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:
Mann is a Federal employee, is he not? Has he gotten approval for the speaker fees from his OGC? Has he disclosed these fees as income on his annual OGC disclosure? If not, he is in clear conflict of interest with his federal position. I was a federal employee at the National Science Foundation and I’m pretty sure that I would not have been allowed to give speeches about my work there at $10K a pop,and, if I had not disclosed those fees, I would have been in a great deal of trouble. I would have lost my job. Why is Mann so special?
Gail Combs wrote [and also in reply to Crispin in Waterloo]:
Heartland may not want to agressively pursue this. Home addresses of staff were revealed by Gleick and their safety will come first. Heartland may fear the Streisand Effect.
———————–
DaveG wrote:
I think any similar examples that anyone can find, help the defendants case.
———————–
ZT wrote:
He folded.
———————–
Scottish Sceptic says:
Your link leads to “Scotland Against Spin” (a good pun). “Scotland Against Wind” sounds a bit King-Canute-esque or as if they are protesting against over-consumption of haggis and beer. Just joking. They have my support and I wish them well.
No surprise St Gore came in at over 100,000 for the same thing will Dr Doom pulls in 7 figuers for his public ‘promotion ‘ work .
There is little chance of any court case , for can anyone really see Mann dealing with critical review under oath rather than friendly preplanned review that he has become over used too?
Which is a shame , as the chances are given all we know about him , that he would blow up big style under adversarial investigation. His massive ego could not let him do otherwise.
knr wrote:
Absolutely. Capt. Queeg’s meltdown in the Caine Mutiny springs to mind. Just substitute “strawberries” with “calendar” : )
Nobody’s vulnerable to anything Mann sued for.
Back years ago vaunted Christian television network mogul Jerry Falwell was ridiculed by Hustler pornography empire owner Larry Flynt in an ad that suggested he had relations with his own mother. In an out-house or outdoor privy.
Falwell sued: and sued for nearly the identical things Mann is. He claimed his feelings were hurt and that Flynt had tried to damage his means of making a living which was preaching the good word of repentence and therefore freedom from the grime of vice.
Hustler’s Flynt was a publicity and legal genius. Raised in some mostly ghetto slum he had come up the hard way running topless dance clubs and the sort: he came out and said that not only did he actually break every individual law recited in the complaint but he named why he did it.
He said he tried to threaten Falwell’s means of making a living because Falwell was using his public pulpit to wipe out HIS making a living, which was legal in the United States, and that Falwell had NO RIGHT to try to rub him out of business.
He said he wrote what he did with malice: aforethought: because he hated Falwell for doing what Falwell did.
He said that he hoped greatly Falwell suffered public disrespect and embarrassment because Falwell had started the fight on his own, without provocation from Flynt.
On and on. You really should have been there, Flynt went on to WIN that case in the SUPREME COURT.
He said Falwell was a public figure who put himself forth into the controversy of morality and public morality on his own when he bought a television network and went out on stage in public every sunday.
The entire thing is folks, nearly a SPOT ON reproduction of the Mann vs. National Review case and I can tell you now, there never was, never will be, and we’re all going to see, is not a way in heck, Mann is going to do anything but pay for defense costs.
And then the people who have been claiming Mann is a lying, vicious crook, can start suing him out of existence along with all his friends.
There’s a reason western bureaucracy keeps on ticking after taking a licking. It’s because revenge is so well served, years late and ice cold.
This keeps things from erupting into so called ‘hot wars’ where there’s actual gunfire. The wheels grind slow, but mark it: your children will all be writing reports on how the criminopaths took over Federal funding and went berserk blowing billions in illegally procured funds.
Freudian Slip? Do we know whether Freud even wore a slip? 😉
So if Mann loses the anti-SLAPP motion, then we can all claim that in addition to publishing fraudulent hockey sticks, he also files fraudulent lawsuits to protect them?
Anybody wanna bet what he does then?
Is it true that such a dismissal means the defendants are exempt from counter-suit? It seems that either dismisal could result in a counter on the grounds that the original suit is a nuisance. Legal folks in the US care to add their thoughts?
Matk
Gail Combs says:
January 16, 2013 at 11:47 am
> If I was Mann I would be looking for a place to retire outside the USA NOW.
I heard through the grapevine that Mann has bought some property on the Maldives and will be working for the gov’t on the sea level problem.
@all. Yes, I understand the intricacies of the HI case and that they have been holding off so as not to interfere with any public prosecution but as it’s also clear that the authorities have no will to prosecute Gleick then I say again that HI seem unwilling to pursue Gleick. they can, and should be after him in the civil court, win or lose or they simply look ineffectual, especially as ( and I may recall this wrong as links on fakegate.com are no longer there ) they solicited monies for a legal fund at the time and i know it must have happened because I distinctly recall contacting HI on a number of occasions to seek assurances that any donations to such a fund would be used expressly for that purpose. I didn’t get an answer so I chose not to donate more.
