Mark Steyn has submitted an amicus curiae brief in the CEI/National Review -vs- Mann and it has some interesting language. Unfortunately, since it is a scan of printed document, rather than a PDF conversion, I can’t excerpt as easily, so I have to use screencaps.
Mann’s goal is to drag things out.
Steyn lays out what it is all about – punishment by legal delay and the expenses it brings:
The issue is broader than just Mann’s delicate sensibilities:
The “Nobel laureate” that wasn’t caused delay while he fixed his own self-serving lies:
Read it all here: http://www.steynonline.com/documents/6514.pdf
Mann has himself a peck of trouble taking on Steyn, who isn’t going to roll over and take it. Kudos to him for this brief exposing Mann for what he is; a fabricator of falsehoods in full view of the court.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“Mann’s goal is to drag things out…”
I understand the relevant term is “lawfare”
No matter. His sobulent bitchosity, Dr. Mann, still loses. He’s only playing for time now.
He short-centred proxy data prior to PCA. There can be no forgiveness. Ever.
Assuming the Judge takes due diligence in researching what Steyn states rather than accepting what Mann alleges, to use technical legal jargon: Mikey is in a heap of do-do.
If you would like to support Mark Steyn, check out his website http://www.steynonline.com/ He could use some help. Mann needs to be slapped down.
Well done Mark Steyn!
I am sure everyone wishes you well in this case.
Lets hope this acts to limit the lies that AGW protagonists will tell.
This just points to the (arguably) largest failing of the American legal system. The ability of a deep pocketed plaintiff to literally destroy someone else, whether that someone else is deserving of such of not.
Loser pays, now!
Steyn is rapidly becoming one of my heros of the day. If for no other reason than his willingness to buck the system in the quest for justice!
Only a fully brain dead automaton would not cheer on this “David” against the Mann-Goliath.
Todd, the judge is equipped not to enable this abuse.
Steyn is correct that Warmists in general and the excrescent Michael Mann in particular are raging ideologues without a shred of common decency. But as Conrad Black has put it, “The real crime (here) is the U.S. criminal justice system itself.”
Unfortunately, since it is a scan of printed document, rather than a PDF conversion, I can’t excerpt as easily, so I have to use screencaps.PaperPort will turn scanned pages into PDFs. It will also clarify scans, removing stray dots, etc. I was able to convert your images into PDF.
j ferguson says:
August 12, 2014 at 6:37 am
—-
It’s true that judges are equipped to deal with this kind of abuse, but they never do.
It’s about time somebody started getting mad.
It took how many years to resolve the patently inept case of a former linux distributor claiming that linux/free software was a violation of the constitution (or stuff like that)?
US was a great country and is now rotting from its inflated legal system.
US is doomed unless something is done about legal abuses.
This is a ground breaker and of huge significance beyond the case itself. Many thanks for the updates. This information should not be allowed to disappear into the ‘ether’.(A technical term.)
Steyn’s lawyers certainly have a good command of the language.
Although Mann has bought far more than he bargained for, I doubt that discovery will ever see the light of day. There is the issue of the counter suit with which he must contend, but I expect he will attempt to settle.
Assuming the Judge takes due diligence in researching what Steyn states rather than accepting what Mann alleges….
Judges are supposed to research law. In general, they are not supposed to research facts. (This is, overall, a good thing; their decisions rely on evidence brought by the parties, and not by their law clerks’ Google skills.) The statements of fact add good color to the brief, and in reality they may help to persuade, but the appellate judges won’t (and shouldn’t) make factual findings based on them.
To place facts in front of a judge – have a hearing with a witness or else file an affidavit.
But in this case the facts are not really important to the relief being requested (“whatever you’re going to do, get on with it!”)…because even if Mann’s statement were true, the defense would still have an interest in getting the case moved swiftly.
It seems to me that Mann’s track record of suing people and then stonewalling subsequent discovery, as evidenced by his pursuit of Tim Ball in the Canadian court system, should also be brought before the court. That case certainly illustrates a pattern to Mann’s behavior…
“the U.S. criminal justice system” should be rewritten as “the criminal U.S. justice system.”
That Mann so easily lies and fabricates untruths to the court is very telling of the quality and objectivity of his reasearch. In such a soft economy, it boggles the mind how such people find and retain work. Not soon enough till the “Academics Bubble” bursts.
If Steyn has the resources, he should investigate where Michael Mann is getting the money to pay his own lawyers to drag out the case.
Mann oversees millions of dollars worth of grant money from the government to fund research projects. If some of that money found its way into Mann’s lawyer’s accounts it would be a crime that could send Mann to jail.
Mann may not benefit from delay. Global warming has been interrupted essentially since Mann published the paper (1998). The stick has a decidedly flat rebend. I guess you could turn it upside down and still shoot a puck (at least the Tiljander series would at last be right side up).
There is a serious issue here, and it is not only the American Justice system that allows it. Most judges in the UK, however, would have dismissed the case rather than allowed an extended period in which to revise the plea before them on the grounds that it rested on false claims. I’m surprised this has not happened in this case – but then, perhaps the judge has an ulterior motive and was hoping the defendant would prepare a plea such as this one as a counter.
I was told by an eminent Barrister I know well, that it is always worth taking something like this into court, since it must be admitted in evidence, even if it is part of a prepared ‘statement’ read by a defendant. Once in evidence, even if the case is subsequently ‘lost’ by the defendant, the damage to the plaintiff has been done, precisely because it is now in the public domain. It has been aired in public, reported in the court papers, probably repeated in the Press.
Question for the legal beagles out there.
How can Steyn submit an ‘amicus curiae’ brief in this case when “Mark Steyn is a defendant in this action”??? It was my impression that ‘amicus curiae’ meant that you were *not* a party to the case.
W^3
Reblogged this on Two Heads are Better Than One and commented:
Moral of the story: In a battle between a Leftist and Mark Steyn, …. always bet on Steyn.