Popcorn futures continue to explode
Mark Steyn writes:
Today I filed with the DC Superior Court an Amended Answer and Counterclaims to Mann’s Amended Complaint.
The new bit is the third counterclaim way down on page 21. We’re moving toward trial, and if you want to support my pushback against Mann I hope you’ll consider buying a SteynOnline gift certificate or one of our new Clash of Sticks products.
More here: http://www.steynonline.com/6165/a-change-of-climate
page 21/22:
Looks to me like Steyn is suing Mann for $30 million now.
In other news, popcorn futures have exploded beyond what anyone thought possible, creating a new hockey stick shape that portends a precarious future for Dr. Mann:
If I were Steyn, I’d start selling popcorn too.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
There is a Russian saying something like “Gooliet tak gooliet” that basically means if you are going to do it, do it to the max, or “If your going to party, then lets PARTY!”
The real Hockey stick! Thar she blows! In popcorn futures,
I’m hoping to catch more fish with this bigger net. If discovery turns up evidence that Penn State was also doing naughty things… Then it gets really interesting.
So, your claim is that Mark Steyn is a child? And that he’s molesting a pedophile? By suing Manniacal he’s molesting him? Not forgetting that you’re the one inferring that Manniacal is shamefully deviant.
Got proof?
Jo Swansom at March 13, 2014 at 12:26 pm asks:
> so if i were to say its my opinion that mark steyn is a …
In almost all jurisdictions, you can say exactly that without fear of lawsuit because “opinion” is a recognized defense to a defamation claim.
You sometimes get into a gray area with “Mark Steyn is a …”. Depending on the context, that statement could be interpreted as a statement of fact or of opinion. But when you explicitly qualify your statement as opinion, the defense is pretty close to irrefutable.
pokerguy says: March 13, 2014 at 12:36 pm
Please remember that only Steyn has declined the opportunity to appeal the lower court denial of motion to dismiss under anti-Slapp. NR/CEI/Simberg have elected to appeal that decision and it is likely that their appeal will be adjudicated long before the Steyn/Mann counter-claim trial is calendered.
The likelihood of Mann prevailing on appeal seems more and more remote with recent analysis providing more substance for the legitimacy of Steyn’s expressed opinion…even IF the appeals court was to uphold its lower court characterization as a “statement of fact”.
Where there is even an inkling of credible argument in support of defendant’s position, the court is almost compelled by judicial precedent and first amendment bias to rule in favor of the defense. Should that occur, Mann’s “way out” of will then be at the indulgence of Mark Steyn. What a delicious prospect.
In the US anyone can sue anyone else for anything and ask for any amount of money. That doesn’t mean he will get any of it.
While we may soon face a popcorn shortage, some blogs may have to deal with a surplus:
http://climatecrocks.com/2014/01/23/michael-mann-closing-in-on-deniers-in-court/
http://rabett.blogspot.ca/2014/02/unclear-on-concept.html
mann has actually lied in his fundamental complaint. He was not called a pedophile.
As posters on other related threads have said, you can’t sue someone for suing you. I’m not an attorney, but having been involved in >10 years of litigation as a corporate rep and expert witness in about 6 jurisdictions, the correct procedure would be to file a Rule 11 motion such that if he prevailed even the plaintiff’s attorneys would be on the hook for costs. Previous rulings, however, now preclude this even.
I hope I’m wrong, but I was hoping to see something more substantial from Steyn in this post. He really must not be using an attorney at all, which is not very wise.
With or without counterclaims though, I’m pretty sure he will be able to depose and do discovery on whoever he pleases, so he should be able to get the infamous e-mails.
Sorry, previous comment by “Al” was me — I accidentally posted before filling out my usual name.
Anyway, the real problem here is the US does not have a loser pays rule for civil suits. In theory the defendant in one suit who prevails at trial can file a separate suit to recover legal costs, but he has to show the original suite was meritless, not simply inadequate. There is thus a viable legal strategy of “punishment by due process” whereby one litigant with deeper pockets can in effect extort money from another in the form of attorney’s fees. The US courts are loath to admit that they are the problem, and tend to act as if more consideration yields a better decision, so if one side wants to draw the proceedings out by filing a flurry of motions it is almost impossible for the other side to avoid the added expense of responding to them all. Remember if one side makes a representation of fact which the other side does not counter, the courts will with rare exceptions accept the submission as true. In other words, if you don’t show up you lose by forfeit. Showing up costs money, which is the whole point of punitive litigation.
The financially weak litigant can be bankrupted before ever going to trial, which is almost certainly the goal of Mann’s suit (bankrolled by George Soros I believe).
Merely filing a countersuit demanding substantial compensation doesn’t change the fact that to be properly represented in court is expensive. I personally believe Stein is a fool if he is trying to represent himself — many litigations are won or lost on purely procedural issues, which strongly favors professional experienced litigators.
