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.
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). 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!
____________________________________________________________________________
Begin a scholarship fund for our best and brightest young conservatives to study engineering or medicine and then teach others.
Eric Gisin says:
February 21, 2014 at 9:18 pm
Agreed. The Chevron vs. Donziger suit hits directly at corrupt lawyers, which is a more fundamental problem than one narcissistic climastrologist. This was reported in WUWT December 2011. I commented with a distillation of the 161 page complaint here and here .
I haven’t followed the case since. It would indeed be good news if Chevron were awarded a significant judgement. It would be better news if Donziger and henchmen received significant prison sentances.
1. This lawsuit is about whether it can be fairly said that Mann did something “fraudulent,” or “molested and tortured data” in a scientifically discreditable sense. Everything else is a diversion.
2. A pleading is not evidence; it is merely a claim about what the party hopes to establish. Clearly judges are lenient when it comes to interpreting the codes relating to a lawyer’s duty to verify the basis of a claim, since most claims fail and lawyers are rarely (never, in my experience) punished for filing even very frivolous claims.
3. If Jones “replicated Mike’s Nature trick,” and Muir Russell gave an opinion that exonerated Jones of any “fraud” in that endeavour, then Muir Russell also indirectly gave an opinion exonerating Mike, to the extent that they used the same methods. This supports Mann’s defense, to the extent that Muir Russell’s opinion is reliable.
4. A counterclaim has the same status as a claim. The Plaintiff by Counterclaim (Steyn) has the same onus of proof as any Plaintiff, and the Defendant by Counterclaim (Mann) has the same defenses as any Defendant. If Steyn truly believes this is a “pure” free-speech case, then he would have no grounds for a counterclaim; he would have to acknowledge that Mann has the same free-speech defense to the counterclaim as Steyn claims for himself in his defense to the original Claim. So Steyn’s counterclaim must logically be understood as a pleading “in the alternative”: Mann’s claim should be dismissed on First-Amendment and Anti-SLAPP grounds, or in the alternative, if these defenses are not available to Steyn then they are also not available to Mann.
5. A plaintiff may claim any amount of damages he wishes; if successful, a court will still only approve an amount that has been proven as damages. (Does Steyn honestly believe he has suffered $20 million in damages from Mann’s lawsuit? If not, then is he guilty of filing false pleadings, with all of the supposed consequences thereof? See #2 above…) The amount of the damages claimed by Steyn are only relevant when it comes to calculating “costs” (penalties for the losing side) at the end of the trial – on the theory that if you stand to lose $20 million you will pay more for legal assistance, and therefore are entitled to a higher schedule of costs.
6. Steyn’s counterclaim, however entertaining it might be, might not be wise legal strategy. If he fails to prove the defamation claimed, or if he fails to prove damages, he could be liable for costs on the Counterclaim. Those costs could well negate any costs he would otherwise have won by being successful in the original action by Mann.
7. Buying gift certificates to support Steyn’s lawsuit might have the consequence of making it impossible for Steyn to prove any damages on his counterclaim. That is, if his “business” actually improves consequent to the lawsuit, he will be hard pressed to establish that he suffered any specific damages.
Grant, thank you for a thoughtful comment. While I like Steyn and dislike Mann, I also am not sure this is good legal strategy. While I’m not an attorney, I have been involved in a case that was education. If the anti-SLAPP law in DC is truly based on the one in California, I don’t think Steyn has a strong case. It is my understanding that you cannot sue someone just because they sued you – and that seems to be the basis of Steyn’s counterclaim. If you can prove the original suit was without merit, then you might recover attorney’s fees but you that’s about it.
I think Steyn’s best legal strategy is to go into court and show the Mann did splice the temperature record onto a proxy record even though he claimed he didn’t. You can bring your own expert witnesses, like Steve M, to show Mann has been dishonest and that these reviews have been prime examples of circling the wagons. Mike’s Nature Trick is still a trick even if a review panel gives it a thumbs up. And the upside down Tiljander series is important. You simply cannot turn a series upside down and then claim the orientation is not material.
If Michael Mann really wants to put climate science on trial, then Steyn should put it on trial. It won’t stand up in court.
I think it might be helpful if we stop referring to meddling with temperature records as “adjustments.” Tell it like it is. Rather than “adjustments” it should be called “falsifying public documents.”
It is high time these fellows felt some fear for their fraud and forgery.
@teapartydoc: please so not use the term “crony capitalist.” A capitalist has nothing to do with cronies in the government and as such, the two words are at odds with each other. The correct term is a single word: fascist. This is just another example of the left corrupting standard terminology in an attemp to paint their target as something to be feared. Do not cave to their whim.
davidmhofer: Nick is neither naive nor obtuse. He is quite simply an intentionally dishonest broker. As long as people feed the troll, he will continue to peddle his lies. There is a reason even Steve Mc now refers to him with an openly insulting name.
Mark
Please translate.
http://losyziemi.pl/jak-doszlo-do-blokady-wiru-polarnego-2
For those that think Mann would be wise to thro in the towel, remember what the far left represent. Arrogance is their Creed. They never admit they are or were in error. They double down and go all in. Then the media and our leftist government defend and reward them with powerful appointments and positions in some institution or another. Mann is solidifying his future.
