, the judge will not override that decision. There are some exceptions but they are VERY rare. So to answer your question, if Mann’s lawyers made a misstatement or provided an incomplete quotation, it is the opposing lawyers’ job to find and raise the issue, not the judge’s.
Whoops. I see that Anthony already noted that Mann was on the offense. No matter what comes first to my mind, someone else has already thought it.
Where have all the money gone……
I know nothing about the legal system apart from all the great films where the underdog wins.
This is pretty serious stuff involving Michael Mann, he has to be seen to win, and governments are pretty serious in getting the right message across, are they able to lean on the Judge to get the right result or have I watched to many films.
Richard D:
Sincere thanks for your additional information for me in your post at February 22, 2014 at 9:52 am.
I do not doubt what you say, and I will keep it in mind when following these matters. But to me – as both a non-lawyer and a Brit – the system you describe seems ridiculous. On face value its purpose seems to be to maximise legal costs at the expense of resolving grievances. And I thought our legal system is an “ass”!
Richard
Mike Rossander:
Thankyou for your spelling-out of the principles of your legal system which you provide for me at February 22, 2014 at 9:57 am .
I am especially grateful for your telling me
This indicates a basic difference between the role of the judge in UK and US Courts as well as the different legal principles.
This series of answers has been very informative for me.
Richard
Anthony,
I left you an email note a few days ago about who is funding Mann’s legal bills.
This is a first hint. What needs to be uncovered ASAP is who are the “green deep pockets”?
There are plenty of them, some of them funding the blocking of Keystone and other [e.g. Packard Foundation] funding the green opposition in Canada against the Northern Gateway pipeline.
There must be a way of getting to the bottom of this.
Richaed D;
Richard, discovery includes written interrogatories, which are requests for information by both plaintiff and defendant lawyers. These questions can be pretty broad, intrusive and burdensome . They are expensive to produce.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
True. But I wonder if the expense and burden may be very unbalanced in this case.
Mann’s case was provoked by what Steyn said in public. What is left to discover to support Mann’s case? Any information that Steyn has, or anything that he said in private is immaterial. For Mann, what’s left to discover? Perhaps he could go on rabbit hunt trying to find some private correspondence in which Steyn admits to knowing that his public accusations are unfounded, but seriously, does anyone including Mann think any such thing exists?
Steyn on the other hand has plenty to discover in regard to everything from Mann’s correspondence with colleagues, government officials, and most importantly, his actual research data and methods that produced his results.
It’s only a legal submission to a court of law in which one is required to be 100% truthful.
Now assume it is only a climate science paper or a historical temperature record where any number of “tricks” can be used and are then met with praise from colleagues and copied.
When you see this over and over and over again, you can only conclude it is in their “nature”.
Deep green pockets indeed.
I am interested in the watermelons SLAPP against Dr. Ball. In the meantime the Canadian Revenue Agency is closing in on Weavers, um, backers for abuse of their so-called charitable status:
http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/featured/prime-time/867432237001/eco-charities-in-trouble/3222366606001/page/4
Weaver has managed to get himself elected as a provincial MLA and he probably thinks this gives him some degree of protection as the CRA and skeptics close in on him. He does have the local media in his pocket, so hard questions do not get asked – although the local paper have gone quite lately on most matters relating to the global warming catastrophe. Used to be every time Weavers “lab” ran a borrowed model and churned out tweaked numbers the local bird cage liner would breathlessly report the results on the editorial page. Never a word about Weavers SLAPP against a pensioner.
Now if you will excuse me, I have to make a donation to the Steyn attack fund…
Nigel S says:
February 22, 2014 at 9:28 am
Yes “Being economical with the truth” is another good one popular over here.
____
Nigel, here’s the quote you’re looking for, from Mark Twain:
“Truth is the most valuable thing we have. Let us economize it.”
Mike Rossander says:
“First, it’s important to remember that the rules are different for civil as opposed to criminal matters. In criminal court, the principle is “innocent until proven guilty” and “preponderance of evidence”.”
Mike, “preponderance of evidence” is the standard for a civil matter; for a criminal matter the higher standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt” applies.
http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/preponderance-of-the-evidence-vs-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt.html
Mann will be speaking at UC Santa Cruz next week, I am sure he can answer everybody’s questions. For example he blogged on Huffpo in favor of global warming causing the polar vortex
Here is the announcement:
From Sheldon Kamieniecki Dean, Division of Social Sciences UC Santa Cruz
Subject: EVENT: Climate Science and Policy through the Looking Glass Conference
Date: January 27, 2014 at 8:14:15 AM PST
To: DANM Students <danm-students@ucsc.edu
I am pleased to invite you to attend a major conference on Climate Science and Policy through the Looking Glass, which will be held at the University of California, Santa Cruz on Friday, February 28 and Saturday, March 1, 2014. The conference is being co-sponsored by the Division of Social Sciences and the Division of Physical and Biological Sciences at UCSC.
