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.
tonyb says: @ur momisugly July 30, 2013 at 1:18 am
…..Perhaps trying to confuse the plebs with obscure language is a deliberate tactic of the legal profession AND climate scientists?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Of COURSE it is. How else are you going to convince the plebs you are superior to them and therefore they have to fork over their hard earned cash. The current system is all about guaranteed employment, not for unions by for lawyers, accountants, bureaucrats and scientists aka as The Regulating Class
For scientists see Bafflegab Pays by J. Scott Armstrong pdf
Why would Steyn (his lawyer) file that motion?
Because if you do not you are deemed to have accepted the judges statements — some of which appear to be factually incorrect.
So, if you do not file for reconsideration — it can be taken that you agree. Then it becomes easier for the other party to make their case — without any significant evidence other than your acceptance of the false material.
It’s a subtle trap and many fall for it — one way or the other.
This case will, at some point, get dismissed. As a public figure, the bar to proving libel and slander is just so high that Mann will never reach it. Whoever is funding his suit is wasting their money- it will not only not succeed at trial, it won’t even stop the attacks on Mann’s scientific results.
As for the judges decision, it almost seems as if she considers them a single entity, which they are not.
Fred, I agree with everything you said. But note in this case that nobody has said the Stein and NR are guilty – simply that they may have a case to answer. Still a long way to go.
Fred B has it and very well put.
OTOH, I am so disbelieving of what once served as a system of justice in the US (and here in the UK) that I have no doubt that Mann will not only win the case but will come out smelling of roses to grand applause from the Watermelons.
Such is life.
Time to think of another way to get our message across.
[Note: Folks, the commenter referred to is ‘ferd’, not ‘fred’. Several are making this error. — mod.]
Re; sergeiMK, July 30, 2013 at 4:24 am;
As it happens, they were not attacking Mann in such a way as to cause him to lose his funding or job.
Mann decided he wanted to play in the public arena. He became a celebrity instead of a scientist. In the U.S. you give up a lot of the legal protections against slander and libel when you do that.
Steyn/NR did not make up false facts and use them in a malicious way inside the academic establishments where such things would cause Mann’s career to suffer. IF anything they improved his standing in that community.
Your argument is invalid.
On the separate, underlying point; the notion that someone would have read CEI’s statements and considered them in regard to Steyn/NR defamation lawsuit; does not matter in the least. 1) Defamation stands on what you said. Not on what anybody else said. That would be the readers interpretation and falls outside the meaning of both libel and slander. This judge is very very poor in her legal interpretation skills. If this lawsuit is being brought forward based on interpreting what Steyn said in light of what CEI said, it cannot be brought. Even if collusion were present, this is not a criminal proceeding. If one guy says you’re a liar, and the guy’s brother says you’re a thief as well, you cannot charge or convict the first guy because he cannot prove you are a thief just as you cannot convict his brother if he cannot prove you are a liar. If there’s no valid basis for the suit based on only what Steyn said and NR published, there is no legal way to construct a valid suit against them based on anything someone else said. Especially considering that if what someone else said was wrong and you reasonably relied on it, that IS a valid defense.
2) Mann is a public figure. You can call him a fraud, charlatan, opportunist, creep, child molester or whatever. He can’t sue you for that any more.
Now if you make up facts; (for example; Mike Mann did X, Y and Z on Febtemer 41st, 1998, and therefor committed felony — insert crime of your choice here — under the statutes of the commonwealth of Virginia) and then caused those false statements to be published and/or sent it to his current or prospective employer, you are guilty of slander and/or libel. Difficult to defend that.
I don’t think anyone is alleging Steyn did such. Fact is, if Mann would ever give up his raw data and methodology, someone would probably call him a fool or a cherry picker, rather than accuse him of a crime. Even in the face of absolutely comically wrong methodology, one has to first assume incompetence rather than impute malfeasance. Comically wrong methodology seems to be the underlying theme of all of Mann’s published works.