The public prosecutor will not touch it and HI won’t pursue it instead going down the route of playing victim in the hope that is enough. It’s not, people will see it as an admission that Gleick did no wrong, however untrue that is. Alarmists will certainly use it as a sign of vindication.
Did they “respectfully request” everyone forget they ever saw the Climategate e-mails and documents?
Steyn filed his motion to dismiss a while ago. – and likely CEI and Steyn’s motions will suffer the same fate, for good or ill. So if CEI wins, expect no discovery. And this is a good thing – because it means the case will not get to a D.C. jury. D.C. went heavily for Gore for President, and I wouldn’t trust a D.C. jury to rule against a Green icon for a bunch of conservatives. That’s why Mann wasn’t stupid to sue there…because if he can get past the judge to a jury, he’s got about the best chance of soaking his opponents for heavy damages as he would anywhere. (Given that Vermont probably doesn’t have jurisdiction…)
I’m personally most interested in the “actual malice” arguments – because as Steyn’s brief pointed out, the only evidence for “actual malice” cited in the complaint is the fact that government panels, Green groups, etc. all “cleared” Mann. As Steyn’s lawyers said:
“Just because an investigatory panel says that something is so—even if that panel is convened by the government or a public university—does not mean that private citizens have to accept it as the Gospel. Instead, there cannot be liability unless there is ‘sufficient evidence to permit the conclusion that the defendant in fact entertained serious doubts as to the truth’ of their publication…Given the CEI Defendants’ strong views on inadequacy of the Penn State and NSF investigations, Mann’s allegation that they read those reports does not suggest that they entertained any subjective doubt as to their criticism of Mann and his research that could be proven…”
As I commented at Lucia’s, the opposite contention creates a “backdoor sedition act” — the government can’t make it directly unlawful to criticize its “favorite sons” – but it can appoint panels to “investigate” and “clear” them, so that whoever does criticize them thereafter is opened up to expensive lawsuits. (“We said he’s innocent, so shut up or get sued. Don’t you dare doubt the government when it says he’s pure!”)
@ur momisugly Alan Watt, CD (Certified Denialist), Level 7 says: January 16, 2013 at 4:56 pm
The truth does not need a /sarc tag.
more soylent green! says:
January 16, 2013 at 11:11 am
In legalese, nothing actually exists until proven in a court of law.
======
Were it but so in science. All too often we hear scientists talking about what they believe as though it was facts.
“Many believe that CO2 causes global warming ” is a true statement. “CO2 causes global warming” may or may not be a true statement, and it thus belief (not fact) to say it is true.
CO2 is alleged to cause global warming.
“Just because an investigatory panel says that something is so—even if that panel is convened by the government or a public university—does not mean that private citizens have to accept it as the Gospel.”
Isn’t this exactly the point that was being made in a rather colorful way by the defendiants by comparing the Mann investigation to the Penn State child molesting investigation? Would not all readers understand that an analogy was intended, not a literal allegation of child molesting?
Although I am not an expert in libel or defamantion law, as a lawyer who has read the briefs it is hard for me to believe that this lawsuit was filed in good faith. It seems to me that the Motions to dismiss are based on straightforward application law that any law student would know. The suggestion above to take a look at the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in the Flynt v. Falwell case is a good one to illustrate how difficult it is for a public figure to prevail in this type of lawsuit.
Although it is likely premature to raise on the pleadings the problems with the claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, it is interesting to note the elements that plaintiff must prove to prevail on such a claim even aside from the 1st amendment issues articulated in the Flynt v Falwell case. To prevail, the plaintiff must demostrate all of the following:
1.Defendant acted intentionally or recklessly; and
2.Defendant’s conduct was extreme and outrageous; and
3.Defendant’s act is the cause of the distress; and
4.Plaintiff suffers severe emotional distress as a result of defendant’s conduct. In the Flynt case, the U.S. Supreme Court held that Falwell could not prevail even though Flynt had falsely asserted that Falwell had engaged in incestous sexual acts with his promiscuous mother.
The defendants conduct in this case seems to be quite consistent with the type of banter that frequently is used in heated political debates and hardly constitutes “extreme and outrageous” conduct. A textbook example of “extreme and outrage” conduct would be intentionally and falsely informing a young mother that her infant child had just been killed in an automobile accident. Moreover, the type of proof usually required to show that the defendant suffered “severe emotional distress” are bills from a treating psychologist or psychiatrist and time missed from employment. Just being “pissed off” is not sufficient. Is Mann really that thin skinned?
David Ross,
Please keep on the case, and thanks for your fine work.
