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.
Lord Jim: “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.”
In response to an assertion by NR that the Muir Russell report did not exonerate Mann or “offer any opinion on Mann,” Mann’s legal team in its response took a quote out of context to deliberately mislead the judge into believing the quote supported the exoneration of Mann by the Muir Russell enquiry. It did not. The quote referred to CRU scientists, of which Mann is not a part., In attempting to persuade the judge to not dismiss the suit, judicial misconduct was committed by an officer of the court.
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 11
Nota bene: Mann’s attorney(s) sign and personally certifiy to the court that he/she has personally inquired into the representations to the court and that the factual contentions have evidentiary support. Also, under the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, attorneys have a Duty of Candor
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure › TITLE III. PLEADINGS AND MOTIONS › Rule 11. Signing Pleadings, Motions, and Other Papers; Representations to the Court; Sanctions
Rule 11. Signing Pleadings, Motions, and Other Papers; Representations to the Court; Sanctions
(a) Signature. Every pleading, written motion, and other paper must be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney’s name—or by a party personally if the party is unrepresented. The paper must state the signer’s address, e-mail address, and telephone number. Unless a rule or statute specifically states otherwise, a pleading need not be verified or accompanied by an affidavit. The court must strike an unsigned paper unless the omission is promptly corrected after being called to the attorney’s or party’s attention.
(b) Representations to the Court. By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper—whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it—an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:
(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;
(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;
(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and
(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.
Also, under the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, attorneys have a Duty of Candor to the court:
Advocate
Rule 3.3 Candor Toward The Tribunal
(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly:
(1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer;
Correction: judicial misconduct was not committed, legal misconduct was committed by Mann’s lawyers.
HAS says: February 21, 2014 at 9:12 pm
“P54 repeats the quote now showing it’s intended context as part of the argumentation.”
The later quote also shows, even more clearly, that the quote refers to CRU scientists. Mann’s lawyers say say:
“The University of East Anglia assessed the integrity of the research published by the CRU and found “no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit”. Three months later, the University of East Anglia examined whether manipulation or suppression of data occurred and concluded that “the scientists’ rigor and honesty are not in doubt”.”
And they refer to the earlier statement.
Has anyone besides me noticed that resident Climate Parasite #1’s argument that anthropogenic CO2 causes catastrophic something or other has been reduced to this blather ?
Steven Strittmatter says:
February 21, 2014 at 11:32 am
Looks like $10 million times 2 plus legal fees!
——————————-
Yes, the headline should be corrected to read, “Steyn Countersues Mann for 20 Million Dollars.”
The real global warming disaster” has a chapter on the “hockey stick”
A must read. Exposes mann completely
With the Climate gate AR4 EMAILS ALONE, PLUS LORD MONCKTONS DISCOVERY OF A OVER TURNED GRAPH , MANN IS TOAST . WE SHOULD BE SUING ALL THESE FRAUDS TO GET OUR LOOT BACK , NO RAIN TO FILL DAMS SO YOU HAVE TO BUILD DESAL PLANTS SHOULD BE NUMBER 1 ON THE LIST EASILY PROVEN BY THEIR OWN WORDS TOO .. He should be able to force Mann to release the data too . Make no mistake ,they will be shuddering in their boots .
“8. The Review examines the honesty, rigour and openness with which the CRU scientists have acted… On the specific allegations made against the behaviour of CRU scientists, we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt.”
From the Climate Action blog referred to in “Mann’s latedt [sic] submission to the court includes a doctored quote. Blimey! http://climateaudit.org/2014/02/21/mann-and-the-muir-russell-inquiry-1/ …
6:50 AM – 22 Feb 2014″
As an amateur lawyer (trained by reading many Perry Mason novels – note carefully that the Review finds the CRU scientists’ “rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt.” Unless there is further text commenting on the CRU scientists’ “openness”, this is a very diplomatic way of saying that their ‘openness’ is extremely doubtful. One is led to the belief that they were not at all ‘open’ during the review process.
My last should have, instead of ” novels – note “, ” novels) note “. Picky, yes I know, but better to correct when I spot my error.
pottereaton says: February 21, 2014 at 9:22 pm
“Mann’s legal team in its response took a quote out of context to deliberately mislead the judge”
It did not mislead the judge. The meaning was perfectly clear to her:
“The investigators concluded that the “’rigor and honesty of the CRU scientists was not in doubt,”” (p 2)
Nick Stokes February 21, 2014 at 9:41 pm
“The later quote also shows, even more clearly, that the quote refers to CRU scientists.”
