Steyn countersues Mann for 10 millon dollars

Mark Steyn has decided to countersue Michael Mann for $10 million.

The legal document reads like a drama. See below.

FIRST COUNTERCLAIM

130. Plaintiff [Mann] has engaged in a pattern of abusive litigation designed to chill freedom of speech and to stifle legitimate criticism of Plaintiff’s work. He is currently suing Dr Tim Ball in British Columbia over a hoary bit of word play (“should be in the state pen, not Penn State”) applied to innumerable Pennsylvanians over the years. Having initiated the suit, Dr Mann then stalled the discovery process, so that the BC suit is now entering its third year – Mann’s object being to use the process as a punishment, rather than any eventual trial and conviction. See Mann vs Ball et al, British Columbia VLC-S-S-111913 (2011) (exhibit attached).

131.At the other end of the spectrum, Plaintiff and his Counsel have issued demands that have no basis in law, as they well know – including the preposterous assertion, in response to a parody video by “Minnesotans for Global Warming”, that “Professor Mann’s likeness” is protected from parody and satire…There is a smell to the hockey stick that, in Lady Macbeth’s words, “all the perfumes of Arabia will not sweeten” – nor all the investigations. And so Dr  Mann has determined to sue it into respectability.

132. At the same time, Plaintiff continues to evade the one action that might definitively establish its respectability – by objecting, in the courts of Virginia, British Columbia and elsewhere, to the release of his research in this field. See Cuccinelli vs Rectors and Visitors of the University of Virginia…

133. As with his previous legal threats and actions, Plaintiff has brought this lawsuit for the purpose of wrongfully interfering with critics’ statutorily protected right of advocacy on an issue of great public interest and constitutionally protected free-speech rights.

134.Plaintiff’s lawsuit was designed to have and has had the effect of inhibiting legitimate debate on the issues and public policy surrounding the theories expounded by Plaintiff and others and of restricting the free flow of ideas concerning the merits of those theories…

135. It is already having the desired effect. This very week, on February 19th, enraged by a Pennsylvania weatherman’s Tweet, Plaintiff instructed his acolytes through his Facebook and Twitter pages to call the CBS affiliate and demand to know whether this was “acceptable behavior”. Several went further and made threats to “add him to the lawsuit”, and similar. In the event that Mann succeeds in delaying discovery as he has in British Columbia, there will be three years for him and his enforcers to bully weathermen, parodists, fellow scientists and many others by threatening to “add them to the lawsuit”.

136. More particularly, Plaintiff’s lawsuit, with the intent to silence Plaintiff’s critics, has targeted Defendant Steyn, who has written articles critical of Plaintiff and his theories.

137. Such improper chilling of free, robust and uninhibited public debate over climate change taints and skews the democratic process and distorts the resulting governmental public policy response to alleged global warming.

138. Plaintiff’s lawsuit has damaged Defendant Steyn by interfering with his right to express opinions on controversial matters and causing him to expend time, money and effort in having to respond to this lawsuit.

139.The claims in Plaintiff’s lawsuit arise from an act in furtherance of the right of advocacy on an issue of publicinterest and Plaintiff’s lawsuit therefore violates the Anti-Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation Act (Anti-SLAPP Act) …

140. As a result of Plaintiff’s campaign to silence those who disagree with him on a highly controversial issue of great public importance, wrongful action and violation of the Anti-SLAPP Act, Steyn has been damaged and is entitled to damages, including but not limited to his costs and the attorneys’ fees he has incurred and will incur in the future in defending this action, all in an amount to be determined at trial, but in any event, not less than $5 million, plus punitive damages in the amount of $5 million.

SECOND COUNTERCLAIM

142. Plaintiff’s wrongful interference with Defendant Steyn’s constitutionally protected rights of free speech and public expression and his engagement and use of the courts as an instrument of the government to carry out that wrongful interference violates the First Amendment and constitutes a constitutional tort for which Defendant Steyn is entitled to be compensated.

143. As a consequence of Plaintiff’s wrongful act, Defendant Steyn has been damaged and is entitled to damages, including but not limited to his costs and the attorneys’ fees he has incurred and will incur in the future in defending this action, all in an amount to be determined at trial, but in any event, not less than $5 million, plus punitive damages in the amount of $5 million.

WHEREFORE, Defendant Mark Steyn demands judgment as follows:

a. Dismissing Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint in its entirety;

b. On his First Counterclaim, awarding him compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial,  but in any event, not less than $5 million and punitive damages in the amount of $5 million, plus his costs and expenses including reasonable attorneys’ fees;

c. On his Second Counterclaim, awarding him compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial, but in any event, not less than $5 million and punitive damages in the amount of $5 million, plus his costs and expenses including reasonable attorneys’ fees; and

d. Granting such other and further relief as to the Court seems just.

