Mark Steyn makes motion to dismiss Mann's libel claim

There is also the issue of the money. While Steyn is no pauper, he is also not Warren Buffett. The rest of us with no money skin in the game may root for a trial where the dirt of Mann is exposed, but it is not our money being used to air the dirty laundry.

Steyn has a fair point, the Just-us system is not the friend of free citizens nor justice.
It is a bureaucracy apparently designed to crushing any who dare to rock the ship of state.
CYA, scratch the big boys back seeming to be the take away message of late.
The state does not fear the citizen.
This could be a serious mistake.
Fair comment and mockery will do more to expose the fools, delusional, those wanna be masters of the world than any institutional process.

The best defense is a good offense. I would sure like to see a countersuit against Mann for the many potentially libelous comments he has made of others who disagree with him.

I’m a big Steyn fan, but I found his article confusing. He wanted the complaint dismissed because of the chilling effect the cost and effort of a trial would have on free speech. Yet now he’s glad the motion to dismiss was denied because it better serves the cause of free speech to fight in the open, bracing air, etc. I’m not accusing him of hypocrisy or contradiction, I just don’t get what he’s saying. I’d also like to know what happened between him and his co-defendants. Their law firm apparently dropped him from the team, but I’ve not seen anything that explains why.

I would not trust our ‘Justice’ system to give a fair trail to anyone.
This is a heads Mann wins tails Mann wins situation.

Navy Bob, look at it this way. Steyn is glad that the cause of free speech is going to be supported by this going to trial, but he laments the fact that it is going to take a year of his life and probably a million dollars to do it, money of his and his supporters which could be spent more effectively elsewhere. No sane person would want to subject themselves to that kind of circus if there is any way it, but once you’re pulled into it, you might as well make the best of it.

I’m such a Steyn fan and this just reminds me why. But I’m fearful of reality, especially as I read “The Aquariums of Pyongyang” on the duped Koreans living in Japan returning to the North and ending up in the prison camps. I agree with him, the U.S. court system is no place for rubes. It’s a deliberate procedural mine field designed to protect the lawyer’s guild and the weasel-y.
God be with you Mr. Steyn. Send him money.

The US civil court system is a place where two embattled sides pay out obscene amounts of money in legal fees until someone goes bankrupt and the person with the largest wallet wins. The role of the judge in all of this, especially in the first few years of trial, is to make bizarre rulings which prolong the agony as long as possible. Almost never will anything at all be decided in the first couple of years. Cases seldom make it all the way through to judgement (reaching a final judgement could take a decade and is mind bogglingly expensive for both sides). Most cases end in a settlement when the two sides agree that they’ve had enough and negotiate an end to it.
The legal system isn’t justice – it is a tarpit. Those who step into it voluntarily are idiots. If you ever find yourself dragged in there, get out as fast as you can by any means possible before your wallet bleeds out.

Tom G(ologist), so by “good chance this will settle,” you mean, “good chance Steyn, NR, etc. will pay Mann”? Or they’ll walk away from each other?
How settle?

Yeah, cynical, even in small claims court, the judges are often intolerant jerks to those who represent themselves for $500 cases, not-so-subtly encouraging patronage of their private peers in the guild. Tarpit is great term.

I don’t blame Steyn for filing for dismissal. Only a fool would risk a trial which will be one of the warmists’ last stands. They will throw everything they have at it, including any dirt our snoops have collected on the judge. The fact that his motion was denied alone shows how unpredictable the results are.

Cool. I look forward to watching.

“This isn’t a game of checkers, The biggest threat here is of Steyn going to court and losing. That would be a catastrophe. To avoid it, Steyn must take every opportunity he can to end the case as early as possible.”
I really dislike this kind of scared rabbit approach to life. I admire Mr. Steyn and I completely understand who he’s not eager to expose himself to further jeopardy, and yet someone, some time has to stand up to these people. Yes, there’s always a danger of losing, but that’s not a good reason not to fight, if the fight is worthy enough. In my humble judgment it is.

@cynical_scientist
Can I get an amen, brother!

Oh, and btw, if there is a $$$ settlement, don’t expect that you would ever know how much a cretin like Mann received. Just be certain in your little heart of hearts that it would be more than enough to spike your indignity meter.

What I have found when dealing with a judge, and I have been before judges in most of those cases in which we settled, as the judge presides over settlement agreements, is that the side that wins is represented by the best story teller. And I don’t mean ‘story’ as in falsehood. I mean the person who comes across as the best presenter, most polished, best prepared, reasonable, creditable person. A good presentation vs a poor presentation, regardless of the facts, goes a long way with a judge who has no clue of the technical details and no way to tease out which spin story is the closest to reality.
There is also the issue of what is know as Departmental deference. Judges view the positions of the opponents in a case. If one of the sides represents a government agency or a public institution and the other side is from a commercial entrerprise, there is deference to the story from the public entity under the rationale that the commercial appellant has a monetary stake in the matter but the public institution is more impartial by its very nature, so its story receives deference (preference). This is not a covert occurrence. It is well known in the legal practices. I know it first hand because some of my cases were against state and/or federal agencies and our lawyers had to plan against it. So, we have a periodical which makes its money by selling stories people will be tempted to buy, vs a professor from the state university system……
You do the math.

