Original title before update: Breaking: Dr. Tim Ball wins @MichaelEMann lawsuit – Mann has to pay
See the update below.
Readers surely recall that the easily offended Dr. Michael Mann launched a court case for defamation against climate skeptic Dr. Tim Ball of Canada.
In Feburary 2018 there was a complete dismissal in the lawsuit brought against Dr. Ball by Andrew Weaver of Canada, also for “defamation”.
The Weaver defamation case involved an article Ball wrote saying that the IPCC had diverted almost all climate research funding and scientific investigation to anthropogenic global warming (AGW). This meant that there was virtually no advance in the wider understanding of climate and climate change. Ball referenced an interview with Weaver and attempts by a student to arrange a debate. Ball made some comments that were not fully substantiated, so they became the base of the defamation lawsuit.
That case was completely dismissed, you can read more here.
Now in the Mann case, which goes back to 2011, there’s also a complete dismissal. Ball wrote to me less than an hour ago, asking me to announce it here.
He writes:
Hi Anthony
Michael Mann’s case against me was dismissed this morning by the BC Supreme Court and they awarded me [court] costs.
Tim Ball
This is a developing story, I’ll add more as we know more.
UPDATE:
Dr. Mann Has Posted On Twitter In Reply To This Article
Mann’s statement is here: https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann/status/1164910044414189568
For those who are blocked by Dr. Mann: (including me)
And if you’re blocked on Facebook by Dr. Mann, here is that statement:
John O’Sullivan of PSI wrote to one of our moderators with this intro and statement given by Dr. Ball that I was not aware of. Mann of course does not tell his readers this other very important fact, sort of like what he did in “hide the decline” by not reporting negative results that compromised his argument. Mann was doing most of the foot dragging that caused such long delays as the case has been active since 2011.
As Mark Steyn once pointed out; “the process is the punishment “.
O’Sullivan writes:
In short, Mann’s responsive statement is:
- Stark admission he lost fair and square
- A disingenuous argument that the Dismissal was granted merely on the basis of Mann’s “delay” in not submitting his R2 numbers in a timely fashion.
The case has gone on an entire nine years.
On that point, this is where readers may wish to refer to the article ‘Fatal Courtroom Act Ruins Michael ‘Hockey Stick’ Mann‘ (July 4, 2017). In it they offered analysis as to Mann’s fatal legal error. As Dr Ball explained at that time:
“Michael Mann moved for an adjournment of the trial scheduled for February 20, 2017. We had little choice because Canadian courts always grant adjournments before a trial in their belief that an out of court settlement is preferable. We agreed to an adjournment with conditions. The major one was that he [Mann] produce all documents including computer codes by February 20th, 2017. He failed to meet the deadline.”
As I explained in the article, Mann (and his crooked lawyer) had shown bad faith, thereby rendering his case liable for dismissal. I urged Tim to pursue that winning tactic and thankfully he did.
Assisting Dr Ball has been a huge honor for me and probably one of the greatest achievements of my life. But Tim only won this famous courtroom battle thanks to massive worldwide grassroots support.
Anthony: So, as usual, in my opinion Dr. Mann’s ego interprets the facts only in ways that suit his viewpoint, which is the whole reason he got into trouble with the hockey-stick in the first place.
And it isn’t just me who thinks Mann’s arguments are merit-less, in the other defamation case he is pursuing, he has no friends:
Mann’s media buddies leave him high and dry – oppose his lawsuit
Twenty-four media organizations, including The Washington Post, NBC Universal, and Fox News, have sided with the conservative National Review and free market-leaning Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) over a defamation lawsuit brought by a leading climate scientist.
The organizations, which also included the Society of Professional Journalists and the American Civil Liberties Union of the District of Columbia, were signatories to a Feb. 13, letter filed with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, in which both the National Review and the Competitive Enterprise Institute requested a rehearing of their case before the full appeals court.
In December 2018, a three-judge panel amended a previous ruling against them. But according to the Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press, which represents the two-dozen media groups, a full rehearing of the case is now “warranted.”
“The panel’s decision on the merits of plaintiff’s defamation claim … may have unintended and undesirable consequences in future cases implicating the exercise of amici’s right to freedom of speech and of the press,” attorneys for the Reporters Committee stated.
