Steyn's scorching new legal brief on the Michael Mann 'defamation' case

Mark Steyn has submitted an amicus curiae brief in the CEI/National Review -vs- Mann and it has some interesting language. Unfortunately, since it is a scan of printed document, rather than a PDF conversion, I can’t excerpt as easily, so I have to use screencaps.

Mann’s goal is to drag things out.

image

Steyn lays out what it is all about – punishment by legal delay and the expenses it brings:

image

The issue is broader than just Mann’s delicate sensibilities:

image

image

The “Nobel laureate” that wasn’t caused delay while he fixed his own self-serving lies:

image

image

Read it all here: http://www.steynonline.com/documents/6514.pdf

Mann has himself a peck of trouble taking on Steyn, who isn’t going to roll over and take it. Kudos to him for this brief exposing Mann for what he is; a fabricator of falsehoods in full view of the court.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Konrad

“Mann’s goal is to drag things out…”
I understand the relevant term is “lawfare”
No matter. His sobulent bitchosity, Dr. Mann, still loses. He’s only playing for time now.
He short-centred proxy data prior to PCA. There can be no forgiveness. Ever.

Assuming the Judge takes due diligence in researching what Steyn states rather than accepting what Mann alleges, to use technical legal jargon: Mikey is in a heap of do-do.

earwig42

If you would like to support Mark Steyn, check out his website http://www.steynonline.com/ He could use some help. Mann needs to be slapped down.

Doug UK

Well done Mark Steyn!
I am sure everyone wishes you well in this case.

Leo Smith

Lets hope this acts to limit the lies that AGW protagonists will tell.

Todd

This just points to the (arguably) largest failing of the American legal system. The ability of a deep pocketed plaintiff to literally destroy someone else, whether that someone else is deserving of such of not.
Loser pays, now!

Steyn is rapidly becoming one of my heros of the day. If for no other reason than his willingness to buck the system in the quest for justice!
Only a fully brain dead automaton would not cheer on this “David” against the Mann-Goliath.

j ferguson

Todd, the judge is equipped not to enable this abuse.

Lloyd Martin Hendaye

Steyn is correct that Warmists in general and the excrescent Michael Mann in particular are raging ideologues without a shred of common decency. But as Conrad Black has put it, “The real crime (here) is the U.S. criminal justice system itself.”

tm willemse

Unfortunately, since it is a scan of printed document, rather than a PDF conversion, I can’t excerpt as easily, so I have to use screencaps.PaperPort will turn scanned pages into PDFs. It will also clarify scans, removing stray dots, etc. I was able to convert your images into PDF.

MarkW

j ferguson says:
August 12, 2014 at 6:37 am
—-
It’s true that judges are equipped to deal with this kind of abuse, but they never do.

It’s about time somebody started getting mad.

simple-touriste

It took how many years to resolve the patently inept case of a former linux distributor claiming that linux/free software was a violation of the constitution (or stuff like that)?
US was a great country and is now rotting from its inflated legal system.
US is doomed unless something is done about legal abuses.

Tim

This is a ground breaker and of huge significance beyond the case itself. Many thanks for the updates. This information should not be allowed to disappear into the ‘ether’.(A technical term.)

OK S.

“It is clear from the ease with which Mann lies about things that would not withstand ten minutes of scrutiny in a courtroom that he has no intention of proceeding to trial.” p. 8.

Steyn’s lawyers certainly have a good command of the language.

mark wagner

Although Mann has bought far more than he bargained for, I doubt that discovery will ever see the light of day. There is the issue of the counter suit with which he must contend, but I expect he will attempt to settle.

Joseph W.

Assuming the Judge takes due diligence in researching what Steyn states rather than accepting what Mann alleges….
Judges are supposed to research law. In general, they are not supposed to research facts. (This is, overall, a good thing; their decisions rely on evidence brought by the parties, and not by their law clerks’ Google skills.) The statements of fact add good color to the brief, and in reality they may help to persuade, but the appellate judges won’t (and shouldn’t) make factual findings based on them.
To place facts in front of a judge – have a hearing with a witness or else file an affidavit.
But in this case the facts are not really important to the relief being requested (“whatever you’re going to do, get on with it!”)…because even if Mann’s statement were true, the defense would still have an interest in getting the case moved swiftly.