The primary goal of the conference is to bring broad public attention to the challenges of climate change and provide compelling reasons why effective action is immediately required to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through the adoption of alternative sources of energy and other approaches.
As you can see from the attached program, a number of distinguished climate scientists, policymakers, and commentators will be speaking. There will be three panels during the day on Saturday, one on the current state of climate change research, another on how climate change can be mitigated, and a third on adapting to climate change.
Professor Susan Solomon (MIT) will be the Fred Keeley Lecturer on Friday. She was the first scientist to identify the cause of the ozone hole over Antarctica, and her work formed the basis of an international agreement to protect the ozone layer by regulating damaging chemicals. Since then she has continued her ground-breaking research on climate change, including serving as a contributing author and co-chair for the influential Assessment Reports published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Professor Michael Mann (Pennsylvania State University) will be the keynote speaker on Saturday. He is the author of more than 160 peer-reviewed and edited publications, and he has published two influential books: Dire Predictions: Understanding Global Warming; and The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines. He is also a co-founder and regular contributor to the award-winning science website RealClimate.org.
I hope that you will be able to attend this important event.
Richard, UK judges, or any other judges for that matter, do not go out to ‘find and raise issues’.
You know, they are called judges, because that is what they do. They judge on the basis of the submissions made before them, i.e. the parties.
Where is this fund?
@ richardscourtney
– the system you describe seems ridiculous. On face value its purpose seems to be to maximise legal costs at the expense of resolving grievances.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Lawyers bill roughly 10% of US GDP. They also make the laws as many legislators and congressman are lawyers. So it’s not surprising that laws and regulations are by design intended to increase work for lawyers. Bill and Hillary, lawyers both, although Bill was disbarred. President Obama, lawyer.
Something else to consider, If Steyn relies solely on his insurance carrier for providing for both defense and damages if any, the carrier can settle the suit without Steyn’s consent. Sometimes, defendants augment insurance provided lawyers with private lawyers (definitely a good idea). It’s possible Steyn fired his insurance carrier AND its lawyers, in which case he’s responsible for the cost of defense and possible damages.
richardscourtney says:February 22, 2014 at 10:06 am
Richard, also as a Brit, and one who has had to go to law (minor civil matter) I can concur with your deduction but it is not unlike the UK. The (UK) courts are not there to dispense justice, which is what the plaintiff seeks, they are there to dispense the law. And the beneficiaries of that are never the plaintiffs. (I lost…you guessed).
Things are not working out well for Mike.
Pi**ing off Steve M. is not exactly a winning strategy. Nor is getting caught with self-serving quote fabrication.
It’s also difficult to maintain the claim that he’s is simply an obscure scientist working diligently and quietly in search of the truth with thousands of comments flooding into several prominent blogs. The public is showing a remarkable amount of interest in a “non-public” figure!
Where is this fund?
Here:
http://www.steynonline.com/
And if you want to give Tim Ball a $ or two:
http://drtimball.com/donate/
Matt:
At February 22, 2014 at 10:35 am you say to me
Yes, I know. Indeed, that is what I said here.
But the difference seems to be that in our system(s) – Scotland has significant differences from England and Wales – the parties are each expected to present their case BEFORE the trial and not to obtain their cases during the trial by use of the explained US system of “disclosure”.
Indeed, I am sure there are good reasons for “disclosure” but I cannot imagine what they are. Either a plaintiff and a defendant each has a case or they don’t. In our system(s) the trial exists to assess the cases but it seems that the US system uses the trial to create the cases by “disclosure”.
It is this fundamental difference between the UK and US systems which caused my puzzlement: the idea that a trial may exist to enable construction of a case had not occurred to me.
Richard
The legal ‘stuff’ is interesting and not knowing anything about US of A’s ‘system’, it might be of interest, that the Swedish government, under G. Persson, paid 200 – 500 mio SEK/year in ‘settlements’ outside the EU-Courts. Of course, all of this was never reported in MSM nor ‘public service’…
So, when learning/reading of the ‘Swedish way’: be alert, very alert and read the ‘small prints’ (if they are available…)
Brgds from Sweden
/TJ
davidmhoffer says:
What is left to discover to support Mann’s case?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I for one assume Mann’s purpose is to punish Steyn and stifle his speech and that of other journalists, etc.
Discovery will be long and often delayed, brutal and expensive, as it has been for Dr. Ball. There’s no rush to get to court as Mann likely wants to keep Steyn locked in a legal bear-hug. Steyn isn’t playing ball.
