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:
I have found that psychological projection is the common feature of all progressives.
They are cooking the books, So YOU must be cooking your books too.
They fear their own self-control, so YOU must be disarmed.
They believe a woman’s life should revolve around sex, so YOU are a woman hater.
They know their ethics are lacking, so YOU must be dishonest.
They believe certain minorities can not act as adults must be treated as children are, so YOU are a racist.
They know they deep inside they are inadequate mental lightweights in over their heads, so YOU must be an idiot.
It’s surprisingly universal.
Great news from Scotland! 12 years ago I was part of the money grabbing wind industry that fed this monstrous global warming scam. But even then I wondered by the anti-wind groups didn’t just get together and lobby politicians.
Now Scotland is climate luny central with complete idiots advising government who are signing us up to “world beating” targets making us … as I call it “the banana republic of renewables”.
So, I’m over the moon to finally see a group “Scotland Against Wind. I’ve joined … or at least I signed up a webform which took £10 from me … but having met with the people I’m thoroughly convinced this is a good idea and would urge everyone else to join up.
And it doesn’t rain but it pours because they are forecasting a big dollop of snow this weekend for the UK!
Auto says:
January 16, 2013 at 1:43 pm
“What is a Public Figure?”
Perhaps someone who gets $10,000 plus expenses for speaking!
Reminds me of when I needed to make a point in the 1980’s, about John Kenneth (what’s the Frequency Kenneth?) Galbraith. I called Harvard Speaker’s department. I found out that JKG charged a mere $3900 for a speech. I also found out (from a rather “matter of fact” representative) that, “Dr. Galbraith’s flight is paid by the people requesting the speech, it is to be FIRST CLASS. His accomadations are expected to be the same..” Hum, pretty direct that.
By probing the schedule, I was able to find that he spoke about 50 times a year.
Let’s see! 50 * 4000 = $200,000 a year. Not bad for a “full professor” paid $70K a year at the time.
(By the way, with inflation, that put JGK into the $500,000 and above category. Guess it takes a straight face to be a “hyper liberal” and “just for the common guy”, when you make that sort of “cha-ching”. I suspect, the straight face on MANN is of a similar like to JGK’s back then. Somehow the “Rick, GAMBLING here?” scene from Cassablanca comes to mind!)
pokerguy says:
January 16, 2013 at 1:35 pm
In a civil action, Heartland would have to show damages suffered and it is doubtful that Gliek’s shenanigans damaged anybody but Gliek. Entering a civil action is fraught with peril for all concerned and should be a last resort.
pokerguy says:
January 16, 2013 at 1:35 pm
@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?…
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
They want to hammer on the criminal charges first since the civil suit would lower their chances of bring criminal charges. (I think they were hoping for better luck after the election)
@ur momisugly Auto
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/_/dict.aspx?word=Public+Figure
“public figure n. in the law of defamation (libel and slander), a personage of great public interest or familiarity like a government official, politician, celebrity, business leader, movie star, or sports hero. Incorrect harmful statements published about a public figure cannot be the basis of a lawsuit for defamation unless there is proof that the writer or publisher intentionally defamed the person with malice (hate). “
Not directed at anyone in particular, “The law is an ass that lawyers ride to work, don’t try to be one.”
@ur momisugly Robert M
You’d have won the entertainment of watching the loser doing one of the stunts and if he’s not too bright he might choose to sue Mark Steyn in which case you’d need a lot of popcorn.
LOL – Auto… good questions all:
If you go by my local TV station (Calgary, city of over a million), a Public Figure is someone seen daily on the news by thousands. Then again, to them a video “Going Viral” only requires a few thousand views in a month, so their definitions can’t be trusted…
If you go by any of the bands I used to work with, they become a Public Figure when they show up to play somewhere and someone recognizes them (even though they are unloading instruments from their van, which all have their band name stickers attached).