Read it here: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/02/22/manns-media-buddies-leave-him-high-and-dry-oppose-his-lawsuit/
These two quotes seem relevant to Dr. Mann’s travails, and I think the first one speaks loudly to his “save the planet from global warming” machinations:
When any man is more stupidly vain and outrageously egotistic than his fellows, he will hide his hideousness in humanitarianism. –George Moore
Egotism is the anesthetic which nature gives us to deaden the pain of being a fool. Dr. Herbert Shofield
UPDATE #2
Then there is this:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Anthony you cite Mann as saying “… the Dismissal was granted merely on the basis of Mann’s “delay” in not submitting his R2 numbers in a timely fashion.”
Nowhere in the snippet you showed did I see such a claim.
He does not state he was the cause of the delay.
For all anyone knew, it was Ball’s fault!
Mann might “hide the decline” but it would be better if instead, he did hide the malign!
There are lies, and then there are partial truths, serving the same ends.
Where does Anthony quote Mann as saying “… the Dismissal was granted merely on the basis of Mann’s “delay” in not submitting his R2 numbers in a timely fashion.”
I think you read it wrong…
Thanks Mark, you’re quite right.
That will teach me to post AFTER the wine is finished, not before 🙂
jon2009, you might want to try some comprehension next time you read something, the quote you quote isn’t Anthony citing man as saying what you quoted. see the word “O’Sullivan writes:” before those two bullet points? O’Sullivan is saying that Mann is citing the delay as the reason for the dismissal and pointing out that the reason there was a delay was Mann’s own actions.
If the defendant could cause a case to be dismissed by merely ignoring court orders, no case would ever go to court.
Indeed. It would be a rather absurd legal system that lets a defendant delay the case and then let the defendant get the case dismissed because of the delays – which is what the situation would be under jon2009’s “For all anyone knew, it was Ball’s fault!” scenario.
In case there is any confusion, Michael Mann was the PLAINTIFF, not the Defendant.
Indeed, TEWS_Pilot. Least anyone be confused, to clarify: It was Mann (the plaintiff) who caused the delays that resulted in the dismissal. MarkW and I are pointing out the absurdity of jon2009’s suggestion (“For all anyone knew, it was Ball’s fault!”) that it was Ball (the defendant) who caused the delays.
Maybe Mann can use this decision upside down to claim a win?
You win!
Mann is a small, angry, pseudo-narcissist of a man with no common sense or decency and an easily damaged ego. He’s cashing in big while pretending to fight for a cause under the guise of science, and when he’s called out, he uses others money to assuage his ego.
It is my firm opinion that he’s a liar and a cheat at every level (for the cause of course). My unsolicited advice to him is to shut up about Dr. Ball and get really quiet before someone proves to a court that he is what he is.
I just completed Mikey’s “Nature Trick” and recreated his HORSE Hockey Stick Graph!! I went to AcuWeather and Wunderground.com , looked at the 10 day forecasts for “selected” locations, and by plotting the forecast precipitation for the next 10 days for those locations, I now have a duplicate “Hockey Stick” graph….easy, peasy….where’s my NOBEL PRIZE?
“Pseudo-narcissist?” I think you are selling the Mann short!
Jeff Id says:
Mann is a small, angry,
pseudo-narcissist of a pseudo-man.Fixed it for ya, Jeff. 🙂
“The Court did not find that any of Ball’s defenses were valid. The Court did not find that any of my claims were “not” valid.”
Couldn’t it also be said that Court did not find that any of Ball’s defenses were *not* valid and also did not find that any of Mann’s claims were valid?
“In making his application based on delay, Ball effectively told the world he did not want a verdict on the real issues in the lawsuit.”
From what I gather on this case, Mann is claiming that he won’t provide the code, data, and/or whatever else Ball requested because it’s his intellectual property. Meanwhile, we’ve been constantly bombarded for several decades by the elite’s media outlets that the world is going to end soon, mass extinctions are going to occur, etc. etc. But this thin-skinned two-bit leftist activisit-scientist priorities are about keeping his code and data to himself instead of releasing it, which could prove Ball wrong which then would cause many skeptics to question their skepticism and then which then would move the world closer to preventing global CO2 induced annihilation.
The notion that Mann can withhold his data because it is intellectual property is nonsense. Court’s routinely address this issue by making protective orders. This type of issue comes up frequently in litigation and courts have developed protocols on how to protect everyone’s interests.