Harry Passfield:
Thankyou for your post at February 22, 2014 at 10:45 am.
Sorry you lost your case. I write to thank you for explicitly stating of the UK legal system(s)
Yes, of course you are right. I have been equating “justice” with “the law” but – as you say – they may not be the same thing.
As you say, the Courts exist to dispense the law.
Richard
It appears that Mann has a very casual relationship with the truth…
@richard Sharpe: You may go to Steyn’s website and purchase a gift certificate and then fail to redeem it for any merchandise. A de facto fund, not per se.
Pretty soon Mann will figure out to send his legal briefs, with the skid marks and all, out here to WUWT laundry service for a quick cleaning.
I wonder where the provenance of the misquote (SkS) leaves Mann? He could say that he believed the quote genuine, but that would drop his chums in it, which would be a shame; wouldn’t it? 🙂
The legal systems of the US, UK, Canada, etc, are all founded on pretty much the same principle:
In the event that two farmers enter into a dispute about a cow, two lawyers shall end up with a side of beef each
Only the torturous path by which this is achieved differs from one country to the next.
thats interesting about the 501 c3 stuff.
I wonder if there may be something there too that us taxpayers can make an issue of.
“Indeed, I am sure there are good reasons for “disclosure” but I cannot imagine what they are. Either a plaintiff and a defendant each has a case or they don’t. In our system(s) the trial exists to assess the cases but it seems that the US system uses the trial to create the cases by “disclosure”.”
In this case the problem seems to be that Mann will not release the “climategate” emails pertaining to his involvement with “The Team” and the workings behind his “hockey stick” and that is the basis for the need for “disclosure”. The thinking is that he does not want to indulge in self incrimination by releasing said information.
Further links to articles and court documents on Mann v. Ball see:
SpotlightON – Michael Mann v Tim Ball et al.
http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.com/2013/10/spotlighton-michael-mann-v-tim-ball-et.html
John Peter:
Thankyou for your post at February 22, 2014 at 11:11 am which quotes my having said
then explains
Indeed, and what may be revealed by the case explains the interest of me and some others.
However, the nature of “disclosure” is what surprised me. Please note that I have no truck for Mann, but this case demonstrates what I had failed to understand. I explain as follows.
Steyn made some statements.
Mann sued claiming the statements were defamatory because a to n.
I assumed Steyn would have to say they were not defamatory because a1 to n1.
And I assumed that each could demand evidence of a to n and a1 to n1.
But it seems both Mann and Steyn can each demand information from the other to obtain a to n and a1 to n1. That seems to make no sense because the obtained information does not pertain to the what and the why of Steyn’s statements at the time he made them with knowledge he then had. However, that is what I now understand to be the legal reality on the basis of what has been told to me here.
Richard
“it seems the language was lifted from a “Skeptical Science” web page, see below.”
Nice example of the echo chamber in action.
‘but the phrase within the quotation marks does not actually occur within the Muir Russell report’
A basic fail for any undergraduate handing in a essay , and yet has we have often seen the professional working in climate ‘science’ cannot met this actually low standard. So why the surprise?
This could not have happened to a nicer Mann….
The discovery process is aimed at uncovering information that could reasonably be expected to result in the discovery of admissible evidence. There are some exclusions to what can be discovered depending on the circumstances of the case. The wiki article below gives a good quick summary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_%28law%29
#30 is pretty good too: “Denies the allegations in Paragraph Thirty, especially the allegation that obscure unread losers at whatever “Discover Magazine” is are in any sense “respectable and well-regarded journalists”.”
It is entirely possible that M Mann gave Skeptical Science the quotes.. Do you recall he gave them advice to beef up the SkS hide the decline rebutall.
Either way. Who dropped who in it, with that manufactured quote is amusing.
Language lifted from Skeptical Science…
“I have no trouble with my enemies. I can take care of my enemies in a fight. But my friends, my goddamned friends, they’re the ones who keep me walking the floor at nights!”
Quote lifted from Warren G. Harding
re: Jim Steele’s posting
“From Sheldon Kamieniecki Dean, Division of Social Sciences UC Santa Cruz
Subject: EVENT: Climate Science and Policy through the Looking Glass Conference”
They must be pretty confident to spell it out so openly …
And having Michael Mann as keynote speaker puts the icing on the cake. (I wonder, will they close the conference with a chorus of “Hide the Decline” ?)
@climatebeagle –
So the Womann-named-Sue not only is paid googoogobs of money to write his propaganda, she is also paid googoogobs of money to assault skeptics in court. Wow.