It doesn’t.
It says the Defendants ignored evidence that Mann hadn’t committed fraud, and here’s our list of that evidence. First up UEA saying we had a look and our guys were fine, we looked later and the scientists were fine. The only implication to be drawn (and no doubt the intended implication) is that Mann was one of the latter scientists .
But had the quote been complete it would be obvious that Mann wasn’t being cleared of fraud and this bit of evidence was irrelevant to the matter at hand.
So Jones, whose honesty and rigor was not in doubt, was being misleading?
“rigor and honesty of the CRU scientists was not in doubt,”(p 2)
(rest of sentence)
but that Jones’ email referencing Plaintiff’s “‘Nature trick’ was “‘misleading’.”
http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Mann_v_Natl_Review_Order_7-19-13.pdf
Nick Stokes says:
February 21, 2014 at 4:57 pm
It’s in a section headed “University of East Anglia”. They make it quite clear the report is about CRU.
======
nope. There are two reports, and the rewording makes it appear that the findings of one report apply to the other. abuse of the facts.
HAS says:
February 21, 2014 at 10:27 pm
But had the quote been complete it would be obvious that Mann wasn’t being cleared of fraud and this bit of evidence was irrelevant to the matter at hand.
====================
hard to see how this rewording was not carefully crafted to create a false impression. perhaps it is no coincidence that liar and lawyer sound the same.
Nick Stokes says:
“It did not mislead the judge. The meaning was perfectly clear to her:”
You’re wrong. I didn’t realize at first you had linked to HER decision to not dismiss the case. She did conclude from what Mann side had submitted that the UAE investigation did ‘clear’ Mann as SHE cited it in denying motion to dismiss.
She stated that Plaintiff’s (Steyn’s) suit is based primarily on:
http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Mann_v_Natl_Review_Order_7-19-13.pdf
(2) Defendant Steyn’s statement in the National Review Online that Plaintiff “was the man behind the fraudulent climate-change ‘hockey-stick’ graph, the very ringmaster of the tree-ring circus;”
She cited in HER decision to dismiss:
– In 2009 approximately one thousand emails…
(Describing Climategate emails)
– One particular email, written by Phil Jones (A CRU scientist) stated:
“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards)[and] from 1961 for keith’s to hide the decline.”
– As a result of these emails coming to light, the University of East Anglia began an investigation in the “honesty, rigor, and openness with which the CRU scientists have acted”
– “The investigators concluded that the “’rigor and honesty of the CRU scientists was not in doubt,”but that Jones’ email referencing Plaintiff’s “‘Nature trick’ was “‘misleading’.”
There would be ZERO reason for her to cite the UAE investigation if it had nothing to do with Mann She believes that the ‘Nature trick’ of ‘Mike’ isn’t a ‘trick’ that hides the decline as Jones says in the email and that the INVESTIGATION concludes that Jones was being ‘misleading’ in describing it as a ‘trick’,
HAS says: February 21, 2014 at 10:27 pm
“Nick Stokes February 21, 2014 at 9:41 pm
“The later quote also shows, even more clearly, that the quote refers to CRU scientists.”
It doesn’t.”
Then why did the judge in summarising understand it to explicitly apply to CRU scientists?
Liontooth says: February 21, 2014 at 11:58 pm
“There would be ZERO reason for her to cite the UAE investigation if it had nothing to do with Mann”
There’s one very good reason for her to cite it. It’s hammered by the defence, repeatedly. They don’t think it has nothing to do with Mann.
You’re confusing things. The allegedly ‘doctored’ quote was virtually identical to the original, but was claimed here to misleadingly suggest that the panel was saying that all scientists had their rigor and honesty upheld. But she understood perfectly from the pleading that that statement from the panel referred to CRU scientists.
However, there is a barrage of accusations from the defence about Mann being implicated in the CRU emails. The CRU inquiry went into those emails and found nothing to stigmatize Mann. So it’s relevant.
Friends:
I write to ask a genuine question. I am not a lawyer and not an American so I have zero understanding of the US law and US legal system.