Steyn is very brave to do what he is and I wish for success.
John
I think Steyn has simply decided to embrace the absurdity of this Kafka style trial. In the US legal system you can make the most frivolous claims and courts will not throw them out but force defendants to defend themselves at ruinous cost. OK,so two can play that game.
It is not Steyn’s nature to play defense all the time.
Mr. Stey has so won this. For years I have sat by – I”m a scientist, I work in the scientific fields, I’m just not a research scientist, which means what I do, actually works – I can predict what will happen when X then Y then Z happens so Im a real one –
and watched every amateur online,
1/2 trick pony make claim Mann and the entire coterie of Academicians are worthy of my respect.
They are my employees is what they are. Don’t you folks ever for get it.
Mann is a public figure from about the third time he took money to talk to groups about climate.
You know that Reddit thing he just did?
That makes him a public figure still.
You can stop being a public figure, for instance – and this is just for instance I’m not relating to something historic –
if a man was active in the development of the nuclear weapon… and he wrote the president letters and he went around talking to journalistic literature in periodicals and whatnot – you know this is a big deal when something like it is going on –
but then the war’s over and years, and years go by. The guys still works in nuclear power but never not ever contacts a paper about anything, in fact turning down interviews: such a man is not a public figure related to nuclear power any more if there’s some suit.
However that ignorant clown Mann who I have no more regard for, than I have for anybody who ever preached his work,
is a public figure – and not just one, he’s one who has proven time and again over 20 years he prefers actiivism and is a full-on political activist.
People could be throwing eggs on his doorstep for years and he won’t be able to deny he’s a public figure because the written word’s expected to have a certain lifespan,
After a while, as long as he gets away from it which he of course won’t, he could gain status as private citizen again.
Michael Mann is in a very, very bad predicament.
He has in fact lost the lawsuit to Dr Ball because once he stalls out on discovery through a couple of Balls requests the suit be dropped, he’s got no recourse.
He can’t no matter what, complete the discovery process, in ANY lawsuit. In ANY.
He’s so hung and he always was, it’s not even funny how much he has everyone bluffed, and it’s alll bluff. ALL.
Go read the words around Sullivan vs New York times.
Go read the words around Hustler vs Jerry Falwell.
The days of Michael Mann’s pushing and shoving people around,
and by extension his wacko climate theory friends pushing us all around – us all is all of us whose lives they smugly decided they were going to derail –
are past their highest tide,
and now, as he, and all his bosom buddies and first-name-basis wannabes in media,
are going to watch the real world of real science, bury them and all they ever had to say in an ocean of truth that will put Mann
and everyone who ever even believed in his wacko scientific theories,
in the Piltdown department of science.
Ps my science has to do with other things than heat and the atmosphere but personally I see another trick those people use – pretense because they are in the government and have some friends in the blogging business they are a scientist and I’m not, and you’re not.
Everybody on earth who has ”of Science” behind their name is a scientist.
The people who preach CO2 sensitivity ”science”
are just people who claimed to be scientists,
who we all have found out can’t pour pee out of a boot, with the directions how to do it, written on the heel,
and a note on the top, explaining where those directions, are.
That’s my take on the whole bunch.
Thanks.
Norman R Woods
All we need to stop this frivolous lawsuit nonsense is “loser pays,” but the trial lawyers will never allow it because they get paid no matter who wins or loses.
Jetstream forecast on February 25.
http://oi58.tinypic.com/6egig8.jpg
ren it looks like a face smiling or snarling. LOL. Mann must be financially backed by someone or some organization. But these law suits and threats of, appear to be a delaying tactic for worse to come. He’s getting publicity for sure, sob sob, but a rather negative expose. I wonder if he is employed by any organization like clean energy. I suspect his credibility might be a factor and future employment a bit ???
In a case here a young woman who accused two men of sexual assault and harrasment etc., claimed she couldn’t get a job now, but the judge said it was of her own making as the men were innocent of any offense, that was all in her head to reap revenge on those who would not give her a rise when she was under the employers gaze for underachievement and not doing her job properly. Got over 6 million costs. Then went on for two more appeals? Her complaint was the judge didn’t like her? She failed to accept the amount of evidence and witness statements that proved she was a liar and so was her mother.
Is Mark wealthy? Because all of a sudden Mann has struck out on someone who can sustain a lengthy and expensive court case. If Mann withdraws and apologizes would his backers be silenced and hand over $10,000,000? Or make an offer? If I were him that is what I would do unless he wants more negative publicity. It appears he’s worried but his lawyers must be quaking too.
Like the woman whom I mentioned before, you don’t take on a bank and publish lies as they have so many resources at their command, inquiry agents, lawyers who probe and probe into one’s background and the family’s. It was very naive to think that someone like Mark would sit back and not strike back professionally. Mud stick Michael didn’t you know?
On an earlier post (a few weeks ago) here @ur momisugly WUWT with regards to Mann a picture was included possibly with a caption about poking a bear with a stick. At the time my thoughts were that it may have been meant that that Mann was a bear. I thought an opossum would have been more appropriate for the post.