To me, it’s not about Public Figuredom… it’s about Iconism. For example, The Beatles were icons of the 60s music scene, ditto Elvis for the 50s, and nobody can deny that the Hockey Stick has been a major icon of AGW alarmism.
And just like every other Icon, the image and the reality don’t match. They’re carefully CRAFTED to evoke an emotional response, and the people who craft an Icon are well aware that they are creating a fiction. Heck. I’ve worked with many “famous” people over the years, and as a result I have absolutely NO respect for anyone “famous”, and very little respect for sound bites or carefully crafted imagery of any sort.
We respectfully ask the Heartland Institute, all activists, bloggers, and other journalists to immediately remove all of these [Climategate] documents and any quotations taken from them, from their blogs, Web sites, and publications, and to publish retractions.
Yeah, we’re sorry you can’t take the truth, Mr. Mann. We’re sorry those documents and emails show you’d go to great lengths to hide and distort your work, pursue and destroy the careers of all scientists that don’t slobber all over you and agree with your every “scientific” whim, and that you’d commit illegal actions to further your agenda. We’re sorry to have shown the world professional skullduggery that’s so embarrassing you’d use lawsuits to cover your sorry ass.
Does being sorry for your sorry behavior mean this all ends in a draw? Gosh, I hope so, Mr. Mann. On the other hand, I believe it’s time you spent some time in the Big House for destroying your own career–just for starters. It would only be fitting, you know. And then there’s that matter of all that grant money you “stole” from taxpayers… And all those other people whose careers you destoryed… And all those poor people unable to survive with fuel and food now being so much more expensive and scarce because of your misguided “science”…
No doubt you’re a “public figure”; indeed, I’d label you public enemy No. 1.
Is that a sufficient retraction, Mr. Mann? I’m sure it was public enough. It was honest and to the point, too!
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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You just cannot make this stuff up! Air conditioning specialists? Seriously? They are going to pay someone $10,000 to tell them that they should be upping their sizing estimates to clients by some whopping amount? They’ll run right out to their clients and tell them they need to increase every quote they have out there because they just went to a seminar with a $10,000 per day world recognized climate scientist (insert indirect mention of Nobel prize of course) and the customer is going to need a lot more cooling than they thought. This ought to pay for itself in…..the first 3 minutes the following business day.
Michael Mann** knew he lost when he needed to ally with scientific mimics like John Cook to help defend the mimicked science in his hockey sticks.
** erstwhile fraudulent claimant of being a Nobel Laureate
John
In the US, a public figure is one who 1) has achieved such pervasive fame or notoriety that he has become a public figure for all purposes and contexts, or 2) has voluntarily assumed a central role in a particular controversy, such that he becomes a public figure for that limited purpose and controversy. The Supreme Court has indicated that a person might become a public figure through no effort of his own, but considered that circumstance to be exceedingly rare. (Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974)). By either definition, Michael Mann in a public figure, and must prove that the defendants knew that the statements were false, or published those statements with reckless disregard for the truth or falsity. Reckless disregard is interpreted as a showing that the defendant actually entertained serious doubts as to the truthfulness. Merely calling someone names, or acting in spite or hatred is not enough. Michael Mann has a high bar to reach, if the case is not dismissed first.
MJW says:
January 16, 2013 at 1:45 pm
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.
To define Mann as limited purpose public figure there must be a ‘public controversy’ which Mann has deliberately inserted himself into.
I.E. I can’t talk bad about a Newton unless I believe gravity is something other 9.8m/s2. In which case I can say ‘Newton is an ignorant fool to insist that gravity is 9.8m/s2….gravity is clearly 1m/s2’.
A Mann victory would be trumpeted around the world. The media would lap it up. Perhaps a dismissal is for the best even if discovery would be fun.
If only the National Review had pro bono lawyers who cared about the damage this scam is doing to the world, they’d never try to get this case dismissed.
