Dr. Mann’s lawsuit against National Review and Mark Steyn continues. National Review, while having walked back some of the early claims to square one, failed to get the suit dismissed. But Steyn is going on his own path and says he will fight in court for a verdict.
Anyone so inclined can help at: http://steynonline.com
[Note: I’ve removed the direct email address and most of the original comment, as it is creating an overwhelming response.
It seems that that best way to support Steyn’s effort is with a donation, see this:
Some readers have asked about that, Steyn says
As I’ve said, in previous battles I’ve never asked for money, and always responded simply by asking supporters to buy a book or a subscription to Maclean’s or whatever. But the scale of things is different down here: Michael Mann has Big Tobacco lawyer John Williams (before the hockey stick, his previous fictional client was Joe Camel) and at least three other named attorneys working on his case. So, for the moment, we’re asking those who “don’t need a coffee mug” to consider buying one of our new SteynOnline gift certificates either for a friend or for yourself, to be redeemed down the line in the event that we improve our mug designs. I’ve been heartened to see they’re being bought in places where I was barely aware I had readers, including the remoter Indonesian provinces, a couple of Central Asian stans, and dear old Vanuatu (for fellow old-school imperialists, that was pre-1980 the Anglo-French condominium of the New Hebrides). They never expire, so you can put it to one side and redeem it when my new book comes out later this year.
===========================================================
I’d suggest NOT leaving your questions in comments, since that may provide an unfair preparation advantage to the plaintiff. – Anthony
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I would consider Mann’s emails at UVa as necessary for discovery
+++++++++++++++++
dream on……Steyn will be answering what kind of toothpaste he uses
Richard,
If Mann’s benefactors stand to benefit from the outcome of the case then according to my research on “donative intent” the benefit could fall under income and not non-taxable gift. Mann could be facing a huge tax bill if he is not careful to cross his T’s and dot his i’s.
If Penn State or Penn State officials are involved in any way which is a huge possibility with the fund being started by Penn State grad Scott Mandia. This organization appears to be created by academics and academic institutions as such gifts from it would fall under IRS rule Rev. Rul. 60-14.
“Revenue rulings and other tax authorities set a high bar for finding a gift in connection with contributions either to legal defense funds or to politicians. In Rev. Rul. 60-14,30 sums contributed to a committee organized to raise funds for a taxpayer’s legal defense were income to the taxpayer and not gifts. The taxpayer, an official of an organization, was involved in litigation of a personal nature, but the litigation focused national attention on the organization. Although money contributed would go to pay the individual’s litigation costs, the officials of the organization formed the legal defense committee “for the professed purpose of counteracting unfavorable publicity” and raised funds from members of the organization. The committee made regular reports to the organization’s executive board. Excess funds were turned over to the organization. On those facts, the funds expended by the committee were not gifts to the taxpayer but constituted gross income to him. The committee’s aim of benefiting the organization indicated lack of donative intent. ”
It all kind of hinges on just how much Penn State and Penn State officials have been involved in this.
Tom says:
February 4, 2014 at 3:36 pm
+++++++++++++++++++
Poor baby,,,,You’ve never been sued in the united states…..
I don’t think the consensus in the climate science community re Mann’s work protects Mann nearly as much as people seem to think. That opinion cannot simply be read into the record, that would be hearsay. They would have to come to court and testify.
That changes the game, and substantively so. If you testify under oath, and it later becomes evident that you lied, that’s perjury, which has some potential nasty consequences. So to support Mann’s hockey stick in public is one thing. To support it under oath in the face of a skilled cross examination is another thing. Risking one’s grants and position to maintain a story line is one thing, going to jail for it is another.
Mann’s supporters may not line up to support him, they’ll cover their own arse before they cover his. Double whammy for Mann because if they don’t, the court will be asked to draw a negative inference from their absence.
That said, I agree with many of the comments above. The law is only as good as your ability to enforce it. It takes a massive amount of money to defend something like this, and a massive amount of time.
My post has nothing to do with suit in the united states only Tax law.
