From the “chilling effect” of sunlight department, Steyn writes:
Many “climate skeptics” wonder why the defendants would want to get the complaint dismissed rather than put Mann through a trial in which he would have to take the witness stand and discuss his work under oath. I can understand their enthusiasm for this but for me the priority has always been the broader cause of free speech:
Defendant Steyn stands by his words and is willing to defend them at trial and before a jury, should it come to that. However, as a noted human-rights activist in Canada and elsewhere, he believes that the cause of freedom of expression in the United States would best be served by dismissing the amended complaint, and that a trial would have a significant “chilling effect” in America of the kind the Anti-SLAPP laws are specifically designed to prevent.
The “chilling effect” is a bigger threat to civilized society than all Dr Mann’s warming. But the judge chose instead to put us on the road to a full-scale trial. So be it.
As readers may have deduced from my absence at National Review Online and my termination of our joint representation, there have been a few differences between me and the rest of the team. The lesson of the last year is that you win a free-speech case not by adopting a don’t-rock-the-boat, keep-mum, narrow procedural posture but by fighting it in the open, in the bracing air and cleansing sunlight of truth and justice.
=============================================================
Unfortunately, the motion was denied.
Read the whole thing here: http://www.steynonline.com/6025/trial-and-error
![RoadCones-300x224[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/roadcones-300x2241.jpg?quality=83)
Mann would be a fool to pursue the case further, but then again, his ego is often so large that I surmise the state department of transportation must be forced to put out orange traffic cones ahead of him when he travels, so I doubt it will happen.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Nick Stokes: Yes he did, and 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. Now there is plenty of scope for arguing about the facts, but the judge is saying that a prima facie case has been made. He listed the elements.
That’s what he said. Judges say a lot of things that are just plain wrong. That’s why there are appellate courts.
JP says:
“It is too bad the federal judge didn’t dismiss this case on SLAP grounds.”
I believe that SLAPP suits are state jurisdiction, not federal. But otherwise I agree with your analysis. This is a game of bluff.
dbstealey says: January 24, 2014 at 2:34 pm
“I believe that SLAPP suits are state jurisdiction, not federal.”
This isn’t a federal casae – it’s DC. And it was a SLAPP motion that the judge dismissed – he said:
“ORDERED that the Special Motion of defendants Mark Steyn and National Review, Inc. to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint Under D.C. Anti-SLAPP Act and their Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint Under D.C. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 12(b)(6) be, and they hereby are, denied;”
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.
Douglas2 says: January 24, 2014 at 2:43 pm
“There is nothing in this ruling that establishes the merit of any of the allegations.”
Yes there is. The judge said:
“Therefore, the court must grant the motions unless plaintiff is “likely to succeed on the merits.””
He denied the motions.
It’s a prima facie finding. It doesn’t establish that the facts alleged are true. But it does say that if true they would make a case for actionable defamation of a public figure.
Sorry if this was noted already, but Steyn & NR´s law firm supposedly dropped their clients after Steyn insulted the judge:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/43008_Law_Firm_Drops_Mark_Steyn_and_National_Review_in_Climate_Change_Denial_Suit
I may have to make another contribution & put up with more dunning emails from Nat Rev.
This could be a very bad precedent. When you see water leaking out of a dike, you should be allowed to malign the engineer’s skill and reputation.
When you catch the engineer with his finger in the hole in the dike, you should be allowed to malign his integrity.
If you have to wait for verification, people drown.
@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.
Bill Sprague says:
January 24, 2014 at 3:40 am
I hope that Mark Stein will enlist Steve McIntyre to testify in his behalf,
=====================================================
Yes indeed. Steve M is superb in his logical and cogent comments on why Mann was whitewashed by his University. He knows exactly what should be found in discovery, and I think Steve M could well frame the questions that a competent attorney could demand answers for in court. There are also very demeaning comments about Mann’s work made by his co-authors in the climate gate e-mails. There is plenty of logic to support a statement that Mark S reasonably thinks Mann’s work was fraudulent. He does not have to prove it fraudulent, just that he was not malicious in his statement about a public figure.
Now, will the judge follow this logic and the laws behind it? There is no such a thing as a clear law.
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.
Surely a man with Steyn’s enormous … intellect … doesn’t need a lawyer. As the magesterial Steyn is as right on this as he is on everything else, he’ll run rings around Mann’s legal team and have the jury on a string.
Relax. You know it makes sense.
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.
Who is funding Mann’s legal costs? Humm the E=GREEN 25 maybe?
one more comment- mann cannot win this case. the defendants don’t have to prove mann is a fraud. they only have to prove that they BELIEVE mann is a fraud. this is easy. all they have to do is introduce about two or three dozen sources of other experts criticizing mann’s work and then say they READ those sources and BELIEVED them. that’s all they have to do. if lowry, stein, etc. take the stand and say they formed an opinion that mann was a fraud because they were being bombarded with reading material from their own hand-picked reading sources (and then list about thirty different sources…) the jury has to find for them. end of story.
” if they win, stein wins.”
I would think the first hurdle would be to prove the statements were false, but malicious intent would still have to be proved against each defendant individually.
Mann should be declared a public figure. When there is a battle going on over government policy, scientists and academicians can’t take shots, duck behind the wall of private citizen, and scream bloody murder when someone shoots back. I can envision that would lead to abuse of the “expert” label to avoid an immediate salvo, because of fear of being sued over lack of adequate and thorough pre-investigation.
Remember the 7 Deadly Words for Television? Maybe we need a list of words you can’t use for science. Here are some candidates: Bogus. Manipulated. Tortured. Fake. Fraud. False. Phony.
All doublplusungood. Must talk niceful, BB is watching.
Here is the link to the enablers . .
http://webecoist.momtastic.com/2008/09/24/25-environmental-agencies-and-organizations/
Courtney Love Wins Twitter Defamation Trial
JP says:
January 24, 2014 at 5:54 pm
I agree, but will a DC jury see it that way?
Nick Stokes —
The judge, Weisberg, in his ruling against dismissal, said:
Viewing the alleged facts in the light most favorable to plaintiff, as the court must on a motion to dismiss, a reasonable jury is likely to find the statement that Dr. Mann “molested and tortured data” was false, was published with knowledge of its falsity or reckless disregard of whether it was false or not, and is actionable as a matter of law irrespective of special harm.”
That seems to say that he is a public figure (“reckless disregard”) but that Mann has made a prima facie case of “actual malice”.
That’s correct, the judge did say that. But he didn’t provide any actual facts or reasoning to say WHY Mann has made out a prima facie case for “actual malice” — outside of broadly deferring to the prior opinion. That’s why he’s wrong, and that’s why I hope he’ll get reviewed and reversed on appeal.
(Mann’s own reasoning, which is simply terrible, is that since several bodies, like Penn State and the U.S. Department of Commerce, “investigated” and “cleared” him, that anyone who knows about these investigations but disagrees with them must be malicious….that is, Steyn & Simberg just have to believe the government when it speaks on Mann’s behalf.)
There should be a place here for readers to donate to Steyn’s cause.
Steyn doesn’t have a legal defense fund yet — his website is steynonline.com, and when he gets one together, I’m sure there’ll be a link there.