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.
John,
I would suggest you read up on the law of Defamation of a Public Figure.
In the U.S., you can say “You are a lousy, data-molesting, fraud!” or “Your ridiculous hockey-stick is a bunch of junk!” or “You big fat liar!” or “Mann is a science fraud.”
When the plaintiff is a public figure (conceded, here, by Mann DELIGHTEDLY, no doubt), you can say just about anything — unless it is a specific, ascertainable, assertion that can be proven not true by the plaintiff.
Actual malice or knowledge that one is highly likely to be lying is necessary to prove defamation against a public figure. Here, where we’re talking about a “metaphor”, there is ON ITS FACE only hyperbole and NO ASSERTION of fact in Mark Steyn’s OPINION piece.
“I think you’re lying,” is essentially ALL that Steyn has alleged. That is not defamation. That is an opinion.
The judge mistakenly says, essentially, “Well, Mr. Steyn, you say you only THINK he’s lying, but, given all those investigations that YOU pressured agencies into doing, I think:
1) you KNEW Mann was not a fraud; AND
2) you just went after him because you hate him.”
The judge does, if you’ll notice, on page 21 of her Order acknowledge that there is NO “clear and convincing evidence” of malice. She just thinks that the Plaintiff will come up with something to prove there was, so, she’s giving little Mikey a pass to go figure out how to prove Steyn hated his guts and went after him KNOWING Mikey was really an innocent little scientist.
Simon says:
July 30, 2013 at 3:27 pm
“The more I read about this the more I think Mann is going to win and win big. When you read the full transcript of what the judge has said, you realise she clearly thinks Steyn has a case to answer to. I’d be saving if I was him.”
This isn’t the trial but the actions to dismiss… it is Impossible for Mann to win this lawsuit in any sense of the word “win”.
If the trail goes forward mann will be required to release huge sums of info that he has spent alot of money and time preventing release. We have already seen in the canadian case against bob tisdale that mann will simply refuse to turn over the information. Even assuming a hugely corrupt court mann dirty laundry will be full on display and likely will result in legal action against him after he “wins” his case against steyn.
Judges can only be so corrupt before everyone admits they are corrupt and an appeals court is forced to act. More so when your talking about a journalist issue. If steyn was some random guy off the straight making a comment maybe… but the fact that NR is a news publication means that any ruling this this case will having sweeping affect across the whole media sphere… in effect limiting the amount they can do without agro-ing the whole of many large media outlets. If suddenly say fox news were to take up the cause and point out how corrupt this judge is the judge would probably goto jail and the courts would be forced to act.
What this judge and many corrupt judges always hope for is they can pass a ruling and not have it seen by the public… because like all criminals they believe as long as they aren’t caught its ok. To much overt corrupt means instance media attention. Which is what mann will be afraid of which is also why he will refuse to release him documents and thus everything will get thrown out anyway.
The issue is cost however. Mann has the backing of deep pockets. Steyn not so much. Mann and said deep pockets goal is not to win but to win by “cost punishment”. AKA making steyn and crew pay huge sums to defend themselves thus reducing the cash they have to actively attack mann and the deep pockets.
She would be a great nominee for Secretary of Homeland Security
Theo Goodwin says: July 30, 2013 at 2:35 pm
“The object of contention between Mann and Steyn/Lowry is the comparison that the latter drew between Mann and Sandusky. It is not and has never been something else.”
Not true. The complaint is here. Right in para 1, the first complaint is an accusation of academic fraud. The second is Sandusky.
Re NRI, they specifically cite
“Michael Mann was the man behind the fraudulent climate-change “hockey-stick” graph, the very ringmaster of the tree-ring circus. “
temp
You seem to be relying on two things. Mann being forced to release data and the judge being corrupt. I’m not convinced of either. As the judge has said there have already been numerous investigations into Mann’s work… and he has been cleared by them all. Frankly I hope he does have to release his data so we can see once and for all. And I see no evidence that she is corrupt.
Anyway we are all going to find out. I’m just saying if I was a betting man I would be backing Mann. Bring it on…. This next stage is going to be so interesting.
“… Mann has the backing of deep pockets. Steyn not so much.” [Temp]
This is a fact. So…… if you are able…….