Either way, comparing Mike Mann to that sick s-o-b at Penn seemed a bit over the top, even before the suit was brought. I didn’t agree with it. But its not defamation.
If this judge is unaware of Mann’s standing in the climate community and popular media, Steyn’s lawyer is not doing his job.
[snip – way way WAAYYYYY over the top. You keep doing these things so I’m putting you in the permanent spam bin, sorry – Anthony
Many things are in decline in America. Justice in Washington, DC, appears to be one of those things in decline.
The question now is whether or not this is even a trial in the sense of facts, evidence and law?
I practiced as a lawyer for 20 years and did my fair share of trials. I note that quite a few of the comments about this judge appear to be made by lawyers. As a whole lawyers (certainly here in the UK) would never publish derogatory remarks about a judge, even if they were merited. We would just know between us who and what any judge was and deal with it, often resigned at the get go that an appeal would probably be necessary. That the lawyers themselves have openly published such comments about this judge probably means that she is, as they say, appalling at her job. I have never seen such remarks published openly about a member of the judiciary and she must be bad for such a shocking thing to have happened.
The goal is to keep Michael Mann in the public eye as a supposed victim of anti-science zealots.
For those who are bankrolling Mann’s suit, It is worth every penny they are spending on it, regardless of the final outcome of the suit.
If the suit is successful, much will be made of the decision; but if it fails or is dismissed, nothing more will be said in the MSM about it. Mann’s supporters win either way.
It’s been awhile since I read the motion to dismiss, but I think you’re missing the essence of their motion.
I don’t think that the defense is claiming that their criticism of Mann was just for fun. I think they are claiming that they merely used hyperbolic phrasing in stating their criticism. They stated that Mann was a molester of data in the same way that Jerry Sandusky was a molester of children. The motion clearly states that Mann is worthy of criticism.
I suggest we have a new category of impropriety in society, and in particular the jurisprudence system:
. . . . J W I – Judging while Intoxicated.
No telling what she “was on” (power; delusions of grandeur, Jim Beam in a flask kept under the bench …)
.
In the world of AGW, “facts are whatever we say they are”. This judge understands that ordinary logic cannot be applied to a world where “colder” is evidence of “warmer”, where “missing heat” is obviously “hiding”, where only “select trees” are “temperature trees” and all the other trees are “liar trees”.
“What we have here is a failure to communicate!”
Obviously the judge is an AGW alarmist herself, and that makes her order corrupt. She should have recused herself for known and admitted bias. Perhaps she can be challenged on that basis.
I’d be careful about what you write about a judge, regardless of her qualifications.
@Scott Basinger – inside their courtroom, they are god. Outside, they are just another citizen.
Bring it on. Steyn versus Mann in court. This should be funnier than a Monty Python skit.
She is retiring in Sept, 2013 🙂
Mr. Watts,
Your post says “…attributing actions taken by the Consumer Enterprise Institution to…”.
I believe you mean “Competitive Enterprise Institute.”
REPLY: That’s the source article from Lawton, not me – Anthony
Seems this judge is to facts as Mann is to science. I wonder if there is any romantic attachment for which she should recuse herself (sorry, I was being funny, please don’t sue me for false accusations or some other Mannly charge.)
Steyn made reference to Jerry Sandusky in regards Mann for the simple reason both were at Penn State, and that Penn State did horrible jobs of investigating either one internally. Steyn basically accused Mann, if you will, of molesting facts in.re. global warming, furthering the Sandusky comparison.
Steyn is Canadian, not American, and has spent a lot of time in England (if you hear him speak, he has a very British lilt to his speech) and if you read him on a regular basis you find he has a very British sense of humor, mucn more bawdy and direct than we have (think Delingpole). In the final analysis, Steyn accuses Mann of nothing he hasn’t been accused of on WUWT, he was just a little more colorful in his language. If Mikey doesn’t like it, he can retreat from the public spotlight, if not he’d better grow a pair.