Mann’s excuses remind me of an automobile race between the Soviets and Americans. The Soviet car came in second and the American car came in second to last.
Man, that’s an oldie — but a goodie!
Hmmm. Are Dr. Mann’s peer review contributions to be considered credible anymore? Methinks not.
the delay is entirely due to Mann not submitting the required documents in support of his claim. He will likely appeal, which will entail more delay. If his appeal is not expeditiously denied, then really nothing has happened here — the delay merely continues. If the appeal is expeditiously denied, then he’ll likely appeal again to the next level.
That the decision was not made [on the merits] is wholly Mann’s fault, which he is not acknowledging.
In a manner of speaking, this decision is about as momentous as an announcement that Mann is still breathing. Not that I wish him to stop breathing, but I see this as mainly another day in the prolongation of the “process”. I would welcome a complete dismissal, but I am not “holding my breath”.
He failed to fulfill his agreement to provide documents, thus the reason why Dr. Ball’s lawyers moved for Dismissal, the judge agreed.
His appeal with not succeed on that basis since he failed to follow thought with the concessions agreement back in 2017.
Sunsettommy: His appeal with not succeed on that basis
I hope you are correct.
In a comment on the case, using the WUWT as a h/t , American Thinker says at one point :
-“As Dr Ball explains:
“Michael Mann moved for an adjournment of the trial scheduled for February 20, 2017. We had little choice because Canadian courts always grant adjournments before a trial in their belief that an out of court settlement is preferable. We agreed to an adjournment with conditions. The major one was that he [Mann] produce all documents including computer codes by February 20th, 2017. He failed to meet the deadline.” “-
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/08/michael_mann_creator_of_the_infamous_global_warming_hockey_stick_loses_lawsuit_against_climate_skeptic_ordered_to_pay_defendants_costs.html
If this is true then what possible grounds for appeal does Mann have? He failed to meet the conditions set by the Court. End of arguement surely.
BTW : will be roundly criticised for quoting from a right wing and pro- Israel source. I know that it is, that is why I read it.
If that AT analysis is correct we can look forward to some interesting fireworks.
Actually, considering Canadian and BC laws, he’ll be lucky if he doesn’t get charged with contempt of court.
“Criminal versus Civil Contempt of Court
Civil contempt is where a person or corporation breaches a court order, and the nature of the conduct interferes with the interests of another private party. Criminal contempt is where a court order is breached, but the nature of the conduct interferes with the public’s interest in the “proper administration of justice”.[1] Conduct that is determined to interfere with the proper administration of justice is criminal contempt.[2]
The Supreme Court of Canada defined criminal contempt of court as follows:
“The gravamen [substance] of the offence is not actual or threatened injury to persons or property … [it] is rather the open, continuous and flagrant violation of a court order without regard for the effect that may have on the respect accorded to edicts of the court.”[3]”
https://bccla.org/2018/04/are-you-charged-with-contempt-of-court/
“the delay is entirely due to Mann not submitting the required documents in support of his claim”
You don’t know that. Mann has posted here a statement from his lawyer. He says that the Court made no mention of failure to produce documents, and that the grounds for Tim Ball’s submission requesting dismissal were
1. his health
2. the fact that his statements had received too little attention to create damage.
Mann stated on facebook: “…The dismissal involved the alleged exercise of a discretion on the Court to dismiss a lawsuit for delay…”
Ball’s health and statements receiving too little attention to create damage have nothing to do with the delay Mann referenced.
Eight years that racehorse ran. Sumpin’ sound in wind and limb, likely the Piltdown Mann’s financial backers.
=========================
From the above link…
To Mann from his lawyer:
“In summary, the Court’s brief ruling on August 22 made no finding whether your claims were valid or whether Ball’s pleaded defences had any merit.”
My interpretation: With regard to its ruling on August 22, the Court did not need to consider Mann’s claims or Ball’s defences. A positive and unambiguous statement.
Compare with [from the OP]:
“Our” [Mann’s] statement:
The court did not find that any of Ball’s defences were valid. The Court did not find that any of my claims were *not* valid.
My interpretation – what his lawyer said, but paraphrased to insinuate that the court *did* look at claims and defences, finding that all of Mann’s claims had merit, and finding that all of Ball’s defences were invalid. Ambiguity introduced by substituting double-negatives.
Steak in – Sausage out.