This is funny: now Mikey Mann is upset that anyone is talking about his speaking fees and grants, but notice all the pea-and-thimble stuff that does not actually contradict anything stated in the MediaTracker article:
http://www.facebook.com/MichaelMannScientist/posts/476034159119458
Mann may or may not be doing a particular talk pro bono, but that does not contradict the article.
Anyway, speaker fees are common so it’s not a ‘smear’ to talk about them, but the public has a right to ask if Mann benefits from his Activism.
At least Mann can always ask Peter Gleick and Kelly Anspaugh for character references — they showed up rathe quickly to comment at the link above. Mikey has a nice little fan club of dubious characters.
Zoot (and others),
Thanks for your contributions to Heartland’s Legal Defense Fund. I hope you understand that one can incur legal expenses, and in significant amounts, even if criminal and civil actions have not yet taken place. That is the case with Heartland, and Legal Defense Fund contributions — from many concerned friends of Heartland — were applied to those expenses.
Best,
Jim Lakely
Director of Communications
The Heartland Institute
Gail Combs says:
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)
At this point, they have absolutely no chance of any criminal action being taken (and we all know it), so they SHOULD pursue civil action. It’s all they’ve got left.
Oooooooops, Michael Mann should get his facts straight before he goes public with more tall tales:
http://florida.mediatrackers.org/2013/01/17/contrary-to-michael-manns-claims-manns-agent-quoted-a-10000-speaking-fee-for-events/
Perhaps inconveniently for Mann, the Sports Turf Managers Association he now openly speaks about has him listed with no ambiguity as a “winner of the Nobel Peace Prize” on page 2 of their 2013 Annual Conference and Exhibition (in the “Schedule at a Glance” under the Jan 18 section http://www.stmaconference-digital.com/stma/24annualconf#pg2 ) and under his picture on page 5 ( http://www.stmaconference-digital.com/stma/24annualconf#pg5 )
We wonder if they will be obligated to introduce him tomorrow in the proper fashion…..
Well, guess what? I’ve already received an email reply from the CEO of STMA stating, “… thank you for bringing this to our attention. We inadvertently abbreviated the information in our very condensed schedule; all announcements of Dr. Mann and his introduction has the correct wording as defined by the Nobel Committee.”
@jim Lakely (Heartland Institute)
Jim ( if I may? )
Thank you most kindly for addressing some of my concerns. It’s not the forum I would have chosen but I’ve not had answers in the past via other means.
First, may i say I’m a UK citizen. I share little of you politics and probably understand less than that. I do support, and will continue to support your stance on the climate change issues even though I suspect much of it is born from a free market advocacy as well as a position taken from an understanding of the science. Just so happens we meet on these issues but perhaps coming from different angles.
Jim, I know you have no chance of a case being brought via the public prosecutor regarding Gleick and I know that a civil case would be expensive but I feel that if the allegations against Gleick are true, and they appear to be, then you must pursue a civil case. I’d be happy to help finance that and I’m sure I’m not alone. We may not be the rich but there are many of us.
I don’t know if it can be won. You have taken legal advice. If that advice has told you outright to avoid a case then please tell your supporters. We have felt bereft of news whilst being given platitudes.
Don’t let Gleick walk from this. Find a way to bring this to a court and let it be decided there. Find the money, have the courage of your convictions. Pointing the finger to a small but already converted audience will serve no purpose.
Kindest regards
Craig Frier
@zootcadillac
I’ve been poking at this. I didn’t get very far but the warmer’s stances are changing so fast, I find it hard to keep up. Maybe someone like Elmer could complete it. (or maybe a “cloud’ effort?)
To the tune of “Bye, Bye Miss American Pie”
http://www.lyricsfreak.com/d/don+mclean/american+pie_20042099.html
Twenty plus years ago
I can still remember how Jim Hansen made his pitch with guile
He said if CO2 advanced
That temps would rise and seas advance
And we would be like Venus in a while
Then Michael Mann took a sliver
And the Hockey Stick did deliver
Catastrophe near the doorstep
Al Gore on truth did step
It seems that all they did is cry
About CO2 and melting ice
But something told me it’s all lies
When what they said did not arise
{Refrain}
Lies, lies, man-made warming lies!
Drove my chevy to the levee
But the batteries caught fire
And them good old boys were modelin’ gas in the sky
Chantin’ Grant cash and we’ll tell you just why
Tomarrow’ll be the day that we die
Verse 2
Did you make the Stick go Up
And do you fear CO2 above
If Jim Hansen tells you so ……. (Far as I got)
Oh cool, we’re discussing how much people get paid to have a view on climate change.
Anthony, could you please to disclose all your sources of anti-GW funding, and the amounts?
Shameless Peter Gleick cites figure from Heartland doc which he obtained under false pretences. So much for his pretended remorse in the Huffington Post last year. See his comment on Heartland paying Fred Singer:
https://www.facebook.com/MichaelMannScientist/posts/476034159119458