Bob Kutz says:
July 30, 2013 at 8:16 am
I don’t have the Steyn article in front of me but my recollection is the comparison with Jerry Sandusky was not to Mann or his alleged actions, but to the perfunctory investigation Penn State did in both cases. It seems to me that the University has a much stronger basis to sue for libel than Mann does.
Mann’s standing in the climate community and popular media is irrelevant to the determination of libel. What is relevant was what exactly Steyn published, and exactly how that damaged Mann. As a public figure, Mann has a steep burden of evidence to prevail here: he has to show that Steyn published the false and damaging statements either knowing they were false or with reckless disregard to their truth.
Remember that all the federal judges in DC were being assessed by the lawyers. Though the lawyer’s comments were indeed negative on the website, the relevant factor is the ranking of the judges within the same framework of critique. The perhaps not so honorable judge in question was at the very bottom of the barrel so to speak, so comparatively to the other judges she was found wanting.
Nick Stokes says:
July 30, 2013 at 3:32 am
“They are’nt being sued for requesting investigations etc. They are being sued for words they published. And the judge is talking about how those words would be interpreted.”
So, what is the argument, Nick? Are you saying that if CEI had not published its criticisms of Mann that statements by Steyn and Lowry would not be interpreted as factual claims? You do realize that the argument is ridiculous?
Good old Nick, embrace a conclusion and then attempt to construct an argument in public.
It appears as that there were two anti-SLAPP motions to dismiss; one from CEI and one from Steyn/NR – and two “rejection” decisions.
See: DC Court affirms Michael Mann’s right to proceed in defamation lawsuit against National Review and CEI
There’s a certain amusing irony in the Judge’s … uh … “trick” which mirrors that of Mann’s: Both seem to have a rather unfortunate habit of, in effect, taking stuff from one virtual table, pasting it into/onto stuff from another, smoothing it out (well, sort of) – and pretending that the resulting “creation” [h/t Joelle Gergis] is valid.
But here’s an interesting tidbit from SuperMandia™ in the comments:
Probably a wise move on the part of CSLDF to not appear to fund plaintiffs. In particular, not those plaintiffs like Mann, whose “case” appears – not unlike those of the notorious, publicity-seeking, self-aggrandizing faux-historian, David Irving – to be founded on a firm belief in the “principle” of ‘free unfettered speech for me, but not for thee’!
But, to paraphrase an old song (which, of course, was before my time!) I wonder who’s funding him now?
Chad Wozniak says:
July 30, 2013 at 9:34 am
I don’t see how you can possibly support this contention. The judge ruled against a motion to dismiss under the provisions of DC’s anti-SLAPP law. Counsel for the defense moved to reconsider, claiming actions of one defendant were incorrectly attributed to the other in a way materially relevant to determining applicability of the statute. They may be correct and the judge may reverse the ruling, or it could be reversed on appeal. None of this has anything to do with the dispute over global warming science. The case is not about the science; the judge will not judge the science. Courts in general are not competent to determine questions of science and most judges are smart enough to realize this. That does make for a kind of bias we’ve seen where the courts defer to an executive department (e.g., the EPA) on the assumption they have fairly examined the science, but I don’t see how that bias is going to help Mann in this case as he is a private citizen and not acting out of any public duty or charge.
Mann could be absolutely wrong about global warming and still collect a libel judgement. Or he could be absolutely right about global warming and not get a cent. The specific legal action is completely divorced the background dispute; they could be arguing about dancing angels on pins and the legal issues would be the same.
It is wrong to attribute bias to the judge based on this one ruling, and it is certainly wrong to attribute corruption. An attorney who petitions a judge to recuse herself on the grounds of bias and corruption can expect a very chilly reception. Probably one of several reasons why Steyn’s lawyer chose a different course.
Mann probably chose her because she’s a political hack and therefore a bottom ten judge.