Steyn’s scorching new legal brief on the Michael Mann ‘defamation’ case

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.

image

Steyn lays out what it is all about – punishment by legal delay and the expenses it brings:

image

The issue is broader than just Mann’s delicate sensibilities:

image

image

The “Nobel laureate” that wasn’t caused delay while he fixed his own self-serving lies:

image

image

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.

About these ads

144 thoughts on “Steyn’s scorching new legal brief on the Michael Mann ‘defamation’ case

  1. “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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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!

  4. 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.

  5. 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.”

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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.)

  10. “It is clear from the ease with which Mann lies about things that would not withstand ten minutes of scrutiny in a courtroom that he has no intention of proceeding to trial.” p. 8.

    Steyn’s lawyers certainly have a good command of the language.

  11. 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.

  12. 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.

  13. 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…

  14. 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.

  15. 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.

  16. 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).

  17. 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.

  18. 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

  19. Steyn can submit an amicus because he is not an appellant in the present matter. He, instead, chose to live with the denial of the motion to dismiss and proceed to trial. Since he is not appealing, the only way to file a brief before the court in this matter is to file an amicus brief.

  20. 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.

    Steyn isn’t a party to the SLAPP suit case.

  21. I am not a legal beagle, but I have read Steyn’s filing.

    Steyn is *not* a party to this *appeal* of a lower court’s denial of a *motion*.

    Steyn *is*, as Wygart correctly understands, a party to the *case*.

    The *case* is stalled while the *appeal* is being considered, and Steyn as a friend of the appeals court reminds that court of the costs of delay and benefits of a speedy decision. All parties, including Mann’s legal beagles, have agreed that Steyn qualifies as a “friend” to provide this kind of (though perhaps, in Mann’s opinion, not exactly this particular) advice.

  22. Another amicus brief about the DC SLAPP process

    http://cei.org/legal-briefs/amicus-brief-aclu-support-cei-and-nr

    The ACLU advises the appeals court that though the enabling legislation makes no provision one way or the other, other jurisdictions and the *concept* of Anti-SLAPP legisilation do make it clear that the appeals court does have an intrinsic power for immediate review of a lower court’s ruling on SLAPP motions.

    That is, the ACLU flatters the appeal court and tells them they’re great and powerful.

    There is a LOT riding on this case that has very little to do with the hockey stick or AGW.

  23. Background from Popehat …

    In our last episode of the saga of Michael Mann’s defamation suit against National Review, Mark Steyn, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and Rand Simberg, I explained that the matter was wrapped in a dry, but crucial, procedural issue: the District of Columbia Court of Appeal was faced with whether a defendant who loses a motion under D.C.’s anti-SLAPP law may appeal immediately, or must wait until the end of the case.

    http://www.popehat.com/?s=mann

  24. There’s going to be one HELL of a movie made about this in 15yrs time.

    I’ll take a piece of Steyn’s side.

  25. Already supported Steyn and got my Hockeystick in the mail!

    Please do the same. Free speech is at stake.

  26. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that Mann is not paying any of the cost of this litigation, So Mann has no reason to expedite and suffers no real harm by forcing the defendants to incur heavy real costs over an extended period of time.

    Unless, a judgement completely compensates the defendants for all legal fees and costs, Mann wins.

  27. What Mr. Steyn is doing is remarkably brave – he’s already been through a worse lynching at the hands of some Canadian human rights commissions – so kudos and thanks to him!

    Notice that the general problem of the abuse of process extends far beyond arguments like this. Several; years ago somebody in Edmonton got a camera ticket for running a red light -and eventually forced the city to refund nearly 12.3 million in fines to others. Great! except it cost the guy an estimated $600,000 to get that judgement to avoid a $400 fine.

    A few years ago I got a camera ticket for doing 49 in a 50 zone – but to prove to the court that the camera truck had parked outside the 30 zone I had to get a qualified photogrammetric engineer to review the image and testify – lowest quote? $35,000 plus expenses and testimony fees and no guarantees. I’ m not rich, and paid the fine.

    That’s what Mann et al are counting on: and national review’s effort to back away represent a clear success for that strategy. So, please, support Steyn, and cordially disrespect both National Review and the court system.

  28. Is it too much to hope that ethical scientist who agree with AGW will become appalled at Mann’s behavior, resulting in a schism in the AGW cabal, and start challenging each other’s work (i,e., start behaving like scientists)?

  29. Jtom says:
    August 12, 2014 at 8:43 am
    Is it too much to hope that ethical scientist who agree with AGW will become appalled at Mann’s behavior, resulting in a schism in the AGW cabal, and start challenging each other’s work (i,e., start behaving like scientists)?

    The answer to your question is yes… it is too much to hope for

  30. Although to this layman, Mr. Steyn’s brief is convincing and has my sympathy, I don’t know if it is actually on point as far as the issues of the appeal. Though relevant, in my quick read it seems that it may be a bit off the line of the issues of the appeal. I’m awaiting a dispassionate comment and discussion from someone who works the field and who would be familiar with the scope of the proceedings at this stage.

  31. I have a series of websites on my browser which I review every morning, WUWT, Steynonline, Jewish World Review, National Review, and other less significant ones. They all provide intelligence, humor, commentary and a good overview of what’s happening. I highly recommend Mark Steyn’s books.

  32. The scariest thing is that this has gone so far without the court system squashing Mann like the pest he is. The amount of corruption and incompetence in our courts, our media and our government is as staggering as it is frightful.

  33. From The Corruption of the Republic
    by Mark Steyn February 21, 2014

    I know nothing about law except what I learned as a schoolboy. For example, way back in 1166, the Assize of Clarendon, began what we now understand as the right to trial by jury, which was generally welcomed as an improvement over trial by combat or trial by ordeal. But it’s only better if it’s the right to a speedy trial. Otherwise, as in the sclerotic and diseased system prevailing here, trial by jury is itself deformed into trial by ordeal. In a speedy-trial system, a litigant has to be very sure that he wants to go to court. But, in America today, an abusive litigant funded by others – as Mann is – well knows that he can simply file a suit and drag things out, taking his opponents out of the public square for years on end – just as Obama plans to do with D’Souza. If the DC Superior Court and whatever dump of a New York courthouse D’Souza winds up in offered the same express service as Henry II did with the Assize of Clarendon, that would be one thing. But, as it is, in America the very justice system itself has become tyrannous. That’s its appeal to Mann, and to Obama.