From what I have researched gifts are only non-taxable if they are given altruistically. If there is a donative intent to the benefit of the donor then the gifts are income be this money or pro bono legal work.
You’re a smart guy Millions to defend beyond insurance. How much can I put you down for?
I didn’t [word] that right. If the intent is not altruistic then you aren’t really donating it. You are expecting something in return. If you stand to benefit from the donation then it really isn’t’ a donation. Donative intent is broken and the money is considered income to the other party.
I’m not playing your non sequitur you are just a troll.
From what I have researched gifts are only non-taxable if they are given altruistically. +++++++++++++++++++++++
Lets send Steyn a $20 and lose big time….
Tom says: February 4, 2014 at 3:50 pm
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Stay in school, Tom I doubt it helps, much….
Already got my degrees junior.
=======================================================================
Uh…you might want to ask one of your collage peeps to proofread for you before you hit the “post comment” button.
I work with a guy who actually is like you are trying to sound. (For your sake, I sure hope you’re just having a bit of personal fun and aren’t really the pompous ass you come off as being.)
My coworker knows he doesn’t know everything. But if he doesn’t know it, then it’s not worth knowing. He’s proven himself to be wrong on both counts … but he doesn’t seem to know that.
Richard, lose the attitude. You may well be a legend in your own mind, but belittling others is neither becoming of respect, nor helping Steyn (or perhaps Mann, of whom you seem to be a fan).
From 2 hours ago:
http://www.phillymag.com/news/2014/02/03/penn-staters-lawsuit-kill-americas-leading-conservative-magazine/
There is growing talk that a defamation lawsuit by Penn State scientist Michael Mann could kill of National Review, the magazine founded by William F. Buckley back in the 1950s one of the creators of the modern conservative movement.
How could this happen? Well, to recap: Back in 2012, National Review contributing writer Mark Steyn referred to Mann—a climate scientist—as the “Jerry Sandusky of climate change,” quoting another conservative writer in accusing Mann of manipulating data to prove the existence of climate change, and Penn State’s administration for covering up:
Michael Mann was the man behind the fraudulent climate-change “hockey-stick” graph, the very ringmaster of the tree-ring circus. And, when the East Anglia emails came out, Penn State felt obliged to “investigate” Professor Mann. Graham Spanier, the Penn State president forced to resign over Sandusky, was the same cove who investigated Mann. And, as with Sandusky and Paterno, the college declined to find one of its star names guilty of any wrongdoing.
If an institution is prepared to cover up systemic statutory rape of minors, what won’t it cover up? 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.
Mann sued National Review for defamation. He’s won some early procedural skirmishes in the lawsuit so far. And that’s led to this point:
And National Review’s interest could be fighting for its continued existence. As Damon Linker first noted in The Week, it’s unlikely the magazine could afford a payout, or even a protracted legal battle. Until recently, National Review Online was displaying an appeal for contributions to a legal defense fund for Mann’s lawsuit. As Steyn said, the defendants had already lost, by having to spend 15 months of time and money on the case. But he didn’t see the magazine’s demise as likely. “In a turbulent world, a lot of things could potentially doom National Review,” he said, “but this frivolous suit won’t be one of them.”
Linker elaborates:
Now, the lawsuit may well be dismissed down the road. But the longer it continues, the more likely it becomes that Mann will eventually prevail, either by forcing an expensive settlement or by prevailing in court and winning a substantial penalty from the defendants…
Richard D…. you have no idea how silly you have made yourself look. Now, go amuse yourself by pasting pretty pictures in a scrap book. May I also suggest you stop sniffing the glue?
One question. Did any of these high-powered schools teach you how to spell, or word definitions, or the proper use of a spell checker?
You know, if this comes to trial, it could be THE turning point in the Great Lie (of climatism)–assuming Steyn not only wins legally, but also convinces the onlooking media that he made Mann look bad. Mann = the Team = The IPCC = Climatism in the media’s mind. Knock down Mann and the other dominoes will fall–or wobble unsettlingly, anyway. They’ll be weaker thereafter.