See the legal document here:

http://www.steynonline.com/documents/6109.pdf

Related: ‘I’m Michael E. Mann, Distinguished Professor of Meteorology at Penn State, Ask Me Almost Anything!’

To contribute to Steyn’s legal fund, see http://www.steynonline.com/6048/give-the-gift-of-steyn

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Ron

Very stupid but successful lawsuit by Mann and an excellent response by Steyn. I hope the court tosses out the Mann suit.

How about we close down all Government GRANT SCIENCE . . here is how and then we will have no more EAU/Mann fabrication of data sets and then computer modeling programs that no one can peer review as the based raw data and the math for the data sets have not been released? Take away the money and power from Washington all the Grant research will be gone.
http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/article-v—group-overview-and-proposal.html
http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/the-28th-amendment.html

check out paragraphs #25, #103, #111, too.

Steven Strittmatter

Looks like $10 million times 2 plus legal fees!

William McClenney

I am not on Reddit, and will not be after they joined the purge list for non-believers in AGW.
Over a year ago at a talk Mann gave at UCLA I attempted to ask Mann a question:
“When do you think the Holocene will end?” Redditers feel free to pose the question.

pouncer

This pins Mann into the ring. Without the counter-suit, Mann has the option to withdraw at any time, for any stated reason, with no hope for Steyn, Simberg, or others to recoup even satisfaction of having fought long and hard. But now Mann is obligated to stay until BOTH he and Steyn agree to settle, or a judge throws one or another complaint out, or a jury decides.

Larry Hamlin

The climate alarmist community could have chosen to illiminate the flawed Mann hockey stick from further debate by acknowledging it is a product derived from improper use of statistical analysis. Instead this community chose to circle the wagons and try and arrogantly bluff it’s way out of this problem to try and protect what had become a symbol, although a grossly flawed one, of climate alarm propaganda. Now this decision to circle the wagons is going to allow the most intensive debate about this flawed product to be brought fully into the limelight with the result very likely to be a significant further undermining of climate alarmists credibility and competence. So be it.

Somewhere, Vince Lombardi is smiling. “The best Defense is a strong Offense!!!”

Dave

Little Mikey Mann claims to be a “climate warrior”, but that’s only true when he’s on offense. When on defense, such as when asked a difficult question, he typically runs away (most likely to curl up into the fetal position somewhere). The “Mann” is incapable of debate unless it’s one-sided. So I for one am delighted to see Mark Steyn going on offense. Now we’ll see just how brave little Mikey is…
Go get em’ Mark!

richardscourtney

Friends:
The entire document is worth a read.
Para. 111 is my personal favourite. It says

Denies the allegations in Paragraph One-Hundred-And-Eleven of the Amended Complaint, and feels Plaintiff is going round like a circle in a spiral, like a wheel within a wheel, like the circles that you find in the tree-rings of your mind.

Richard

I figured it’s about time I stood up. Just sent a Grant to help get that $10 Mil. (By the way is that US$ or C$????) THAT would be quite a return on my investment: $50 for $10 Mil!!!
Steamboat Jack (Jon Jewett’s evil twin)

Sweet Old Bob

YAY! FINALLY! Go Steyn!

Message to Mr. Mann:

[snip]

See also:
Climate Audit: MyIntyre: Feb. 17, 2014 Mann and the Oxburgh Panel

In today’s post, I’ll look closely at the Oxburgh panel, one of the investigations cited in Mann’s pleadings. However, contrary to the claims in Mann’s litigation, not only did the Oxburgh panel not exonerate Mann, at their press conference, Oxburgh panelist David Hand, then President of the Royal Statistical Society, made very disparaging and critical comments about Mann’s work, describing it as based on “inappropriate” statistics that led to “exaggerated” results.

Climate Audit, McIntyre, Feb 21Mann and the Muir Russell Inquiry #1

… the Muir Russell inquiry did not “offer any opinion on Mann, who was not a part of CRU, but merely a collaborator with some of its scientists”. …
I also plan a second post on an important topic arising from Muir Russell’s finding that the omission of data in certain graphs resulted in them being “misleading” and discuss whether these findings demonstrate the elements of “falsification”, as defined in standard academic codes of conduct.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/17/one-of-the-mann-steyn-lawsuit-claims-hits-a-rock/

serving as scientific advisor to and appearing in a climate-change TV series starring climate experts Matt Damon and Jessica Alba, and is therefore a public figure.

Hilarious.

Jack Langdon

Three Cheers! Fling funds folks, this is going to cost money – but it will be worth every dime to stop destroying our grandchildren’s economic future.

MarkW

Paul Homewood says:
February 21, 2014 at 11:51 am
—-
Wouldn’t that open up Mann for a countersuit to at a minimum, recover legal fees.

