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.
Todd says:
August 12, 2014 at 6:31 am
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.
This is not confined to the US. It would be similar in many other parts of the world. For instance, in Australia, one might be a working person who is assaulted by someone on the dole, and fights back. Both participants are charged- the working person has to hire a solicitor (or fight the case him/herself) and a barrister if the case is serious enough (you have to have the solicitor first) while the other party gets legal aid. Given that a barrister runs to $5000/day or more, a complicated case can mean one party needs to sell their house while the other party’s case is paid for by the state. The other side of the coin is that a person with the wherewithal (or corporate backing) can fight a hopeless case and get a reduced penalty, or exoneration, on “technicalities”. The law is an ass (as in the donkey, not American backsides :)).
Don’t give these [C’mon! Snip. ~mod] a soft landing you lame retirees! Loudly lament them. There is no “debate” but merely power play slander AGAINST you. To the exact extent that you allow only Steve “RAW DATA IDIOT” Goddard to promote calls of FRAUD is the extent to which you LOSE they moral precipice.
Well wasn’t Mann only given $US250 damages recently, hardly worth it was it?
The $250 was not really “damages.” Research it, the amount was explained in full.
Mark
Mark T I am all ears. But I’ve given too much time to research Mike. If it wasn’t so serious, it would be laughable. Good luck Mark. Sometimes these court cases go on so long, one forgets what they were about? The lawyers don’t care they still get paid.
Mann’s expertise is not climate science but political science. He is a ‘junior’ scientist compared to the likes of Lindzen, Curry, Christy, Pielke Sr., etc. His career rose only because he is willing to lie and manipulate data to advance the agenda of the greenies. On scientific and intellectual capacity. Mann is a nobody. What a shame.
I wonder why Steyn’s lawyers have not filed a counterclaim against Mann for defamation? Surely accusing a writer/columnist like Steyn of intentionally publishing false defamatory material is damaging to Steyn’s reputation as claimed in Steyn’s existing counterclaims.
The claim would not be for filing the law suit, which is likely protected by immunity, but for statements Mann has made publicly regarding the suit, and its propriety, in the media. In DC “A defamatory statement is one that “tends to injure [the] plaintiff in his trade, profession or community standing, or lower him in the estimation of the community.”
Steyn’s current counterclaims reference mainly Mann’s complaint in the litigation as including intentionally false statements, but surely his lawyers can find many instances of Mann repeating the allegations in interviews and op-eds.
James Ingleballix says:
August 12, 2014 at 8:24 am
There’s going to be one HELL of a movie made about this in 15yrs time.
——
Why wait 15 years . Everyone likes reading about scandals , add the fact of one lone man fighting for justice and real science against a powerful establishment , add sinister billionaires in the renewables industry , add a totalitarian EPA , add a weak and ignorant POTUS , add an ill-equipped judge and you have a best seller in my opinion . Any enterprising publisher would surely offer substantial advance money for this narrative , whatever the result.
If Steyn were to link up with some would- be Woodward or Bernstein (I am sorry I cannot think of a current female equivalent although I am sure they exist- and would enhance the film) it would offer a young journalist their first chance at a guaranteed Pulitzer Prize. The advance would help pay for Steyn’s defence and the film rights would pay for the appeal to the Supreme Court.
Just a suggestion.
Judges are drawn from lawyers and have no interest in expediting justice as the whole system of modern justice has been fashioned into a money making machine for the legal profession. Delays equal dollars. When was the last time you heard a senior judge say, justice delayed is justice denied? Mann can only play the game as the rules allow.
mikewaite enthused: “Why wait 15 years . Everyone likes reading about scandals….”
My Ph.D. in organometallic chemistry last girlfriend who got a patent law degree and is now Google NYC’s senior AdWords attorney quite enjoyed a perfect example of this in Michael Crichton’s book State of Fear. Indeed a movie should be made of this crazy “debate” against cultism, which happens to be a repeat of the oldest culture war of all, that against tyranny and oppression.
E.M.Smith says:
August 12, 2014 at 4:22 pm
“sueage” — I like that.
There are indeed problems with loser pays, but what we have now in effect is everyone pays and much of the time everyone loses, except the lawyers. I wonder who could have come up with such a dumb system?
Alan, for many cases it’s not a dumb system at all. “Every pays his own costs” strongly encourages settlement. A great deal of litigation out there ought to settle. “Loser pays” encourages fighting to the bitter end…hoping that eventually, at trial or on appeal, you get everything back that you’ve spent. (Except the time.)
In cases like this one, it makes sense to force an unsuccessful plaintiff to pay; because the real evil of SLAPP suits is that they discourage free speech, and people ought to be encouraged to fight them to the bitter end instead of settling them. That’s why the D.C. SLAPP statute allows for it (at least if the defense wins the motion to dismiss) — though unfortunately it gives the judge discretion whether to award attorney’s fees or not.
http://cei.org/michaelmann
many of the documents in the case can be found here:
http://cei.org/michaelmann
Based on the DC CA court order dated June 26, 2014, The DC Court hearing on the Appeal of the denial of motion to dismiss under slapp is scheduled for the month of November. This is only a hearing on the whether the denial of a motion to dismiss under slapp is immediately appealable.
