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.
Johanna, I was only joking, I’m English by the way, but chose to take on Aussie citizenship after the referendum in 1999, to keep the monarchy as our constitutional sovereign and not allow politicians to dictate whether they had the right to sack a president. Gosh I bet you want the union jack taken from the flag too. The Queen is just a figurehead for traditional reasons and cannot interfere in any political decisions. ( I have a letter to prove it).
I also ran a bush pub, and language was sometimes a barrier for me, as I couldn’t translate some of the expressions used. Your typical Aussie response, don’t knock us we are really as good as you and better. Chill out. Aussies can pull the punches when required and don’t mince words. That’s what I like about my adopted country.
If a fair judging panel is entrenched, they should ask for proof that Mann’s research and data has credibility before they take on the case of defamation. Steyn needs other scientists to refute it and that shouldn’t be hard to find.
Everyone has come up with their own versions of events but what really happened with Mann v. Steyn is that Mann brought suit against Steyn. This suit was what is sometimes called a SLAP suit. The letters stand for Suit at Law Against Participation (in the public arena). The idea of such suits is to force the defendant to shut up and go home because he is often unable to pay the quite high legal fees that SLAP suits typically require.
However in this case Steyn did defend himself and answered Mann’s charges and as part of Steyn’s defense he subpoenaed Mann’s climate research data and Mann refused the court’s demand that he give Steyn a copy of his data so that Steyn could adequately defend himself. This is a “Bridge to Far” as the old saying goes because Mann could never win any law suit if Steyn had Mann’s phony data in hand.
If this goes to trial by jury, does either Mann or Steyn have any control over the selection of jurors. In fact what is the exact procedure for selecting jurors for a trial like this?
@frank Brus – each side has pre-emption on the Jurors, but only so many (it depends upon the type of trial, but I think they get 3 for no reason, and unlimited for cause). If they reject a juror for cause, they have to convince the judge the cause is just (and of course that can be appealed as well).
How would one know if a juror is a warmist or skeptic? In criminal trails in Oz, only three jurors from each side can be rejected without explanation. But in a civil trail, there are only 4 jurors. But in a recent judge only trail, the plaintiff, tried to eject the judge!