Another discussion of discovery
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/formal-discovery-gathering-evidence-lawsuit-29764.html
Richard Courtney,
Hi Richard,
What you are describing (way up top in this thread now) in the UK is the process of discovery – each party provides documents to form a trial bundle – and these must be documents relevant to the issues before the court that either support your case or don’t – you are not allowed to cherry pick.
What we are talking about here are the pleadings – the “statements of case” which set out what the claim is about, what the issues are and what is being claimed/denied. These come before discovery.
In the England/Wales jurisdiction the relevant civil procedure rules allow a statement of case to be amended after its been served either with the written consent of all parties or with the permission of the court.
Judges don’t generally “assess” documents before a civil trial – they read them, but the pleadings are the responsibility of each party/lawyers. Having said that our civil rules give extremely wide case management powers to our judges and any judge can and may well raise an issue from the pleadings that was not clear or understood or that seemed to be wrong. The lawyers might when faced with such a query at the commencement of a trial concede an issue or clarify it but they won’t be allowed to change it to mean their case is different from their pleaded case and still proceed with the trial (although they might seek an adjournment and permission to amend, usually paying the costs thrown away).
The bundles contain the documentary evidence the trial will assess, but much of the meat of evidence is given orally in chief or in cross examination, albeit that it arises from the trial bundle.
The judge may well demand explanation of errors in the bundle but it would be expected that lawyers would identify these and raise them in evidence and in cross examination. Mann’s “error” is good gravy for any lawyer preparing cross examination.
I don’t know about the US but there must be a mechanism to amend pleadings if required.
Whether the pleadings are amended to remove the “error” or left to be dealt with at trial – the “error” is on the record and it cannot be removed without some explanation.
Larry Ledwick:
Thankyou for your posts at February 22, 2014 at 12:03 pm and February 22, 2014 at 12:14 pm.
Richard
Remember, it seems like a long time ago, when the consensus opinion was Mark Steyn representing himself was a huge mistake?
I bet the phrase “…has a fool for a client was kicked about a bit.
Look how things change.
Mann has fallen victim to one of the classic blunders – The most famous of which is “never get involved in a land war in Asia” – but only slightly less well-known is this: “Never go in against Mark Steyn when freedom of speech is on the line”!
RB:
Thankyou for your post addressed to me at February 22, 2014 at 12:19 pm.
Yes, that fleshes-out the understanding I have of the UK system which I outlined in my original post. Hopefully your post will help people to understand why I was so puzzled at the “disclosure” phase of the American system.
Richard
They won’t like Steyn OR Mann, then.
He should also ask how his hockey stick could be plausible given the recent pause showing us that variability is greater than his analysis shows or climate sensitivity much lower than calculated.
Man in the wilderness says:
“This could not have happened to a nicer Mann.”
I say:
This WOULD not have happened to a BETTER Mann.
“Climate Science Legal Offense Fund”
How about the “Offensive Climate Science Legal Fund”?
Michael Mann is a self-promoting serial fabulist with a documented history of concealing evidence in order to ensure that his “analysis” fits predetermined conclusions. For a scientist, this is a mortal, not venal, sin. In science, evidence is sacrosanct.
I support Mark Steyn not merely because free speech is the lifeblood of a democratic society, without which no other freedom matters, but also because Michael Mann is a disgrace to the name of scientist. In a just world, he would be judged and stripped of his doctorate by a jury of his peers.
Rigorgate.
To show good faith and all that we all hope Mann’s attorneys take some time and make sure he quotes the “5th Amendment” escape clause correctly.
I thought the following might be germane here. Please disregard if this has already been addressed.
From within the ICC review (emphasis mine)….
Doesn’t this suggest that the ICC itself dismisses “interviews about conduct” as legitimate indices of scientific work “validity”?
Being unfamiliar with the various purported exoneration content and, If so, were any of Mann’s cited “exonerations” something more than “interviews about conduct”?
If not, is Mann citing these sources for something other than the “validity” of his “scientific work”?
Barry Woods says:February 22, 2014 at 12:05 pm
“It is entirely possible that M Mann gave Skeptical Science the quotes.”
That’s a very interesting take on things, Barry and I can see where that ‘s going: Mann ‘seeds’ the pitch some time ago so that years later he can claim that he has precedence. It’s rather like the circular reasoning of peer review in the IPCC that Della explains (if I get have understood her work): WWF writes an article; warmist scientist references article in his work; what WWF wrote gets referenced in peer review of ‘scientist’s’ work. Ergo, what WWF wrote is ‘peer-reviewed’.
