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:
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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Yes he did doctor it to change the meaning. It is all of a piece. The Muir Russell quote is clear. It is only, only talking about UEA scientists. Mann’s claim is that all, all reports exonerated him. So he or his barristers subtly rewrote the Muir-Russell sentence to make it appear to all but the most careful readers (cue SMc), that Muir Russell exonerates the community of climate scientists, buth UEA and collaborators.
Lawyering is as rigorous with words, as scientists ought to be with their maths. There is no doubt. That Muir Russell sentence was re-written, because as originally written, it did not support Mann’s claim. In fact, it contravened the claim, since Mann claims that “all” investigations exonerated him. The rewrite was deliberate, and malign.
Language might be more flexible in ordinary everyday communication. But in Court, we present the written word as it actually is and was to the jury, real evidence, real facts, not one of the litigants shaded rewrites.
Many time in Court, the jury’s decision is sealed by one statement of testimony or evidence Thus, we do not rewrite the witness’ spoken or written testimony. The Muir Russell statements, as they are written, are testimonial. A rewrite is a non-factual opinion, and has no merit.
All of a piece? Make an extreme claim, and then play fast and loose with the facts and analysis, modify and obscure as necessary, and vigorously challenge all who disagree or question. It’s ancient wisdom: “Methinks he doth protest too much…”
A breath of fresh air
GO MARK STEYN, and tell the Womann-Named-Sue to stick it up HER ass.
“Out dam spot,, out I say.l….”
Blood guilt, dark red stains of blood, guilt abides, growing, chewing, glowering, near now, ever close, the breath faint but sure, comes.
Thanks, Mark Steyn. You are in the right position, I hope the courts see it that way.
John A. Fleming says: February 21, 2014 at 6:23 pm
“Yes he did doctor it to change the meaning.”
How would substituting the exact quote change the meaning? Especially if you look at in the fuller context, not truncated (doctored?) as at CA, which, as I quoted at February 21, 2014 at 4:57 pm, makes it quite clear that they are talking about scientists at CRU.
“Many time in Court, the jury’s decision is sealed by one statement of testimony or evidence”
I don’t believe either the attorney’s motion in opposition or the Muir report are testimony or evidence.
This thread shows we have very little faith in our justice system
When Steve McIntyre says something and Nick Stokes responds to it, one thing will be 100% certain. Steve’s utterances will be 100% true, accurate and correct in wording and context. Nick Stokes’ statements will be weasel worded, deliberately designed to obfuscate, untruthful, misleading lies.
Give Mann some credit. Mann is producing a chilling effect in a desperate attempt to slow down global warming.
The fact that Stokes is still yammering is proof of your statement, Venter. Blah blah blah. “White is black, up is down!” Squawk.
Sadly, I’ve seen all too many published “peer-reviewed” science papers misrepresenting previous research in order to support a bogus but cherished belief. The rot infects the both the judicial and scientific realms — anywhere it’s tolerated.
The bright light of truth, like that being shone by Steyn and WUWT, mean there are fewer dark (ignorant) corners for such creeps.
Troll away, fool. It’s a hilarious monkey dance for the rest of us.
Alex Avery
I like the phrase “Mann suit”- it conjures in the mind a photoshop job by those SKS guys.
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….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So buy more and send it to Mikey, or Obama, or John Kerry or Al Gore or your Congress/Parliamentary Critter.
pottereaton says:
February 21, 2014 at 2:48 pm
ossqss says:
February 21, 2014 at 2:10 pm
The suit has merit. Just look at the publicly available information and history and there is a definitive and undeniable pattern. I don’t think the said defendant has any idea of his current liability yet, but will very soon once counsel explains his now unavoidable positiin of weakness.
—————————————-
I don’t think you understand what is going on in this case. Mann will soon be wishing the judge had invoked the anti-SLAPP statute. This case is about freedom of expression and the misuse of the courts to suppress information and opinion.
That said, there are indications that the judge is prejudicial to the plaintiff in this case and that the decision might go to Mann in the first round. But if that does happen, it’s highly unlikely the verdict will survive an appeal. This is a case about constitutional freedoms. Judges take those freedoms very seriously.
//////////////////////
Well, I stand by my previous take. Unless the formal complaint brings other facets, it should not change.
This could be fairly more significant than anticipated.
We have a picture over time of behavior, that consumed over a short period of time (jury), will take on a different appearance.
Just sayin, watch the Mann in timelaspe, like a flower blooming, and you see a pattern of behavior that is not obvious in realtime.
