UPDATE: It is revealed that Mann gets $10,000 speakers fees, but he’s worried about some calendars I made. See below.
From the “we are still laughing at him” department, comes this news via LeClair Ryan who writes:
=============================================================
As I predicted last month, Michael Mann’s suit against the National Review, Competitive Enterprise Institute and two of their contributors, has resulted in an anti-SLAPP motion filed by the defendants, along with a companion Rule 12(b)(6) motion.
The Mann complaint is 24 pages long, and contains more than 100 paragraphs of allegations and assertions. The gravamen of the suit is that Mann, who is allegedly “well known for his work regarding global warming,” (which would seem to make him a public figure requiring him to demonstrate actual malice), was allegedly defamed by a blog post that accused him of “academic and scientific misconduct.” (Mann alleges that he had been previously investigated – and cleared). The original post at issue, by defendant Rand Simberg, is here; the other post at issue, by defendant Mark Steyn, is here. The complaint asserts claims for libel and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Not to be outdone, the anti-SLAPP brief runs 60 pages, with more than 28 pages of that submission chronicling the factual background against which the allegedly defamatory publications were made and the suit brought. After that extended background section, the brief succinctly (and thankfully!) shows that, because the suit arises from an act in furtherance of the right of advocacy on issues of public interest (the blog post, commenting on the global warming debate and Mann’s role in it), the statute applies and requires dismissal of the suit unless Mann can show that he is likely to prevail on the merits. (The brief is also discussed by the Volokh Conspiracy here)
…
In a companion Rule 12(b)(6) memorandum, the defendants argue that, for all of the foregoing reasons, the suit should be dismissed. They further argue that Mann has failed to allege facts to support a finding that they acted with actual malice and, instead, offers only conclusory allegations that they acted “maliciously” or “with actual malice,” and that, for this additional reason, the complaint must be dismissed.
Full story at LeClair Ryan
==============================================================
UPDATE:
Climate Alarmist Michael Mann Charges $10,000 Speaker Fee
Prominent global warming alarmist Michael Mann, who often asserts that scientists who are skeptical of his alarmist global warming theories are motivated by making money, charges $10,000 plus expenses for speaking fees, Media Trackers Florida has learned. The revelation about Mann’s exorbitant speaking fees comes as Mann prepares to give a global warming presentation at a taxpayer-funded Florida public college. Mann will be speaking at Valencia College Thursday, January 17, at 1:00 pm.
Mann’s agent, Jodi Solomon, said in a phone call earlier this month that Mann would charge $10,000 plus travel expenses to address a meeting of Florida air conditioning specialists.
UPDATE2: 1/17/13 10AMPST
Dr. Mann writes on his Facebook page:
Jodi Solomon has today issued a statement contradicting Ms. Carducci’s assertion and condemning her apparent misbehavior:
“Media Trackers got their facts wrong. Jodi Solomon Speakers was NOT involved in setting up the speaking engagement for Dr. Mann at the Sports Turf Managers Association (SMTA). We log in every call and email that comes into our office, and there is no record that Media Trackers was ever in touch with us. If they claim otherwise, they did so by misrepresenting themselves to us.”
[I think perhaps the way Media Trackers is structured, as independent investigators, they are looking for the wrong phone call. – Anthony]
Dr. Mann also writes:
…indeed Jodi Solomon Speakers Bureau does typically negotiate a speakers fee for engagements they book for me.
But in reality, I am doing the SMTA event pro bono (other than travel expenses) and Ms. Carducci’s claim that I am receiving 10K for the event is pure fiction.
UPDATE3: 1/17/13 240PM PST It seems the only “pure fiction” is Dr. Mann’s cavalier interpretations:
John West says:
January 16, 2013 at 11:01 am
So you lose a bet and your choices are:
1) Sue Mark Steyn.
2) Fight a bear barehanded.
3) Retrieve a salmon from a great white’s stomach.
________________________________________________
Duuuude!!! Before I fight the bear, what would I have won?
ZootCadillac says:
January 16, 2013 at 11:29 am
….With this and Heartland seemingly unwilling to pursue Gleick it’s all a bit of a damp squib.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Heartland IS pursuing Gleick unfortunately they have to get the US government (District Attorney’s office) to agree to press the criminal charges and good luck with that.
@ZootCadillac
HI are not unwilling to pursue Mann
http://climateaudit.org/2013/01/05/agu-honors-gleick/#comment-391934
Don’t you need to a hockeystick to hit a SLAPP-shot towards a target?
