Mark Steyn writes about this bit of an omen for the upcoming heated legal battle:
In other news, the DC Superior Court building – scene of the forthcoming Mann vs Steyn trial – caught fire today. Fortunately, I have a watertight alibi.
Wasn’t it Oliver Wendell Holmes who said there is no right to shout “Fire!” in a crowded courthouse?
D.C. Superior Court’s main courthouse is closed for the day after a small fire.
A court spokeswoman says the fire broke out in the Moultrie Courthouse on Indiana Avenue northwest on Tuesday morning and the building was evacuated. She says because of smoke in the building and water damage, proceedings set to be held in the building are postponed until Wednesday. Jurors involved in cases being heard in the main courthouse should not report.
Cases being heard in other buildings will proceed as scheduled Tuesday and officials expect to resume full operations in the main courthouse on Wednesday.
Source: http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/DC-Superior-Court-Closed-After-Small-Fire-244897501.html
Meanwhile, Michael Mann-wise, Brandon Shollenberger is attempting to catalogue “the most egregious Mann misstatements, incompetent work or deceptions“. Feel free to chip in: it’s a worthwhile project, and fun for all the family.
============================================================
Click the banner to support Steyn in the battle.
Reply to Ed Zuiderwijk,surely they will soon have to take into account the displacement of all of the ships that sail the oceans if they are being that silly.
Ed Zuiderwijk says: February 12, 2014 at 1:58 am
“Doing a back of the envelop calculation tells us that the whole of Australia was covered by 20cm of water on average.”
Wrong envelope. They are talking about recharge to the aquifers, which had been depleted. The artesian basin is enormous. Basically, 20cm more of water seeped into the soil than emerged.
The apparent cause was rubbing two sticks together – a Hockey stick and a matchstick.
pat says:
February 11, 2014 at 8:45 pm
as soon as i saw the headline, i knew only Readfearn could have written this “thing”:
12 Feb: Guardian
“Im sorry, but that kind of hate speech against a private individual is simply slanderous. Willful and illegal.”
Sandusky should be insulted to have been compared to Mann.
Mann vs. Steyn: The Trial of the Century
Read more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/02/12/mann_vs_steyn_the_trial_of_the_century__121528.html#ixzz2t7b6IkuP
Follow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitter
@ur momisugly Michael Gersh
February 12, 2014 at 12:43 am
————————–
While I agree completely with the sentiment, I don’t see the connection between Steyn defending himself vigorously and his refusal to resort to a legal defense fund. There are probably tens of thousands of people who would love to fight with him and will contribute to assure he gets the very best lawyer(s) to help him prevail in such a case.
I also think that this particular judge may have it in for the defendants, based on his wording in denying the motion to apply the antiSLAPP statute. In that opinion he said. among other things prejudicial against the defendants, ” Viewing the
allegations of the amended complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff . . . ” which to me shows judicial bias from the start. Does he have to view every spurious complaint in that light? I think he had a duty to view the allegations in the light most favorable to the First Amendment. He essentially ignored the anti-SLAPP statute and gutted its intent. If there ever was an anti-SLAPP case, this was it.
I do however believe that even if Judge Weisberg turns this into a soviet-style show trial and encourages a judgment against the defendants, that it will be reversed. I’ve looked at a lot of the cases mentioned in the complaint and the responses and If Mann wins this in the end, our First Amendment rights are nullified. It’s that simple. The Appeals Courts will most likely set aside any judgement against Steyn et al.
Here’s the judge’s ruling:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp-content/uploads/sites/14/2014/01/MannvNR-1-22.pdf
Potter Eaton says:
February 11, 2014 at 8:04 pm
“Can you imagine if Mann had sued Steyn then, in the heat of the early days of Climategate?”
Indeed. I imagine the Merry Mitchells of the world would have had a difficult time keeping a straight face coming in here armed with nothing more than a Salon clip and righteous indignation because “Steyn also quoted a line by Mann where he threatened to blacklist a science publication for not going along with the consensus.” Doesn’t quite have the same ring, although I have no doubt that the Merry Mitchells of the world would have made the attempt. Their thug Mann has labelled real scientists #AntiScience, cheered on other scientists as they had editors removed, threatened to blacklist journals who dared to stray from their consensus, accused McIntyre of scientific fraud, engaged the power of the state to silence his critics, etc. – and the Merry Mitchells of the world are all okay with that.
