Well, we knew it would happen, it was just a matter of when. Dr. Michael Mann is trying to weasel out of discovery in the Mann-Steyn Steamroller case.
Steyn reports on the latest: ==========================================================
You can read the whole thing here. But the takeaway is that, apparently, it’s all my fault:
On January 30, 2014, Plaintiff renewed his discovery requests against National Review. National Review responded by e-mail on February 7, reminding Plaintiff’s counsel that this Court had already ruled that discovery should be stayed until its Anti-SLAPP motion could be finally resolved in the Court of Appeals. In response, Plaintiff’s counsel indicated that while he did not agree with National Review’s position, he would not press the issue of discovery for the time being. A few weeks later, however, on March 6, Plaintiff’s counsel called National Review’s counsel to renew his discovery requests yet again. Plaintiff’s counsel explained that he felt obliged to renew discovery because National Review’s co-defendant, Mark Steyn, had decided not to pursue an appeal, and had instead indicated his desire to proceed with discovery against Plaintiff. Thus, according to Plaintiff’s counsel, it would be impracticable to proceed with discovery between himself and Steyn without the involvement of the other co-Defendants.
Putting aside the bizarre posture of National Review, now standing athwart the DC court calendar yelling “Stop!”, we should not overlook the real significance of this document. Ever since this wretched case began a year-and-a-half ago, those who know Dr Mann have been saying that he would obstruct discovery, as he’s currently doing in court in Vancouver and Virginia. Today’s filing marks the first confirmation that such is the case.
What is so “impracticable” about proceeding with discovery between me and him? There are four defendants, so Mann has served four separate requests for discovery. I’ve returned mine; National Review, CEI and Rand Simberg are sitting on theirs. The four defendants will in turn submit, collectively, four requests for discovery upon Dr Mann. Why is responding to mine ahead of NR’s any more “impracticable” than me responding to his ahead of NR’s response? What’s so difficult about that? Where, indeed, is there even a smidgeonette of “impracticability”?
There are four defendants and one plaintiff. Of the five of us, I seem to be the only one anxious to exercise his right to a speedy trial. Furthermore, NR’s pleadings make a basic error:
If National Review’s appeal succeeds, then the claims against Steyn will almost certainly need to be dismissed as well, thus vitiating the need for any discovery at all.
Not so. I’ve countersued Dr Mann for $30 million. So, even if NR’s appeal succeeds, Mann and I will still be headed to trial. He claimed to want his day in court, and I took him at his word and have determined to give him it.
=======================================================
More here: http://www.steynonline.com/6184/oh-wont-you-stay-ay-ay-just-a-little-bit-longer
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Discovery was always the problem. Hoisted on your own petard? We may see less of the Mann in court in future. LOL. What a prick.
evanmjones wrote ” … But he is too far out on a limb to get back. I accept his sincerity (though not much else). And I think he really believes those things he believes. He turned out to be the wrong Mann in the wrong place at the wrong time. I feel kind of sorry for the guy.”
I don’t feel one bit sorry for him, a long time ago, he could have said “Oops, I should have tested my software better, nice catch McIntire”.
“What is so “impracticable” about proceeding with discovery between me and him?”
Court efficiency. There are going to be objections. The judge doesn’t want to hear and rule on your arguments, then repeat the process with the other defendants later. I can understand that.
What I don’t understand is why you turned over your documents so far in advance of the others.
This is so funny. I can’t believe Mann (or his lawyers) can be so dumb…
Can someone pass the popcorn?
mpaul says:
March 20, 2014 at 2:40 pm
You might want to read up on SCO’s legal actions on Grocklaw. In the IT world, it was a fascinating amusement for those 7 years. June 2010 SCO lost and a motion to appeal was rejected. Novell won. Overview link below. Basically, it seems like it is a really stupid idea to sue unless you really can win and have a clean underwear drawer. Discovery is a bitch and all sorts of nasties lurk inside.
http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=20080803065719599
accordionsrule says: March 20, 2014 at 4:40 pm
1. It is a fair presumption, IMHO, that Steyn finds them to be benign and/or exculpatory.
2. Steyn can now, with some considerable legitmacy I think, commence to rhetorically capitalize on Mann’s track record of non-compliance with discovery, no small part in this instance of “lawfare”.
accordionsrule says:
March 20, 2014 at 4:40 pm
“What I don’t understand is why you turned over your documents so far in advance of the others.”
Because Steyn, unlike Mann, NR and Simberg, wants the thing to go to trial, i.e. wants to get on with it.
Rob Hobart says:
““I’ve countersued Dr Mann for $30 million. So, even if NR’s appeal succeeds, Mann and I will still be headed to trial.”
No, you won’t, Steyn. Sadly, your countersuit has no standing and will certainly be dismissed, as PopeHat and other conservative legal bloggers have tried to warn you.”
Yeah, but you are forgetting that Steyn know more about everything than “experts”, be they scientists, lawyers or judges. They are all just incompetent imbeciles who could learn a thing or two from a real expert like Steyn.
dbstealey says:
March 20, 2014 at 2:23 pm
Scientific American is …
Mr. Stealey, might I suggest you take your comment, and the email discussing the ban, directly to social media? For example, posting some screenshots on a hosting site, and hash tagging, and making a shareable post on FB which can be thus distributed? Make every effort to get the objective demonstration of a lack of objectivity on sciams part disseminated as widely as possible?