Dave

It seems to me that Mann’s track record of suing people and then stonewalling subsequent discovery, as evidenced by his pursuit of Tim Ball in the Canadian court system, should also be brought before the court. That case certainly illustrates a pattern to Mann’s behavior…

“the U.S. criminal justice system” should be rewritten as “the criminal U.S. justice system.”

Dave in Canmore

That Mann so easily lies and fabricates untruths to the court is very telling of the quality and objectivity of his reasearch. In such a soft economy, it boggles the mind how such people find and retain work. Not soon enough till the “Academics Bubble” bursts.

If Steyn has the resources, he should investigate where Michael Mann is getting the money to pay his own lawyers to drag out the case.
Mann oversees millions of dollars worth of grant money from the government to fund research projects. If some of that money found its way into Mann’s lawyer’s accounts it would be a crime that could send Mann to jail.

Gary Pearse

Mann may not benefit from delay. Global warming has been interrupted essentially since Mann published the paper (1998). The stick has a decidedly flat rebend. I guess you could turn it upside down and still shoot a puck (at least the Tiljander series would at last be right side up).

There is a serious issue here, and it is not only the American Justice system that allows it. Most judges in the UK, however, would have dismissed the case rather than allowed an extended period in which to revise the plea before them on the grounds that it rested on false claims. I’m surprised this has not happened in this case – but then, perhaps the judge has an ulterior motive and was hoping the defendant would prepare a plea such as this one as a counter.
I was told by an eminent Barrister I know well, that it is always worth taking something like this into court, since it must be admitted in evidence, even if it is part of a prepared ‘statement’ read by a defendant. Once in evidence, even if the case is subsequently ‘lost’ by the defendant, the damage to the plaintiff has been done, precisely because it is now in the public domain. It has been aired in public, reported in the court papers, probably repeated in the Press.

Question for the legal beagles out there.
How can Steyn submit an ‘amicus curiae’ brief in this case when “Mark Steyn is a defendant in this action”??? It was my impression that ‘amicus curiae’ meant that you were *not* a party to the case.
W^3

Reblogged this on Two Heads are Better Than One and commented:
Moral of the story: In a battle between a Leftist and Mark Steyn, …. always bet on Steyn.

Manniac

Never underestimate Mann’s inhumanity to fellow man…

cbone

Steyn can submit an amicus because he is not an appellant in the present matter. He, instead, chose to live with the denial of the motion to dismiss and proceed to trial. Since he is not appealing, the only way to file a brief before the court in this matter is to file an amicus brief.

rogerknights

How can Steyn submit an ‘amicus curiae’ brief in this case when “Mark Steyn is a defendant in this action”??? It was my impression that ‘amicus curiae’ meant that you were *not* a party to the case.

Steyn isn’t a party to the SLAPP suit case.

pouncer

I am not a legal beagle, but I have read Steyn’s filing.
Steyn is *not* a party to this *appeal* of a lower court’s denial of a *motion*.
Steyn *is*, as Wygart correctly understands, a party to the *case*.
The *case* is stalled while the *appeal* is being considered, and Steyn as a friend of the appeals court reminds that court of the costs of delay and benefits of a speedy decision. All parties, including Mann’s legal beagles, have agreed that Steyn qualifies as a “friend” to provide this kind of (though perhaps, in Mann’s opinion, not exactly this particular) advice.

W3: This is in the lawsuit against National Review, separate from the Steyn case

Speed
pouncer

Another amicus brief about the DC SLAPP process
http://cei.org/legal-briefs/amicus-brief-aclu-support-cei-and-nr
The ACLU advises the appeals court that though the enabling legislation makes no provision one way or the other, other jurisdictions and the *concept* of Anti-SLAPP legisilation do make it clear that the appeals court does have an intrinsic power for immediate review of a lower court’s ruling on SLAPP motions.
That is, the ACLU flatters the appeal court and tells them they’re great and powerful.
There is a LOT riding on this case that has very little to do with the hockey stick or AGW.