Steyn writes, “I don’t care for all this beyond-the-pale stuff, because the pale is already way too shrunk. And, aside from anything else, once you get into the habit of banning and proscribing, your critical thinking goes all to hell. Many of us have seen one or two of those ill-advised shows on al-Arabiya or al-Jazeera in which some fire-breathing imam invites on a despised, Westernized, apostate woman in order to crush her like a bug, only to have her run rings round him. The Syrian émigré Wafa Sultan famously did it to Faisal al-Qassem and Ibrahim al-Khouli. It’s hardly surprising that a culture that puts so much of life beyond discussion renders its inmates literally speechless — to the point where, faced with, say, a school teddy bear innocently named Mohammed, the default opening gambit at the local debating society is to shriek “Allahu Akbar!” and start killing.”
He then goes on to say that we’re not there yet, but I wonder. A woman who makes a foolish off-the-cuff tweet before embarking on a trip to South Africa is jobless upon her arrival. A comedian tweets a joke about transsexuals and is forced to write some self-serving pathetic apology to quiet the twitter gestapo (for some reason rednecks don’t enjoy that protection). And here we have descending on our favorite blog where free discussion is graciously encouraged by the host the Merry Mitchells of the world brandishing Salon clips, prayers for Steyn’s destruction and not a single example of “critical thinking.”
I would have to say that S goddards contribution to real practical examples of data of climate fraud have been extraordinary probably on par with SM Climate audit
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/02/07/motherlode-part-iii/
@jai mitchell –
Not hate speech, just the truth expressed through a forceful metaphor. And ultimately, the Womann-named-Sue is going to leave behind a particularly foul stench, right up there with Sandusky’s, at State Penn. The analogy is correct and deserved.
I can’t wait for this trial. I am hoping it will be a benchmark for behaviour in what has become the cesspool of climate change debate. I personally think Styn has gone too far and will pay for it. Given his lawyer s have dumped him you could assume they think so too. Some people are clever with words, others are offensive. Steyn falls into category two. Like I say I can’t wait.
Simon wrote: ” Given his lawyer s have dumped him . . .”
From Steyn’s interview with Mother Jones:
So you see, you’ve told a falsehood there, kind of like Mann claiming to be a Nobel Prize recipient in his complaint.
Thanks to the internet, Steyn is going to win in the court of public opinion.
The Mann needs no parody.
As for the legal wrangling, I suspect a win in court for Mann & Funder’s, will turn to a loss.
When you lose track of your lies it is really difficult to demonstrate damage.
“Wasn’t it Oliver Wendell Holmes who said there is no right to shout “Fire!” in a crowded courthouse?”
I don’t know. Why do you ask?
RoHa asks, “Why do you ask?”
I’m tempted to ask, “Why do you ask?,” but I’ll ask this instead: Did you read the link?
……..(Simberg and the free market think tank for which he works, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, are also named in the suit.)………….Im sorry, but that kind of hate speech against a private individual is simply slanderous. Willful and illegal……………..
________________________________
First of all, you have made a willing misstatement of the facts in your own post. I have known Mr. Simberg for over 20 years. He is an aerospace engineer in southern California, as he has stated multiple times and even a cursory search for any information related to him would reveal this fact.
Second of all, the analogy is apt in that the actions of the management at Penn State University to not investigate one of their own has parallels with their actions in many areas of their administration.
@jai mitchell –
Unless CAGW is a religion, protection against hate speech does not apply here.
Uh-oh.
goldminor says:
February 11, 2014 at 10:34 pm
” What would possibly cause ‘Cumulative security update for Internet Explorer 8′ to disappear about 20 times over the last several years …”
—-l
Possibly Micro$oft.
I believe you when you say that you do not believe you are wrong in this matter. I urge you to do the test I recommended for your own peace of mind, preferably using someone else’s machine. If you can demonstrate that warmists find you important enough to hack and are doing so by rolling back your Microsoft security updates, you will have performed a major service for seceptics everywhere 🙂
If you are in the mood for experimenting, try Firefox.
negrum says:
February 13, 2014 at 12:33 am
Apologies. Wrong thread.
Mr Steyn seemingly doesn’t need/want financial support from abroad. No PayPal, no Visa = no money from me. Sorry.
Odds on Mann believing the fire was an assassination attempt? He should write spy novels, we all know he’s got a flair for dramatic fiction.
=======================================================================
Thank you.
Sometimes names or things are substituted for something related to them or that represents something that has a relationship to them. “Coal trains of death” for Hansen and CAGW or “The Hockey Stick” for deceptive or shoddy climate “science”. (I think the figure of speech is called Metonymy.)
But I don’t want to have the actual facts mixed up.