Last week there was lots of jubilation in the Mann-world PR headquarters because a judge had ruled that his defamation lawsuit could proceed. Except, there’s this inconvenient glitch. It seems that the judge got the actions of the two defendants mixed up in the ruling, kinda like that upside down Tiljander proxy thing.
From Andrew Lawtons “Landmark Report“:
Dazed and Confused: Steyn files motion for reconsideration on Mann lawsuit based on Clinton judge’s error in fact
Below are the public court documents submitted by Mark Steyn’s attorney moving for reconsideration by Clinton-appointed D.C. Judge Natalia M. Combs Greene as a result of her decision to allow the lawsuit by climate scientist Michael Mann against Mark Steyn and National Review to proceed.
Interestingly, it appears that Judge Combs Greene has mixed-up the defendants in the court’s ruling, attributing actions taken by the Consumer Enterprise Institution [sic] to Mark Steyn and National Review.
Mann v. National Review – Reconsideration Motion (fr0m Scribd)
Defendants National Review, Inc. (“National Review”) and Mark Steyn respectfully request that the Court reconsider its July 19, 2013 Order denying their prior motions to dismiss(the “Order”). A proposed order is attached.First, and as set forth in the accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities, theOrder appears to be based in part on material mistakes of fact. Specifically, the Order conflates the conduct of co-defendant Competitive Enterprise Institute (“CEI”) with that of National Review and Steyn, who never petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency to investigate Plaintiff or otherwise pressured the agency concerning Plaintiff’s research. Similarly, National Review and Steyndid not criticize Plaintiff’s scientific research for years, as CEI did. Nevertheless, the Order relies on these points to bolster its conclusion that National Review’s brief criticism of Plaintiff’s research was defamatory speech, not protected rhetorical hyperbole. See Order, at 17. (“On the other hand, when one takes into account all of the statements and accusations made over the years, the constant requests for investigations of Plaintiff’s work, the alleged defamatory statements appear less akin to ‘rhetorical hyperbole’ and more as factual assertions.”). In addition, the Order relies on these erroneous facts in concluding Plaintiff met his burden under the Anti-SLAPP Act of demonstrating that National Review published the statements at issue with actual malice. Indeed, the Order asserts that several investigations of Plaintiff’s work were prompted by allegations leveled by National Review and Steyn. See Order, at 21 (“It follows that if anyone should be aware of the accuracy (or findings that the work of Plaintiff is sound), it would be the NR Defendants.”). Yet there are no facts –in the record or otherwise –that suggest National Review and Steyn ever called for or prompted any investigation of Plaintiff’s research. Consequently, the Order should be reconsidered in light of the apparent confusion of facts pertaining to each set of Defendants.
Given that sort of quality judicial work, I suppose it is no surprise that Judge Natalia M. Combs Greene is rated in the bottom ten judges of the Washington D.C. area by the Robing Report.
The comments left about her professionalism are quite something.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It isn’t a surprise that she found a reason to uphold Mann. What is a surprise is that she botched it so badly.
Can we have that in English or at least structured in such that its easier to read and understand? I understand the original expression needs to be in legal gobbledygook for judges but some expression for humans would help.
Judge Natalia M. Combs Greene……
You should read the comments, 23 of them and not one positive one.
A good rule of thumb is that the initial rulings in any case in the US will always have the effect of prolonging litigation, even if the facts and the law have to be bent completely out of shape in order to manage it (as seems to be the case here). If cases were able to be settled on the first motion then litigants might manage to escape from the clutches of the court system with money still in their pockets – money that could go into the pockets of a deserving lawyer.
I’m not sure how it is in the US, but in Australia, truth is a complete defence to defamation. If Mann plans to sue for defamation, then any plaintiff should be able to use discovery to prove their defence, something more powerful than FOI. Wouldn’t this be something Professor Mann would want to avoid or am I missing the point?
The comments on her at “The Robing Room” are nothing short of stunning. How can a Judge not be challenged with feedback like that?
But perhaps she has been challenged – looks like she “retired” a month or so ago:-
http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/vacancy-anouncement-for-greene.pdf
Apparently the Honorable Judge is retiring in September – http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/vacancy-anouncement-for-greene.pdf
I read the comments – I’m shocked. There should be a way to get rid of incompetent judges. someone should sit in occasionally (unannounced) and judge them!
They need Judge Judy !
Reading the comments about the judge was interesting. Clearly she’s openly pro-government. In UK the magistrates and judges are covertly pro-government. The results are the same either way.
The bottom line is the day Mann is told show us the proof and expect to get challenged on it , is the day ‘the fossil fuel funding conspiracy’ means he has to pull out .
But one day his ego is going to get the better of him , its far to massive no to , and he will find he rush to court without an escape route .
If one didn’t know better, reading between the lines, one might be inclined to wonder if the Mann himself (never known to be one who is too concerned with facts) had written the rejection ruling for her!
