Mann has filed suit against NRO (now the laughing begins)

And, lol, the part about it being Roger Pielke’s quote, is wrong. Sorry everyone I’m blogging while pursuing other stuff; namely talking with my wife.

Chuck Nolan says:
October 28, 2012 at 7:21 pm
Emily Litella. Rosanne Rosannadanna’s line was “it’s always something.”
eliza says:
October 28, 2012 at 5:56 pm
I got a full page of links. Don’t know what that means…
TBear says:
October 28, 2012 at 7:20 pm
“Judge: `So you have made these allegations of serious professional misconduct against Mann with no proof?’”
Perhaps you do not recognize the problem with your scenario because it has to do with differences between US and Australian case law. In a public libel case in the US, there is no requirement that the defendants have proof of what they say, only that they have reasonable cause to believe it to be true. They need merely establish that they did not make the statements with “malicious or reckless disregard for the truth.” See NYT v. Sullivan.
That the defendants believe in Mann’s misconduct is self-evident. In so believing, they necessarily did not make the statements maliciously with intent to unfairly defame. That leaves Mann having to prove the statements were made with reckless disregard.
To do so, Mann will have to allow the defendants to demonstrate why they believe they were not reckless. They will be able to cite all of the reports, articles, and indeed books which support their thesis. Mann will have to argue that all of those resources are self-evidently themselves reckless in disregarding the truth. But, to do so, he will have to establish that the myriad allegations are false. And, for that claim to be established, he will have to release the records which the defendants insist will demonstrate that the claim is without merit.

Déjà vu
Interesting snippet from the Indian press in 2008.

Climate change: Pachauri to help out Maharashtra
The Hindu
http://www.hindu.com/2009/06/21/stories/2009062160510900.htm
Corrections and Clarifications
Rajendra Pachauri is not a Nobel laureate as mentioned in a Mumbai report “Climate change: Pachauri to help out Maharashtra” (June 21, 2009). We repeat the clarification published on February 20, 2008, May 13, 2008 and June 12, 2008: “Merci Olsson, Marketing and Communications Manager, Nobelprize.org, Sweden (the official website of the Nobel Foundation) clarifies that the recipient of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize was the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and not R.K. Pachauri. Mr. Pachauri participated in the award ceremony as a chairman of the IPCC. (The 2007 Peace Nobel was also shared by Albert Arnold (Al) Gore Jr.)”

So if even the head of an organization which is awarded a Nobel prize cannot claim to be a Nobel laureate how much more of an “embellishment” is it for a mere “contributor” to do so?
Incidentally, I found the above using the search phrase “not a Nobel laureate” on some newspaper archives. Michael Mann and Rajendra Pachauri were two of only three cases I found where that phrase was being used specifically to contradict a claim or report that somebody was a Nobel laureate.
[The other case was some hair-splitter objecting to Amartya Sen being described as a Nobel laureate on the cover of a book when he ‘only’ won the “Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in the memory of Alfred Nobel”.
http://www.expressindia.com/news/fullstory.php?newsid=38806
It even went to court.
http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/83430/ ]
It was only a ten minute ‘Doran and Zimmerman’ type survey. So to paraphrase in the language (and tactics) of climate alarmism: 100% of fraudulent claims of Nobel laureatehood are by or about climate scientists. We must act now to curb the emissions of rogue climate scientists! [/sarc]
————————–
P.S. I had to laugh at TBear’s argument #1

1. Mann’s attorneys are respected and serious people. If there was no reasonable prospect of success, they would not have filed the case, irrespective of Mann’s wishes. To do so would be professional misconduct.

It kinda reminded me of the language and reasoning used in some of the Climategate ‘investigations’. Also, considering that George Soros is (almost certainly) funding Mann’s defence…
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/24/fighting-the-mann/#comment-1041764
…I doubt that his lawyers will be concerned about any potential damage to their reputation as “respected and serious people” and that, on the contrary, they would probably regard turning away a cash cow like Soros as “professional misconduct”.
Sadly, I think TBear may very well be a lawyer as only lawyers show that kind of respect for the integrity of lawyers.
Like others on this thread, I have difficulty taking people who habitually talk about themselves in the third person seriously -like “Mr.T” or “The Fonz”. What ever else it is, it is not “irony”. Do “experienced trial lawyer[s]” talk like that? How exactly does that work in court?

The Bear moves for a dismissal your honour. The Bear’s client is clearly innocent. If he were not, someone as respected and serious as The Bear would never have taken his case in the first place.

TBear complains that “the WUWT crew attack the messenger” yet his posts contain “you know zero…why are you commenting on trial matters, at all…you are entirely ignorant…ignoramus”. That is the language of a troll. And I think the patience of the moderators has been abused enough.