Lake

William McClenney, Reddit comes off like a hive-mind, but it’s not. There’s an active ‘subreddit’ for climate change skeptics as well: http://www.reddit.com/r/climateskeptics/. It did indeed bother me that /r/Science tried to blacklist any climate skeptic pieces, but there was also a huge backlash, and that moderator got in trouble.

clipe

[Mann vs Ball 02May2012]
$6.
$10 for documents
https://eservice.ag.gov.bc.ca/cso/index.do
Last Name, First Name
Middle Name Role of Party
On File Counsel Name
Counsel Phone
BALL, Timothy Defendant
SCHERR, M.R.
DOE, John Defendant
MANN, Michael Plaintiff
McConchie, Roger D.
THE FRONTIER CENTRE FOR PUBLIC POLICY INC. Defendant
ZIMMER, K.
Hearing Date: 02May2012
Hearing Time: 9:45 AM
Hearing Location: Vancouver Law Courts
List Type for the Hearing: Supreme Court Chambers List
# Document
Description Reason Result
7 Notice of Application Chambers Application The end or conclusion of planned appearances
9 Notice of Application Chambers Application Adjourned Generally
Consent Order
Order Granted as per Notice of Application #7 [10:18:45 AM]

left off quote:
Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player, that struts and frets his hour upon the stage, and then is heard no more; it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
William Shakespeare

Richard G

“137. Such improper chilling of free, robust and uninhibited public debate over climate change…”
Delightful to see the word “robust” finally used in a way that brings a smile, not a grimace. Go get him Mark.

vigilantfish

I wish there was some other way to give Steyn money. I’ve already purchased everything he has on offer in the past and don’t need more stuff – nor do I know anyone who would want it (sadly). Until he comes to his sense and opens the way for direct donations, all I can do is cheer from the sidelines. Steyn is the man!

John Tillman

World Wildlife Fund should sue for ten bucks for each of the ten million birds & bats Greenmail has extorted out of taxpayers, so $100 million.
Oh, but, wait, WWF (not World Wrestling Federation, now WWE for Entertainment) is on the CACA gravy train, too, despite cost of climate craziness to the endangered wildlife the gang purports to support.

Paragraphs #114 through #127 are 14 Affirmative Defenses.
They are a quick three page read.

Jack Langdon

vigilantfish says:
February 21, 2014 at 12:19 pm
I wish there was some other way to give Steyn money. I’ve already purchased everything he has on offer in the past and don’t need more stuff – nor do I know anyone who would want it (sadly).
Just buy a gift certificate and don’t use it. That works for me.

Tom J

It’s sort of funny, actually. Some time ago activists and world saviors discovered the lawsuit as a potent weapon to use to further an agenda that they could not achieve legislatively. But, like so many things that started out with good (or perceived good) intentions, it took little time for the charlatans and opportunists to seize it. And, with their campaign contribution tip jars held out, progressive politicians found it advantageous to patronage both the naively earnest and the fraudsters. Thus, in Cook County Illinois we have obstetricians paying $300,000 (three hundred thousand dollars) a year in malpractice insurance and not even a glimmer of tort reform in sight.
It’d be truly fitting if Steyn’s counter suit prevails. Who knows, maybe our climate science crowd might have to discover the expensive security of malpractice insurance. It would be truly fitting (and probably warranted) wouldn’t it? And, it would bring tears to my eyes to witness those very same insurance companies touting (to their policy premium benefits) catastrophic climate change now engaging in a tap dance around providing malpractice insurance for mistaken, costly public policy prescriptions from their benefactors, the climate scientists.
Payback’s a bitch, isn’t it?

Some insurance is cost-prohibitive.

pokerguy

“I wish there was some other way to give Steyn money. I’ve already purchased everything he has on offer in the past and don’t need more stuff”
Buy a Steyn gift certificate! I just bought one for 200 bucks and gave it to myself. Of course I’m never going to use it for anything. Best 200 bucks I ever spent.

pokerguy

My first reaction is pure joy. Finally! Someone with the guts to fight this bully.
I’m assuming from this that Steyn has gotten himself an attorney? I hope so.

Peter Miller

As such a “Distinguished” meteorologist, the dodgy doctor relied too much on that famous Met Office quote a few years ago that “we are not very good at short term forecasts of a few weeks, but we are very good at long term forecasts of 50-100 years”.
You are not supposed to question such ridiculous scientific statements, as you are told you can trust the ‘climate scientists’ who make them. The Hockey Stick was not supposed to ever be questioned, although it was such obvious nonsense to all but the most feeblest of minds.
Mann has survived by not making his original data and its interpretation available, which is the reason why his case against Tim Ball in Canada has apparently now hut the buffers.
There are supposed to be protections against vexatious litigants. They should now be enacted against the dodgy doctor.