Nick Stokes: Mann has posted here a statement from his lawyer.
I suppose I ought not dismiss that too soon.
Indeed, that’s every reason in the world for the Canadian justice system to grant the Defendant’s (Dr. Ball) motion to dismiss the Plaintiff’s (Mann) case while at the same time taxing the Plaintiff with the Defendant’s court costs isn’t it?
Why wouldn’t the judge accept the Defendant’s application to dismiss simply on the basis that he’s old and sick and that what he said, while indeed possibly libelous (this wasn’t adjudicated), didn’t do any damage anyway, so who cares about the law and/or the future precedent this ruling might set? We’ve got plenty of time to waste on these types of suits anyway don’t we?
And then why wouldn’t that judge also subsequently punish the Plaintiff by awarding court costs to the Defendant? Even though the Defendant potentially libeled the Plaintiff, how dare the Plaintiff seek justice and future deterrent by bringing suit, since the Defendant’s sick and his libelous comments didn’t matter anyway? Thus the Plaintiff ought to be punished by paying court costs so justice can be served and that lesson inked into the record for all to see. Right?
I suppose it’s possible, but so is being a rube. “Rube” much?
“to dismiss the Plaintiff’s (Mann) case while at the same time taxing the Plaintiff with the Defendant’s court costs isn’t it”
Again so much speculation, so few facts known.
Again you are too dense to realize that a JUDGE made a decision to DISMISS the case.
Why did Dr. Mann asked for a Trial ADJOURNMENT scheduled for Feb, 2017, when he had SIX years to develop his case?
Then NOTHING for 2 1/2 years after that, what is he waiting for?
Again so much speculation, so few facts known.
Well there you go. After reading you throughout all these threads for all these years it would seem you’ve borne an heir.
🙂
Even Mann admits there’s a part about costs in the decision (“The provision in the court’s order relating to costs does NOT mean that I will pay Ball’s legal fees.”) even if he thinks he’ll somehow get away from having to pay it.
The only speculation to be had is why Mann thinks the provision awarding Ball costs (as even Mann admits in in the order) does not mean that Mann will pay them. Presumably Mann thinks his “absolute right of appeal” means he’ll get an appeal decision that will undo the costs award.
And Nick, if the dismissal was merely based on health and no damage (as per Mann’s spin that you bought hook line and sinker), why the award of costs (as even Mann admits is in the decision) to Ball? Surely in that case there would be no reason to award costs. one would expect at worst (for the plaintiff) a neutral decision (each party pays their own costs) not one that awards the defendant costs.
Yes Nick ,
That is the only comment that you have made here that is correct .
There is so much speculation and there are facts .
Fact 1 The judge dismissed the case.
Fact 2 The judge will rule on costs .
Fact 3 This case has dragged on for 8 years .
Fact 4 Mann refused to file his defense .
Fact 5 Mann missed deadlines to file his defense .
Fact 6 We are all speculating and if we wait a week or two all will be revealed.
Fact 7 Mann is a fraud .
Fact 8 The people on this blog who have gone into bat for Mann should think very carefully why they are defending this fraud .
Graham
Gee Nick,
The JUDGE knows what is going on, certainly much better than YOU, he accepted Dr. Ball’s request for dismissal, for a good reason that amazingly eludes YOU.
Your avoidance of this reality has become comical and stupid.
One more time, the JUDGE knows the case much better than you……, DR. Mann can cry all he wants but the Judge has made his decision and for a good reason.
Earlier Mann said they are studying an appeal. Now it’s all about Ball’s health and they claim his statements received too little attention to create damage?
That’s what they’re going to appeal?
Which statement is Mann just blowing through his vent stack?
As always, watch the pea.
It seems to be a common thing with Climate Science that people lose a case and think they can appeal, only to find out they can only ask to be granted an appeal. Same thing happened with Peter Ridd the uni vice chancellor just thought she could appeal.
Both will find out once you get to the closure of a case it is a little more complex you have to seek leave to appeal you don’t automatically have the right.
Has the POTUS tweeted a reaction?
A “ruling from the bench”.
A bench is made of wood.
Perhaps Mann is too confident of his ability to manipulate a piece of wood?
Brave Sir mann dropped his hockey stick and ran!
This is all very wonderful, but justice would have been better served had the Piltdown Mann produced his work and his Crook’t Stick been publicly derogated, debunked, demolished and destroyed.