  34. @Chris4692 at 9:17 am
    Although to this layman, Mr. Steyn’s brief is convincing and has my sympathy, I don’t know if it is actually on point as far as the issues of the appeal. Though relevant, in my quick read it seems that it may be a bit off the line of the issues of the appeal.

    If the issue of speedy trial is off line in the issues of the appeal, I think that is the point Mark Steyn is making in his brief. THE most important issue should be of speedy resolution of Freedom of Speech and the anti-SLAPP issues “deserve immediate resolution.”

    Every day the court delays, the defendants are harmed and the plaintiffs benefit. That is not equal Justice.

  35. “ethical scientist who agree with AGW” ? Ethical scientists do not ignore the Scientific Method. Ethical scientists do not ignore the last 10 years of gathered evidence because it deviates from their desired outcome. Ethical scientists to not use lawsuits to suppress and silence dissenting viewpoints. Ethical scientists do not use the phrase, “The science is settled” or “all scientists agree” or suggest that healthy and reasonable skepticism is “anti-science”, or worse, equating skeptics with savages who deny that the Nazi holocaust against the Jews ever happened. That’s not just an unacceptable argument, it’s disgusting. Yet it is a mainstay talking point of the alarmist crowd when facing a “non-believer”. Ethics, indeed!

    In reality, ALL scientists should be appalled at Mann’s (et. al.) behaviour and professional tactics. And they should denounce him strongly. If there is any truth to AGW (and I mean scientific truth), the strong-arm tactics, bullying, suppression, name calling, etc., do more to damage the movement and its credibility. After all, if the science really is settled, those tactics shouldn’t be necessary in the first place. Sadly and ironically, what we’re witnessing is a faith-based community in damage-control mode.

  36. ( Konrad says)
    “He short-centred proxy data prior to PCA. There can be no forgiveness. Ever. ”

    Classic.

  37. Having the ACLU on the side of Steyn, the National Review and the Competitive Enterprise Institute is quite a coup for Steyn. The courts will no longer see this as right wing ideologues against the pure of heart Mann. This is a freedom of speech issue.

    On another note, it seems to me that Steve McIntyre has shown that the only institution who has “exonerated” Michael Mann is Penn State. And Rand Simberg’s piece noted that Penn State “exonerated” both Jerry Sandusky and Michael Mann. So Mann’s lawsuit is using the Penn State “investigation” to show it is not fair to say he and Sandusky were exonerated by the same institution.

    While this is a freedom of speech case, it seems to me that Simberg’s original comment is well within the rough and tumble of public policy debate.

  38. About Steyn’s Lawyers:
    From What Kind of Fool Am I? by Mark Steyn March 24, 2014

    Ever since I ended my joint representation with National Review and fired my lawyers on Boxing Day, the endlessly reprised refrain has been that “Mark Steyn has a fool for a client”

    So I am pleased to be able to announce today that several other fellows also have a fool for a client ….

    Daniel J Kornstein and his co-counsel Mark Platt were the driving force behind the most consequential free-speech legislation this century. Dan is an expert libel lawyer and a principled freedom-of-expression fighter …..

    ….joining Messrs Kornstein and Platt will be Michael J Songer, co-chair of the Litigation Group at Crowell & Moring in Washington, DC. ….. Mike is also a freespeecher, who teaches a course on the Law of Cyberspace at Georgetown University. He’s big on issues of copyright and intellectual property, which Mann has frequently hidden behind in his attempts to avoid disclosing the data and research that produced his “hockey stick”. In addition, Mike is a science graduate, so he understands both the technical jargon and, just as importantly, how to distill it for a jury.

    So I’m no longer an out-of-control full-bore crazy. Instead, I’m an out-of-control full-bore crazy who’s lawyered up to the hilt. …..

    And he and his lawyers have countersued:
    From Steyn countersues Mann for 10 millon dollars WUWT, Feb. 21, 2014

    140. As a result of Plaintiff’s campaign to silence those who disagree with him on a highly controversial issue of great public importance, wrongful action and violation of the Anti-SLAPP Act, Steyn has been damaged and is entitled to damages, including but not limited to his costs and the attorneys’ fees he has incurred and will incur in the future in defending this action, all in an amount to be determined at trial, but in any event, not less than $5 million, plus punitive damages in the amount of $5 million.

  39. Gaming the system has become an epidemic. Recently a homeowner was red-tagged by a low level EPA inspector for building on a “wetland” on his property. The homeowner had obtained local permits.

    The “wetland” turned out to be a small seasonal puddle. No wildlife used it. So the homeowner took the EPA to court.

    The EPA fought every step of the way, using taxpayer funds. The EPA never considered any compromise — they intended to punish the homeowner. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court! Legal fees for the homeowner were in the $hundreds of thousands.

    The homeowner won the case. But when a government bureaucrat can inflict such pain and suffering on a lowly homeowner, the government has gotten too big and too powerful. That case is just an example of numerous similar cases across the country.

    I don’t know the answer. But in Steyn’s case, he is fighting the good fight. It is really a fight against evil. It is the little guy vs big government. Mann’s lawyers judge-shopped, and found Judge Combs-Green, a clearly incompetent affirmative action appointee who is sure to take sides. She has already taken sides every step of the way. Steyn’s brief is simply getting his ducks in a row for the inevitable appeal. This case will probably go to the Supreme Court, too.

  40. A lot of loose talk here about “justice”. The US legal system does not pretend to pursue justice. In fact, it has nothing to do with justice which is regarded as transcendent. It pursues correct procedure under the principles of legal positivism. Ours is not a justice system. On the other hand, as a lawyer told me years ago, with enough money you can get justice. Most attorneys avoid going to court if at all possible because the out come can not be predicted and it is expensive. Don’t be surprised if the result is not favorable.

  41. I have always thought Climate Science would not survive a court of law. Rules of evidence and other protocols in court proceedings would severely damage the climate alarmists cause. Intelligent design died a horrible death when a school district was brought to court for trying to teach it in science class.

    There is no way Mann allows this to go to trial.

    It is unfortunate the judge in this case is not wise enough to expedite this case. As in any system, no matter how great the system, the flaw remains the human factor.

  42. “s it too much to hope that ethical scientist who agree with AGW…”

    That’s like hoping for a magic flying unicorn to show up and save the day.

    ain’t no such thing.

