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.
more soylent green! says:
August 12, 2014 at 1:56 pm
Republishing libelous statements made by others is also libel. Steyn and NRO refused demands by Mann’s attorneys to remove the quotation of the original Rand Simberg column.
Others have commented on one greatly needed tonic for the US courts: loser pays. I have another: end lifetime judicial appointments. Unfortunately this requires a Constitutional Amendment for the Federal bench. I would substitute a 7-year term and then a judge must be nominated and confirmed again. The 7 year cycle does not match up with the Presidential or Senate elections except every 28 and 42 years respectively. Or we could go with an 11 year term, but that coincides with the sunspot cycle, so who know what effect that might have :-).
I wonder how much of the court delay in this case is due to federal court employees “teleworking” from home.
( For non-US residents; this is a reference to the recent scandal about Patent Office employees,
story is here: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140811/12172628175/patent-examiner-regularly-engaged-fraud-abuse-via-telework-program.shtml
)
ladylifegrows says:
August 12, 2014 at 1:07 pm
The US Constitution was based far more on the philosophy of John Locke than on any of the above.
Spot on!
Chris4692 says:
August 12, 2014 at 2:42 pm
IMO the Declaration of Independence, which indeed does cite the Creator, was heavily influenced by Locke, among other philosophers, but the practical business of designing a government under the Constitution relied more on historical example than political philosophy, except possibly for Montesquieu’s “The Spirit of the Laws”, which championed the separation of powers.
Chris4692: “There is no way I would want someone who went to law school as a preferred alternative to taking science and math (which describes most lawyers and judges) to decide a question of science in a courtroom.”
I have considerable sympathy for that sentiment, having seen how clueless the judiciary can be on issues of science. Yet I’ve seen scientists, too–on this very site–take truly bizarre positions on scientific issues.
That doesn’t mean I don’t believe it would in general be better–for a host of reasons–to have judges better trained in science. At the end of the day, though, I think it can be more important for the trier of fact to be able to think analytically than to have the formal education. My experience is that among those lacking formal training there are more (on an absolute, not percentage, basis) people who are really competent to decide an ably presented scientific question than there are among those who have the credentials.
The Declaration of Independence is a wonderful example of the principles of Natural Law. It is philosophical. The Constitution provides the structure of the federal government and is more practical in nature. There are obvious philosophical principles expressed in the design — limited government with enumerated powers and the separation of powers through three separate branches of government are two examples of this.
Nick Stokes says: pouncer says:
>>“The *case* is stalled while the *appeal* is being considered, ”
>It is CEI/National Review who instituted the appeal, not Mann.
But it was not Steyn, either. It was, however, Mann who asked the lower court for a *stay* on various progress while the appeal was being heard. The stay results in the stall in the otherwise severable 4-defendent suit.
The *stay* mainly applies to a process known as discovery, but other actions are also stalled while the appear is going on. Since Mann sued 4 different parties, one might have thought he’d be eager to divide and conquer, winning against the least scientific of the bunch — Steyn, a former radio disk jockey and music critic. But Mann has instead asked the court, and been granted the boon, of not dealing with Steyn until Simberg, and two large deep pocketed corporations are also at risk.
a not-quite-similar case
http://patterico.com/2014/08/12/motion-to-dismiss-brett-kimberlins-absurd-rico-lawsuit-against-me-and-over-20-others/
I recall one sage’s comment about cases involving science or technology ultimately being settled by an elected judge with an Arts degree….
more soylent green! says:
August 12, 2014 at 3:25 pm
Certainly political philosophy lies behind the Constitution but the form of government it set up was based upon historical example. It relied upon recent European examples, chiefly the British parliamentary system, but also the arrangements of the United Provinces of the Netherlands. The Framers could hardly call their upper house of Congress “Lords”, so they borrowed “Senate” from Roman history. The powers accorded the president are modeled on those of the British monarch, but the position was made indirectly electable rather than hereditary, as some had urged for Washington while the Articles of Confederation still held sway. From classical history they learned to fear democracy, so hedged against it in their new republic by making presidential election indirect and having state legislatures chose senators. Rules for choosing the peoples’ representatives in the lower house were also left up to the states.
