From the “four years is a long time to wait for justice” department
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE June 1, 2016
CONTACT: Amy K. Mitchell
Mark Steyn Files For Expedited Hearing in Mann v. Steyn, et al
Washington, DC — Today, Mark Steyn requested that the Superior Court of the District of Columbia expedite the hearing and lift the stay of discovery in the case of Michael Mann v. Steyn, et al. It has been two years since the case was referred to the Appellate Court, where it is remains in limbo.
Mr. Steyn has asked the court to move forward with the case as material witnesses for the defense have passed away since the referral.
“Something needed to be done to jumpstart this case, a case that threatens the most fundamental First Amendment freedoms. The case was brought in mid-2012. It is now four years later and the appeals from defendants’ special motions to dismiss have not been decided, nor has discovery proceeded,” stated Dan Kornstein, Steyn’s lawyer. “The passage of time since the appeal was argued in this case a year and a half ago while a stay of proceedings was in effect at the trial level has stalled a case whose very existence chills freedom of speech. To correct this situation and get the case moving, Mark Steyn filed this request to ask the trial court to lift the stay of proceedings even while the appeal is pending. We hope the trial judge grants the request.”
Mr. Steyn’s request is in line with case law, as cited in the amicus brief filed by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of the defendants, stating that SLAPP laws exist “to remedy the ‘nationally recognized problem’ of abusive lawsuits against speech on public issues by providing defendants ‘with substantive rights to expeditiously and economically dispense of litigation’ that qualified as a SLAPP – in other words, to nip such lawsuits in the bud.” Furthermore, “[T]he special motion to dismiss must generally be granted prior to discovery, D.C. Code § 16-5502(c)(1), ‘[t]o ensure [that] a defendant is not subject to the expensive and time consuming discovery that is often used in a SLAPP as a means to prevent or punish.’”
The defense of this case, due to its First Amendment implications, is supported by: The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Advance Publications, Inc., Alibritton Communications Company, American Society of News Editors, Association of Alternative Newsmedia, The Association of American Publishers, Inc., Dow Jones & Company, Inc., First Amendment Coalition, Freedom of the Press Foundation, Gannett Co., Inc., Investigative Reporting Workshop at American University, The McClatchy Company, MediaNews Group. Inc., d/b/a Digital First Media. The National Press Club, National Press Photographers Association. National Public Radio, Inc., NBCUniversal Media. LLC, The New York Times Company, News Corp. Newspaper Association of America. North Jersey Media Group Inc.. Online News Association, POLITICO LLC, Reuters America LLC, The Seattle Times Company, Society of Professional Journalists, Students Press Law Center, Time Inc., The Washington Post.
Related documents:
Mark Steyn’s Renewed Request for Expedited Hearing and to Left Stay of Discovery and Supplemental Brief on Plaintiff: http://www.steynonline.com/documents/7531.pdf
Brief Amici Curiae of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and 26 Other Organizations in Support of Appellants and Urging Reversal: http://www.steynonline.com/documents/6515.pdf
Brief of Amicus Curiae Mark Steyn in Support of Neither Party: http://www.steynonline.com/documents/6516.pdf
===========================
Footnote by Anthony :
If it is taking this long due to Mann and his attorney dragging their feet, obviously Mann was never all that outraged to begin with.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
no hockey stick here and warmer times than now are called climate optimums.
The real hockey sticks.. human progress in the age of fossil fuels
http://www.globalwarming.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Global-Progress-1-2009.jpg
Caso Chiuso
Warmer is good.
Practical and economical energy is good.
A byproduct of burning stuff, CO2, is breathed by that which is the foundation of Earth’s “food chain”; Plants.
What’s not to like?
Ok Joe where did that Greenland Ice Core graph actually come from? It appears to be based on a graph from Schonwiess (1995) but omits the current temperatures which were on that graph. The paper by Dansgaard (1984) indicated on the graph has no data from Crete, Greenland so the origin of the graph is rather problematic. Any information on the origin of that graph would be welcome. The oldest data that I am aware of from that drilling site dates to 553AD, so this data would appear to be from another site?