In the UK the ‘sides’ in a legal case going to trial each provide a bundle of documents to the judge who assesses those documents before the trial. Any difficulties and/or clarifications are requested by the judge as part of his/her preparations for the trial. Importantly, the bundles contain the evidence which the trial will assess, and the judge needs to agree any additional evidence if it is to presented in the trial. The judge will demand explanation if there are errors of fact in the bundles and – on the basis of the explanations – will permit corrections before the trial or will insist that the errors be put to the trial because the errors are material to the case.
Is this similar to the US legal system and if not in what way(s) does it differ?
I ask my question for two reasons. Firstly, the Mann vs Steyn case has importance beyond the US so I would like to understand the issues of the case. And, secondly, there does seem to be a clear error in the information provided by Mann (from his lawyers) in that a misquotation was provided and the reason, purpose and nature of the misquotation would seem to be pertinent to the case: if the misquotation is not pertinent then there would seem to be no reason to have not provided the correct (and full) quotation except incompetence by Mann’s lawyers.
With thanks in anticipation to anybody who can provide an answer to my question with explanation of the answer
Richard
Nick Stokes
February 22, 2014 at 12:02 am
“Then why did the judge in summarising understand it to explicitly apply to CRU scientists?”
“it” in the judge’s summary applies to the Jones email, not to malice. All she indicates is that when looking at the emails the review found “trick” misleading.
She didn’t find on malice. Who knows what she thought or what interpretation or what weight she put on the CRU statements in this regard.
February 22, 2014 at 12:39 am
“nothing to stigmatize Mann” or “nothing to stigmatize CRU scientists”? Keep your story straight.
HAS says: February 22, 2014 at 1:20 am
‘“nothing to stigmatize Mann” or “nothing to stigmatize CRU scientists”? Keep your story straight.
Nothing to stigmatize Mann. I’ll say it again. There was a barrage of defence accusations. based on negative implications the emails were said to carry, that affected Mann. The Muir Russell inquiry said they did not carry those implications. That’s relevant to the exoneration of Mann.
” lenny says:
February 21, 2014 at 10:02 pm
With the Climate gate AR4 EMAILS ALONE, PLUS LORD MONCKTONS DISCOVERY OF A OVER TURNED GRAPH , MANN IS TOAST . WE SHOULD BE SUING ALL THESE FRAUDS TO GET OUR LOOT BACK , NO RAIN TO FILL DAMS SO YOU HAVE TO BUILD DESAL PLANTS SHOULD BE NUMBER 1 ON THE LIST EASILY PROVEN BY THEIR OWN WORDS TOO .. He should be able to force Mann to release the data too . Make no mistake ,they will be shuddering in their boots .”
I seem to remember reading on WUWT that Mann used the upside down graph in a later paper again, after it had been already been exposed previously. If he did that then his actions were obviously not a mistake but an attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of the Scientific establishment. Am I wrong?
The Left always expect the benefit of the doubt- politicians will claim they were going by the consensus, Flannery will keep up the lie. Obama will just shoot people. Gore will still call for “deniers” to be executed. Pity the actual “deniers” are the warmists who will not admit that there has been no warming for 17 years and the models are way off the mark, meaning the CO2 theory is debunked. Mann will NEVER admit he has made stuff up, even if the evidence is absolutely clear. Anyway, I would expect, like the 8 bankers, Mann to mysteriously fall out of a window or have multiple nail gun holes in his head as “suicide.” Believe it or not, it is in our interests for Mann to live a bit longer.How ironic, we “deniers” may need to guard Mann from being assassinated.
There’s a nice comment on Steve McIntyre’s site from ‘Foxgoose’, in respect to Mann claiming that the CRU enquiries exonerated him as well.
Mann has painted himself into a corner at this point. Depending on just how much financial support he has behind him, he might be well advised to settle, and end every suit he is now engaged in. If one judge deems his case frivolous, he will be paying damages to all parties in all suits, eventually. Litigation-wise, he is the one who tried to draw first blood, and he is currently attacking from a privileged position at a radical leftist academic institution that, in addition to protecting him, is now in the thankless position of having to fear it will now be dragged in by parties seeking recompense after the smoke starts to settle from the current battle. He has gone a bridge too far; Steyn smelled the overreach, and has now only struck his first blow. Mann’s lawyers should be advising settlement now because, if they don’t, he may be coming after them for the money to be paid out if his crony capitalist big-business backers start to tremble just a bit, or lose interest. If it’s Soros, he won’t settle now, but will end up trying to settle out of court with a gag order.