P.S. From the Andrew Lawton page linked to in the head post, you can actually download each of the scribd texts as a .pdf – .Paragraph breaks and double spacing make them somewhat easier on the eyes!
Most of the “meat” is in the file named “155983644-Mann-v-National-Review-Supporting-Memo.pdf”.
Be sure to take a look at the last page, Exhibit 1 (which had evidently been presented during oral arguments re Mann’s whines about Steyn/NR’s use of “fraudulent” and “bogus”) “THE CLIMATE CHANGE DEBATE IN MANN’S OWN WORDS”, is a very handy compilation from Mann’s opus, self-aggrandizing opus, which should have been called Portrait of the Artist as an Aggrieved Mann
We have a legal system, not a justice system. There is a real scandal brewing in New Zealand where a woman pretended to be a judge for 13 months after she had been compulsorily retired. She ruled on a wind farm giving it a binding consent. The government is in full lock down over this and is covering it up, but the corruption is now on public display. This appalling judge has her twin in NZ. Details here.
http://turiteadocuments.wordpress.com/turitea-wind-farm-documents/
Q. Why is that lawyer buried up to his neck in sand?
A. We ran out of sand.
I agree with cloa5132013, I have no idea what is supposed to be shown here except some subjective opinion that the Judge is wrong. If the defendant’s lawyers couldn’t have already spotted this alleged error themselves then they are doomed.
Though I read more carefully now and see that is what the lawyers are doing, claiming the Judge has made a mistake in a motion.
> I have no idea what is supposed to be shown here except some subjective opinion that the Judge is wrong.
When the Judge allowed the action against National Review and Steyn, she said that one of the reasons she allowed it was “On the other hand, when one takes into account all of the statements and accusations made over the years, the constant requests for investigations of Plaintiff’s work, the alleged defamatory statements appear less akin to ‘rhetorical hyperbole’ and more as factual assertions.”. The problem is that Steyn and National Review haven’t engaged in this. It is the Consumer Enterprise Institution that has been doing this.
This isn’t a subjective opinion. The Judge wrongly ascribed actions to Steyn and National Review
We also have political appointments of high court judges in Australia, it is the lefts way of putting them beyond the reach of answering questions when they know too much.
I would consider I have a good grasp of English but the statement cited in the article was confusing. I dare say the legal arguments were confusing. I dare say the judges ruling was confusing.
We shouldn’t need lawyers to convey a meaning that can then be misinterpreted. it should be in plain simple English.
I read numerous science articles as research for my various articles. Exactly the same problem exists with a very large percentage of them. I read the science paper and quite often at the end I have no idea of what their conclusions are. Perhaps trying to confuse the plebs with obscure language is a deliberate tactic of the legal profession AND climate scientists?
tonyb
Mods,
I seem to have said a “bad” word in my July 30, 2013 at 12:41 am comment-1374967 – as the view from here, so to speak, is that it’s stuck in moderation (or maybe even landed in your spam-trap?!) Perhaps if you have a moment, you could fish it out.
Thanks.
Hilary
In basic this is how it breaks down.
Real world: CEI says mann is a lying, cheating douchebag and should be investigated, tried, and thrown in a very small room with the key never to see the light of day.
Legal brief as filed from the judges says:
Mark steyn said that mann is a lying, cheating douchebag and should be investigated, tried, and thrown in a very small room with the key never to see the light of day.
AKA she’s putting false words in his mouth. In all truth not sure why steyn lawyers are fighting this at this point. I would think a better option would be to run mann into the ground first and if it looked like things were going badly then break this out and restart the trial. It would have probably been better if they just ignored it for now.
Gotta say I am pleased this is going further. Will be interesting to follow.
Simon says:
July 30, 2013 at 1:37 am
“Gotta say I am pleased this is going further. Will be interesting to follow.”
Same… the amount of data that will be release will make climategate seem like a floppy disk…
However speaking of lawsuits and news… what about bob tisdale’s suit? I know he personally has to be semi-quiet about it but surprised we’ve heard nothing at all. Is mann still refusing to release the data requested? As well as any other updated info.
The comments on this judge are seriously scary to read. It’s shocking that litigants and defendants can be subjected to such arbitrary legal process. I was esp shocked by this:
“… she controls every aspect of the case to ensure the outcome she wants, when confronted she states that the jury will be informed not to let her bias interfere with their duties”. Amazing.
Can any US readers tell us whether, given Greene’s impending retirement, that means the case proper (if it goes forward) will be heard by another judge?
As for those who want Steyn et al to push for a trial (instead of a dismissal of this absurd travesty) in order to “prove” something or other, I suggest you put up a couple or three million for legal fees and possible damages and subsequent appeals if you believe so strongly. Defamation is a lottery, as Greene’s incoherent and factually incorrect preliminary findings demonstrate. No-one in their right mind encourages a lawsuit against them, especially in this area of the law.