Oh, someone’s gotta make a movie about this, a climate version of the Scopes Trial (except we win). Get out the popcorn!

aaron

He’s not suing him for $10million, he’s suing him for $10 several times.

cooler head

Earlier this week on twitter, a local TV reporter in Pennsylvania tweeted out something about Mann’s frauds (vis-a-vis a Mann buddy being named new President of PSU). Mann and his shills on twitter respnded by threatening to sue the reporter and his TV station (WHP “CBS21”), until the reporter retracted his tweet. This should be added to the list of Mann’s abusive pattern & practice.

Robert_G

What a delightful surprise and delicious read! The way the complaints are written has all the “marks” of Steyn’s hand.

Rob Ricket

Pokerguy,
How do we know you’re not bluffing?

Nigel S

profitup10 says: February 21, 2014 at 12:11 pm
Yes, some more of my favourite bit from ‘The Scottish Play’
Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury
Signifying nothing.
Macbeth Act v Scene 5 lines 17-28)

Julian in Wales

I am so glad I am not involved in this! Good luck Steyn

Fabi

After reading the counter-suit, it’s clear to me that Steyn has replied pro se.

J Martin

There could come a point when the cost to Penn University’s bank balance and reputation is seen as too great and they ask Mann to find employment elsewhere. I doubt that the US courts are suffiiently neutral or free from political interference or influence, and so I fear that they (the US judges) will find a way to see to it that Mann survives or even wins.

hunter

If Mr. Steyn does not get serious legal counsel soon, he is gion gto give this Mann on a platter.

Political Junkie

Steve McIntyre continues his ongoing serial skewering of Mann at Climate Audit with his normal commando-like precision and efficiency – “Mann and the Muir Russell Inquiry #1.” He points out that Mann’s Reply Memorandum contains a fabricated quote to support Mann’s claim that the inquiry “exonerated” him – very funny.
“Had Mann’s Reply Memorandum provided the actual quotation, it would have confirmed National Review’s and CEI’s claim that the Muir Russell had confined its findings to “CRU scientists”, but not in the quotation as altered by Mann and/or his lawyers.”
Note to Mike Mann: Pi**ing Steve M off is not a good game plan and is likely to result in great pain!

This may be the right moment to ask that one of our US lawyer friends enrich the understanding of those of us who live on the other side of one or more ponds, and
don’t understand the second silliest (and, long ago, the second best) legal system in the world.
Who is “John Doe?” Is “Richard Roe” his half brother, and if so, how did the plaintiff in “Roe v. Wade” suffer a sex change? Does “John Doe” have an address in Canada?
I think there’s a good case for someone with the relevant knowledge to write a WUWT post comparing the world’s legal systems. Pointing out the strengths, and making fun of the deficiencies, of each.

eyesonu

Dave says:
February 21, 2014 at 11:46 am
Little Mikey Mann claims to be a “climate warrior”, but that’s only true when he’s on offense. When on defense, such as when asked a difficult question, he typically runs away (most likely to curl up into the fetal position somewhere). The “Mann” is incapable of debate unless it’s one-sided. So I for one am delighted to see Mark Steyn going on offense. Now we’ll see just how brave little Mikey is…
=============
That fetal position is much like an opossum does for defense. Mann is more like an opossum than a bear? Curl up and hope for some outside help? Stay inside his little protected cage? We’ll see.

Mumble McGuirk

Mark Steyn was scheduled to appear in Miami last week, but had to cancel, no doubt due to the demands of fighting Mann’s lawsuit. I so wanted to attend the talk, but now I cannot due to Mann’s actions. Can I sue, too?

TonyG

following comments – ignore

Ox AO

here is some of the video’s mentioned in the law suite:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKqdFdkUA5g

vigilantfish

@ Jack Langdon – Thanks for the advice. Gift certificates it is! I guess that will leave me with a souvenir of my involvement, too.

milodonharlani

The place-holding names John Doe, Richard Roe & Jane Doe or Roe for unknown plaintiffs originated in England, but fell out of use there in the 19th century, but are still used in the US & Canada. The Jane Roe in Roe v. Wade was Norma McCorvey. Wade was Dallas County District Attorney Henry Wade, former FBI agent, WWII in the Pacific naval officer & previous prosecutor of Lee Harvey Oswald’s murderer Jack Ruby.

Now CEI and Simburg should also countersue. Manniacal could be facing $60 million in judgment costs and damages before covering lawyer and court costs.
Yum! That was an excellent bowl of popcorn! I can’t wait to pop another soon.

Mkelley

If Hollywood made a movie about this, Mann would be the hero.

Arno Arrak

This is all litigation, no science. I would like to bring up this scientific question: What determines the width of a tree ring? I was told many years ago that it was determined by variation of rainfall from year to year, but now I see it being used as a proxy for temperature. Can you really believe that tree rings will be thicker in a very warm and droughty year than in a cold, rainy year? That is something that could be settled by observation of tree rings in stands with known climate history.