Background from Popehat …
In our last episode of the saga of Michael Mann’s defamation suit against National Review, Mark Steyn, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and Rand Simberg, I explained that the matter was wrapped in a dry, but crucial, procedural issue: the District of Columbia Court of Appeal was faced with whether a defendant who loses a motion under D.C.’s anti-SLAPP law may appeal immediately, or must wait until the end of the case.
http://www.popehat.com/?s=mann

James Ingleballix

There’s going to be one HELL of a movie made about this in 15yrs time.
I’ll take a piece of Steyn’s side.

Walter Allensworth

Already supported Steyn and got my Hockeystick in the mail!
Please do the same. Free speech is at stake.

Dave Robertson

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that Mann is not paying any of the cost of this litigation, So Mann has no reason to expedite and suffers no real harm by forcing the defendants to incur heavy real costs over an extended period of time.
Unless, a judgement completely compensates the defendants for all legal fees and costs, Mann wins.

What Mr. Steyn is doing is remarkably brave – he’s already been through a worse lynching at the hands of some Canadian human rights commissions – so kudos and thanks to him!
Notice that the general problem of the abuse of process extends far beyond arguments like this. Several; years ago somebody in Edmonton got a camera ticket for running a red light -and eventually forced the city to refund nearly 12.3 million in fines to others. Great! except it cost the guy an estimated $600,000 to get that judgement to avoid a $400 fine.
A few years ago I got a camera ticket for doing 49 in a 50 zone – but to prove to the court that the camera truck had parked outside the 30 zone I had to get a qualified photogrammetric engineer to review the image and testify – lowest quote? $35,000 plus expenses and testimony fees and no guarantees. I’ m not rich, and paid the fine.
That’s what Mann et al are counting on: and national review’s effort to back away represent a clear success for that strategy. So, please, support Steyn, and cordially disrespect both National Review and the court system.

Jtom

Is it too much to hope that ethical scientist who agree with AGW will become appalled at Mann’s behavior, resulting in a schism in the AGW cabal, and start challenging each other’s work (i,e., start behaving like scientists)?

Dave

Jtom says:
August 12, 2014 at 8:43 am
Is it too much to hope that ethical scientist who agree with AGW will become appalled at Mann’s behavior, resulting in a schism in the AGW cabal, and start challenging each other’s work (i,e., start behaving like scientists)?
The answer to your question is yes… it is too much to hope for

Chris4692

Although to this layman, Mr. Steyn’s brief is convincing and has my sympathy, I don’t know if it is actually on point as far as the issues of the appeal. Though relevant, in my quick read it seems that it may be a bit off the line of the issues of the appeal. I’m awaiting a dispassionate comment and discussion from someone who works the field and who would be familiar with the scope of the proceedings at this stage.

TomE

I have a series of websites on my browser which I review every morning, WUWT, Steynonline, Jewish World Review, National Review, and other less significant ones. They all provide intelligence, humor, commentary and a good overview of what’s happening. I highly recommend Mark Steyn’s books.

harkin

The scariest thing is that this has gone so far without the court system squashing Mann like the pest he is. The amount of corruption and incompetence in our courts, our media and our government is as staggering as it is frightful.

Mr Green Genes

Am I right in assuming that Sowell is part of Mann’s ‘team’?

From The Corruption of the Republic
by Mark Steyn February 21, 2014

I know nothing about law except what I learned as a schoolboy. For example, way back in 1166, the Assize of Clarendon, began what we now understand as the right to trial by jury, which was generally welcomed as an improvement over trial by combat or trial by ordeal. But it’s only better if it’s the right to a speedy trial. Otherwise, as in the sclerotic and diseased system prevailing here, trial by jury is itself deformed into trial by ordeal. In a speedy-trial system, a litigant has to be very sure that he wants to go to court. But, in America today, an abusive litigant funded by others – as Mann is – well knows that he can simply file a suit and drag things out, taking his opponents out of the public square for years on end – just as Obama plans to do with D’Souza. If the DC Superior Court and whatever dump of a New York courthouse D’Souza winds up in offered the same express service as Henry II did with the Assize of Clarendon, that would be one thing. But, as it is, in America the very justice system itself has become tyrannous. That’s its appeal to Mann, and to Obama.