Steyn has a paragraph on his blog that should be in his summation at trial:
Perhaps John Cook just copied the World Resources institute
Perhaps M Mann gave him the reference, who knows
the earliest reference for the phrase I can find (please take into accountonly 10 minutes of google worth)
Note the date (July 2010)
July 12, 2010: World Resources institute:
“The Independent Climate Change Email Review, chaired by Sir Muir Russell, examined the emails to assess whether manipulation or suppression of data occurred, and reviewed CRU’s policies and practices for peer review and dissemination of data and findings. It also examined CRU’s compliance with requests to release data. The Review’s findings, released in July, state:
The scientists’ rigor and honesty are not in doubt.”
http://www.wri.org/blog/summarizing-investigations-climate-science
On November 10th 2010 the phrase then appears in the comments at Skeptical Science (added by an unidentified moderator)
“5: July 2010. University of East Anglia published the Independent Climate Change Email Review report. They examined the emails to assess whether manipulation or suppression of data occurred and concluded that “The scientists’ rigor and honesty are not in doubt”.”
http://web.archive.org/web/20101114113611/http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm#30272
It later ( 8 days) appears in an article by John Cook November 18, 2010
“5: In July 2010, the University of East Anglia published the Independent Climate Change Email Review report. They examined the emails to assess whether manipulation or suppression of data occurred and concluded that “The scientists’ rigor and honesty are not in doubt”.”
https://www.skepticalscience.com/The-question-that-skeptics-dont-want-to-ask-about-Climategate.html
From the actual report:
http://www.cce-review.org/pdf/FINAL%20REPORT.pdf
1.3 Findings
13. Climate science is a matter of such global importance, that the highest standards
of honesty, rigour and openness are needed in its conduct. On the specific
allegations made against the behaviour of CRU scientists, we find that their
rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt. “
Baron Mannchausen.
==============
I see the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund’s about-us page says
“Those whose ideas do not live up to the standards of rigorous science have instead chosen to litigate…. Legal actions also have taken many of our brightest scientific minds away from their research to focus on frivolous lawsuits…. The Climate Science Legal Defense Fund was established to make sure that these legal claims are not viewed as an action against one scientist or institution, but that they are seen as actions against the scientific endeavor as a whole. “
Rigorgate! lol, Paul
Mann indeed has the personality disorder of a serial fabulist/habitual liar. A similar case emerged recently of a forensic pathologist who could always get the prosecution the result they wanted very quickly. Pity it was all a big fake and hundreds if not thousands were falsely imprisoned on the tainted evidence. This deception went undetected for many years. The MO for Mann is very similar. Here is a result requested, here is the evidence. Those that requested the result they wanted are equally guilty if not more so. In the case of the pathologist, the police prosecutors are culpable , in the case of Mann’s “work” the UN is culpable.
Why would the UN want to plug lies to support cAGW? Let us take a look at the words of the IPCC chief, Christiana Figueres Jan 15th – Democracy is a poor system for dealing with global warming. Communist China is the best model. The UN did not admonish her for this statement that advocates the iron fist of totalitarianism, which implies they condone it. If Mann gets fully discredited, the IPCC and the UN must be flatly asked if they still support all statements relating to cAGW. This is why it is so important for Mann to be exposed- his “evidence” is the linchpin in the IPCC “case.” With key evidence tainted, everything the IPCC has gone on about for many years must be reviewed back to day one and retractions made brought to the attention of all in a timely and proper manner, not just some tiny apology sneaked in on Christmas Day to attempt to fly under the radar.
You can fool most of the people, most of the time, but try slipping something past “Sherlock” McIntyre? Not a chance.
One would have thought that Michael Mann would have figured that out by now. Not very bright, is he?
Another US term, which Mark Twain used often, is (or was, since it’s rare now), is “stretcher” for exaggeration. I think that’s what Mann’s done–he’s stretched the finding to cover himself as well.
arrgh! I said Della. Idiot! DONNA.
Perhaps both WRI and Cook, paraphrased from the Guardian – 7th July
creating the quote used in the lawyer response.
see first few lines of 7th July Guardian article?
Guardian – ‘Climategate’ review clears scientists of dishonesty over data
‘Rigour and honesty’ of scientists not in doubt but Sir Muir Russell says UEA’s Climatic Research Unit was not sufficiently open
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jul/07/climategate-review-clears-scientists-dishonesty
Sub editor gave it a headline, and the Guardian quote it accurately 6 paragraphs in:
Guardian:
He added: “The honesty and rigour of CRU as scientists are not in doubt … We have not found any evidence of behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments.”
There’s a certain irony in ⚡.⚡.’s putative involvement in this gaffe. The wheels may not be quite coming off the CAGW vehicle, but there are toadstools in the back seat and moths in the mohair.