It says at the bottom right Deansgaard 1984, Avery 2009. So I would assume the last author looked at it thru2009 We can argue and debate about the accuracy of any recreation of previous periods. Here is what I can tell you in looking at all the analogs and reanalyis in my 40 years of professional forecasting. Long term effects are not local. In other words you can occasionally have a year or two of one regime in one place without forcing changes elsewhere, but multi century warmth is not just going to occur in one place with out reactions elsewhere. Example in a simplified sense. I jumped all over the warm pool in the ne pac for the very cold winter we had for 13-14. Because in looking at past years and understanding the physical implications of very warm water there in winter ( 1917-1918 and 1993-1994 were big analogs) we knew there would be the reaction over the US. Arguments for instance that the MWP was “local” fail to address that warming in that area, if the earth was indeed not warmer overall, and the warming was local, would mean there would have to be evidence of cooling some other place. So where was it. To say that Greenland is problematic is saying that such warming was local, and over centuries it is highly unlikely that such “local” events would not cause a reaction that should be found else where. The more logical conclusion is it was part of a planetary warm period. I appreciate your question and understand the argument against my point. However this is why I am so insistent on really using temps since the late 1970s and going through the both warm and cold cycles of the PDO and AMO with the much better methods we have before we jump to conclusions. The further back we go ,the more we can raise arguments and so yours are certainly valid, but I think you can see where I am coming from. Peace out
Could Mann’s attys submit the following?
“Plaintiff Proffessor / Dr. Michael Mann moves for dismissal of his and for defendant Mark Steyn’s respective lawsuits. Dr. Mann’s filing was a joke, no harm intended, just a mile harassment. Mr. Steyn posted a joking comment on National Review, in order to needle Dr. Mann, and to spur on readers of his column who were climate deniers. Dr. Mann filed a joking lawsuit in order to needle Mr. Steyn and to spur on Professor/ Dr. Mann’s climate-warming worriers.
“Neither contending party has been harmed by either party’s actions, as the following facts demonstrate:
“Plaintiff Dr Mann has retained his Distinguished Professorship at the Pennsylvania State University. No federal grant-dispensing agency has rescinded the Plaintiff’s grants, nor precluded him from receiving future financial research aid. Dr. Mann has sold New York Times-ranked “best”selling” books, to his personal profit, and continued to publish his federally-funded research findings in respected journals.
“Defendant Mr. Steyn has only lost a monthly column in National Review, a diminishing-readership publication, which provided little monthly remuneration to Mr. Steyn. Susequently, his personal “Steynonline.com” blog has attracted millions of new readers, tens of thousands of whom have purchased Mr. Steyn’s online for-sale offerings, ranging from coffee mugs and tee-shirts, to books, and even a music CD, all of which in combination have generated millions of dollars to Mr. Steyn’s bank account. For example, his CD ‘Feline Groovy’ has sold hundreds of thousands of copies, and has gained a 4.5 out of 5 stars Amazon reviews rating.
“Plaintiff Professor / Dr. Mann believes that he is due a share of Defendant Mr. Steyn’s profits from books and the “Feline Groovy” CD that would not have ever been published in the Professor/Dr. Mann’s lawsuit, but that is not at issue in this instant matter. But the instant matter superior needs to be closed, by the Court’s refusing to be involved in either party’s claims.”
It is now five years since Andrew Weaver and Michael Mann find their lawsuits against me nine days apart.
I have heard nothing on the Weaver lawsuit even though it was filed first. It is possible it is dormant because Weaver is now an elected politician representing the Green Party in the BC Provincial Legislature.
The Mann case is scheduled for Court in February 2017 so it will be almost seven years since filed. I responded to the charges by saying that what I said was the truth because that allowed discovery; many important documents were requested.
Quote * obviously Mann was never all that outraged to begin with.*
It was never about the hockey stick Mann being offended but was all about trying to silence the opposition.
There have been too many on the CAGW side trying to use the courts in this way.
Tim Ball I thought Steyn’s case was bad enough but seven years is absolutely ridiculous and a disgrace to so called justice.
Have you got links to best describe your cases because I am certainly not going to desmogblog to try and gain an insight. Thank you.
With Mann’s lawsuits a threat to scientific debate and inquiry, there should be some scientific reporting organizations, universities and science “unions” filing with Steyn. Then again, most of those went out on a limb and away from science for the recognition and money and would have to saw that limb off to stand up for science now.’