Start parody . . .
Is Mann a mythological hero in his own mind only when he is in mythic legal battles with imaginary evil konspirators?
He’s happy.
How happy?
He’s as happy as Lewandowsky and/or Cook are with their ideological support from Naomi Oreskes against evil konspirators.
. . . end parody.
John

1. The First Amendment is not relevant in the context of a defamation case. Defamation is a common-law tort (citizen vs. citizen), not a limit on speech imposed by government.
2. A motion to vacate is difficult to win, even in jurisdictions with anti-SLAPP laws. And it should be. The judge made the right ruling, for the right reasons, in this instance.
3. Precisely because a motion to vacate is so easy to defeat, the dismissal of the motion to vacate is not probative with respect to the ultimate outcome of the case. Nobody should be cheering yet. If the question of fact comes down to whether Mann “molested and tortured the data,” as the judge suggests, there will be ample evidence adduced from discovery to make the case.
4. The terms “molesting” and “torturing” – and even “fraudulent” – are not legal or scientific or precise in the context in which they were used, so some poetic licence should be allowed in their use. In my judgment, Mann clearly engaged in practices that can reasonably be characterized as “molesting” and “torturing” data. However, a judge with little scientific background or critical faculties – the majority of judges, after all – might well be bamboozled into thinking that Mann was “exonerated” of the charge by the various white-washing exercises he was put through. Thus it is understandable that the Defendants do not wish to take the case to trial – no matter how fun the discovery process might be to interested observers.
5. Cost penalties are available at the end of the day to dissuade unmeritorious claims. Mann’s own vituperative comments about those he disagrees with – such as calling Judith Curry “anti-science” – should weigh heavily in a judge’s assessment of costs against him should he lose. He is a hypocrite, and should be shown no mercy when it comes to awarding costs.
IMO.

I would be willing to pony up some money to help Steyn with his legal defense costs. $200 would be easy, more would be possible.
Steyn should explore that avenue …

Bart
“No. It means they have to prove they themselves were persuaded by the evidence without reckless disregard for the truth. That is the standard in the US.”
I couldn’t find your standard by consulting my Black’s Law Dictionary. But, it occurred to me that that isn’t the appropriate standard anyway. That would hold true if the defendants were accused of fraud. They aren’t, they accused Mann of fraud. The issue here is defamation.
“A communication is defamatory if it tends so to harm the reputation of another as to lower him in the estimation of the community or to deter third persons from associating or dealing with him. The meaning of a communication is that which the recipient correctly, or mistakenly but reasonably, understands that it was intended to express.”
Black’s Law Dictionary, fifth Ed.
Of course, such statements must be false. There is little question that Steyn intended to harm Mann’s reputation. That’s pretty much a given. I suspect the defendants probably knew the allegation was false or acted in reckless disregard for the truth. That’s what evidence is for.
Doug

@Steve from Rockwood at 4:09 pm
I’m always amazed at how long legal issues take to be resolved. Sure the truth doesn’t have a deadline but I’ve also noticed that lawyers are incredibly patient in all things legal.
When both sides bill by the hour….

Grant — It is relevant, and it is something British and Canadian citizens find alien, because defamation suits are a lot more restricted in this country (at least when a public figure is the plaintiff). So, First Amendment analysis happens in cases like Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. — the suit was between the John Birch Society and a lawyer, neither of whom was a public official — the state couldn’t allow juries, even in common law defamation actions, to award punitive damages on less than actual malice, because otherwise defamation cases could be used to suppress unpopular opinions. (Technically this was the Fourteenth Amendment rather than the First; the Supreme Court has held that the prohibition against depriving citizens of life, liberty, or property “without due process of law” incorporates large sections of the Bill of Rights, so that the states can’t establish state religions, suppress freedom of the press, etc. But the analysis is still the same; and in practice the Supreme Court holds the District of Columbia to the same standards as the states by using the Due Process clause of the Fifth Amendment.)
The important distinction has to do with “public figures,” not public officials – see this for a good quick explanation. D.C. defamation law lines up with this, requiring public figures — whether or not they are public officials — to prove actual malice. But if the D.C. trial and appellate courts don’t enforce this standard against Mann – it would certainly be the business of the Supreme Court to correct them on a First Amendment basis…and if they fail to do so, then we really have lost part of our freedom of speech.
This is especially important here because, as I have sometimes argued before, Mann’s main argument for “actual malice” is that a public university (Penn State) and several governmental bodies (including the U.S. Department of Commerce) “investigated” and “cleared” him of any wrongdoing. (Implication: Steyn and Simberg just have to believe the government when it clears Mann.) Thus, in his theory, whereas most public figures get their cases dismissed because they have no evidence of actual malice, the Government can anoint its favorite sons with the Oil of Exculpation, so that they can soak their critics for millions…especially if they can bring suits in places where their views are popular and their critics are not.