  43. Dave says:
    August 12, 2014 at 8:49 am

    Jtom says:
    August 12, 2014 at 8:43 am
    Is it too much to hope that ethical scientist who agree with AGW will become appalled at Mann’s behavior, resulting in a schism in the AGW cabal, and start challenging each other’s work (i,e., start behaving like scientists)?

    The answer to your question is yes… it is too much to hope for
    ———-
    oxymoron? Ethical AND agree with AGW? But then again, real scientists are lied to right along with the general public. Judith Curry is one who is waking up. There are others. One who assumed AGW was simply science got the raw data skeptics couldn’t get, when he wanted to advance “the science.” But after his findings went “the wrong way,” he was excoriated, and I met him at one of Heartland’s conferences talking about the cabal cutting the number of climate stations so as to increase the appearance of warming.

  44. Alx @ 10:58 a.m.

    The trial will not get into the scientific details of climate science. Regardless of who wins this particular case, it won’t have much impact on the climate debate. (Similarly, your reference to the ID case is also severely off base. You misunderstood the case and the result.)

    Court is not a particularly good place to try issues of science. As much as we would all like to see our particular side of a “science” question supported by the prestige of a court ruling, that just isn’t the way it works.

    Thankfully.

  45. climatereflections says:
    August 12, 2014 at 11:27 am
    //////////////////

    The Court would be a good place to test the science, ie., whether the null hypothesis has been disproved or not..

    The problem is that it is difficult to frame a legal cause of action in which the science would be relevant, and therefore needed to be tested by the Court.

  46. Alx says:
    August 12, 2014 at 10:58 am

    I have always thought Climate Science would not survive a court of law.

    There is no way I would want someone who went to law school as a preferred alternative to taking science and math (which describes most lawyers and judges) to decide a question of science in a courtroom.

  47. Robert Bissett says:
    August 12, 2014 at 10:46 am
    //////////////////

    The English joke: American law is the best justice that money can buy.

    To what extent that is a truism I do not know, but there is reason to suspect corruption whether by money, power or favour does play a hand, as one can see not least in the political appointments of the DA, and Justices to the Supreme Court.

    That is not to say that the English system is perect, but it is less flawed.

    THe US did a better job with its constitution, but a worse job with its judiciary.

  48. A an actual Nobelist defends a fake Nobelist, which does nothing to elevate the status of the “prize”.

    Paul Krugman (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/) is fully invested in the tribulations and trials (literally) of the great Mann.

    “Mann, as some of you may know, is a hard-working scientist who used indirect evidence from tree rings and ice cores in an attempt to create a long-run climate record. His result was the famous “hockey stick” of sharply rising temperatures in the age of industrialization and fossil fuel consumption. His reward for that hard work was not simply assertions that he was wrong — which he wasn’t — but a concerted effort to destroy his life and career with accusations of professional malpractice, involving the usual suspects on the right but also public officials, like the former Attorney General of Virginia.

    Krugman’s Nobel must have addled his brain, he now thinks that he is an instant expert in all fields. No research required.

  49. Anthony, you said: “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.”

    Check your email. Best, Charles the DrPH

  50. America’s constitution was based on the Roman Republic, the Greek democracies, and Ancient Israel. One of the Earliest and greatest legal commenters of the United States, Blackstone, said that Law was not “created”” by legislatures, but “discovered”–in the Bible.
    Today, many of us have a much lower opinion of the Bible, and those who revere it do not want it supported by force. So, call it philosophy–philosophy that has stood the test of time.
    There is a law in the Torah that is relevant here, and that should have been incorporated into the Constitution about a plaintiff who knowingly brings a false case. Such a plaintiff is supposed to suffer the same penalty s/he tried to bring against another (Deut 19:18-19). In America, that has to include the ruinous expenses.
    This omission can be rectified by a Constitutional Amendment. Anyone here want to start such a movement?
    But to have corrupt courts, that means were are no longer under the Rule of Law, we are no longer a Republic and our freedoms and our wealth vanish. It is vitally important to restore the Rule of Law,and the integrity of our courts in the United States. That is very challenging to do, but we must do it. Climate skeptics are not the only one wanting it. We must work with others and make it happen.

  51. pouncer says: August 12, 2014 at 8:04 am
    “The *case* is stalled while the *appeal* is being considered, and Steyn as a friend of the appeals court reminds that court of the costs of delay and benefits of a speedy decision.”

    It is CEI/National Review who instituted the appeal, not Mann.

  52. ladylifegrows says:
    August 12, 2014 at 1:07 pm

    Blackstone’s “Commentaries on the Laws of England” was published in 1765-69. He died in 1780. The Founders did rely on the Commentaries, but Blackstone did not comment on the legal system of the US.

    America’s Constitution owes nothing to the Bible. Nowhere in the notes of Madison or other members of the Constitutional Convention is there any mention of biblical passages being cited in debates on the Constitution.

    Nor in the 85 articles & essays of the Federalist Papers, are scriptural citations to be found. The word “God” is used twice, but once in reference to ancient Greek pagan gods. “Almighty” is used twice & “Providence” three times, but neither term is ever used in connection with constitutional principles or influence thereupon. The Bible is not mentioned.

    I agree with you however that frivolous lawsuits should be discouraged by making losers pay the victor’s court costs, as IMO (please correct me if wrong) is already the case in the UK, without benefit of reference to Torah.

  53. Hayek’s Nobel banquet speech is so incredibly appropriate regarding Krugman, that it is hard to believe it really is decades old:

    “Yet I must confess that if I had been consulted whether to establish a Nobel Prize in economics, I should have decidedly advised against it.
    [...]
    It is that the Nobel Prize confers on an individual an authority which in economics no man ought to possess.
    [...]
    But the influence of the economist that mainly matters is an influence over laymen: politicians, journalists, civil servants and the public generally.

    There is no reason why a man who has made a distinctive contribution to economic science should be omnicompetent on all problems of society – as the press tends to treat him till in the end he may himself be persuaded to believe.

    One is even made to feel it a public duty to pronounce on problems to which one may not have devoted special attention.”

  54. earwig42 says:
    August 12, 2014 at 6:27 am

    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.

    Yes indeed. If you already know you want to support Steyn, here’s a direct link:

    Click Here if you trust me to get the hyperlink right.

    or paste this if not:

    http://www.steynonline.com/6159/stick-it-to-the-mann-and-win-one-for-free-speech

    And for reference, here is the Steyn column that caused Mann to target him:

    or paste this if I goofed up again:

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/309442/football-and-hockey-mark-steyn

    Keeping Steyn in the battle is huge for the skeptic side. Besides, he’s entertaining.

