![Delayed[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/delayed1.png?quality=75)
If you ever needed an example of just how one-sided Michael Mann is, here’s an example of how this delicate scientific flower can’t handle discovery.
Mark Steyn writes:
Breaking as-it-happens news about a trial that isn’t happening any day soon, or any half-decade soon. Previously on Mann vs Steyn et al, National Review had filed a motion asking for yet another stay in discovery pending the appeals court’s ruling on their appeal – or, indeed, the appeals court’s ruling on whether they’re allowed to appeal. Whatever. I’m bored by all this procedural flimflam and am anxious to proceed with discovery and go to trial, as I could have done by now in almost any functioning jurisdiction.
So I filed an objection. Michael Mann eventually filed an objection, too. He also wants to proceed with discovery but only against me, not against him. A voyage of one-way discovery.
Anyway, yesterday Judge Weisberg announced his decision:
Accordingly, it is this 11th day of April, 2014,
ORDERED that the motion of Defendant National Review, Inc. for a Protective Order Staying Discovery Pending Appeal be, and it hereby is, granted; and all proceedings in this case are stayed pending the decision of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals on the Defendants’ interlocutory appeals.
So we’re on hold for a while, again. I intend to use this period for trial preparation, including my investigation of Mann and my counterclaims against him. I’ve been immensely touched by the generosity of readers who understand how costly in time and money a campaign of this nature can be, and have supported the Steyn store to a degree I never expected.
Nevertheless, I explained in my objection why I was anxious to get on with it:
3. The charge that a man is a defamer is a serious one and profoundly damaging. With criminal charges, this nation provides a constitutional right to a speedy trial. It offers no such protections in civil court, even though to be accused as a defamer is certainly as damaging to one’s reputation and honor as all but the most serious criminal charges. For an independent writer such as Defendant Steyn, this is especially so: His livelihood depends entirely on his reputation, and as long as this charge stains his character without being answered he is being damaged. As the accused, he asserts his right to confront his accuser in open court in a timely manner.
4. Likewise, the Plaintiff is owed the courtesy of being received straightway without delay. As this Court noted in its Order of January 22nd, the allegedly defamatory statements “go to the heart of scientific integrity”, and thus to the heart of the Plaintiff’s character. If the Court truly believes that, then Dr Mann is entitled to a timely trial that settles the truth of the matter wheresoever it be.
Judge Weisberg acknowledged the unfairness of this in his ruling:
Read the entire piece here, including some frustration by the judge in the case: http://www.steynonline.com/6260/irony-alert
===========================================================
This demonstration of Dr. Mann’s principles, where he doesn’t want to yield to discovery, but let’s go ahead with discovery on Steyn, isn’t just irony, it’s über irony.
What a cowardly Mann. Eventually, this game of musical chairs will stop, and it is pretty clear who’s going to be without one and left holding a broken hockey stick.
The next judicial shoe to drop…a ruling from Judge Weisberg on Mann’s anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Steyn’s counter-suit…a HUGE ruling (as I see it anyway). If Mann does not prevail in the lower court, he’ll undoubtedly be appealing to the DC Court of Appeals…where he can get in line behind NR, CEI and Rand Simberg.
I’d sure like to see some updated legal analysis from Prof. Adler at Volokh as to his take on the status quo.
If science caught venereal disease, the gurus of warming are among the culprits.
is it consistent that error contains within it the dna of its own downfall
When money is no object and you have a bottomless pit of expensive, (subsidized) legal representation, you can delay matters ad infinitum if you’re the guilty party. Don’t all the elites work that way?
Those outside the US have a hard time believing what a convoluted, nearly insane civil system we have here. Allow me to illustrate with a case that I’ve had some tangential involvement with for several years – nobody famous involved, really a rather garden variety business dispute. But it demonstrates the trajectory that many cases take in our system, and the path that I think Steyn’s case is about to take.
This was a rather simple dispute about royalty payments and claim of interference in a contract. The problem was that Texas has one set of rules to cover consumer tort law, and another set of rules specifically written to cover oil and gas law. (in terms of disclosure, my ties are to the defendant) The trial court decided the case on the basis of consumer law, against the defendants, but the appeals court threw the entire thing out, writing that the trial court judge showed gross ignorance of the law underlying the entire case. (he had been ousted from the bench by then, for other reasons)
But the outcome wasn’t as important as the fact that this rather ordinary civil case languished for 8 1/2 years in the courts, and to date, each side has spent over $600,000.00 in legal fees. Oh, and the financial ruling? The Appeals Court ruled that there was some liability, and that the defendants owed the plaintiffs $242.00. That’s it – no awards for costs to either side, no punitive damages, no nothing. Oh and the original claim was for $400,000.00. So, for a claim of $400,000,00 and an award of $242, the two sides together spent $1.2 million dollars.
And that is how the US civil court system “works”.
p.s. It still isn’t completely over; there is an appeal pending to the State Supreme Court, although we expect the appeal to be denied. That will probably take another year, though, and briefs for that action will probably cost another $35K for each side. But, once you’ve thrown away $1.2 million, whats another $70K but fuel for the bonfire?
Relevance: This is the kind of path that I think both Steyn and Mann have to look forward to over the next decade.
Prof. Mann seems to enjoy the game, so far.
What about that news item of one of Mann’s attorneys resigning from the case?
For Mann this is a game of Polk and he’s been bluffing too long, Mark has just raised the stakes and asked to ‘see him’.
Mannverick ? Nah doesn’t scan that well.
Oops Polka I’m sure you knew,
[Are you dancing and spinning in circles, polking funds at the writers, or should both be “Pokers”? 8<) Mod]
I went to Mark’s store and purchased a couple of mugs and Biffra and Mann were shoved through my letterbox. Painful……
One should also consider that the reference period for “calibrating” the proxies was very short, less than 100 years, IIRC. The upshot is that if the proxies were unreliable during the reference period, it has to be assumed that they were unreliable outside of it.
Judicial poking? (sorry, slow news morning)
Grimm news for Mann?
jdgalt says:
“I don’t think it really matters that “they are not Nobel Laureates”.
A Nobel Prize no longer means anything, because when the committee that awards them started handing them out to obvious fools like Gore, Obama, and Krugman…”
FWIW, Krugman did not receive a Nobel Prize. Krugman received the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel. This was not one of the prizes that Nobel established in his will.
In Mann’s defense, this is probably more the work of lawyers running up their bill.
magic, yes, but if the prosecuting lawyers believe the plaintiff, and the plaintiff has lied or exaggerated their claim, they can lose. Heavilly. There was a case of a young woman taking the CBA to court over alleged harassment etc. The two men she mentioned in a complaint three newspapers printed her case to be heard, naming the men. One didn’t retract, and was sued by the two men concerned. The Daily Telegraph paid for the young woman and family to give evidence. Then something was revealed and they withdrew their defence case and settled. She continued on and on, appeals etc., and ended up with over 6 million dollars in damages and court costs. Don’t lie to a court in Australia or take on a huge organization, like the Commonwealth bank, who were not prepared to settle out of court as she was hoping.
I’m no fan of Mark Steyn, he being in my estimation a prototypical bumper-sticker wingnut and me not being a prototypical bumper-sticker anything. But on this one, I’m on his side. Get on with it, judge. Fair’s fair. What the hell is Michael Mann waiting for?
I still don’t see why people distrust the ‘hockey stick’ graph.
A hockey stick, on its side, is flat for a long time, then goes up steeply towards the end, just as global temperatures have.
And then it comes back down again. Just like global temperatures….