An supporter of Mann said that he “gets nothing” for all his work. What about his books?? And now this. 10K? Speaking a couple times a month, combined with the other things, is enough to make him richer than the 1% he rails against. Both Mann and Gleick are Berkeley graduates, and they’re both lefltist radicals in warmist clothing.
With a budget of only about $5M, CEI won’t be able to afford the cost and risk of going to trial without additional backing.
According to Wikipedia, National Review has a circulation of about 150,000 ($1.25 per issue, $5.00 and depends on donors for the rest of its funding. They appear to be more vulnerable than CEI.
These lawsuits appear to represent a serious problem for these organizations, whether or not Mann has a reasonable chance of winning. If Mann’s expenses were paid by some of Al Gore’s investors or by Gore himself (worth >$100,000,000), they could be hoping pressure will produce a settlement. An offer to settle a lawsuit out-of-court for less than it would cost to defend oneself in court can look attractive. Say $5,000 and an apology.
As for discovery, Mann presumably has thrown away all of the damaging material that is under his personal control. Will email records at UVA and PSU be accessible? Does anyone expect FIOA to release any new damaging material?
I wonder if Mann’s agent would be prepared to rent Mann out for a debate?
What happened to Mann’s case against the M4GW team? Does that not say that Mann was ‘making up data the old hard way’ ‘what you did was such a crime’ (etc.).
MJW says:
January 16, 2013 at 11:30 am
What, you expect lawyers to work fast? You realize they get triple time when they accomodate your schedule.
The reason the wheels of justice grind slowly is so all the lawyers involved can maximize their billable hours.
/sarc
Personally I think all legal proceedings should take place in a sealed room. If they can’t conclude the matter before they exhaust all the oxygen, well it’s just evolution at work.
Man Bearpig wrote at Jan 16, 2013 at 1:34 pm
Re: Legal threat from CSLDF and PEER to sue all bloggers that quote CRU emails.
It is not “he” (i.e. Mann) who issued this threat. It is the two organisations backing his litigation who did so. He may be in full agreement with this, but it is an important distinction to make. As I demonstrated in the article, PEER’s parent organisation is funded by George Soros (among others) who gave them $720,000 in 2006 principally for James “Hansen’s defense by providing legal and media advice”. So, PEER’s patrons may be the “supporters in higher places” that Mann refers to in a 2003 email.
Regarding your other points -yes to all. The “CRU have acknowledged that the emails were genuine” so for PEER to call the actions of “all activists, bloggers, and other journalists” as “malicious and fraudulent” for blogging about them (or otherwise disseminating them) is itself fraudulent.
They have no intention of suing all those bloggers, many of whom will not examine the finer points as you do. It is just a transparent attempt to intimidate. The current defamation case is part of a larger campaign. That’s why I think PEER’s letter is a good example for Steyn’s lawyers to cite in support of their anti-SLAPP motion.
davidmhoffer says:
January 16, 2013 at 3:30 pm
Actually HVAC contractors are impacted by standards on indoor CO2 concentrations. I was at a presention by the HVAC specialist for a building my family owns and he mentioned studies linking indoor CO2 to cognitive degradation. I called BS on that, mentioning the US navy experience with CO2 concentrations on nuclear subs. However, in an indoor environment with lots of people, you can take CO2 as an inverse proxy for oxygen levels, which will definitely degrade cognition if it gets below 18% — see here . The system the HVAC specialist was pitching included CO2 monitors and continuous recording of same. In any case, regulatory jurisdictions are starting to impose indoor CO2 level standards, so it is not totally out of line for an HVAC trade group to engage someone like Michael Mann as a speaker. A waste of money of course, but not totally out of line.
Maybe one of the readers from Oz, New South Wales to be specific, will share with us a photo of one of the roadside billboards recommending that you buckle your seat belt when driving and starring a gentleman who bears an astonishing resemblance to our Mike. It actually could be Mike, in a first dip into his next career as a highway safety advocate.