TBear has a most annoying manner but he does make a valid point.
Mann’s lawyers aren’t stupid. They must think they have a pretty good chance of winning.
And betting against the establishment is never wise.
Courts aren’t necessarily interested in truth, only in what is acceptable to those who ‘matter’.

The case has Mann in position of explaining how he actually perceives malice
then when he does, the defendents pull out Larry Flynt vs Jerry Falwell
in which pornographer
Larry Flynt
published a cartoon about the Rev. Falwell having incestuous sexual relations in an outhouse.
With his own mother.
Flynt said that “Oh yes there was malice because Falwell got on TV and tried to wipe out Flynt’s protected speech business, pornography.
And that if Falwell didn’t want to be suffering the outrageous slings and arrows of an outrageous fortune, he shouldn’t have gotten into the business of outraging people
by asking people
to put other people out of busines, with Flynt specifying that while his speech was protected, even if it wasn’t Falwell had to have known fallout was coming.
He was a public persona speaking out for a cause: Jesus Christ.
Flynt won the suit amid acknowledgement of further argument by Flynt-
that a person who is a plumber or tax guy
who doesn’t seek out notoriety/fame – seeking out fame being an invitation for persons to review the entirety of one’s persona both private and public
-a guy who does plumbing or taxes who gets accused of not paying his taxes – this is a case where the person accused isn’t inviting people to examine
him as a public figure.
But Flynt asserted that when one puts oneself into the eye of the public for a cause, one has to accept that if one asserts diminution or abandonment
of any activity enjoyed by others – whether activity protected by statutes and constitutional interpretation or not, as in illegal immigrants –
Then, Flynt asserted, the person who is speaking of others as having a lifestyle which should be shunned,
must be prepared not only for malice
but to also produce some proof he is correct
or he could be sued, himself.
Whatever particulars I got crossed can be sorted out inside 30 minutes, because that’s the answer to that fraud Mann’s lawsuit.
It really is game over for Mann, once they whip out the Flynt/Falwell case – because the particulars are different
but the principles identical.
Mann wants to warn us like Falwell, that there’s a big disaster if we don’t put certain people (coal, big oil, childbearers using too much co2,/pornographers) out of business
there’s the sharp crack of ‘screw you, you evil, snide, hick’
and the resultant lawsuit – where Falwell/Mann whine about being picked on and injured, as they have layed every evil accusation at others’ feet.
And Flynt even made the malice a major part of his defense saying
“The fact Falwell feigned being hurt, when he had himself gone on the public offensive after years in the public eye, made the whole thing even more evil than if he had simply “manned up” – I couldn’t resist, LoL – and kept throwing the mud he started throwing till he got some in his own eye.
Additionally, Flynt retorted ‘you’re da–ed right i meant to harm the sob financially, he tried to harm me financially. My lifestyle’s not against the
law! He has no reason to start screaming what I’m doing is going to ruin everybody, this has been reviewed by people since they started civilization,
they know how much they plan to put up with, this jerk Falwell is ginning up imaginary panic, that my life, is going to destroy him. Give me a break,
he can’t prove I’ve ever harmed anyone he knows much less himself. He seems to be getting paid pretty well with my lifestyle in the country right
alongside his, ”
Or something along those lines.
People – g o check it out and you’ll see: Mann is done long before he knows he is, and the countersuit WON’T lose, because the countersuit is going to be that Mann sought to wipe out the defendents’ access to inexpensive electricity with fake research and by spreading falsehoods: calling OTHERS atrocious names in public
the whole deal is a total replay
of Flynt vs. Falwell.

The Bear thinks everyone is a bit oversold on New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), which establishes proof (by the plaintiff) of actual malice as the key requirement in a libel case – assuming the plaintiff is a public figure, which Mann probably is.
To prove `actual malice’, Mann will have to show that NRO, Steyn, etc, knew what they published was wrong or they acted in reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of the claim(s).
Sure, it is not easy to prove, but neither is it impossible.
In Herbert v. Lando (1979) 441 U.S. 153 (1979) the court said that actual malice can be proved in any number of different ways including:
1. Any competent evidence, direct or circumstantial;
2. Evidence about all of the circumstances surrounding the publication such as threats (as in the NRO saying, Come on, Sue Us), past or further defamations (the material complained of by Mann has not been withdrawn);
3. Later statements by the defendant(s) – there has been plenty;
4. Evidence of the existence of `rivalry, ill will, or hostility between the parties’ – there is plenty of this stuff floating around in this debate; and
5. Facts tending to show a reckless disregard of the plaintiff’s rights.
Now Mann has to prove the claim of scientific fraud is wrong. Seems to the Bear, the number of inquiries (call them whitewashes, if you want) by apparently competent authorities that have `cleared’ Mann of allegation of fraudulent science is a pretty powerful body of evidence in favour of Mann’s claim.
There is no doubt the defendants knew about these inquiries and (apparently) chose to reject their findings and substitute their own views. Unless the defendants can, at this trial, take on and beat most of the other folk who have already investigated Mann, they are in a difficult position.
And this is precisely what makes this a unique case; there has already been a thorough public testing of allegations against Mann, and he has been `cleared’.
So, to win, the defence has to challenge and rebut a whole body of settled doctrine, potentially turning this case into a Scopes-once-in-a-generation trial. The Bear doubts that will eventuate. We will not see any Clarence Darrow heroics.
But forcing the defence into this impossible situation is the obvious strategy behind the manner in which Mann’s lawyers have pleaded the major part of his case.
Tellin’ yu, these lawyers for Mann really believe they are onto something.
Now that is enough from the Bear on this issue. He chooses to hibernate and await the outcome of this intriguing court action.
Realistically, the case will probably settle in 6 months or so and never see the inside of a courtroom. But it will be a cracker if it does!