He’s basically won with his stonewall, and left the world a poorer place. Ah, justice.
==================================================
Kim,
Personally, I believe that Mann’s “Crook’t Stick” has been completely debunked by Piltdown’s own actions. He failed to produce his ‘data’ – and has gone to great lengths to keep it secret. It should be obvious to anyone (except those with a horse in the race) that he is a fraud, hack, and completely full of shite.
Science doesn’t work on secret data, and when one fails to provide their data and methodology for proper peer review, then their work/hypothesis should go straight in the toilet – where it belongs.
Heh, Rich; by your response, you are clearly no moron. But your telephone is.
=====================================
A lot of things are not adding up in Mikey Mann’s recent Twitter and Facebook posts regarding Dr. Ball’s win.
Mann is claiming that Dr. Ball only sought the dismissal because of his ailing health.
Mann is claiming that he will not have to pay Dr. Ball’s court costs.
Mann is also claiming that he DID provide all requested documents required to the court by the February 20, 2017 deadline.
This is interesting, given that he and Dr. Ball agreed to an adjournment (an adjournment that Mann requested, mind you) “with conditions” – and those “conditions” included that Mann hand over his hockey stick R2 regression numbers and computer code by that February 20th deadline in 2017.
So, following logic – if Mann had actually complied with the conditions of the adjournment, as he so adamantly claims, then shouldn’t that been the end of the legal proceedings? Why would Dr. Ball have to seek a dismissal at all if Mann HAD actually complied?? And, if the court did in fact award Dr. Ball the dismissal with Mann responsible for Ball’s court costs – doesn’t that mean that Dr. Ball ‘won’ – as well as reaffirming that Mann failed to provide his data as required in the adjournment agreement??
I think Mikey and his lawyer are under the impression that everyone else in the world are too stupid to see through their BS smokescreen…. And they’d be WRONG.
Years ago I noted that the damage done to some individuals by the Penn State football establishment and administration were horrific, but the damage done to climate science and all seven billion of this world’s inhabitants by this State Penn’s ‘Scientifisist’ has far outweighed it in total damage. The victims are all of us and climate science may be half a century recovering its health.
=======================================
The next Mann case vs Mark Steyn should be interesting, assuming it ever winds its way through the US Courts.
After all, he is suing, inter alia, for defaming a Nobel Laureate, which might have an inconvenient clash with reality.
From what I’ve seen of Mann, he will not be discouraged.
Go back and read the citation that accompanied OwlGore’s Nobel Prize. it awards the Prize ONLY to Owlgore. It lists numerous contributors, including Mann, and the IPCC, but NONE of them are considered RECIPIENTS of the Nobel Prize, and NONE of them ever claimed the Prize on their bio pages. The JANITOR who sweeps out Mann’s office at Penn State contributed a tiny bit, but HE doesn’t get to claim he is a Nobel Prize recipient, either.
‘Michael Mann has never been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize’
Nobel Committee Rebukes Michael Mann for falsely claiming he was ‘awarded the Nobel Peace Prize’
By Marc Morano –October 26, 2012
https://canadafreepress.com/article/nobel-committee-rebukes-michael-mann-for-falsely-claiming-he-was-awarded-th
Nobel Committee Rebukes Michael Mann for falsely claiming he was ‘awarded the Nobel Peace Prize‘. —Not a UN ‘certificate’—’Mann was one of a ‘select group’ of a mere 2,000 people to receive a ‘commemorative certificate of involvement’ — not from the Nobel committee, but from the UN’s Dr Rajendra Pachauri Oh, and BTW, Rajendra Kumar Pachauri was the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. He held the post from 2002 until his resignation in February 2015, due to sexual harassment allegations.
MOD – can you please not post my reply to Kim – I typo’d my name in a no-so-flattering way!
Thanks!
Rich Morton
Methinks you have that nickname for life now….!!
😉
Ralph
Ugh! I know – this is why I HATE cell phones that love to change words! It always changes my name, thinking that the ‘other’ is what was intended. The worst is that I have to fight it repeatedly to get it to stop, and then it changes it again anyway AFTER I hit send. So infuriating!!
Sucks having a last name that can be so easily misconstrued by anticipatory cell phone text language algorithms…
Yes auto corrupt (which is how I refer to the auto correct “feature”) can be more of a curse than a blessing.