Dear all;
I found the following video:
At the beginning of it, the newscaster and Mann talk explicitly about the exoneration he allegedly received from five different inquiries, “two out Penn State” and “three separate ones out of the UK”. The following text accompanies the video:
“Michael Mann, Penn State professor and climate scientists talks with Susan McGinnis about the investigations that have cleared his name in the “Climategate” scandal. The latest U.K. investigation says Mann’s science is good, and the U.N. global warming report is sound”.
Perhaps it’d be a good idea to save a copy of the video before it “mysteriously” disappears.
LF
Has anyone thought if the IPCC took Mann’s and Gore’s research as gospel, how this leaves them and all the EU’s carbon hating governments, somewhat without cause to keep bulsshing about AGW. Maybe they will sue them both and withdraw their nobel prizes. All those trillions of dollars now wasted when actual prevention of environmental damage could have been used positively. Building sea walls and levies against floods, more bush fire prevention, building earthquake and cyclone proof buildings, helping impoverished countries change their agricultural methodology. We can’t change weather patterns but we can adapt to prevent extreme weather events from damaging a lot of regions. Look at the Thames flooding. One crucial pump station was not servicable and was not functioning. Or the overflow of the dam in County Cork, Eire. They released water without warning, same with the Brisbane floods. There will be a lot of people who genuinely believe in AGW that will have some questions and they will feel deceived.
I have no doubt sensible thinking individuals know full well Michael Mann’s hockey stick graph is highly suspect. It’s not because of his tree rings, or his coding, or whatever else was involved in creating his graph. It’s really all about pride and confidence in one’s work.
If Mann had pride and confidence in his work, surely he’d be proud to let others examine his data and methodology in order to confirm his confidence in his research.
So why won’t Mann let others have access to his data? He’s a scientist, isn’t he? What has he got to hide? What has he got to lose? And why is it so difficult for him to produce his data in a court of law that could readily allow him to win his defamation cases?
Anyone who has been following the Ball and the Steyn cases would know that Mann could easily win his cases if he simply presented his work before a judge. To do so would immediately blow away Tim Ball, and blow away Steyn.
Well, there can only be two reasons why Mann has still failed to submit his data before the court. Either the data no longer exists and so it cannot be presented before the court, or the data exists but Mann is not presenting it before a court because the truth about his work might be revealed… that as suspected he has perhaps been engaged in scientific fraud, and as the graph was prominent in the IPCC AR3, that he was engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct.
Altering what someone said, and submitting it to the court as direct quotation … isn’t that the sort of thing that might cause one to go from Penn State to the State Pen?
Truncating what someone said, to hide the part that proves your case is false – isn’t that the very same fashion of deceit known as “Mike’s Nature trick”?
Altering and truncating the same poor quote, to subvert its meaning in an effort to mislead the court – isn’t that the kind of molesting and torturing of data that might draw rhetorical comparisons to the moral turpitude of Jerry Sandusky?
It would seem that Steyn could simply submit the Plaintiff’s case filings as “Exhibit A” for the defense…
The “climate science legal defense fund” link brings up a strong warning from my anti-virus protection: you don’t really want to go there.
It appears they can’t even organize a piss up in a brewery.
Done a WHOIS on the “Climate Science Legal Defense Fund”.
The whole enterprise is run by “big oil” so its the poor schmuck who pay to heat and light their homes has to foot Manns bill.
So I suggest check who your supplier is and move your money elsewhere.
Mark Wolfe is the chief money spinner of Manns legal charity.
http://www.zoominfo.com/p/Mark-Wolfe/23857274
At Realclimate Michael Mann (and Gavin) got the quote right! so a big mess up on somebodies part….
July 7th 2010 – Realclimate:
“The main issue is that they conclude that the rigour and honesty of the CRU scientists is not in doubt. For anyone who knows Phil Jones and his colleagues this comes as no surprise, and we are very pleased to have this proclaimed so vigorously.” Mike & Gavin
– See more at:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/07/the-muir-russell-report/
h/t @intrepidwanders via twitter
JJ:
At February 22, 2014 at 9:33 pm you ask
I answer, in principle it is, and it also pertains to the ‘hockey stick’ graph which is the subject of the words of Steyn which lead to the discussed Court case. I explain this answer as follows.
The 1998 paper by Mann, Bradley and Hughes (MBH98) introduced ‘Mike’s Nature Trick’ which was subsequently also used by others.
MBH98 can be read and seen here.
The so-called ‘hockey stick’ graph is its Figure 5b.
In that paper Figure 5b is monochrome although other Figures in the paper are in colour. Importantly, the error limits of the deduced proxy data and the indication of the thermometer data are both indicated by broken lines which are indistinguishable.
They are both “clearly labelled” but so what?
The divergence of the proxy data is hidden by splicing the thermometer data on the end with a line which is indistinguishable from the proxy data.