Only you can prevent mass media manipulation, and mass media itself provides the tools.
Thanks in advance for your efforts!
I mean, what would the team at PopeHat know anyway…. How often have they been shown to be right compared to Steyns stellar record on legal predictions…
I thought your comment was great. That was considered name-calling?
To the increasingly unhinged alarmists out there, facts likely are “insulting”.
March 20, 2014 at 2:23 pm | dbstealey says
————-
What about setting up a FaceBook page, conveniently named to draw search attention, to record censorship by SciAm … include the article header and ‘abstract’ followed by the censored responses, and be sure to delete responses from the warmista.
^ Uh! See that ‘Buffoon’ has suggested that already.
drumphil says:
March 20, 2014 at 5:06 pm
Ken White of PopeHat thinks Steyn reckless from the standpoint of a legal practitioner, but allows that given his goals, he might not prove such a fool in the end:
http://www.popehat.com/2014/03/18/michael-mann-files-anti-slapp-motion-against-mark-steyns-counterclaims/
Steyn has one advantage – he is not encumbered by the American legal process thinking. I will enjoy his souvenirs. I hope this case is indeed a bridge too far.
I am sure that other journalists will support the theory of free speech, if they are indeed skeptical of Mann, and who cannot be if he refuses to produce his data related papers. If he refuses to do this is this not contempt of court? Either way he has lost credibility, and will open a can of worms for other suits perhaps. Go Mark and best of luck their are thousands of scientists and lay persons who will support your case.
Rob Hobart-
Steyn is “endangering the very cause he claims to be fighting for.” ??? The cause of free speech? He’s endangering that cause by freely speaking? By freely pointing out how corrupt and idiotic our system has become? By refusing to comply with some standard of decorum that may have been deserved by our justice system in the past, but that has no relevance to the endless paperwork and legal minutia that now rules the day?
You want him to bend over and take it all quietly, just like others before him have. Well too bad for you AND whatever brand of political correctness you rode in on. We’re DONE taking it. We’re DONE playing by the rules established to pacify the masses while ignoring true justice. It’s people like you, who refuse to grow a spine, who refuse to stand up and DEMAND that their rights get respected and protected as much as anyone else’s, that forget what our forefathers were willing to do for freedom and justice that have brought this nation to it’s knees.
I don’t CARE if he wins or not. I don’t care what Ken White or a hundred “conservative” bloggers say about this case. Even Ken White agrees with and supports his cause while having the integrity to admit that the system is flawed and redundant.
Steyn has it right.
When the game is rigged against justice and reason, forget the rules.
So far the American Just-Us system has done a fine job of stripping American citizens of their constitutional rights.
When robbed by legal theft or held up with a weapon, you are still dispossessed.
Free speech is too important to trust to lawyers.
After all trusting your lawyer is an oxymoron.
The more publicity Steyn can attract to the case, the more likely justice will prevail.
Make enough noise and even the Supreme Court will be forced to listen.
I’m with Steyn, Aphan, and Robertson: I’ve seen the rotten system from the perspective of witness, plaintiff, and defendent, in both superior and small claims courts. It’s a broken system encased with the bogus entangling webs that guild weavers have spun thick and sticky.
But it is a system susceptible to pressure, appropriately, and I’m done lying down and taking it. It’s long past time to push back and a free-speech case in DC court involving a free-speech warrior against the biggest public policy boondoggle and control point in a century is the PERFECT case to jam back down their throats.
This is where we must stand. And if we fail, we must pony up the $$ to make sure we win on appeal, in an even noisier fashion.
Here, Now, Us!
Who is with Steyn? Who is with us?
I don’t feel one bit sorry for him, a long time ago, he could have said “Oops, I should have tested my software better, nice catch McIntire”.
You don’t now. With good management and good luck, however, you will . . .
@dbstealy,
Brilliant, succinct, and definitely not insulting nor violating any possible reasonable website comments policy. I wonder what would happen if some peer-reviewed (skeptical) scientist were to copy and paste that comment into one of his or her own? Would they censor accredited scientists with memberships in scientific societies if they posted the ‘wrong’ stuff? Quite outrageous – if only there was some way to publicize this SciAm sleaziness.
As always, I appreciate your persistence and dedication.
” P. Berkin says:
March 20, 2014 at 2:01 pm
***** how about putting a counter on the home page showing the lapsed number of days until Michael Mann yields to the discovery request?”
========================================
When will Mann, Man UP?
Re dbstealey’s comment. There was no name calling, but there ‘are non so blind, as those who refuse to see’. Of course one of their motives is politically biased, but also I wonder if all those so called scientists that were given grants are worried they will ever be given any more if they have corrupted data to prove their hypothesis. Academic suicide.
Any grasp at straws to rebut any enlightened criticism, (the meteor question was hilarious) extreme weather, billions will die if you don’t believe (sounds almost like a false prophet’s religious dogma) I just pray that someone with weight in the media, starts to change course and cause. I think they are all scared that Mannie will sue them? What did one of our posters state a quote from Mark Twain or someone, ….”It is easier to fool people, than prove they have been fooled”
If your back pocket has been tampered with (ie. financial fraud) that is a criminal felony. Doesn’t anyone care about the damage these warmists are promoting to people’s generally ideology and favoring to hear from false prophets, ignoring this scam? Go Mark.