Anthony may have been implying that Mann should not poke a bear with a stick. That seems very appropriate now.
Yes, eyesonu, you might recall after the pearl harbor attack, the Japanese commander remarked, “we have now woken a sleeping giant’ – so be it.
[trimmed. Mod]
Nick Stokes
” …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.”
No, the CRU inquiry didn’t look for or even try to find anything regarding Mann one way or another, it only looked at Jones’ and the rest of CRU scientists conduct. The Judge claimed that this investigation found ”that Jones’ email referencing Plaintiff’s “‘Nature trick’ was “‘misleading’. That ONLY relates to Jones’ conduct and says nothing regarding Mann.
Grant A. Brown:
“3. If Jones “replicated Mike’s Nature trick,” and Muir Russell gave an opinion that exonerated Jones of any “fraud” in that endeavour, then Muir Russell also indirectly gave an opinion exonerating Mike, to the extent that they used the same methods. ”
The Judges decision included a statement that was cobbled together (not a direct quote) from the inquiry: ”that Jones’ email referencing Plaintiff’s “‘Nature trick’ was “‘misleading’
So, what exactly was misleading? That Jones had used this ‘trick’ and to label it a trick is misleading, or that Jones hadn’t used the ‘trick’ and his email gave a misleading impression he had used it?
Liontooth:
I write to comment on your post at February 22, 2014 at 11:52 pm.
I make no comment on the legal issues which you discuss. I write to explain ‘Mike’s Nature Trick’ because you mention it as being important to the legal dispute.
The 1998 paper by Mann, Bradley and Hughes (MBH98) introduced ‘Mike’s Nature Trick’ which was subsequently also used by others.
MBH98 can be read and seen here.
The so-called ‘hockey stick’ graph is its Figure 5b.
In that paper Figure 5b is monochrome although other Figures in the paper are in colour. Importantly, the error limits of the deduced proxy data and the indication of the thermometer data are both indicated by broken lines which are indistinguishable in Figure 5b.
The error limits of the deduced proxy data and the indication of the thermometer data are both “clearly labelled” in the Figure 5b, but so what?
The divergence of the proxy data is hidden by splicing the thermometer data on the end with a line which is indistinguishable from the line indicating limits of the proxy data.
This splicing of selected parts of two items is “Mike’s Nature trick” and it is exactly the same malpractice as the Piltdown Man misrepresentation: i.e. parts of two different items were spliced to provide a misleading indication and then presented as a scientific indication.
Richard
While I, like most of WUWT readers, applaude Mr. Steyn’s attempt to strike back, I hope the counterclaim has not triggered a “duty to defend” on the part of one of Mann’s insurance carriers. If so, all that was accomplished is to let Mann and/or the defense fund off the hook for a substantial portion of his legal bill.
Popehat has weighed in on Steyn’s countersuit. It is well-worth a read. Before you dismiss his writing simply by the title of the piece, Popehat agrees with Steyn but disagrees with his countersuit.
http://www.popehat.com/2014/02/23/mark-steyn-has-a-fool-for-a-client/
Failure to produce his research (as with Tim Ball’s court case) so Tim’s comments be they trivial anyway, remains an unproven complaint. Mann is behaving like a guilty person in my opinion, much like a corrupt MP who lied to ICAC and then threatened to sue anyone who produced evidence or hearsay that proved his guilt. I only have Hollywood to go by, but didn’t the crooks in Chicago bribe their way out of conviction and if that looked like it was about to come undone, they destroyed their accusers. Here we are dealing with an important scientific research that had a profound influence on the way people react to AGW. Instead of sitting there, spitting out the dummy, why doesn’t he admit straight away, that data has changed over the last 10 years.
You remember the Australian doctor McBride who got the Nobel prize for discovering the affect of Thomilomide on unborn children. Since then of course huge lawsuits have resulted from people who were tragically born deformed. He tried to replicate research to point to another product, and was found by his peers that he had manipulated the data to prove his theory. A research assistant dobbed him in when he saw that the data he produced was corrupted. His practice has diminished, and he blamed pharmaceutical companies for his demise but he was found guilty of medical fraud nevertheless. At least he admitted he had corrupted the data, but behind his excuse was he cared for the welfare of unborn babies.
Michael Scott says:
February 23, 2014 at 1:01 pm
While I, like most of WUWT readers, applaude Mr. Steyn’s attempt to strike back, I hope the counterclaim has not triggered a “duty to defend” on the part of one of Mann’s insurance carriers. If so, all that was accomplished is to let Mann and/or the defense fund off the hook for a substantial portion of his legal bill.
————————————————
Or. looked at another way, another entity that is liable for a large judgement, while also seeing what a farce Mann’s case is. In other words, a candidate to pressure Mann to settle.
Woodshedder, thank you for posting the comments by popehat. He makes the same point I attempted to make earlier but he said it much better. Steyn appears to be suing because he is being sued. This doesn’t work. At least it would not work under California’s Anti-SLAPP law and I doubt the DC law is much different. If Steyn wins the case, he could sue for malicious litigation but he has to win first. I wish Steyn all the best.