Here we are in an existing planetary emergency and Mann can’t open his 2-bit code/data to help save us.
Gotta love his priorities.
Mods & Anthony:
Horse out of the barn now, but due to the sensitivity of the topic & Canadian lawyer & Justice words not easily, correctly & comprehensively understood by (without meaning disrespect to anybody) the vast majority of WUWT readers, his update might better have been a separate thread.
Also, not being a (Canadian) Lawyer, some legal context in the top-of-thread post would be much appreciated.
In any event, it is a darn good feeling to know WUWT has been a part of keeping Mann’s academic & award-winning fraud front & center.
Congrats to Tim Ball.
Once again the hockey schticker failed to come up with the programming code and procedures for his fraudulent tree-ring + ground temp data chart. He claims Tim did not win, but the fact is that Mann’s defamation lawsuit was rejected, and he has to pay the legal costs. None of this is Tim Ball’s doing, it’s all down to Michael Mann himself. Being the sore looser, Mann then claims Tim Ball did not win.
I checked the court documents. The following is the result of the 22Aug2019 hearing Mann v Ball.
The last sentence can be translated as the winner takes all; meaning Tim may recover as much as 80% of what he actually spent.
“Anthony: So, as usual, in my opinion Dr. Mann’s ego interprets the facts only in ways that suit his viewpoint, which is the whole reason he got into trouble with the hockey-stick in the first place.”
In my opinion, Dr. Mann’s real breakthrough in Climate Science wasn’t so much the hockey stick as his ability to take an unambiguous phrase or sentence that just about every English-speaking person can understand, and explain it to lay-people. I’ll try to symbolize the process with a Data Flow Diagram:
Plain Language -> Transform.English.Mannsplain() -> Doublespeak
Perhaps an example will help:
Mannsplain(“Mike’s Nature Trick”) = “*not* a Trick as trick is defined in any dictionary and not *Mike’s* Trick because climate scientists know that ‘Mike’ is shorthand for ‘the trade’, and *Nature*, well it’s ‘Mike’s trick’ which by now you have learned is ‘the trade’s’ trick so you can see that it has nothing to do with Mike *or* Nature *or* what anyone outside ‘the trade’ understands to be the definition of Trick”
Methinks you ought to make public the code of your ‘Mannsplain’ method. May I suggest you produce its inverse as well, one that takes the doublethinkmannspeak and returns what it means?
I’m afraid that code is a one way ‘hash’ Al Gore rhythm.
I’m sorry that’s intellectual property.
Here’s another data point:
Mannsplain(“Dear Participant… Enclosed is a sheet of cardboard with your name on it and a life-size picture of the Nobel Medallion that was co-awarded to Al Gore and the IPCC”) = (“I’M A NOBEL LAUREATE!!!”)
and one final example…
Mannsplain(“Embarrassing”) = “Intellectual Property”
You are free to Reverse-Engineer it if you think you can.
Congrats for being too old and sick to survive a trial?
Okay…
No, congratulations for Dr. Ball to end the lawsuit absurdity. It was Dr. Mann who stopped the trial that was scheduled for February 2017, this after 6 years of preparation.
YOU seems to have forgotten that Dr. Mann filed for Adjournment of the trial in February 2017 which was granted, and done nothing since, which is 2 1/2 years running.
What was holding Dr. Mann back? Why did he stop his legal pursuit?
It is obvious he hasn’t been defamed anyway, since he is still getting large grants, employed by the university and able to publish papers in journals, publish a dishonest book attacking a lot of people and getting a lot of money for it. He is a much wealthier man than he was in 2011.
No, Mann destroyed his case over time…….
Snicker…….
The process is the punishment. Scumbag Mann has won. I seriously doubt he’s paying his own legal bills so he’s getting off Scot free after putting Dr. Ball through the wringer for a few years. Like all bullies, Mann will claim that he is the victim.
When the court tosses your suit, you lose. Period.
Spin is the only thing Mann is good at, and he isn’t very good at that.
Indeed. It doesn’t matter how Mikey or his sycophant defenders (we all know who they are) spin it. The indisputable facts are that:
1) For the plaintiff, having your suit tossed is a loss. period.
2) For the defendant, having the suit tossed is a win. period.
having the court award the defendant costs is a sweet bonus that just adds to the win for the defendant/loss for the plaintiff.