Assuming the denial of the motion to dismiss is ruled to be immediately appealable, then there will be another round of filings/hearings to the appeal of the motion to dismiss. Based on my reading of the court filings, etc, it does not appear that the appeal of the motion to dismiss will be ruled on in the November setting.
Honest lawyers do not make much money.
Honest judges do not gain much power.
Honest members of a House or a Senate, like finding the tip of a saftey pin in a hay field.
The above is why it is so hard to find freedom on planet earth.
Look within for the source of these problems.
Michael “Piltdown” Mann stakes his claim to surpass even last century’s most outrageous science fraud.
That’s why the proposal for a Science Court (not part of the legal system and consisting of scientists) that was made back in the 70s should be revived.
Mark Steyn seems to be channeling Bob Lee Swagger:
I’m going to find them, burn their playhouse down.
simple-touriste says:
August 12, 2014 at 7:11 am
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.
The Linux case is completely documented on Groklaw. The case had less to do with the legal system, which tends to be the last resource of the greedy, the stupid, the Narcissistic – and occasionally the mistreated, than to do with the completely lame approach to what is referred to as “intellectual property.” The cause is the use of “patents” where copyright should have been been the sole claim. The courts are handicapped by a tendency for laws to lack commonsense grounding (politicians write ’em), leaving the judge stuck with the “letter” of the law, and whatever experience and biases he or she brings to the table. Worse, lawyers are not paid to be reasonable, nor to negotiate or mediate. They are paid to advocate their client’s position regardless of how hopeless, stupid, or unreasonable that might be.
Happily, when a client makes things up out of the whole cloth, the lawyer still has to protect his or her on backside. Mann’s lawyer can’t knowingly submit exhibits that are falsehoods without risking the right to practice. I imagine that Steyn’s lawyers would have attached the uncorrected briefs by Mann’s lawyers, complete with Nobel claims and documentation of the Nobel committee response. If they didn’t, they should. There is nothing like submitting documentation that one side of a civil dispute is lying like a dirty door mat to piss off many a judge. They hate having their time wasted. Narcissists in particular are incapable of conceiving that they are wasting anyone’s time and consequently are often the least prepared to deal with the reality that they are not universally admired and looked up to. The walls of Mann’s lawyers offices are probably padded to prevent head injury.
Isn’t it becoming painfully obvious to the judge in this case. Manns claim has malicious intent?
That Mann has over $5M of misdirected taxpayer funds by a supposed “charity” to pay for this case.
joe says: Based on my reading of the court filings, etc, it does not appear that the appeal of the motion to dismiss will be ruled on in the November setting.
I’m not sure I agree. The briefs address both the jurisdictional issue and the merits. In the recent Doe case, which considered whether the denial of an anti-SLAPP quash motion was immediately appealable, the DC court of appeals allowed the appeal and granted the motion at the same time.
philjourdan says: August 13, 2014 at 12:35 pm
“Mann asked for the stay until the NR issue was resolved.”
I’ve looked through the SC site, and can’t see any such request. Do you have a date or link?
Sure Nick – http://www.steynonline.com/documents/6242.pdf
Quoting the relevant part:
philjourdan says: August 13, 2014 at 12:35 pm
“Mann asked for the stay until the NR issue was resolved.”
Here is Mann’s 7 April motion opposing the defense application for stay of discovery.
In fact discovery on Steyn’s case vs Mann is automatically stayed pending resolution of Mann’s anti-SLAPP motion. This is what SLAPP is all about, and follows the same course as the original case.
@Nick – so you found it without me.
But sorry, you are wrong. The stay is not automatic since they are separate cases. Ergo, Mann is denying discovery when there is no reason to. let me quote you the part from Mann’s filing again:
That is Mann staying discovery, not NR or Steyn.
Repeating what I said on Climate Audit this afternoon, Mark Steyn has stated his desire to confront Michael Mann in a court of law and to force Mann to defend his climate science work in a public forum.
Steyn’s ultimate objective in pursuing this confrontation is to damage Mann’s public credibility as a climate scientist; and more importantly, to damage the public credibility of climate science itself.
Joseph W., I have a question for you in your capacity as a lawyer: Concerning the process of how and where the various legal maneuverings are pursued by each side, what series of events must occur to guarantee that Steyn eventually confronts Mann in a court of law?
In many cases, justice would be served by loser pays.
But today I read of an example where rural landowners have property stolen by eminent domain with grotesque undervaluation. A little guy fighting the United States government. The little guy is usually right–and usually loses. The last thing I would want would be to add court costs to the devastation.
An interesting article today by the governments business person, about climate change. He remarked worrying and spending too much money on global warming, i.e., green energy forgets that we should be considering action and consideration if the climate cools.