To those advocating for ‘loser pays’ consider that often good causes lose, then win on appeal. I’d rather a system where “He who brings the case pays, until fìnal ruling.” It would cut down a lot on junk sueage…
Loser pays would be good. Loosing attorney pays would really change things.
“pouncer says: August 12, 2014 at 3:32 pm
“It was, however, Mann who asked the lower court for a *stay* on various progress while the appeal was being heard. The stay results in the stall in the otherwise severable 4-defendent suit.”
No, it was Nation Review, lodged on 03/19/2014:
National Review’s Motion for Protective Order Staying Discovery Pending Appeal Filed. Submitted 03/19/2014 17:58. ajm
Attorney: DICK, ANTHONY J. (1015585)
NATIONAL REVIEW, INC. (Defendant); Receipt: 276626 Date: 03/20/2014
and granted 04/11/2014.
@Nick stokes
Sorry, no. It was Mann. NR has no standing in the Steyn v. Mann case and could not ask for a stay. Mann asked for the stay until the NR issue was resolved. However there is no longer any linkage in the cases.
All honor to Steyn. And shame on National Review for failing to defend themselves and their remit to survey Nationally important controversies such as CGW.
The problem with loser pays is this, the legal system is basically a lottery. I come from a long line of judges and attorneys and none of them dare trying to predict how a judge or jury will rule. In general the better their case the more worried they are about losing and I am talking about open and shut slam dunk cases.
All we really need is a fair and impartial system, but sadly that probably is never going to happen.
Joe Born says:
August 12, 2014 at 2:49 pm
//////////////////
Lawyers are very good at evaluating the strength of evidence, and this includes the strength of competing expert evidence.
It is for this reason that i would have considerable confidence in a Judge determining whether the null hypothesis has been dissproved by the weight of evidence in the IPCC report.
I have very little doubt, that a Judge would readily conclude that the IPCC have not discharged the burden on them to show that something other than natural variation is responsible for the post 1950s temperature record. I would expect the IPCC report to be severely ravaged. Indeed, the section on models and the merits of their projections would be laughed out of Court.
For example, the UK Court found significant errors with Al Gore’s film The Inconvenient Truth. See;http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3310137/Al-Gores-nine-Inconvenient-Untruths.html
I do not know the full particulars of that case, but I suspect that it was not argued in great depth, and even with only a cursory showing, the Court readily accepted that many of the claims made out in that film, were not fact and/or not adequately supported by the science and/or were gross exagerations.
.
It all depends on the judges politics. Objectivity is not a strong suit of judges.
You can easily and accurately convert pictures of text online. Just for fun, I downloaded the .png image files of the court documents in this post and converted them in a couple minutes at http://www.onlineocr.net/.
You can get the converted result in plain text (which you can copy and paste) or formatted text in Microsoft Word or Excel files that you can download. The formatted Word version kept the same font (Courier) as well as the underlines and even the superscripted number references. Here’s the plain text. See if it’s accurate:
Amicus Curiae Mark Steyn brings this brief in support of neither affirmance or reversal, but instead in support of an expeditious ruling on this matter.
In this action, Plaintiff-Appellee Michael Mann has sought to punish the defendants for their legitimate criticism and commentary on his work and role in the intense national debate over so-called man-made climate change. Defendants moved to dismiss Mann’s abusive complaint, including on anti-SLAPP grounds, and when the lower court denied those motions, three of the four defendants sought immediate review of the anti-SLAPP portion of that decision. While defendant Steyn has not appealed, he agrees with the other defendants that the anti-SLAPP issues raised in this case deserve immediate resolution. Steyn did not appeal because he thought vindication would come faster by proceeding right away with discovery and trial. That hope has been dashed by a stay of proceedings in the trial court. That stay, granted at Mann’s request, included Steyn’s counterclaims against Mann for his campaign to deny freedom of speech rights not only to Steyn but to those scientists in other jurisdictions who make the mistake of disagreeing with him.
But the damage spreads far beyond just the defendants here. Significant delays in the resolution of this lawsuit, even assuming the defendants are rightly vindicated in the end, will send a signal to others who might wish to comment on the climate debate (or any other subject of public interest): remain silent, or risk years of litigation, even if you have done nothing wrong. In other words, do not speak out unless you are prepared to risk being “sued into silence.” This Court can stop the damage here. An expeditious ruling will send a message that the D.C. Anti-SLAPP Act can serve its intended purpose of protecting those who exercise their right to free expression from malicious, often protracted lawsuits meant to stifle that very right. This Court should rule on this appeal as quickly as possible.