This splicing of selected parts of two items is “Mike’s Nature trick” and it is exactly the same malpractice as the Piltdown Man misrepresentation: i.e. parts of two different items were spliced to provide a misleading indication and then presented as a scientific indication.
Richard
@ Admad says:
February 22, 2014 at 1:15 pm
Hahaha! Thanks for posting the YouTube, Admad, it gave me a real chuckle!
Mann is a bully with delusions of “Einsteinhood.” One of the commentators above remarked that if Mann’s work is beyond reproach, why not submit it into evidence in his lawsuits? Excellent question! Instead, he hides behind “academic freedom” to shield his work from unfavorable and critical eyes. Ironic, using “freedom” as an excuse to shut down free speech.
re: Taphonomic and “preponderance of evidence” vs “beyond reasonable doubt”.
Thank you. I had a brain cramp yesterday and misspoke. You are of course correct.
I wonder though if there is any evidence of Mann’s legal offense receiving funds from the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund.
If he was receiving funds and it was the majority of the fund’s expense then it might threaten the PEER’s 501 c(3) standing. I don’t believe you ran run a 501 c(3) for the benefit of a single entity.
I’m coming in late on this thread. I was hoping to find an answer to one question. Is principia-scientific.org’s claim that “Mann refused to disclose his ‘hockey stick’ graph metadata in the British Columbia Supreme Court” accurate?
I will also add that Mark Wolfe who is funding the climate science legal offensive is qualified as a political scientist who hopes to recieve $3Bn to aupposedly give to help poor people to keep their homes warm in these cold winters. He has also wrote a climate whatever with Gavin Smidt(?)
So there you have it. His income derived from the taxpayer and spent as he wishes to fund Manns offence fund instead of keeping the poor, old and weak alive.
He ought to be in prison.
Anthony helpfully calls out SS as “unreliable” in the WUWT blogroll sidebar. Mann should have paid attention. Or perhaps that would not have helped. An alternate explanation for the fact that Mann’s court filings match SS postings is that Mann is the original author of those SS postings. Ghost writing by Mann would also go a long ways toward explaining SS’s “unreliability”.
Commenter “Sven” over at the Blackboard notes that SS has already revised history by replacing their misquote in the offending post with a corrected version. Without notice of course. Lies and cover ups.
Does this mean that Tim Ball might be able to turn Mann’s financial supporters into Canada Revenue given that Canada Revenue frowns on “Lobbyists” claiming tax free status as “charities” intervening in Canadian affairs such as the Tides Foundation?
Mann is behaving like a guilty person already, how will he respond to Steyn’s team. It reminds me of Eddi Obeid up on fraud charges, screaming it was untrue and he would sue anyone who said so. I have only learned from Hollywood, but didn’t the Chicago mafia behave like this instead they bribed and killed people with bullets to silence them. Go Mark! Mann is using the legal system to hide behind. He’ll get his deserts what goes around comes around, all so true.
Richard S Courtney…..
The UK Institute of Physics , commissioned by the House of commons to write a report for them on the CRU emails, was damning in its 13 [ now pretty much disappeared ] findings ..
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc3902.htm
Eg: some of their conclusions…
1.The Institute is concerned that, unless the disclosed e-mails are proved to be forgeries or adaptations, worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research in this field and for the credibility of the scientific method as practised in this context.
2. The CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law. The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital. The lack of compliance has been confirmed by the findings of the Information Commissioner. This extends well beyond the CRU itself – most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other international institutions who are also involved in the formulation of the IPCC’s conclusions on climate change.
3. It is important to recognise that there are two completely different categories of data set that are involved in the CRU e-mail exchanges:
· those compiled from direct instrumental measurements of land and ocean surface temperatures such as the CRU, GISS and NOAA data sets; and
· historic temperature reconstructions from measurements of ‘proxies’, for example, tree-rings.
4. The second category relating to proxy reconstructions are the basis for the conclusion that 20th century warming is unprecedented. Published reconstructions may represent only a part of the raw data available and may be sensitive to the choices made and the statistical techniques used. Different choices, omissions or statistical processes may lead to different conclusions. This possibility was evidently the reason behind some of the (rejected) requests for further information.
5. The e-mails reveal doubts as to the reliability of some of the reconstructions and raise questions as to the way in which they have been represented; for example, the apparent suppression, in graphics widely used by the IPCC, of proxy results for recent decades that do not agree with contemporary instrumental temperature measurements.
6. There is also reason for concern at the intolerance to challenge displayed in the e-mails. This impedes the process of scientific ‘self correction’, which is vital to the integrity of the scientific process as a whole, and not just to the research itself. In that context, those CRU e-mails relating to the peer-review process suggest a need for a review of its adequacy and objectivity as practised in this field and its potential vulnerability to bias or manipulation.