  55. Robert Bissett says:
    August 12, 2014 at 10:46 am
    A lot of loose talk here about “justice”. The US legal system does not pretend to pursue justice. In fact, it has nothing to do with justice which is regarded as transcendent. It pursues correct procedure under the principles of legal positivism. Ours is not a justice system. On the other hand, as a lawyer told me years ago, with enough money you can get justice. Most attorneys avoid going to court if at all possible because the out come can not be predicted and it is expensive. Don’t be surprised if the result is not favorable.

    Quite right. We have a legal system, not a justice system.

  56. Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7 says:
    August 12, 2014 at 1:29 pm

    It’s interesting that Steyn does not compare Mann to Sandusky, in fact, commenting upon another opinion piece, states the comparison is one he wouldn’t make. Yet isn’t Mann accusing him of the opposite? How hasn’t that portion of this case been thrown out?

  57. pouncer says: August 12, 2014 at 8:04 am
    “The *case* is stalled while the *appeal* is being considered, and Steyn as a friend of the appeals court reminds that court of the costs of delay and benefits of a speedy decision.”

    Nick Stokes says: August 12, 2014 at 1:24 pm

    It is CEI/National Review who instituted the appeal, not Mann

    That is why Steyn writes as a “friend of the appeals court” (amicus curiae), just as Pouncer said, instead of as an “appellant” or a “party” before the court.

    He’s right to do it because (as he says in the brief) the trial court has delayed his case until this CEI/NR appeal is decided; so he does have an interest in the appeal being decided quickly, even though he is not a party to the appeal himself.

  58. Dear Mr. Steyn,

    Use this weather report.

    Just Northwest of Cooper Texas aka near Lake Cooper, North East Texas.

    Just now wind Northwest 15 to 20.
    Tonight down in the Sulfer River bottoms on our land, low will be 58 F or possible lower.

    August, mid August in Texas.

    Mike Mann is full of the bs we produce from CO2.

  59. more soylent green! says:
    August 12, 2014 at 1:56 pm

    It’s interesting that Steyn does not compare Mann to Sandusky, in fact, commenting upon another opinion piece, states the comparison is one he wouldn’t make. Yet isn’t Mann accusing him of the opposite? How hasn’t that portion of this case been thrown out?

    Republishing libelous statements made by others is also libel. Steyn and NRO refused demands by Mann’s attorneys to remove the quotation of the original Rand Simberg column.

  60. Others have commented on one greatly needed tonic for the US courts: loser pays. I have another: end lifetime judicial appointments. Unfortunately this requires a Constitutional Amendment for the Federal bench. I would substitute a 7-year term and then a judge must be nominated and confirmed again. The 7 year cycle does not match up with the Presidential or Senate elections except every 28 and 42 years respectively. Or we could go with an 11 year term, but that coincides with the sunspot cycle, so who know what effect that might have :-).

  61. ladylifegrows says:
    August 12, 2014 at 1:07 pm

    America’s constitution was based on the Roman Republic, the Greek democracies, and Ancient Israel.

    The US Constitution was based far more on the philosophy of John Locke than on any of the above.

  62. Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7 says:
    August 12, 2014 at 2:29 pm
    Others have commented on one greatly needed tonic for the US courts: loser pays. I have another: end lifetime judicial appointments. Unfortunately this requires a Constitutional Amendment for the Federal bench. I would substitute a 7-year term and then a judge must be nominated and confirmed again. The 7 year cycle does not match up with the Presidential or Senate elections except every 28 and 42 years respectively. Or we could go with an 11 year term, but that coincides with the sunspot cycle, so who know what effect that might have :-).

    Spot on!

  63. Chris4692 says:
    August 12, 2014 at 2:42 pm

    IMO the Declaration of Independence, which indeed does cite the Creator, was heavily influenced by Locke, among other philosophers, but the practical business of designing a government under the Constitution relied more on historical example than political philosophy, except possibly for Montesquieu’s “The Spirit of the Laws”, which championed the separation of powers.

  64. Chris4692: “There is no way I would want someone who went to law school as a preferred alternative to taking science and math (which describes most lawyers and judges) to decide a question of science in a courtroom.”

    I have considerable sympathy for that sentiment, having seen how clueless the judiciary can be on issues of science. Yet I’ve seen scientists, too–on this very site–take truly bizarre positions on scientific issues.

    That doesn’t mean I don’t believe it would in general be better–for a host of reasons–to have judges better trained in science. At the end of the day, though, I think it can be more important for the trier of fact to be able to think analytically than to have the formal education. My experience is that among those lacking formal training there are more (on an absolute, not percentage, basis) people who are really competent to decide an ably presented scientific question than there are among those who have the credentials.

  65. milodonharlani says:
    August 12, 2014 at 2:48 pm
    Chris4692 says:
    August 12, 2014 at 2:42 pm

    IMO the Declaration of Independence, which indeed does cite the Creator, was heavily influenced by Locke, among other philosophers, but the practical business of designing a government under the Constitution relied more on historical example than political philosophy, except possibly for Montesquieu’s “The Spirit of the Laws”, which championed the separation of powers.

    The Declaration of Independence is a wonderful example of the principles of Natural Law. It is philosophical. The Constitution provides the structure of the federal government and is more practical in nature. There are obvious philosophical principles expressed in the design — limited government with enumerated powers and the separation of powers through three separate branches of government are two examples of this.

  66. Nick Stokes says: pouncer says:
    >>“The *case* is stalled while the *appeal* is being considered, ”

    >It is CEI/National Review who instituted the appeal, not Mann.

    But it was not Steyn, either. It was, however, Mann who asked the lower court for a *stay* on various progress while the appeal was being heard. The stay results in the stall in the otherwise severable 4-defendent suit.

    The *stay* mainly applies to a process known as discovery, but other actions are also stalled while the appear is going on. Since Mann sued 4 different parties, one might have thought he’d be eager to divide and conquer, winning against the least scientific of the bunch — Steyn, a former radio disk jockey and music critic. But Mann has instead asked the court, and been granted the boon, of not dealing with Steyn until Simberg, and two large deep pocketed corporations are also at risk.

  67. I recall one sage’s comment about cases involving science or technology ultimately being settled by an elected judge with an Arts degree….