From 1:54:00 interesting comments
I get: “This video is unavailable.”
lets try again
Thanks. The guy is a spinmeister par excellence. He got caught with his pants down calling Dr. Curry a climate science denier and then insists that isn’t the same as calling her a climate denier.
Plenty of evidence was presented that demonstrated that Mann is a hypocrite.
Mann still refuses to show the data behind his paper.
Mann ex machina – TA DAAAA HOCKEYSTICK.
Good theater, bad science.
Does anyone have links to the actual court submissions in this latest motion to dismiss the case, and the actual court endorsement/decision granting costs??? I WANT THOSE!!! I know a lot about the legal process so I could explain this result and comment on enforcement. (I’m not lawyer but a commentator.)
(It has been posted numerous times now, try reading the thread instead) SUNMOD
Try this comment:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/08/22/breaking-dr-tim-ball-wins-michaelemann-lawsuit-mann-has-to-pay/#comment-2779999 (SUNMOD)
Sorry, mods,
but what Dennis Rancourt asks for is what I have been asking for too, and, honestly, it just is not as obvious as you make it seem.
I have read the comments, and I have yet to read any quote or see any reliable direct link that leads to any official court statement of any substance that would lead a person to claim any sort of victory with confidence that the article here proclaims.
Why isn’t the obvious link or obvious quote placed in the article as an update? — that would be most helpful in justifying the title of the article of this post.
Robert the suit was dismissed. When you are the defendant, that is a WIN. When you are a plaintiff that is a LOSS. It doesn’t get much easier to understand than that.
What Dennis and you have asked for has been given numerous times in this thread, as the mods pointed out. That you do not wish to acknowledge the links and the text of the order that has been provided as answering your question is your hang up. as the saying goes you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make them drink.
I have yet to read any quote or see any reliable direct link that leads to any official court statement
then you haven’t, as you claimed, read the comments otherwise you’d have seen this quote (as well as the links to the court records that it comes from) numerous times by now:
You have been given the answer you’ve asked for numerous times now, so stop pretending otherwise it’s getting tiresome.
Oh okay, I get it now. My bad.
We take a terse, short, two-lined, mechanical, record-keeping, accounting statement of procedure to end a process of argumentation as a basis for claiming boldly that somebody has “won”. I apologize for my unseasoned expectation for something more. I was looking right at the answer all the time, but I just could not wrap my mind around the fact that this was all the answer there was.
Sorry, but if that’s all there is, then the tone of the article seems way overblown to me. That’s a weak, weak, weak … “win”, in my way of accounting. Nothing was really settled, … just dismissed.
Thanks, John E, for making this so crystal clear.
Sigh,
Robert,
has it occurred to YOU that what has been given to you is all that is currently available?
I expect more details will come out in time, which means everyone INCLUDING YOU, will have to wait.
Take a look at what Denis Rancourt did:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/08/22/breaking-dr-tim-ball-wins-michaelemann-lawsuit-mann-has-to-pay/#comment-2780437
Now will this finally get through to you?
(Snipped, due to Policy Violation) SUNMOD
Sunset,
I fully admitted my unseasoned expectation of more, and fully acknowledged that my question had now been answered with crystal clear clarity, and so, yeah, it hit me, in no uncertain terms, that this is all there is to it at this time.
I was just thrown by the seeming internet frenzy over announcing a victory for a game that was merely called off or forfeited due to a technicality. Nothing in this case seems settled on the basis of any merit of either side’s arguments. Declaring a dismissal seems to avoid the confrontation of actually playing the game for real.
I’m so stupid not to understand legal procedures any better and having such high hopes for them. I’m a child in this arena. I should go stand in the corner now as punishment for my greenhorn assumptions.
I hear you, sorry for being hard on you over it.
Now we wait for more developments to come out, that hopefully shed a lot of light on this unexpected development.
One thing I can say is that Dr. Mann is freaked by it, as shown in his tweets today!
There are no direct links to the court documents. They are behind a paywall at the Courts official website
Robert Kernodle,
You say,
“Sorry, mods,
but what Dennis Rancourt asks for is what I have been asking for too, and, honestly, it just is not as obvious as you make it seem.”
Actually, the information above is very clear; i.e.
Mann raised a case for defamation which the Court dismissed and costs were awarded against Mann.
The facts of this matter are provided above and say
1.