P.S. – I should add that in the Gertz case, Gertz was held not to be a public figure, so that he could recover “actual” though not punitive damages without actual malice — Mann, as we have discussed here before, is at least a “limited purpose public figure.” My point was that First Amendment analysis does apply in defamation cases, as it also did in Hustler Magazine v. Falwell (that case didn’t turn on actual malice, but on whether the statements were constitutionally protected as parody).

If anyone is under the illusion that the judge is going to decide the merits of this case on the basis of some scientific argument ( and maybe rule that the Greenhouse Effect doesn’t exist ) then think again. He is not capable of doing that and he won’t do that. In so far as any science is discussed at all, it will be done via ’expert witnesses’. On Michael Mann’s side his work has been peer-reviewed. It has been widely accepted by the scientific establishment and endorsed by an international body (the IPCC) which, we are told, has the support of 1000s of scientists, the UN and governments around the world. A wealth of internationally respected scientific opinion. What can Mark Steyn produce that has a similar standing, because that is all that counts.
Mann’s work was described as fraudulent. That is serious allegation. It doesn’t just mean the work is flawed or mistaken but that its INTENT was to deceive. The chance of the defendant proving that intent with no evidence whatsoever is, quite frankly, zero.
The only credible defence, as far as I can see, would be to argue that the use of the word ‘fraudulent’ was flippant, not to be taken seriously in the context it was used. Sorry – but reality beckons.

Janice Moore says:
January 23, 2014 at 9:37 pm
Second DB. Good comments.
MikeB says:
January 24, 2014 at 2:38 am
“The chance of the defendant proving that intent with no evidence whatsoever is, quite frankly, zero.”
It does not matter if “everyone” believes Mann. In fact, that makes his case weaker, because then there can be no actual damage. Steyn is then just some lonely voice crying in the wilderness, and there is no reason to bring the full might and majesty of the law down upon him.
Far more actionable, IMO, is Mann’s criticism of Judith Curry. These are both people with standing in the community, for whom the words of the one can inflict actual harm to the other’s livelihood.
The only thing that really matters is if Steyn believes his words to have been true. Try proving that he doesn’t.

William Jackson says:
January 24, 2014 at 8:02 am
Like Tom G. I have also been an expert witness in technical suits. Based upon this experience, if I am ever accused of a crime I will plea bargain whether I am guilty or not. Let me assure you that the jury will be incapable of understanding any of the technical jargon no matter how simply it is presented. Secondly, the judge will more than likely be a leftist and not be impartial.
That is not always the case. I speak from personal experience. It is possible to fight and win when you are accused and not guilty. It takes time and an attorney who actually takes your case to heart. I feel that it is the duty of citizens, whether in civil or criminal court, to fight the system when injustice occurs. Any other response is shirking your responsibility as a citizen. I respect Mark Steyn for standing on the front lines for everyone else.

Glenn Reynolds over at Instapundit worries that Mark Steyn is representing himself in this action.
I had no idea he was doing that. Mark is plenty smart, but he is not a lawyer and as Prof. Reynolds points out, even a lawyer knows to hire another lawyer in a case like this.
Mark can’t read books and catch up with experienced lawyers who have apprenticed in the courts. He probably has a good case and honest cause, but he is entering the lists without shield, armor or lance.

I still think this is a game of chicken. Mann’s lawyers have to know that it would be a disaster if he is deposed. It would be an even bigger disaster if he has to take the stand. The public record of his remarks, not to mention emails going back a decade, as well as climate-gate are all fair game. There is no taking the 5th.
Steyn is a political satirist, and what he wrote doesn’t even come close to libel. Mann, on the other hand, has painted himself as a disinterested scientist whose only vocation is finding the “Truth”. Reality is much different. And this trial will not only put Mann on trial, but his entire career as the inventor and defender of the Hockey Stick.
It all comes down to money. Mann’s lawyers are bluffing. Their hope is for a settlement. NRO might just do that. But not Steyn. It is too bad the federal judge didn’t dismiss this case on SLAP grounds.

Nick Stokes said: “the judge said so in his ruling on dismissal. He said that a reasonable jury, taking a favorable view of the facts alleged by Mann, is likely find in his favor.”
Out of context it might seem like the judge said that, but in considering a motion to dismiss the judge looks at whether there is a case assuming that everything the plaintiff claims is true. If there is no case because he establishes that the law for whatever reason does not allow it, then the case is dismissed. If there is no legal impediment to the case, then it moves on the the next stage where they don’t “View the allegations of the amended complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff”, but test each one to see if it was true. There is nothing in this ruling that establishes the merit of any of the allegations.

@milodorharini
I would not put much credence in either Mother Earth News or Little Green Footballs. Charles Johnson flew the coop long ago. And what Mother. Earth News insinuates is exactly what Steyn is trying to defend.

If Steyn has no case to answer why would he even bother hiring a legal team?
Surely a man with Steyn’s enormous … intellect …. would have no trouble hitting Mann’s legal ball’s over the boundary for six.

all of the commenters here forget that mann is suing four different defendants simultaneously. if any one of those defendants wins, they all win. it is not that important for stein to have legal representation, because the rest of them do, and they will be putting on a full defense. if they win, stein wins.