GO TO steynonline.com or nro.com and CONTRIBUTE.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/07/mann_vs_steyn_heresy_shall_be_crushed.html
Here’s a good writeup about the case.
Nick Stokes says:
July 30, 2013 at 3:59 pm
The discovery process should be a delicious adventure, Nick.
I can’t wait to see Mann’s red face when his “academic accomplishments” are exposed for the world to see.
Question: When do you think Mann will bail on this suit?
Janice Moore says:
July 30, 2013 at 3:13 pm
Nice job. Details are such wonderful things.
Simon says:
July 30, 2013 at 4:03 pm
temp
“You seem to be relying on two things. Mann being forced to release data and the judge being corrupt. I’m not convinced of either.”
This is an either or statement… either mann will be required to release huge sums of info OR the judge is corrupt. A corrupt judge will block the release of info.
“As the judge has said there have already been numerous investigations into mann’s work… and he has been cleared by them all. Frankly I hope he does have to release his data so we can see once and for all.”
The only investigation of mann i know of is the one of the hockey stick done by congress. He was found to have abused science in that case.
Show investigations into claims that skeptics never made, have little to no bearing on his work, and countless other things are completely irrelevant to the case in question. Shandusky had dozens of investigations done into him and was found cleared of any wrong doing… until suddenly he wasn’t. AKA he was tried in a court of law instead of a court of propaganda.
Once again i will say the only investigation of know of into Mann in the congress one… any other panal of retards on some college board that have a vested interest in clearing him doesn’t count as an investigation in my book… nor under the law.
“Anyway we are all going to find out. I’m just saying if I was a betting man I would be backing mann. Bring it on…. This next stage is going to be so interesting.”
If the judge is corrupt then yeah Mann may stand a chance… but in libel cases with someone like mann involved where he has spent huge amounts of time and money covering up things. Well the chances of him walking away a winner is near zero. At this point mann can hope for a draw.
Lets also not point out mann sued bob tisdale… he then refused to turn over documents as required by the court.
What do you think going to happen when steyn and crews lawyer request those same documents? Mann will refuse and thus game over. The fact that he already failed at bring a libel sue against another person for the same claims though not in a US court is surely material evidence in this trial and will be brought to forward,,, at which point a corrupt judge will block the release of that info KNOWING that it will destroy mann’s case, mann will refuse to release said info thus case destroyed or mann will release the info which is probably very very bad for him at best and the case will either be thrown out or continue.
End run being that mann has already failed in one case… that doesn’t go well for his chances here.
Nick Stokes says:
July 30, 2013 at 3:59 pm
Theo Goodwin says: July 30, 2013 at 2:35 pm
“The object of contention between Mann and Steyn/Lowry is the comparison that the latter drew between Mann and Sandusky. It is not and has never been something else.”
“Not true. The complaint is here. Right in para 1, the first complaint is an accusation of academic fraud. The second is Sandusky.”
You are incorrigible. Right there, in the first paragraph, it says academic fraud and the comparison to Sandusky. It does not say academic fraud or the comparison to Sandusky, which would allow them to be separated as numbers one and two. Do you not know the meaning of the word ‘and’? It has the same effect as ‘both’. The two items are bundled. I will leave it up to you to figure out why. Let me know what progress you make.
By the way, you have not addressed the main point that the Sandusky comparison is clearly designed as hyperbole. I know you will not. You have not a clue what to say about it.
temp
Your comments add to the intrigue and interest. It’s gonna be so much fun to watch.
johanna says: July 30, 2013 at 2:34 pm
“The judge is saying that because CEI – and perhaps others (her prose is appallingly opaque, and it’s not lawyerese, just semi-literate) – had questioned Mann’s work over a long period, and Mann had been “investigated” and found to be squeaky clean, another party entirely – Steyn and NRO – ought to have known and accepted that Mann was indeed squeaky clean.”
Is that your basis for saying (repeatedly)
““Nick, the judge claimed that Steyn and his publishers did things that they did not do as a basis for her decision to let the trial go ahead.””
It seems to have changed. Now you’re saying not that she says they did it, but they should have known about it.
Well, they probably did – they could hardly write what they did without knowing about the investigations. Whether it’s a good legal argument I won’t comment on, but it isn’t shown to be based on the error of fact claimed here.