TBear:
Not so sure. You are assuming that the defendents have to prove anything. Why? In this case it is up to Mann to prove that Steyn acted in reckless disregard to the truth. Steyn has already stated in the article itself that Penn State conducted a whitewash investigation -as they had with Sandusky. It will be up to Mann to prove that the Penn State investigation was thorough and that Steyn KNEW it was thorough. That’s going to be tough. There is no evidence that Steyn knew of any other investigations, so Mann won’t be able to show that Steyn acted in reckless disregard of them. Mann would then have to show that Steyn acted out of malice, and was not driven by a need to reveal the truth. I’m not sure if Steyn showed any malice prior to Mann charging him with libel and defamation, but even if he did the question is, was it irrational malice that drove him to publish or a desire to reveal the truth? Steyn only has to show in court his interest in the “truth” as he saw it, from reading the works of McIntyre et.al. He doesn’t even have to call them as witnesses – if he read it in a book he has a source and its job done. Mann has a problem here because Steyn isn’t going to try and protect his source – which is often an issue in libel cases. He’s just going to come out and say “I read it in a book” – show the book and then claim “fair comment”.
I don’t think Mann has a chance of winning this case, but on the other hand it won’t be a show trial either. Mann won’t need to do full disclosure because what Mann kept secret couldn’t be an influence on what Steyn published. Steyn will simply quote his sources and that will be that. The judge will conclude that Mann has, at the very least, accused the wrong person of libel/defamation and throw the case out.

I’m sure you’re a reasonably bright guy Mr. Bear, but you really don’t seem to grasp American defamation law. If skimmed an Australian case, started pontificating on Australian law, and was uniformly told I was wrong by actual Australian attorneys, I’d admit that I’m wrong. You, on the other hand, have a demonstrated ignorance of American defamation law, civil procedure, and discovery, yet you press on with the assumption that you alone are right and the numerous licensed attorneys posting in this thread are wrong.

Doesn’t that make all American Taxpayers Contributors?

I’ve also been thinking about how much legal posturing, stonewalling, paperloading and wrangling could be created from a large bankroll, which may be in play from someone like Soros. Never underestimate the exhaustive potential of the American legal industry.

Hey TBear,
Just for fun let’s have another go at the possible conversation that takes place in court:
Defendants: `Oh, can we have access to Mann’s records, please?’
Judge: `Why?’
Defendants: `So we can ensure that the court is assisted in dealing with the question of the character and reputation of the plaintiff. In a defamation case the plaintiff’s reputation is a matter of fact to be determined by the court and evidence relevant to the plaintiff’s reputation must accordingly be admitted.
Judge: `So has your client made these allegations of serious professional misconduct against Mann with no proof?’
Defendants: `No, there is plenty of proof. But of course the nature of the plaintiff’s character and reputation is a matter of fact in the proceedings and also goes directly to the issue of quantum.
And given that:
1) the burden of proof is on the plaintiff, and
2) he maintains that he has a certain reputation and has been defamed, and
3) the character and reputation of the plaintiff in this case is an issue of fact to be decided by the court, and
4) the plaintiff’s own records will assist the court in its deliberations, and
5) the plaintiff has expended herculean efforts over the years to keep from any public scrutiny both his data and his correspondence. (Unusually as a scientist he has sought at every turn to prevent any replication of his work. Yet Climategate emails show a proclivity on the part of the plaintiff to dissemble, attack opponents, and even to seek to secure the loss by perceived opponents of their livelihoods), and
6) the plaintiff has clearly spent years defaming those who do not agree with him, and
7) bearing in mind that the obligation on the parties in discovery is to disclose not only those documents helpful to their case, but those that are not,
it would be surprising were the court to allow the plaintiff’s own assessment of his character and reputation to be judged without full disclosure by the plaintiff upon whom the burden of proof rests.
Judge: Discovery so ordered.
As you said in a previous post, TBear, let’s see what happens.