@Chris4692 at 9:17 am
Although to this layman, Mr. Steyn’s brief is convincing and has my sympathy, I don’t know if it is actually on point as far as the issues of the appeal. Though relevant, in my quick read it seems that it may be a bit off the line of the issues of the appeal.
If the issue of speedy trial is off line in the issues of the appeal, I think that is the point Mark Steyn is making in his brief. THE most important issue should be of speedy resolution of Freedom of Speech and the anti-SLAPP issues “deserve immediate resolution.”
Every day the court delays, the defendants are harmed and the plaintiffs benefit. That is not equal Justice.

Darth Chipmunk

“ethical scientist who agree with AGW” ? Ethical scientists do not ignore the Scientific Method. Ethical scientists do not ignore the last 10 years of gathered evidence because it deviates from their desired outcome. Ethical scientists to not use lawsuits to suppress and silence dissenting viewpoints. Ethical scientists do not use the phrase, “The science is settled” or “all scientists agree” or suggest that healthy and reasonable skepticism is “anti-science”, or worse, equating skeptics with savages who deny that the Nazi holocaust against the Jews ever happened. That’s not just an unacceptable argument, it’s disgusting. Yet it is a mainstay talking point of the alarmist crowd when facing a “non-believer”. Ethics, indeed!
In reality, ALL scientists should be appalled at Mann’s (et. al.) behaviour and professional tactics. And they should denounce him strongly. If there is any truth to AGW (and I mean scientific truth), the strong-arm tactics, bullying, suppression, name calling, etc., do more to damage the movement and its credibility. After all, if the science really is settled, those tactics shouldn’t be necessary in the first place. Sadly and ironically, what we’re witnessing is a faith-based community in damage-control mode.

provoter

( Konrad says)
“He short-centred proxy data prior to PCA. There can be no forgiveness. Ever. ”
Classic.

leon0112

Having the ACLU on the side of Steyn, the National Review and the Competitive Enterprise Institute is quite a coup for Steyn. The courts will no longer see this as right wing ideologues against the pure of heart Mann. This is a freedom of speech issue.
On another note, it seems to me that Steve McIntyre has shown that the only institution who has “exonerated” Michael Mann is Penn State. And Rand Simberg’s piece noted that Penn State “exonerated” both Jerry Sandusky and Michael Mann. So Mann’s lawsuit is using the Penn State “investigation” to show it is not fair to say he and Sandusky were exonerated by the same institution.
While this is a freedom of speech case, it seems to me that Simberg’s original comment is well within the rough and tumble of public policy debate.

About Steyn’s Lawyers:
From What Kind of Fool Am I? by Mark Steyn March 24, 2014

Ever since I ended my joint representation with National Review and fired my lawyers on Boxing Day, the endlessly reprised refrain has been that “Mark Steyn has a fool for a client”

So I am pleased to be able to announce today that several other fellows also have a fool for a client ….
Daniel J Kornstein and his co-counsel Mark Platt were the driving force behind the most consequential free-speech legislation this century. Dan is an expert libel lawyer and a principled freedom-of-expression fighter …..
….joining Messrs Kornstein and Platt will be Michael J Songer, co-chair of the Litigation Group at Crowell & Moring in Washington, DC. ….. Mike is also a freespeecher, who teaches a course on the Law of Cyberspace at Georgetown University. He’s big on issues of copyright and intellectual property, which Mann has frequently hidden behind in his attempts to avoid disclosing the data and research that produced his “hockey stick”. In addition, Mike is a science graduate, so he understands both the technical jargon and, just as importantly, how to distill it for a jury.
So I’m no longer an out-of-control full-bore crazy. Instead, I’m an out-of-control full-bore crazy who’s lawyered up to the hilt. …..

And he and his lawyers have countersued:
From Steyn countersues Mann for 10 millon dollars WUWT, Feb. 21, 2014

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.