Theo Goodwin says:
July 30, 2013 at 4:53 pm
“Right there, in the first paragraph, it says academic fraud and the comparison to Sandusky. It does not say academic fraud or the comparison to Sandusky, which would allow them to be separated as numbers one and two. Do you not know the meaning of the word ‘and’? It has the same effect as ‘both’. The two items are bundled. I will leave it up to you to figure out why. Let me know what progress you make. ”
I would agree with this. Also to add in even if we assume points 1 and 2 are completely separate the judge should have thrown out number 2 as part of the approving the case to go forward. Can’t remember how thats handled by the suing party but either the judge or suing party would have to amend the suit. Even if we assume that the fraud “libel” part is “legit” they would still need to have the suit adjusted which doesn’t seem to be the case.
Nick Stokes says:
July 30, 2013 at 5:16 pm
“Well, they probably did – they could hardly write what they did without knowing about the investigations.”
What “investigations” cleared mann of wrong doing? I know of none other then the same that cleared sandusky… so in simple argument that would seem to back steyn in him comparing the two.
The judge claims the EPA investigated but never heard of this one nor do a believe it has any relevance to the topic as they probably did a similar manner as was done by sandusky defense crew… aka simple hearing with no evidence and no people to actively counter mann.
As stated above the only investigation i know of was the one done congress and we all know mann only got a slap on the wrist as punishment but he was proven to be wrong. So unless you can press these “investigations” that hold the standing of law they are meaningless.
Thanks, Theo Goodwin! Much appreciated.
_Jim says:
July 30, 2013 at 9:23 am
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 …)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
A judge during the middle of a case I was plaintiff in was removed from the bench due to alledged Cocaine addiction…. and he was one of the good ones!
Theo Goodwin says: July 30, 2013 at 4:53 pm
” Right there, in the first paragraph, it says academic fraud and the comparison to Sandusky.”
and somehow I am supposed to be wrong in supposing those are two things. Because, just before, Theo says:
“The object of contention between Mann and Steyn/Lowry is the comparison that the latter drew between Mann and Sandusky. It is not and has never been something else.”
“By the way, you have not addressed the main point that the Sandusky comparison is clearly designed as hyperbole.”
No, I haven’t. I’ll leave that to the court to decide.
Gunga Din says:
July 30, 2013 at 2:22 pm
…. Maybe I’m mistaken but doesn’t “trial by jury” mean a jury of their peers?
I wonder what the state of health care and health care cost would be in the US if malpractice suits allowed MDs on the jury?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
About 1/10 of what they are now?
gallopingcamel mentioned
I operate a relatively safe business and the minimum insurance I can get cost 10% of my GROSS income. The insurance company actually demanded the last years income tax forms before they would insure us! Doctors liability insurance is much much worse.
At 2:22 PM on 30 July, Gunga Din had wondered:
…to which Gail Combs had replied at 6:26 PM:
…observing:
The mitigation of the tort law mess pertinent to medical liability would not effect anything like such a radical (nine-tenths) reduction in the cost of providing health care services, but it would make substantive change. Perhaps as much as one-half, if not more.
The reason for this is that it would substantially alleviate the pressures to practice defensive medicine, which results not only in high diagnostic costs but also therapeutic misadventure as objectively statistically insignificant deviations from the established norms on such diagnostic studies are pursued beyond the bounds of real benefit in terms of both monetary expenditure and the risks suffered by the patient.
In all businesses, however – both those of health care services providers as well as that of Ms. Combs – these high liability insurance premiums must be passed along to the customers. Private sector businesses have to operate “in the black,” and to do so the managers of such businesses cannot evade the necessity to build such operating costs into their pricing structures.
These increased costs not only punish the consumer – the ultimate victim of all such boondoggling – but have degraded the
In address of Gunga Din, though, medical doctors are – in theory, at least – not debarred from service on petit or grand juries. As a rule, we’re customarily removed from the pool of veniremen because the exigencies of the profession so commonly won’t permit a medical practitioner to be drawn into full-time devotion to this duty without putting his patients at risk. For similar reasons, clergy are usually excused jury duty.