This skirmish could turn into a decisive battle, IOW. So let’s rally round the flag!
john
First Mann has no damages. That is something that is often over looked here by both sides. Mann cant show that he has lost any money. So bankrupting national review is a huge stretch even if libel is established he then has to show damages.
Second, loser plays.
Richard D says:
February 4, 2014 at 1:45 pm
“You people are sweet/idealistic….babes in the woods….simpletons, naïve.”
what a cynic. Guess we should all just fold our tents and go home cuz it costs 1/2 a million bucks to get through the anti-SLAPP phase of a trial. I’m sure that was the intent of all that anti-SLAPP legislation. Maybe Steyn’s shining a light on how low this once great US legal system has sunk is worth a few bucks. I’m betting even lawyers can be embarrassed at some point. Steyn doesn’t need a $2k per hour lawyer. He had that and after a year of silence got 2 pdf’s and a so sorry, you have to go to trial cuz you said something you didn’t actually say but you might have said if I read the amended complaint right, etc, etc, etc. I think some recent law school grad who wants to make a name for himself could do just as well as the yahoos from Steptoe and Johnson. Who knows, and this is a real stretch, at some point maybe even some liberals will be embarrassed by what’s happened to our legal system. You’re like one of those people who scoffs at the guy going in to disarm the run-away nuclear reactor on your submarine. Yeah, lotta good that’s gonna do, hoser! I’m gonna sit here and look superior.
Here is a spooky little opinion piece by Mann in the NYT.
If You See Something, Say Something (HIS WORDS).
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/19/opinion/sunday/if-you-see-something-say-something.html
STATE COLLEGE, Pa. — THE overwhelming consensus among climate scientists is that human-caused climate change is happening. Yet a fringe minority of our populace clings to an irrational rejection of well-established science. This virulent strain of anti-science infects the halls of Congress, the pages of leading newspapers and what we see on TV, leading to the appearance of a debate where none should exist.
In fact, there is broad agreement among climate scientists not only that climate change is real (a survey and a review of the scientific literature published say about 97 percent agree), but that we must respond to the dangers of a warming planet. If one is looking for real differences among mainstream scientists, they can be found on two fronts: the precise implications of those higher temperatures, and which technologies and policies offer the best solution to reducing, on a global scale, the emission of greenhouse gases.
For example, should we go full-bore on nuclear power? Invest in and deploy renewable energy — wind, solar and geothermal — on a huge scale? Price carbon emissions through cap-and-trade legislation or by imposing a carbon tax? Until the public fully understands the danger of our present trajectory, those debates are likely to continue to founder…
There is a little known technique to disarming the plaintiff’s liars. It’s supposedly the established practice or rule, the plaintiff MUST be present in the courtroom. If an attorney represents the plaintiff, object to and/or bar the attorney from speaking due to their lack of direct first-hand knowledge of the matter.
The above information is theoretical in nature. More research would be needed to bring it to life. However, the upside rewards would be priceless in seeing Mann have to personally argue his case to the court…
what a cynic. Guess we should all just fold our tents and go home cuz it costs 1/2 a million bucks to get through the anti-SLAPP phase of a trial.
+++++++++++++++++
yep
There is a little known technique to disarming the plaintiff’s liars. It’s supposedly the established practice or rule, the plaintiff MUST be present in the courtroom.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Well, it will cost you 5 to 10 million dollars to test your theory…………..
===============================================================
Kind of makes one wonder if Mann isn’t Hansen’s love child. But he didn’t mention “Coal Trains of Death” so there is still a doubt.
Mike Alexander, “The scientific community where Mann’s work exists, has accepted that the “hide the decline” bit is sound and scientific.”
That won’t matter. What matters is a factual demonstration that Mann falsified his work. That demonstration is readily available. After that, the accepting “scientific community” will end up looking either foolish or complicit.
john says:
February 4, 2014 at 4:09 pm
It’s just Lefty fantasy and self-pleasuring. Pay it no mind. NR’s insurance will take care of most of their costs. Pace the jejune cynicism of certain underpass dwellers in this thread, Mann doesn’t stand a chance, and he will eventually throw in towel if the defendants refuse, themselves, to cave.