In 2011 Mann filed a legal case against Ball that claimed Ball had defamed Mann.
2.
The case dragged on until ““Michael Mann moved for an adjournment of the trial scheduled for February 20, 2017.”
3.
Ball and his lawyers “had little choice” other than to accept the adjournment “because Canadian courts always grant adjournments before a trial in their belief that an out of court settlement is preferable”. However, they “agreed to an adjournment with conditions. The major one was that he [Mann] produce all documents including computer codes by February 20th, 2017.”
4.
Mann “failed to meet the deadline” for provision of the required documents (and he still has not provided them).
5.
In 2019 Ball and his lawyers called on the Court to dismiss the claim of defamation that Mann had brought against Ball in 2011 because Mann had failed to provide the Court with the documents the Court, Mann and Ball had agreed that Mann would provide in 2017.
6.
The Court dismissed the case and awarded costs against Mann.
In other words, Mann failed to substantiate his claim for defamation and, therefore, Ball won his defence against that claim.
That conclusion is “obvious” to me, but I am not pretending to be stupid.
Richard
Richard,
Thanks, yeah, I read all that and understood all that, but it was a secondary accounting of the official proceedings. No official document seems to say this, even if this was the actual cause of the dismissal. The official dismissal just says the case was dismissed, with zero mention of EXACTLY why, and EXACTLY what the details were for dismissing. Why does the actual, official dismissal ruling fail to say exactly why the ruling exists? It’s as if the court does not want to go on official record to support the strength of either party’s position, not even the procedural requirements of presenting the two positions. It just says bluntly, tersely, without reason, that the case was dismissed, and we are left with secondary, off-the-record accountings of why EXACTLY.
If Mann caused the dismissal, then why do official statements not put it in his corner? He found a rock to hide under, and Dr. Ball couldn’t get at him. Again, that’s not any victory — it’s a technical gymnastic flip that avoids the game in earnest. Why would I expect otherwise?
Thanks for your patience.
Robert Kernodle,
You ask me,
“If Mann caused the dismissal, then why do official statements not put it in his corner?”
THE DISMISSAL WAS PUT IN MANN’S CORNER BY THE COURT IN AN OFFICIAL STATEMENT WHEN THE COURT AWARDED COSTS FOR BALL AND, THUS, AGAINST MANN.
The matter could not be more clear.
Richard
If Mann caused the dismissal, then why do official statements not put it in his corner?
Awarding costs to Ball *is* putting it in Mann’s corner. The lawsuit was dismissed for delay (as even Mann admits). Who could cause a delay in the suit that would cause the case to be dismissed? (you’ve already been given the answer in the “secondary accounting but I want you to think about it, really think about it). It can’t be Ball (the defendant), if all it took to get a case dismissed (and for the plaintiff to pay the defendants costs) is for a defendant to delay, no case would ever proceed as every defendant ever would simply delay until the suit is dismissed and rewarded with costs. No, of the two parties, the only one who could logically and reasonably cause a suit dismissing delay is the plaintiff (IE Mann) because if the defendant was causing the delay the court would slap them with a contempt of court ruling and/or outright rule in favor of the plaintive due to the defendants failure to respond in a timely manner, not reward the defendant with costs.
Richard, as the saying goes there are none so blind as those who will not see. It’s crystal clear yet some refuse to see.
Perhaps $6 may uncover more details
File: 111913
View Supreme File VLC-S-S-111913
https://justice.gov.bc.ca/cso/esearch/file/caseBasics.do?fileID=2215840
I paid the $6., twice, took all the screen shots. The actual documents cannot be viewed, can be ordered but these cost more, and the court only send them by either fax or snail mail. I did not order them.
No doubt Ball won and got costs! These costs: https://www.supremecourtbc.ca/sites/default/files/web/Costs-in-Supreme-Court.pdf
I think the best would be to ask Dr. Ball to instruct his lawyers to send the key documents to one person who would post them. The best would be at least:
#59 Notice of Application
Court decision/endorsement/judgement on the latter (heard August 22nd)
But also:
-Staement of claim in the action
-Statement of defence of Dr. Ball
(Thank you for the information, well done!) SUNMOD
[snip – WE HAVE A STRICT POLICY ON WRITING POSTS IN FULL CAPITALIZATION BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE SHOUTING – even though we aren’t but we are still trying to get your attention – Anthony]