Mann’s lawyers do not seem to be very bright. They could have easily filed the lawsuit in a forum that does not have a SLAPP statute and avoided the possibility of being on the hook for the defendant’s attorneys fees. Moreover, the defendant’s Motion to Dismiss reads as if its a elementary primer on U.S. defamation law. Granting the motion to dismiss is a no-brainer. I do not see any plausible arguments with which Mann’s attorney could reply. It will be fun to see what he comes up with.
What happened to Tim Ball’s case in Canada? I believe he went the route of not saying that Mann is a public figure but rather that his statement was true. And it wasn’t just that Mann is molesting data, but that Mann belongs in the State Pen not Penn State.
One of the more persuasive arguments in the brief comes next, when the defendants argue that, because the blog post links to the factual material that it references, there can be NO defamation because the reader is free to consider the source material and draw his/her own conclusions.
Finally, argues the defendants, the language and context of the blog post would not be understood by a reasonable reader as accusing Mann of an actual crime, but rather would be understood as protected hyperbole.
In a nice touch, the defendants cite from Mann’s own book – where he allegedly likened the climate debate to “WAR” as an example of hyperbole because “reasonable readers would understand that Mann is not engaged in a literal ‘war.’”
In a companion Rule 12(b)(6) memorandum, the defendants argue that, for all of the foregoing reasons, the suit should be dismissed. They further argue that Mann has failed to allege facts to support a finding that they acted with actual malice and, instead, offers only conclusory allegations that they acted “maliciously” or “with actual malice,” and that, for this additional reason, the complaint must be dismissed
@ZootCadillac
>With this and Heartland seemingly unwilling to pursue Gleick it’s all a bit of a damp squib
Did you see the comment from Heartland saying it was up to the prosecutors, not Heartland? I refer to criminal prosecution. If that fails completely (because of the prosecutors) Heartland will institute a civil case. That is how I understood their statement to WUWT.
pokerguy says:
> WOuldn’t it be better to see this through?
No, the point of SLAPP is to encourage “public participation”. The more cases that are thrown out due to SLAPP the better, it should lead to people not suing others for their opinions and forcing legal costs on them.
more soylent green! says:
January 16, 2013 at 11:11 am
There is no truth or lie, just what you can […] convince a judge or jury to believe.
Allegedly that is the only thing that allegedly matters.
@zootcadillac
This seemed to get zapped 1st time, but HI is not uninterested in Gleick’s crime;
http://climateaudit.org/2013/01/05/agu-honors-gleick/#comment-391934
Mann is a public figure. Under Australian law this fact alone means it will be more difficult for him to overcome the “public interest” test in his affairs.
There is a dispute over the validity of his academic work already on the public record and there are now public records of potential collusion to “fabricate” a “preferred” result via the climategate emails.
Unless he can establish malicious intent it will be difficult for him to establish that the right to fair comment over a public figure involved in a debate of public interest should be set aside in favour of some unsubstantiated damages.
He is like a politician complaining that an opponent has questioned his policies and therefore he has been defamed.
Personally I say “good luck with that”.
Public figures simply have to realise they sacrifice most of their rights when they choose to become a public figure.
Much back slapping and rejoicing,thing is none of the lack of warming,or the Mets backtracking nor Manns case will ever be aired on any MSM.Until that starts to happen i suggest we hold off the celebration and victory parade
Who knows if one day you’re gonna be an honest Mann?
Who knows if you’ll work and fight to reach the frontline seat?
But right now you don’t need to care or think about your life goals
You find someone to do the dirty job while you stretch your legs
‘Cause you’re so much clever
You’re so much smarter
Why waste your time on working
If i’s so easy to lie?
So you say, scratch my back
Scratch my back, scratch my back
Scratch my back
(Sorry – couldn’t resist)
Rosco,
“Mann is a public figure. Under Australian law this fact alone means it will be more difficult for him to overcome the “public interest” test in his affairs.”
This case is in the US federal courts. Mann’s status as a public figure under Australian law will have no impact on the outcome.
An important point – this anti-SLAPP motion is filed by Competitive Enterprise Institute only – not National Review.
Unfortunately, the way our system works; the defendants will be unable to collect from Mann the costs associated with defending this spuirous complaint.
Someone correct me if I am wrong.
” David Ross says:
January 16, 2013 at 11:04 am
……
As evidence that Mann et al are attempting to “censor, intimidate, and silence critics” see this, from an open letter written by the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.
… the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund views the malicious and fraudulent manner in which the Climatic Research Unit documents were obtained and/or thereafter disseminated, as well as the repeated blogs about them, as providing the basis for civil actions against those who obtained and/or disseminated them and blogged about them. The Climate Science Legal Defense Fund fully intends to pursue all possible actionable civil remedies to the fullest extent of the law.
