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.
Nick Stokes is either mistaken (at 6:44PM) or lying about my misquoting. Since all he can make of my post is a “confusing jumble,” I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt. BTW, I am NOT addressing Stokes, here (what would be the point?!), this is just for the record. I stand by my quotations. Which, of course, can easily be verified.
********************
Thanks, Alan Watts, for giving my post the dignity of something worth commenting intelligently on. Your remarks are insightful and not, I think, all that far off the path… .
**************
Thanks, so much, Johanna the Valiant, for recommending dufus (he is either: 1) stupid and prideful (thus, the insult) or 2) lying or 3) insane) read my post. You have been ably defending the Steyn-NRO position throughout the thread. Nice work!
Excellent arguments, Joe Bloggs and Ta Ta for Now (I LOVE it!).
Here’s a link to the National Review ad exposing Mann’s Nobel prize fraud:
“*… Mann claims he won the prize … the Nobel committee says he didn’t. … .”
http://wizbangblog.com/2012/11/02/national-reviews-michael-mann-ad/
I haven’t read all the posts on this thread, but was wondering if any of these new defendants were involved in the Mann-made grant money theft cover-up ??
http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-football/story/2013-07-30/penn-state-sandusky-sexual-abuse-three-officials-ordered-to-stand-trial?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl17%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D351586
Nick Stokes says:
July 30, 2013 at 6:13 pm
‘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.”’
Read what I said about the word ‘and’. You do not understand the meaning of the word.
‘“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.’
It is the main point in this forum and in the suit. If the Sandusky comparison is recognized for what it is, hyperbole, then the suit will be thrown out.
So, why do you come here? You are not into debate apparently.
Gail Combs says:
July 30, 2013 at 6:38 pm
Very funny! Thanks.
Janice Moore says:
July 30, 2013 at 5:53 pm
Your clear research caused Nick to choke. You do good posts.
Dear Mr. Goodwin,
Thank you SO MUCH. If I had any reservations about the merit of my post, that you (a real scientist, too!) whose reasoning and evidence (over the past 4 months I’ve been coming to WUWT) is impeccable would say that, removed all doubt.
Hope the rain has eased up in Virginia with enough of a breeze to keep the humidity bearable.
Take care, O Steadfast and Zealous Warrior for Truth,
Janice
Janice Moore says:
July 30, 2013 at 8:06 pm
Thanks for the praise, Janice. But your praise is a tad excessive. Just keep up your good work.
I see old nick is still dodging the “and” section and the list of supposed “investigations” that cleared mann.
temp says: July 30, 2013 at 9:25 pm
“I see old nick is still dodging the “and” section and the list of supposed “investigations” that cleared mann.”
The caomplaint, 1st para, says they were:
“accusing him of academic fraud and comparing him to a convicted child molester”
That isn’t compatible with Theo’s
“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.”’
with any spelling of “and”.
As to investigations, the judge will make her own mind up as to what they decided. That’s what counts in court.
George Washington says:
July 30, 2013 at 6:35 am
Go check google images for “Judge Combs-Greene”. I bet she can’t read cursive.
Bingo 🙂
This is ridiculous. Can’t people read? Steyn’s last sentence reads: “Whether or not he’s “the Jerry Sandusky of climate change”, he remains the Michael Mann of climate change, in part because his “investigation” by a deeply corrupt administration was a joke.” He never says “academic fraud.” He doesn’t “compare” Michael Mann to Sandusky, He compares investigations. He slams the Penn administration calling it corrupt and having conducted a joke of an investigation in both cases. And the judge’s decision is flat out incoherent. At the minimum you’d expect a learned judge to review the precise legal standard and precedents for a charge of “fraud” to rise to the level of a charge of “academic fraud.” Instead she reaches into the American Heritage Dictionary for the generic entry on “fraud.” Her attempted distinction between asserting facts and opinion is very strange. If an opinion “stems from” facts it’s not opinion!? Say what? She references a case where calling someone’s actions “horrid” is an opinion. But didn’t that adjective “stem from” facts? What a mess. She botched it by not narrowing the focus to a claim of “academic fraud.”
I see nick sill dodging hehe even if we assume your version of argument the suit must be amended to remove “comparing him to a convicted child molester” or else theo is correct and you are wrong. It is clear that under the current suit you counter argument to theo = fail and he is fine in the argument he stated.
AND……….
Still waiting for all these “investigations” would you mind listing them for me… you know the ones that weren’t sandusky like/style coverups.
Theo, you’re being silly and pedantic. It’s like claiming that the statement “Janet and John went into the shop” cannot be used to justify the claim that John went into the shop because the and somehow turns them into a composite person so we know nothing about each individually.
Daft, really.
Wrong, steveta.
The analogous statement is “Janet went to the shop, and John went to the pub.”
A man died and arrived in Hell. As he was being ushered away by the Devil, he passed by a scoundrel lawyer he had known. The lawyer was having sex with a beautiful woman. The newcomer said, “That’s not a fair punishment.” The Devil replied, “Do not question the severity of the woman’s punishment.”