  68. more soylent green! says:
    August 12, 2014 at 3:25 pm

    Certainly political philosophy lies behind the Constitution but the form of government it set up was based upon historical example. It relied upon recent European examples, chiefly the British parliamentary system, but also the arrangements of the United Provinces of the Netherlands. The Framers could hardly call their upper house of Congress “Lords”, so they borrowed “Senate” from Roman history. The powers accorded the president are modeled on those of the British monarch, but the position was made indirectly electable rather than hereditary, as some had urged for Washington while the Articles of Confederation still held sway. From classical history they learned to fear democracy, so hedged against it in their new republic by making presidential election indirect and having state legislatures chose senators. Rules for choosing the peoples’ representatives in the lower house were also left up to the states.

  69. To those advocating for ‘loser pays’ consider that often good causes lose, then win on appeal. I’d rather a system where “He who brings the case pays, until fìnal ruling.” It would cut down a lot on junk sueage…

  70. “pouncer says: August 12, 2014 at 3:32 pm
    “It was, however, Mann who asked the lower court for a *stay* on various progress while the appeal was being heard. The stay results in the stall in the otherwise severable 4-defendent suit.”

    No, it was Nation Review, lodged on 03/19/2014:
    National Review’s Motion for Protective Order Staying Discovery Pending Appeal Filed. Submitted 03/19/2014 17:58. ajm
    Attorney: DICK, ANTHONY J. (1015585)
    NATIONAL REVIEW, INC. (Defendant); Receipt: 276626 Date: 03/20/2014

    and granted 04/11/2014.

    • @Nick stokes

      No, it was Nation Review, lodged on 03/19/2014:

      Sorry, no. It was Mann. NR has no standing in the Steyn v. Mann case and could not ask for a stay. Mann asked for the stay until the NR issue was resolved. However there is no longer any linkage in the cases.

  71. All honor to Steyn. And shame on National Review for failing to defend themselves and their remit to survey Nationally important controversies such as CGW.

  72. The problem with loser pays is this, the legal system is basically a lottery. I come from a long line of judges and attorneys and none of them dare trying to predict how a judge or jury will rule. In general the better their case the more worried they are about losing and I am talking about open and shut slam dunk cases.

    All we really need is a fair and impartial system, but sadly that probably is never going to happen.

  73. Joe Born says:
    August 12, 2014 at 2:49 pm
    //////////////////

    Lawyers are very good at evaluating the strength of evidence, and this includes the strength of competing expert evidence.

    It is for this reason that i would have considerable confidence in a Judge determining whether the null hypothesis has been dissproved by the weight of evidence in the IPCC report.

    I have very little doubt, that a Judge would readily conclude that the IPCC have not discharged the burden on them to show that something other than natural variation is responsible for the post 1950s temperature record. I would expect the IPCC report to be severely ravaged. Indeed, the section on models and the merits of their projections would be laughed out of Court.

    For example, the UK Court found significant errors with Al Gore’s film The Inconvenient Truth. See;http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3310137/Al-Gores-nine-Inconvenient-Untruths.html

    I do not know the full particulars of that case, but I suspect that it was not argued in great depth, and even with only a cursory showing, the Court readily accepted that many of the claims made out in that film, were not fact and/or not adequately supported by the science and/or were gross exagerations.

    .

  74. You can easily and accurately convert pictures of text online. Just for fun, I downloaded the .png image files of the court documents in this post and converted them in a couple minutes at http://www.onlineocr.net/.

    You can get the converted result in plain text (which you can copy and paste) or formatted text in Microsoft Word or Excel files that you can download. The formatted Word version kept the same font (Courier) as well as the underlines and even the superscripted number references. Here’s the plain text. See if it’s accurate:

    Amicus Curiae Mark Steyn brings this brief in support of neither affirmance or reversal, but instead in support of an expeditious ruling on this matter.

    In this action, Plaintiff-Appellee Michael Mann has sought to punish the defendants for their legitimate criticism and commentary on his work and role in the intense national debate over so-called man-made climate change. Defendants moved to dismiss Mann’s abusive complaint, including on anti-SLAPP grounds, and when the lower court denied those motions, three of the four defendants sought immediate review of the anti-SLAPP portion of that decision. While defendant Steyn has not appealed, he agrees with the other defendants that the anti-SLAPP issues raised in this case deserve immediate resolution. Steyn did not appeal because he thought vindication would come faster by proceeding right away with discovery and trial. That hope has been dashed by a stay of proceedings in the trial court. That stay, granted at Mann’s request, included Steyn’s counterclaims against Mann for his campaign to deny freedom of speech rights not only to Steyn but to those scientists in other jurisdictions who make the mistake of disagreeing with him.

    But the damage spreads far beyond just the defendants here. Significant delays in the resolution of this lawsuit, even assuming the defendants are rightly vindicated in the end, will send a signal to others who might wish to comment on the climate debate (or any other subject of public interest): remain silent, or risk years of litigation, even if you have done nothing wrong. In other words, do not speak out unless you are prepared to risk being “sued into silence.” This Court can stop the damage here. An expeditious ruling will send a message that the D.C. Anti-SLAPP Act can serve its intended purpose of protecting those who exercise their right to free expression from malicious, often protracted lawsuits meant to stifle that very right. This Court should rule on this appeal as quickly as possible.

    What Judge Weisberg called the “convoluted procedural history” of this case derives from Mann’s abuse of the judicial process. The delays stem from Mann’s need to amend his original complaint because of its false claim that he is a Nobel Laureate and that Steyn and the other defendants had committed the crime of “defamation of a Nobel Prize recipient.” Mann’s fraudulent misrepresentation of his credentials and academic standing later earned him a rebuke from Geir Lundestad, director of the Nobel Institute in Oslo. One can well understand why the exposure of Mann’s fraudulent claim should cause him embarrassment but it should surely not justify resetting the procedural clock back to the beginning on this case, which is what in effect happened. In his later, court filings, Mann has made equally preposterous and objectively false claims. For example, Mann has claimed that he has been “exonerated” by such bodies as the University of East Anglia, the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency, and even by the government of the United Kingdom, none of which have investigated Dr Mann at all, never mind “exonerated” him. The audacity of the falsehoods in Mann’s court pleadings is breathtaking. For example, on page 19 of his brief below dated January 18, 2013, he cites the international panel chaired by the eminent scientist Lord Oxburgh, FRS as one of the bodies that “exonerated” him, whereas on page 235 of Mann’s own book, The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars, he states explicitly that “our own work did not fall within the remit of the committee, and the

  75. Nick Stokes says:
    August 12, 2014 at 1:24 pm

    “It is CEI/National Review who instituted the appeal, not Mann.”