9. Where the nature of the study precludes direct replication by experiment, as in the case of time-dependent field measurements, it is important that the requirements include access to all the original raw data and its provenance, together with the criteria used for, and effects of, any subsequent selections, omissions or adjustments. The details of any statistical procedures, necessary for the independent testing and replication, should also be included. In parallel, consideration should be given to the requirements for minimum disclosure in relation to computer modelling.
Did the British people ask their government why they released different , whitewashed , conclusions instead of those scathing criticisms actually in the report that the government had commissioned from the IOP?
Surely an explanation was due to them—and to the rest of us around the world as well.
They certainly don’t appear to me to exonerate the US climate scientists, and Mann—in fact they expressly include them in their criticism.
I was taught archaeology by the late Professor Mike Morwood of the UNE, who later conducted research on the island of Flores in the Indonesian region. I remember back in 1988 he told us at a lecture, there will be more research one day in Indonesia and East Timor, that he felt will through some light and how and where the Australian Aborigines managed to inhabit main land Australia. He discovered the Hobbit a small Homo floresiensis that appears to have branched off from the genetic tree of other Homo sapien sapiens, like us. But survived until a volcanic eruption around 18,000 years ago. Well, not only was his fossil evidence interfered with and changed by an Indonesia academic, but the outrage that appeared in scientific circles disputing his hypothesis. He was proven correct. One of his advocates was Tim Flannery and a very credible American university. Tim had spent sometime with the UNE.
I think it was Harvard. It is the case and quite normal that new evidence in any discipline creates debates between peers, and this is normally welcomed. Annoying as it is, good scientists are open to new theories but have the right to present an alternative case and play devil advocates game. A poor data related thesis will be quickly be found wanting. Why should Mann think his research is absolute. Perhaps he was paid millions to prepare the biased data by interested parties.
metro70 says:
February 23, 2014 at 6:22 pm
————————
Excellent post. Steyn can now depose anyone he wants on this, although I don’t mean that literally. I hope he has enough sense and money to use an attorney (a good one at that) to make sure everything is done with the correct procedure, otherwise it could all get tossed. It’s possible that he could get one on a partial contingency given that Mann would probably rather settle than release his e-mails in discovery (after dragging it out for years). Doing depositions in a foreign land ain’t cheap.
I know some really nasty-ass attorneys who might take this one on.
kim says: February 22, 2014 at 2:41 pm “Baron Mannchausen.”
—————————–
I believe that would be ‘Mannchausen by Proxy’.
metro70:
Sincere thanks for your post at February 23, 2014 at 6:22 pm which is here and concludes
Unfortunately, the imminent General Election caused the pertinent Select Committee to do a ‘rush job’ which provided the “whitewashed conclusions” to which you refer. The General Election provided a new government so Parliament did not consider the Report of that Select Committee because it was reporting on matters pertaining to the previous government.
Hence, “the British people” did NOT “ask their government why they released different , whitewashed , conclusions instead of those scathing criticisms actually in the report that the” PREVIOUS “government had commissioned from the IOP” (i.e. Institute of Physics). This is a failing of our system of government but – in defence – I point out that no government system is perfect and ours is at least as good as the American system.
Importantly, as you say, the IOP Report does seem to expressly include “US climate scientists, and Mann” in “their criticism”. In my non-American and non-lawyer opinion, this would seem to be pertinent to the Mann vs Steyn legal case.
Thankyou for raising the issue.
Richard
TRUTH ABOUT THE IPPC REPORT . http://youtu.be/TYPwPXNazOs A GREAT INVESTIGATION .
“Regarding the tax-exempt status of donations, if they can do it, why can’t Steyn? I am sure he would receive many more contributions if they were deductible. Steyn should look into this, because what is sauce for the goose…”
Well…provided he wasn’t subjected to the IRS “review” machine…
Andrew Bolt threatens to sue Mann for deformation
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/warning_to_michael_mann_apologise_for_your_lie_or_risk_facing_from_me_what_/
Or perhaps defamation, you know what I meant
I like “deformation of character” as a tort.
LOL, defamation, Andrew bolt does have some sensible ideas, and very neutral really, he quotes facts not fiction. I would object if he was accused of lieing this would undermine his credibility as a journalist and TV presenter. Oh well, lets get this courtcase out of the way and not hang on like the Tim Ball one has.
The measured Mr. McIntyre may be doing more for Steyn than the flapper is doing for himself. My impression is he is providing evidence of the falsness of many of Mann’s claims.
[SLARIBARFASAT or such mouthful says]
“I like “deformation of character” as a tort.”
LOL
Images of a contortionist, i.e. deformation done to self.
😉