What Judge Weisberg called the “convoluted procedural history” of this case derives from Mann’s abuse of the judicial process. The delays stem from Mann’s need to amend his original complaint because of its false claim that he is a Nobel Laureate and that Steyn and the other defendants had committed the crime of “defamation of a Nobel Prize recipient.” Mann’s fraudulent misrepresentation of his credentials and academic standing later earned him a rebuke from Geir Lundestad, director of the Nobel Institute in Oslo. One can well understand why the exposure of Mann’s fraudulent claim should cause him embarrassment but it should surely not justify resetting the procedural clock back to the beginning on this case, which is what in effect happened. In his later, court filings, Mann has made equally preposterous and objectively false claims. For example, Mann has claimed that he has been “exonerated” by such bodies as the University of East Anglia, the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency, and even by the government of the United Kingdom, none of which have investigated Dr Mann at all, never mind “exonerated” him. The audacity of the falsehoods in Mann’s court pleadings is breathtaking. For example, on page 19 of his brief below dated January 18, 2013, he cites the international panel chaired by the eminent scientist Lord Oxburgh, FRS as one of the bodies that “exonerated” him, whereas on page 235 of Mann’s own book, The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars, he states explicitly that “our own work did not fall within the remit of the committee, and the
Nick Stokes says:
August 12, 2014 at 1:24 pm
“It is CEI/National Review who instituted the appeal, not Mann.”
Mann’s the one that took 8 months to amend his original complaint, getting it in right before the first judge ruled on the unamended complaint. 8 months? Seriously? How long does it take to search for ‘Nobel Laureate’ and replace it with ‘Fra*dulent Gasbag’? So National Review and the rest had to appeal a barely legible judgment against them in regards to a moot complaint. And Mann’s not the one responsible for this thing dragging on for two years? Whatever.
Steyn: A Hero Mann: Shameful Courts: Undependable
Case Document Links
Mark Steyn links to the latest case and amicus briefs and dismantles Paul Krugman’s arguments in Real Nobel Laureate Takes Pity on Fake Nobel Laureate.
Biblical foundation for Declaration & Constitution
For those seeking the facts and foundations underlying the Declaration of Independence see:
Defending the Declaration: How the Bible and Christianity Influenced the Writing of the Declaration of Independence, Gary T. Amos, 1996 Providence Foundation, ISBN 1887456058
Similarly to understand the background of the Constitution, see:
David Barton Original Intent: The Courts, the Constitution, & Religion 2008 Wallbuilder Press ISBN-10: 1932225633 Edition: 5th, 534 pp
Steyn is sure that Mann will eventually withdraw his suit. That is why Steyn has counter-claimed: to make sure that at least his portion does proceed to discovery and trial.
No, loser pays is not what is required (that’s what we already have – it’s called a costs order). What is needed is a provision for the order of costs against a plantiff who withdraws their action after the first court date. As it stands, if Mann withdraws his action today, the defendants will be out of pocket by a huge amount. Mann, being funded by parties other than himself, will simply waltz away.
I think part of, if not all of, the issue that led Steyn to go his own way in this case was the decision by Nat Rev, et al to let their lawyers convince them to play the legal game instead of being serious and going to trial ASAP. Steyn has said on many occasions he wants his day in court the sooner the better. He countered sued Mann as part of his strategy to prevent Mann bailing out by dropping his suit if things start to get uncomfortable for him. Even if Mann drops his suit, Steyn is not going to drop his. Steyn has pointed out that Mann has never yet been forced to show and tell in a courtroom and Steyn intends to get him into one. He wants Mann to be forced to defend himself and his claims under oath where the consequences of perjury are real and serious.
I don’t think anyone expects lawyers and judges to decide about the science. All that’s required of them is the ability to see truth has been twisted and misconstrued; facts and discussion silenced by intimidation; reputations and careers jeopardized by false accusations. I think Steyn intends to bring down a con man whose con happens to be a branch of science.