    Mann’s the one that took 8 months to amend his original complaint, getting it in right before the first judge ruled on the unamended complaint. 8 months? Seriously? How long does it take to search for ‘Nobel Laureate’ and replace it with ‘Fra*dulent Gasbag’? So National Review and the rest had to appeal a barely legible judgment against them in regards to a moot complaint. And Mann’s not the one responsible for this thing dragging on for two years? Whatever.

  76. Case Document Links
    Mark Steyn links to the latest case and amicus briefs and dismantles Paul Krugman’s arguments in Real Nobel Laureate Takes Pity on Fake Nobel Laureate.

    Biblical foundation for Declaration & Constitution
    For those seeking the facts and foundations underlying the Declaration of Independence see:

    Defending the Declaration: How the Bible and Christianity Influenced the Writing of the Declaration of Independence, Gary T. Amos, 1996 Providence Foundation, ISBN 1887456058

    Dr. Gary Amos reveals that the evidence from primary sources is irrefutable: underlying the Declaration of Independence is a foundation of Biblical principles and Christian influence. The Bible and Christianity — not deism and secularism — were the most important influences on the framers.

    Similarly to understand the background of the Constitution, see:
    David Barton Original Intent: The Courts, the Constitution, & Religion 2008 Wallbuilder Press ISBN-10: 1932225633 Edition: 5th, 534 pp

    An essential resource for anyone interested in our nation’s religious heritage and the Founders’ intended role for the American judicial system. Original Intent combines hundreds of quotes from primary sources with the author’s exposition on hot topics such as revisionism, judicial activism, and separation of church and state. A substantial appendix encompasses full texts of the founding documents, biographical sketches of numerous Founders, and extensive reference notes.

  77. Steyn is sure that Mann will eventually withdraw his suit. That is why Steyn has counter-claimed: to make sure that at least his portion does proceed to discovery and trial.

    No, loser pays is not what is required (that’s what we already have – it’s called a costs order). What is needed is a provision for the order of costs against a plantiff who withdraws their action after the first court date. As it stands, if Mann withdraws his action today, the defendants will be out of pocket by a huge amount. Mann, being funded by parties other than himself, will simply waltz away.

  78. I think part of, if not all of, the issue that led Steyn to go his own way in this case was the decision by Nat Rev, et al to let their lawyers convince them to play the legal game instead of being serious and going to trial ASAP. Steyn has said on many occasions he wants his day in court the sooner the better. He countered sued Mann as part of his strategy to prevent Mann bailing out by dropping his suit if things start to get uncomfortable for him. Even if Mann drops his suit, Steyn is not going to drop his. Steyn has pointed out that Mann has never yet been forced to show and tell in a courtroom and Steyn intends to get him into one. He wants Mann to be forced to defend himself and his claims under oath where the consequences of perjury are real and serious.

    I don’t think anyone expects lawyers and judges to decide about the science. All that’s required of them is the ability to see truth has been twisted and misconstrued; facts and discussion silenced by intimidation; reputations and careers jeopardized by false accusations. I think Steyn intends to bring down a con man whose con happens to be a branch of science.

  79. Todd says:
    August 12, 2014 at 6:31 am

    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.

    This is not confined to the US. It would be similar in many other parts of the world. For instance, in Australia, one might be a working person who is assaulted by someone on the dole, and fights back. Both participants are charged- the working person has to hire a solicitor (or fight the case him/herself) and a barrister if the case is serious enough (you have to have the solicitor first) while the other party gets legal aid. Given that a barrister runs to $5000/day or more, a complicated case can mean one party needs to sell their house while the other party’s case is paid for by the state. The other side of the coin is that a person with the wherewithal (or corporate backing) can fight a hopeless case and get a reduced penalty, or exoneration, on “technicalities”. The law is an ass (as in the donkey, not American backsides :)).

  80. Don’t give these [C'mon! Snip. ~mod] a soft landing you lame retirees! Loudly lament them. There is no “debate” but merely power play slander AGAINST you. To the exact extent that you allow only Steve “RAW DATA IDIOT” Goddard to promote calls of FRAUD is the extent to which you LOSE they moral precipice.

    • Mark T I am all ears. But I’ve given too much time to research Mike. If it wasn’t so serious, it would be laughable. Good luck Mark. Sometimes these court cases go on so long, one forgets what they were about? The lawyers don’t care they still get paid.

  81. Mann’s expertise is not climate science but political science. He is a ‘junior’ scientist compared to the likes of Lindzen, Curry, Christy, Pielke Sr., etc. His career rose only because he is willing to lie and manipulate data to advance the agenda of the greenies. On scientific and intellectual capacity. Mann is a nobody. What a shame.

  82. I wonder why Steyn’s lawyers have not filed a counterclaim against Mann for defamation? Surely accusing a writer/columnist like Steyn of intentionally publishing false defamatory material is damaging to Steyn’s reputation as claimed in Steyn’s existing counterclaims.

    The claim would not be for filing the law suit, which is likely protected by immunity, but for statements Mann has made publicly regarding the suit, and its propriety, in the media. In DC “A defamatory statement is one that “tends to injure [the] plaintiff in his trade, profession or community standing, or lower him in the estimation of the community.”

    Steyn’s current counterclaims reference mainly Mann’s complaint in the litigation as including intentionally false statements, but surely his lawyers can find many instances of Mann repeating the allegations in interviews and op-eds.

  83. James Ingleballix says:
    August 12, 2014 at 8:24 am
    There’s going to be one HELL of a movie made about this in 15yrs time.
    ——
    Why wait 15 years . Everyone likes reading about scandals , add the fact of one lone man fighting for justice and real science against a powerful establishment , add sinister billionaires in the renewables industry , add a totalitarian EPA , add a weak and ignorant POTUS , add an ill-equipped judge and you have a best seller in my opinion . Any enterprising publisher would surely offer substantial advance money for this narrative , whatever the result.
    If Steyn were to link up with some would- be Woodward or Bernstein (I am sorry I cannot think of a current female equivalent although I am sure they exist- and would enhance the film) it would offer a young journalist their first chance at a guaranteed Pulitzer Prize. The advance would help pay for Steyn’s defence and the film rights would pay for the appeal to the Supreme Court.
    Just a suggestion.