I certainly hope Stein prevails in defending against Mann’s defamation suit, and that he moves back to the venue where he clearly has the advantage — published satire. It’s quite possible he could do more damage to Mann, his backers and the rest of the Carbon Cult in that venue than he could ever have a hope to collect in court.
Hockey sticking it to the Mann, gotta love it.
Another important thing about counterclaims is that Mann cannot just dismiss his case on the eve of trial or whenever discovery gets inconvenient.
I’m personally glad that Steyn has thrown off his gag and dumped his attorneys. I have complete faith in the legal system in this country. I believe somewhere down there, under all the lawyerly BS, billable hours, shenanigans designed to drag out the process, etc., there’s still the rule of law. Weisberg (or whatever his name is) had an opportunity to follow that law, but instead decided to thumb his nose at the intent of anti-SLAPP (a decision I’m betting he’s starting to regret). Steyn will prod, annoy, expose, etc, our legal system for what it is. And the whole time, the first amendment will be precariously balanced on the shelf. Ken White seems to be arguing that Steyn’s a fool to be going it alone and that his decision will affect us all. In other words, the US Justice System thinks that billable hours is more important than following the law. In 10 years time, we’ll all be sitting in court for one perceived libel or another and have Mark Steyn to thank for it. Not me. I’ll be in Australia or some other free country buying Mark a drink at the pub.
Al says:
March 13, 2014 at 1:25 pm
“In the US anyone can sue anyone else for anything and ask for any amount of money. That doesn’t mean he will get any of it.”
That’s so 20th century. You can’t sue the state or any of its agencies because the Supreme Court will rule that you have no standing.
===============================================================
Good point. G. Gordon Liddy was sued by John Dean for saying something to the effect that the Watergate break in also had something to with recovering embarrassing information about Dean’s wife. Liddy counter sued. (I think Dean tried to drop his suit but Liddy’s proceeded.) Dean lost, Liddy won.
Stacks-Bowers will be auctioning a Nobel Medal in an upcoming auction event. Perhaps Dr. Mann should slap a bid down real quick.
If successful, he can then honestly say ” I won a Nobel Peace Prize medal.
Re: Popcorn
A lot of people staying indoors watching movies due to cold weather?
There may be a Russian proverb as well, but in the US the phrase is, “Go big or go home!”
“If successful, he can then honestly say ” I won a Nobel Peace Prize medal.”
Not won but own a nobel peace prize medal and that will be the nearest Mann will ever get
“If your going to party, then lets PARTY!”
ACK!
r: Gary Pearse says March 13, 2014 at 12:56 pm
… Russian saying … “If your going to party, then lets PARTY!”
eye done thing u ment to rite that, butt maa bee u did?
inglish is so haaaaaaard.
since the posting on semiotics (the ship, when the rats debarqued) it is appropriate to note that michael mann, convicted liar, is the single most potent talking point you could hope for and the one that will demonstrate that ‘when you’re down for the count, you have no friends’.
mann’s head on a post WILL bring down the entire architecture of the cagw fraud because it refutes EvErYtHiNg at the root. (yes- attack the mann- make it personal. alinsky was right on that.)
following in his footsteps will be half of congress and pretty much the entire whitehouse.
(they will sing the ‘we were fooled’ song without even realizing that such a confession confirms what has been long known, i.e., fools are fools. confessing it doesn’t change it – it just makes it impossible to deny. show no mercy.)
when the guru of this cult is incontestably demonstrated to be a compulsive liar, there is no possible way to continue promoting it. they’ll turn on him so fast.
liberal tears – a floor wax and a desert topping!
mr steyn might be able to arrange delivery in bulk.
Some people seem to think that Steyn is sitting alone in his office being his own lawyer. Not so. He has been inundated with free legal advice and offers of assistance, quite a bit of it from lawyers. 🙂
He has made it clear that he wants to run the strategy of his case, and that is why he separated from the NRO/CEI lawyers. He considers that their strategy failed him (6 months, half a million dollars and no progress whatsoever).
But he is getting plenty of legal assistance with the tactics, quite possibly pro bono or at a discount.
Someone above posted that likening Mann to a Pedophile was in effect a ‘low blow’ and as a result hard to defend.
Now I am always wary of deceit and fakery, from whichever direction it might come, but if the ‘facts’ are correct – namely, the ‘same’ Penn State Committee, led by the ‘same’ (now discredited) person, exonerated Sandusky and Mann in ‘similarly worded’ documents. This connection/association between Mann and Sandusky should be easily presented to a jury.
After which the ‘jokey’ or ‘humorous’ reference to Michael Mann as the ‘Jerry Sandusky of Climate Change’ should make much more sense.
Did anyone notice how I put quite a lot of that between inverted commas?
It’s kinda like ‘tiptoeing’ through the words!