We respectfully ask the Heartland Institute, all activists, bloggers, and other journalists to immediately remove all of these documents and any quotations taken from them, from their blogs, Web sites, and publications, and to publish retractions.”
————————————————–
Would he not have to prove that the emails were ‘fraudulently’ obtained. Currently, It is not certain as to whether they were leaked or stolen/hacked. The UK Police have already given up on this so he would have to prove they were fraudulently obtained in each individual case.
The CRU have acknowledged that the emails were genuine and adds the possibility – no probability that while one site goes down another 10 will go up.
Also, the letter is worded as a request, not an order. So until the source is identified they can not claim fraud.
@Gail wrote: “Heartland IS pursuing Gleick unfortunately they have to get the US government (District Attorney’s office) to agree to press the criminal charges and good luck with that.”
OK, but what about a civil action? I never thought this had legs criminally speaking. But a civil action resulting in a judgment against along with a monetary award would be a nice victory it seems to me. Surely by stealing documents, and then actually forging one up to cast Heartland in a bad light has to be actionable, no?
They are not only moving to dismiss, they are asking for legal fees. If the judge dismisses the case and grants NRO and CEI legal fees, that will be a huge victory. I don’t think it will happen, but if the anti-SLAPP law is applied correctly, it should. This exactly the kind of lawsuit the law was designed to prevent. To give the law teeth, you need to grant the defendants the right to recover legal fees.
Chris4692 says:
January 16, 2013 at 11:10 am
David L.
This applies only to the CEI case. The Steyn case is separate and would continue, Steyn would sill get discovery.:
Ahhhh! Good to know!
Rosco says:
January 16, 2013 at 12:59 pm
At the end of the post …..
====
Public figures simply have to realise they sacrifice most of their rights when they choose to become a public figure.
=======
Whilst I agree, I have a query.
When do you become a ‘public figure’?
Queen Elizabeth II – my sovereign lady – is, plainly, a public figure [PF]. Stamps alone, her image has been reproduced many bllions of times. Coins. Notes . . . .
Elected Politicians, surely, are also PFs.
Publishing a paper in a well-known journal?
MD of a FTSE/DowJones/CAC40 company – sure.
Journalist?
By-lined journalist (?)
Sports star [Superbowl/Olympic Medal/Test Cricketer] – probably. I think.
Blogger??
A Contributor – as am I – to a blog like – say – WUWT??
Or to a less well-read blog???
Appearing on CCTV [which is ubiquitous in London] more than once?????
I raise a range of possibilities, but have no clear definition in my mind.
My idea of PF excludes most of the ‘Celebrities’ on Celebrity Turkey Stuffing (or whatever the latest celeb show is called]. But I don’t watch much TV.
I consider the delightful Mihael Mann to be a Public Figure as i would Mother Theresa or Silvio Berlusconi [balance, you see, balance!].
What is a Public Figure?
Auto
Moreover, the defendant’s Motion to Dismiss reads as if its a elementary primer on U.S. defamation law.
I think that part of the motion is very good. What I didn’t care for in the motion were the parts that disputed the evidence for global warming. While that may warm our hearts, I don’t think it should have been included in the motion. First, because I don’t think it’s relevant to the legal issues involved; second, because the judge is probably a firm believer in global warning, who may view the motion less objectively because of those sections. I think they should have taken the opposite tact: they should have explicitly said, it doesn’t matter which side is correct on the issue of global warming, the libel laws and 1st Amendment are on the side of the defendants.
The US legal system almost as disfunctional as the US political system so I wouldn’t hold my breath expecting anything sensible to happen. This court case has scarcely begun and these are only the routine preliminary motions. Unfortunately in the US court cases often drag on for years with millions spent on legal costs and indeed a determined litigant can postpone a decision almost indefinitely. Judges are typically reluctant to rule in a fashion which ends the legal procedings, which means these cases drag on beyond all reason. The most important factor in determining the outcome is usually not the law or the facts but the sizes of the wallets involved and the willingness to empty them. Note that in the US the loser is very seldom ordered to pay the winner’s costs. Essentially it is combat by wallet and regardless of the outcome the lawyers are the only ones who really win.
Defense attorneys will usually seek to get a case dismissed on broad grounds. It’s an indictment of the plaintiff when the case is dismissed rather than settled and it avoids the crap shoot of a jury verdict.
I agree that a SLAPP dismissal is a useful warning to people like Mann and I hope it will also get fees for the defendants.