For practical reasons, however, medical doctors are almost invariably challenged during jury selection by either prosecuting/plaintiffs’ attorneys or counsel for the defense, depending upon which side in the adversarial proceedings would be most disadvantaged by empaneling a member of a profession in which emphasis is daily placed on the evaluation of evidence according to each such factor’s reliability before arriving at conclusions.
No medical doctor is ever the compliant tabula rasa beloved by judges and ambitious prosecutors throughout American history.
This appears to be why retired medical doctors don’t wind up on juries, even though their patient care obligations no longer obtain.
Didn’t Mann claim to be a Nobel Prize winner? The Nobel Committee clarified that he is not a Nobel Prize winner. The IPCC was? Individuals in the IPCC did NOT get the Nobel Prize.
If Mann claimed he was a Nobel Prize winner, there’s the fraud. That would be a pretty egregious case of fraud right there…
Racecourse (aka Nick) – read Janice’s post at 3.13. She has kindly done some research for you, as others have.
What’s the next argument – there is no such person as Michael Mann (the equivalent of “I don’t have a dog”)?
Theo Goodwin says:
July 30, 2013 at 2:56 pm
…. Does anyone believe that Steyn/Lowry made a factual claim to the effect that Mann causes unwilling underage data to engage in sexual acts with him?….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
BUt the data wasn’t underage, remember Mikey’s Nature Trick where he removed the ‘Young Data’ (from trees) that showed a decrease in temperature and substituted thermometer data?
(Removes tongue from cheek)
Janice Moore says:
July 30, 2013 at 3:13 pm
You are forgetting option (3): through NSA intercepts the Obama team had something incriminating to hold over his head. I agree, the “Roberts doctrine” is such abysmally poor legal reasoning that it can only be explained by insanity or duress.
Don’t laugh — the precedent was set by good old J. Edgar Hoover who blackmailed every President from Franklin Roosevelt to Richard Nixon, or at least every President who harboured any intention of replacing Hoover as FBI director.
So if a powerful federal official in possession of compromising information is willing to blackmail the President, what are a few Congressmen, Senators and Justices?
All of which is well off the main path of this post. Thank you for your indulgence.
johanna says: July 30, 2013 at 6:28 pm
“Racecourse (aka Nick) – read Janice’s post at 3.13. She has kindly done some research for you, as others have.”
johanna – giving quotes or references to back up your claims is elementary. It’s your job.
There’s no way I can work out from Janice’s jumble what you are relying on. In any case, she misquotes. Just the first one:
“1. “Background… in 2010… (“the EPA”) investigated Plaintiff [Mann] as a result of constant pressure from Defendant The National Review, Defendant Steyn “
sentence truncated – it’s actually
“1. “Background… in 2010… (“the EPA”) investigated Plaintiff [Mann] as a result of constant pressure from Defendant The National Review, Defendant Steyn (collectively the “NR Defendants”) and others (Pl Mtn at 22.)”.
And it isn’t what the judge relied on, as you said. It’s just a remark in the background section, describing the history.
@Nick Stokes – Cutting a complete quote short is NOT misquoting. If it changes the meaning of the statement (Janice’s did not) it can be called ‘taking out of context’.
Misquoting is when you change the words completely. Janice did not do that.
You have a lot to learn in both the law and English.
John says:
July 30, 2013 at 1:32 pm
“Steyn did make a factual claim, he accused Mann of fraud. That is a falsifiable fact.”
Actually, Steyn called Mann’s hockey stick fraudulent. The exact quote is:
“Michael Mann was the man behind the fraudulent climate-change “hockey-stick” graph, the very ringmaster of the tree-ring circus.”
If you pick up a thesaurus and look up fraudulent, you’ll find: bamboozling, counterfeit, crafty, criminal, crooked, deceitful, devious, dishonest, dishonorable, double-dealing, duplicitous, fake, forged, mock, phony, pseudo, sham, spurious, swindling, treacherous, tricky .
Tricky seems especially relevant considering the “Mike’s Nature trick” quote found in the climategate emails. Of course, we all know that Mann’s Nature trick was grafting together real data with pseudo data to tell a more compelling story, which I’m sure real scientists do all the time, but there’s no reason to assume that a rube like Steyn would pick up on the distinction. He probably just assumed the stick was a POS fraud.