  84. Judges are drawn from lawyers and have no interest in expediting justice as the whole system of modern justice has been fashioned into a money making machine for the legal profession. Delays equal dollars. When was the last time you heard a senior judge say, justice delayed is justice denied? Mann can only play the game as the rules allow.

  85. mikewaite enthused: “Why wait 15 years . Everyone likes reading about scandals….”

    My Ph.D. in organometallic chemistry last girlfriend who got a patent law degree and is now Google NYC’s senior AdWords attorney quite enjoyed a perfect example of this in Michael Crichton’s book State of Fear. Indeed a movie should be made of this crazy “debate” against cultism, which happens to be a repeat of the oldest culture war of all, that against tyranny and oppression.

  86. E.M.Smith says:
    August 12, 2014 at 4:22 pm

    To those advocating for ‘loser pays’ consider that often good causes lose, then win on appeal. I’d rather a system where “He who brings the case pays, until fìnal ruling.” It would cut down a lot on junk sueage…

    “sueage” — I like that.

    There are indeed problems with loser pays, but what we have now in effect is everyone pays and much of the time everyone loses, except the lawyers. I wonder who could have come up with such a dumb system?

  87. Alan, for many cases it’s not a dumb system at all. “Every pays his own costs” strongly encourages settlement. A great deal of litigation out there ought to settle. “Loser pays” encourages fighting to the bitter end…hoping that eventually, at trial or on appeal, you get everything back that you’ve spent. (Except the time.)

    In cases like this one, it makes sense to force an unsuccessful plaintiff to pay; because the real evil of SLAPP suits is that they discourage free speech, and people ought to be encouraged to fight them to the bitter end instead of settling them. That’s why the D.C. SLAPP statute allows for it (at least if the defense wins the motion to dismiss) — though unfortunately it gives the judge discretion whether to award attorney’s fees or not.

  88. many of the documents in the case can be found here:

    http://cei.org/michaelmann

    Based on the DC CA court order dated June 26, 2014, The DC Court hearing on the Appeal of the denial of motion to dismiss under slapp is scheduled for the month of November. This is only a hearing on the whether the denial of a motion to dismiss under slapp is immediately appealable.

    Assuming the denial of the motion to dismiss is ruled to be immediately appealable, then there will be another round of filings/hearings to the appeal of the motion to dismiss. Based on my reading of the court filings, etc, it does not appear that the appeal of the motion to dismiss will be ruled on in the November setting.

  89. Honest lawyers do not make much money.

    Honest judges do not gain much power.

    Honest members of a House or a Senate, like finding the tip of a saftey pin in a hay field.

    The above is why it is so hard to find freedom on planet earth.

    Look within for the source of these problems.

  90. Michael “Piltdown” Mann stakes his claim to surpass even last century’s most outrageous science fraud.

  91. Chris4692 says:
    August 12, 2014 at 12:23 pm

    Alx says:
    August 12, 2014 at 10:58 am
    I have always thought Climate Science would not survive a court of law.

    There is no way I would want someone who went to law school as a preferred alternative to taking science and math (which describes most lawyers and judges) to decide a question of science in a courtroom.

    That’s why the proposal for a Science Court (not part of the legal system and consisting of scientists) that was made back in the 70s should be revived.

  92. simple-touriste says:
    August 12, 2014 at 7:11 am

    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.

    The Linux case is completely documented on Groklaw. The case had less to do with the legal system, which tends to be the last resource of the greedy, the stupid, the Narcissistic – and occasionally the mistreated, than to do with the completely lame approach to what is referred to as “intellectual property.” The cause is the use of “patents” where copyright should have been been the sole claim. The courts are handicapped by a tendency for laws to lack commonsense grounding (politicians write ‘em), leaving the judge stuck with the “letter” of the law, and whatever experience and biases he or she brings to the table. Worse, lawyers are not paid to be reasonable, nor to negotiate or mediate. They are paid to advocate their client’s position regardless of how hopeless, stupid, or unreasonable that might be.

    Happily, when a client makes things up out of the whole cloth, the lawyer still has to protect his or her on backside. Mann’s lawyer can’t knowingly submit exhibits that are falsehoods without risking the right to practice. I imagine that Steyn’s lawyers would have attached the uncorrected briefs by Mann’s lawyers, complete with Nobel claims and documentation of the Nobel committee response. If they didn’t, they should. There is nothing like submitting documentation that one side of a civil dispute is lying like a dirty door mat to piss off many a judge. They hate having their time wasted. Narcissists in particular are incapable of conceiving that they are wasting anyone’s time and consequently are often the least prepared to deal with the reality that they are not universally admired and looked up to. The walls of Mann’s lawyers offices are probably padded to prevent head injury.

  93. Isn’t it becoming painfully obvious to the judge in this case. Manns claim has malicious intent?
    That Mann has over $5M of misdirected taxpayer funds by a supposed “charity” to pay for this case.

  94. joe says: Based on my reading of the court filings, etc, it does not appear that the appeal of the motion to dismiss will be ruled on in the November setting.

    I’m not sure I agree. The briefs address both the jurisdictional issue and the merits. In the recent Doe case, which considered whether the denial of an anti-SLAPP quash motion was immediately appealable, the DC court of appeals allowed the appeal and granted the motion at the same time.

  95. philjourdan says: August 13, 2014 at 12:35 pm
    “Mann asked for the stay until the NR issue was resolved.”

    I’ve looked through the SC site, and can’t see any such request. Do you have a date or link?

  96. philjourdan says: August 13, 2014 at 12:35 pm
    “Mann asked for the stay until the NR issue was resolved.”

    Here is Mann’s 7 April motion opposing the defense application for stay of discovery.

    In fact discovery on Steyn’s case vs Mann is automatically stayed pending resolution of Mann’s anti-SLAPP motion. This is what SLAPP is all about, and follows the same course as the original case.

    • @Nick – so you found it without me.

      But sorry, you are wrong. The stay is not automatic since they are separate cases. Ergo, Mann is denying discovery when there is no reason to. let me quote you the part from Mann’s filing again:

      discovery cannot move forward

      That is Mann staying discovery, not NR or Steyn.

  97. Joseph W. says: August 12, 2014 at 2:01 pm

    That is why Steyn writes as a “friend of the appeals court” (amicus curiae), just as Pouncer said, instead of as an “appellant” or a “party” before the court.