There may even be thorns!
http://youtu.be/HnbMYzdjuBs
Nick Stokes February 21, 2014 at 7:01 pm
So you agree that “scientists” in that quote refers only to the scientists at CRU, and not Mann.
How then does this have any relevance to the point that Mann is making namely that the defendants “deliberately ignored evidence that their accusations of fraud, misconduct, or data manipulation were false”?
I would have to say that reading the paras as written by Mann or his lawyers they purport to be citing “compelling (and admissible) evidence .. already before this Court unequivocally demonstrating that Defendants knew that no fraud existed”, not a jolly aside about how good the CRU scientists were. Had the magic “CRU” been included alongside the “scientists” in Mann’s stuff we would of course have been clear it was just a jolly little aside.
You as a seasoned observer of such matters were not put off your stride, but these judges, they aren’t necessarily as on to it as you.
Mann’s so vain…
he prob’ly thinks that quote is about him.
Ox AO says:
February 21, 2014 at 7:04 pm
This thread shows we have very little faith in our justice system
_______________________
State the obvious, why don’tcha.
Nick Stokes;
I don’t believe either the attorney’s motion in opposition or the Muir report are testimony or evidence.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
LOL. When an attorney puts something in a claim, what do you think it is OTHER than evidence? Are you deliberately obtuse or terminally naive?
For what it is worth, having been in a few more court room scrapes than I’d like, let me make an observation. When you go into court misquoting something someone else said, you’re in deep kaka right there. Merryl Linch for example told a court they had no emails older than a certain date. It turned out there was a closet full of backup tapes from the time period in question. Bam. Default judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of $1.1 Billion. The judge didn’t even bother to have the emails restored to see what they actually said.
Mann has stepped in it big time here, and all your attempts to characterize the facts as something they are not are getting rather silly. But entertaining. Thanks for the laugh.
Tom Anderson says:
February 21, 2014 at 3:34 pm
Are parties in this action represented by counsel? It’s one way to cut through the irrelevancies.
__________________________________________________________________________
I hate to be the bringer of bad news but adding counsel doesn’t always cut through the irrelevancies. You need to read a few civil suits to see just how long and over what and for why things get all screwed up even with and sometimes because of counsel.
Millon? Bummer typo. 🙁
davidmhoffer says:
February 21, 2014 at 8:16 pm
Nick Stokes;
I don’t believe either the attorney’s motion in opposition or the Muir report are testimony or evidence.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Technically Stokes is correct, because (iirc) the pleadings state the material facts on which a party will rely, but not the evidence (documentary, testimonial, circumstantial, etc) by which those facts are to be proved.
HAS says: February 21, 2014 at 7:40 pm
“Had the magic “CRU” been included alongside the “scientists” in Mann’s stuff we would of course have been clear it was just a jolly little aside.”
It was. I think you’re looking at the wrong bit. Try pp 19/20.
Lord Jim;
Technically Stokes is correct, because (iirc) the pleadings state the material facts on which a party will rely, but not the evidence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
LOL. Misrepresenting the material facts is evidence upon which the court may well act. You can twist and turn the technicalities and definitions, but bottom line they told the court something that isn’t true. The court will take that into consideration regardless if what you “technically” refer to it as.
Nick Stokes February 21, 2014 at 8:49 pm
“I think you’re looking at the wrong bit. Try pp 19/20.”
P54 repeats the quote now showing it’s intended context as part of the argumentation. Difficult to see any reason for the omission of “CRU” but to leave the impression it was evidence about Mann that had been ignored by the Defendants.
I can see if Mann loses the case or looks like losing, he will mysteriously commit suicide-probably by being pushed out a window like the 8 bankers who all mysteriously fell out of windows. Then the Left will flap their wings and bring out the crocodile tears. They will call Tim Ball and Mark Steyn evil for making him commit suicide. It will leave an excuse to not pay out damages and not hand over the emails. The Left will then just assume everything Mann said about climate is true to create some foundations to the castle of lies that is the IPCC “case” for cAGW.
Here is a 10,000,000 dollar Mann Suit:
http://egguson.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/fat-suit.jpg
A much more important case against Green law-fare has been ignored by climate skeptics: Chevron vs Donziger.
Donziger won a $18 billion judgment in Ecuador against Chevron. There was obvious fraud, so Chevron filed a RICO suit against Donziger in US court. Trial closed in Dec, awaiting judgment.
Chevron has a web site presenting their case: http://www.theamazonpost.com/the-fraudulent-case-against-chevron-in-ecuador