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.
Steyn lays out what it is all about – punishment by legal delay and the expenses it brings:
The issue is broader than just Mann’s delicate sensibilities:
The “Nobel laureate” that wasn’t caused delay while he fixed his own self-serving lies:
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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Never underestimate Mann’s inhumanity to fellow man…
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.
Steyn isn’t a party to the SLAPP suit case.
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
Convert PDF to a Word document and/or text …
http://office.microsoft.com/en-001/word-help/edit-pdf-content-in-word-HA102903948.aspx?CTT=5&origin=HA102850064
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
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.
Already supported Steyn and got my Hockeystick in the mail!
Please do the same. Free speech is at stake.
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.
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)?
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
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.
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.
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.
Mark Steyn: Blog Post Mar 21, 2014 Law is Hell.
“it’s a pretty pitiful First Amendment if it requires half-a-decade of my life and a seven-figure sum to decide that it was lawful for me to write my 270-word blog post. “
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
@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.
“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.
( Konrad says)
“He short-centred proxy data prior to PCA. There can be no forgiveness. Ever. ”
Classic.
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
And he and his lawyers have countersued:
From Steyn countersues Mann for 10 millon dollars WUWT, Feb. 21, 2014