    He’s right to do it because (as he says in the brief) the trial court has delayed his case until this CEI/NR appeal is decided; so he does have an interest in the appeal being decided quickly, even though he is not a party to the appeal himself.

    Repeating what I said on Climate Audit this afternoon, Mark Steyn has stated his desire to confront Michael Mann in a court of law and to force Mann to defend his climate science work in a public forum.

    Steyn’s ultimate objective in pursuing this confrontation is to damage Mann’s public credibility as a climate scientist; and more importantly, to damage the public credibility of climate science itself.

    Joseph W., I have a question for you in your capacity as a lawyer: Concerning the process of how and where the various legal maneuverings are pursued by each side, what series of events must occur to guarantee that Steyn eventually confronts Mann in a court of law?

  98. In many cases, justice would be served by loser pays.
    But today I read of an example where rural landowners have property stolen by eminent domain with grotesque undervaluation. A little guy fighting the United States government. The little guy is usually right–and usually loses. The last thing I would want would be to add court costs to the devastation.

  99. An interesting article today by the governments business person, about climate change. He remarked worrying and spending too much money on global warming, i.e., green energy forgets that we should be considering action and consideration if the climate cools.

  100. David L. Hagen says:
    August 12, 2014 at 6:14 pm

    Barton bills himself as an expert on the Constitution, but he is anything but.

    As for the Declaration, Barton claims that Jefferson was the least religious Founder. Garbage. Paine & Franklin (in his mature years) were both less spiritual & religious than Jefferson. He actually believed deeply in a Creator, but opposed the clerics dominating organized religions. He was a Deist, not a conventional Christian, so naturally Barton, a minister, would consider Jefferson a heathen.

  101. The fact that these Amicus briefs were submitted by the ACLU and multiple news
    organizations must have Mark Steyn doing a Snoopy dance and experiencing
    a level 11 case of Schadenfreude. All Steyn did was refer to Mann as the
    “Jerry Sanduski of climate science.” As I have long maintained, a large part
    of Mark Steyn’s shtick is sarcasm and biting wit, much like Ann Coulter. It
    is for this reason they cannot be held accountable for their utterances any
    more than a comedian can be punished for poking fun at any other public
    figure or politician.

    But at the very heart of this argument is the use of a SLAPP suit to silence
    critics. Michael Mann tried this with Dr. Ball and lost because he refused to
    submit his research in the discovery process. That and the fact that he has
    made several false declarations in support of his argument that he was a Nobel
    Prize winner, that this organization has proven his work correct, or that group
    proved his detractors wrong, etc., falsehoods he as repeated in the current
    court case.

    A Mann with a monumental ego has an ego that easily shattered. Mann has
    responded to his critics by attempting to sue them into silence instead of
    proving them wrong with his “Science.” The problem is that his science
    is wrong, and he knows it. The next domino to fall in this charade is that
    the institution/s and the patron/s who are funding his SLAPP suits will come
    to one of two conclusions; Their pockets are not bottomless or that they
    are holding a losing hand. And so far, Mann is on the losing end.

    When the end comes, Mann’s reputation (and ego) will splatter like a
    jumper from the top floor of the Empire State Building. It will not be a
    pretty sight! The University of Zimbabwe will not even offer him a job,
    and no country on Earth will be offering him a research grant.

    In the end, he will be sitting in an alley with a tin cup and a sign reading:
    “Will do science for food.”

  102. milodonharlani:

    I am not an American so state no views on your Constitution or its origin. However, I can observe when an error of fact is asserted concerning motivation.

    At August 14, 2014 at 12:47 pm you say

    He was a Deist, not a conventional Christian, so naturally Barton, a minister, would consider Jefferson a heathen.

    “Naturally?!” No.
    I would not object if you had written that the difference of belief may have provided prejudice, but you claim it “naturally” did. The undeniable facts are not as you say but are:
    He was a Deist, not a conventional Christian, and this may have induced Barton, a minister, to consider Jefferson a heathen.
    Military Chaplains often conduct multi-faith worship and always have. Last week the centenary of outbreak of the Great War, 1914-1919, was commemorated in several cathedrals and, for example, the Anglican Worship at Westminster Abbey included prayers and acts of remembrance led by leaders of several Christian denominations, a Jewish leader, and a Muslim peeress. I have shared e.g. Bhuddist and Hindu Worship although I was praying to the God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

    Religious views are not as closed as you assert. Few religious ministers are bigots, and bigots exist among all people not only religious ministers

    Richard

  103. With respect Richard, I was brought up a Roman Catholic in the 40s and 50s in England. My father’s family were devote RC’s but there definitely was a dislike of protestants, yet my father thought the High Church of England (Anglican) were not too bad. I was not allowed to study Religious Education for my GCE, but I sat in the class. I was not allowed to join the girl guides because they only accepted protestants in their local troop. When I married my first husband, my father told the family he was a RC. But we were married in an Anglican church at RAF Akrotiri, in Cyprus. My ex would not allow my three boys to be baptised, he didn’t believe in it. So bigotry is a culture clash isn’t it that can effect one’s life.

  104. I would be very careful with OCR, you have to crawl through the document to check accuracy. One tactic is to have someone read the original to you slowly while you read the OCR result. One missed word or part of word can change meaning. Some scanner software even misses part of the page.

  105. I’ve been exploring for a bit for any high quality articles or blog posts in this kind of space Exploring in Yahoo I finally stumbled upon this site. Studying this info So i’m glad to show that

  106. richardscourtney says:
    August 15, 2014 at 1:00 am

    Perhaps you’re not familiar with the views of Barton in particular of or those of American fundamentalist, conservative Christians in general. They are a world apart from what you’ll generally find in Britain.

  107. milodonharlani:

    re your post at August 20, 2014 at 2:43 pm/

    You are right. I am ignorant of “the views of Barton in particular of or those of American fundamentalist, conservative Christians in general.”

    Perhaps Barton was as you suggested. My point was that being a Christian minister is not a clear indication that he was a bigot because most are not.

    Richard

  108. richardscourtney says:
    August 20, 2014 at 2:55 pm

    Barton’s not a bigot, just wrong. “Naturally” is the right word, given his views & those of his followers. I don’t disagree with him on Natural Law so much as on his views of the Founders’ beliefs, which are easily show false. He’s a minister, not an historian.

Comments are closed.