Meanwhile, looking at the boy-toy ‘investigation’ we find:
********
July 30, 2013
HARRISBURG — Calling it “a tragic day for Penn State University, to say the least,” a judge has ordered three former Penn State officials to stand trial on charges related to the Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal.
…
Former university president Graham Spanier, former athletic director Tim Curley and former vice president for finance and business Gary Schultz are charged with perjury, endangering the welfare of children, obstructing justice, conspiracy and failure to report suspected child abuse.
********
I wonder if anyone will ask about the ‘Mann investigation’ during the course of thjs? The trial is expected next spring, so the defendants will be available and compellable witnesses to testify about the rigour of their ‘investigation’ of the Nobel Prize winning Michael Mann.
steveta_uk says:
July 31, 2013 at 2:32 am
I am referring to the crucial matter of what makes a sentence true.
The sentence “A and B” has the same meaning as “Both A and B” and that meaning is that the sentence is false if A is false or if B is false. In the context of this case, the judge used ‘and’ which means that the Sandusky comparison is now welded to the fraud claim. Therefore, if the Sandusky comparison fails to prove factual, which it must, then Mann loses regardless of the fraud claim. (This decision by the judge is not necessarily wrong – the hyperbole in the Sandusky comparison can be seen as setting the tone for all of Steyn’s comments.)
If the judge had written “A or B” then the fraud charge and the Sandusky claim could be treated separately.
If you are not totally familiar with logic at this level then you must take a good logic course. There is no pedantry in what I have written.
@Nick,
“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.”
True. But, NRO and Steyn are in the business of political punditry and therefore what they say is protected. Mann himself is a willing political pundit (whether he realizes it or not) and not a dis-interested scientist in search of the Truth (which his suit alleges). Mann, over the years, has indulged in quite a bit of political theater. He slings the phrase Climate Denier around with the best of them; he famously accuses his detractors of being in the pockets of Big Oil. And unlike criminal suits, civil suits have have very loose rules concerning evidence. Ergo, Climategate and that treasure trove of scandalous emails will be included on discovery. Once that happens, and the Whos Who of Climategate get a subpena to testify in court about their part in Climategate, the lawsuit will be dropped.
This case has no legs
Nick Stokes says:
July 30, 2013 at 11:15 pm
‘The caomplaint, 1st para, says they were:
“accusing him of academic fraud and comparing him to a convicted child molester”
That isn’t compatible with Theo’s
“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.”’’
I must clarify. Nick is reading me as saying that if the fraud claim and the Sandusky comparison are both considered then only the Sandusky comparison matters. Specifically, he sees me as saying that “both A and B” means “B only,” which would be rather dumb.
I must add that it is one characteristic of the Sandusky comparison that makes it the tail that shakes the dog. It is obviously designed as hyperbole. No one in his right mind could interpret it as factual. If this item is admitted, which it must be under the judge’s written ruling, then Mann has to prove that it was intended as a factual claim, something that is impossible.
Temp has explained above that Mann’s only hope is that the judge amend her ruling to exclude the Sandusky comparison from consideration.
By the way, if any are offended that Steyn’s hyperbole can save him, please understand that it is as America as apple pie.
With ratings of:
Attorney Average Rating: 2.1 – 17 rating(s)
Non-Attorney Average Rating: 1.0 – 6 rating(s)
I am surprised that she was able to spell the parties’ names correctly.
Our judicial system is going down the drain with courts full of morons.
Thankfully, there are courts which can hear an appeal and reverse any damage Judge Coombs-Greene does.
Theo Goodwin says:
July 31, 2013 at 7:31 am
I was rather surprised to learn from my father at one point that neither formal nor informal logic were part of his law school curriculum (University of Chicago, 1942).
I was also surprised to be told by an attorney friend that the phrase:
A and B or C
can be parsed both as ( ( A and B) or C) and (A and (B or C)), there being no standard precedence rules to disambiguate.
I wish I could find it now but I once stumbled across a legal document containing the procedure to compute compound interest, with all the phrases written out in English instead of formulas. Lacking standard precedence and associativity rules in legal phrasing, there were I forget how many different ways to interpret the procedure, but every one of them was wrong.
Don’t look for logic in the law.
JP says:
July 31, 2013 at 7:38 am
Damn. Botched the blockquote tags on the above. The first level indent is quoted from JP. The next level indent is my comment.
Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7 says:
July 31, 2013 at 10:22 am
“The only way Climategate emails would come into play would be if one from Mann expressed the intent to use meritless libel actions to punish anyone critical of him, or if one described actual conduct amounting to academic fraud, or was in some other way materially relevant to establishing the truth of Steyn’s accusations.”
I have nothing interesting to say about fraud, academic or otherwise, but many of us have believed since 2009 that Jones, Mann, and the whole gang engaged in fraud. We are not alone. Dr. Richard Muller of BEST had/has a video on youtube in which he graphically illustrates “hiding the decline” and labels it fraud. There are many matters of near criminality that were not addressed during the several whitewashes following Climategate. What makes you think that these matters lie outside the boundaries of this case? Why not call as witnesses for the defense Richard Muller, Andrew Montford, Steven Mosher, and Steve McIntyre?