Michael Mann has lost a motion in the DC Superior Court. He will now be responsible for the majority of legal costs for discovery in his perpetual libel suits against Steyn and the National Review.
Accordingly, it is this 22nd day of June 2020 hereby
June 22 Decision
ORDERED that Defendants Competitive Enterprise Institute’s and Rand Simberg’s Motion for Payment of Expenses is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that Defendants are awarded the expenses in connection with the motion to compel discovery in the amount of 9588.64.
This is on top off losing the motion to by defendants last month to compel discovery.
ORDERED that Defendants Competitive Enterprise Institute’s and Rand Simberg’s Motion to Compel Discovery is GRANTED IN PART; it is further
ORDERED that discovery responses are limited to the period of 2007 to the present; it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff produce all responsive documents to Requests 1-3, 7-8, and Requests 10-11 in CEI Defendants’ Second Set of Requests for Production. It is further Page 5 of 5 ORDERED that Plaintiff provide the information requested in Interrogatories 2-4 in CEI Defendants’ First Set of Interrogatories and Interrogatories 22-23, 25, 26, 29, and 31 in CEI
Defendants’ Second Set of Interrogatories.
Looking at some of my recent Scientific American magazines I came across an article by Mann from the March, 2020 issue: “The Weather Amplifier- Strange waves in the jet stream foretell a future full of heat waves and floods”. No mention anywhere that Mann is a controversial figure. I then did a search on Mann on the magazine’s web page and notice there is mention of Mann’s controversies in previous issues.
“Strange waves foretell…..” Doesn’t sound convincing.
Strange waves, indeed.
Most peculiar mama, whoa!
Oh Mann, that’s gotta hurt!
The process is still the punishment. And Mann himself isn’t paying anything anyway. And on and on we go.
I mentioned that Mann had no intention of every complying with discovery or getting in court in one of Steyn’s comment forums, which he acknowledged. He’s playing the long game and he’s paying millions to do it.
There seems to be a few who dont get what the costs awarded in this case are,
Litigation is conducted by a specialist lawyer,solicitor, or in the UK a barrister,
The work for these civil cases is conducted by a lawyer,solicitor, who prepair the case, they will instruct a littigator on behalf of the plaintiff if the case warrants it, particularly if it’s a complicated case, the acting littigator will also instruct the solicitor acting for the plaintiff for more evidence ,photos witnesses, ect.
The littigator is the one who presents the case in court, argues the case.
This is why the ruling in mann’s case ,the judge awarded to sets of costs the lawyers fees (75%) and the littigation fees .it is common practice for courts to award fees with a distinction between the two parties acting for the plaintiff, or the defender. Or a mixture of both,or no fees awarded at all, both parties bear their own costs whatever the outcome.
Mann is going to find out pretty quickly that his blustering and posturing is not going to do him any good in today’s cancel culture.
People are tired of being lied to and manipulated by an “influencer” and that doesn’t just mean on social media. Continually spouting half truths, omissions, outright lies, and gaslighting the public about something while taking in money has a way of pi$$ing people off and they now have a bigger voice than they ever did before.
I can’t wait for the fun to start actually! Have a whole bag of popcorn dedicated to the coming attraction.
Imagine historians looking back 100 years from now and teaching students about the time. They’ll need to come up with a name….I really hope it’s something like the “Iceists, Ice-ers, Ice Clan, or Ice Cult”.
Judy came up with Cool Dudes.
—————-
—————-
Perhaps Mann’s expenses will be covered by the National Academy of Science…
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/04/30/mann-elected-to-national-academy-of-sciences/
Don’t feel for Mann — any costs to him will be taken care of by the marxist community, as long as he keeps running his mouth, saying the right things.
@Jenn “Have a whole bag of popcorn” try two 24 packs or 7 pounds of popcorn, at the Mann rate you could still run out.
LOL! True.
Better not waste it throwing it at the screen.
It isn’t nearly enough, from my perspective. I loathe and despise the ‘cheat and retreat’ maneuvers Mann employs to financially bankrupt those he has deliberately abused.
I would pay to watch Steyn cross Mann
Litigation is a luxury and litigants generally find it is an expensive luxury.
So, the IPCC has been employing the author of this (alleged) fraud in a very influential position for what, 15 years. Presumably it would be very inconvenient to employ an honest scientist, who might say things they don’t want to hear.
It is at least good news to hear that the DC courts have not rusted up entirely.
Good. Now run the bills up
In our Jurisdiction, if a client requires their lawyers not to disclose even one relevant document, the lawyers must explain to the client why this is wrong and the possible consequences. If the client insists, the lawyers must then advise the client that the lawyers can not continue to act. If the lawyers continue to act on these instructions, they are in breach of their ethical (rules of conduct) obligations and will be subject to a lawyers’ disciplinary process.
I teach civil litigation and this scenario is one of the ethical exercises (and every student gets it right).
Different ethical rules clearly apply in the jurisdiction Mr Mann is currently operating in.
However, as other posters have noted, this is an effective ruling (judgement?) by the court and may clip Mr Mann’s wings.
In the UK a solicitor, lawyer, barrister, are officers of the court,first and foremost, thier job is to uphold as in this case the civil procedure rules. If they knowingly mislead the court then there barred.
There would be no lawyers left if they really followed that. Tom below states the other rule they must follow in most countries. The key word they use to reconcile the two rules is “knowingly” … if you don’t explicitly tell them and they definitely won’t ask if they fear the answer.
That’s why I said knowingly,
Richard, then you know that a lawyer has a fiduciary responsibility as an agent for the client to obey the client’s orders. If they cannot do so ethically or legally then they must end the relationship and take those orders to the grave.
So far as I have followed the case (which isn’t all that much, only so many hours in my day) – the fights have been more over 1) whether the subject of the discovery is relevant – see the document linked above, where Mann’s discovery demands were denied as irrelevant to the case; 2) whether the other party has the authority to disclose – a favorite tactic of Mann, declaring information to be “proprietary” to his employer(s); 3) whether the demand is intended only to run up the legal bills of the opponent to produce documents that are publicly available.
If any of those theories apply (or seem to, from what the lawyer is being told), it is proper to advise the client to not disclose until and unless a motion on the matter is denied by the Court.
I believe a Left Wing law firm did the case pro bono for Mann….maybe some Soros money paid for it….the Left uses the Courts to wage a guerilla war against their opponents….eat up their time….make them poorer….make them think twice about opposing Lefties…make them an example.
I’m confused on this issue.
How can I spin this on political message boards to make it look like Steyn is the big winner here?
I really get beat up in these debates, so I need some ammo.
Run Run the Gingerbread Mann.
————-
————-
Not sure that Steyn’s a big winner, he’s already lost motions:
“Counter-Defendant Michael E. Mann (“Mann”) moves the Court to dismiss the Counterclaims with prejudice pursuant to pursuant to D.C. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 12(b)(6) and award Mann attorneys’ fee incurred in filing this motion.”
The result was a win for Mann:
“Steyn’s special motion to dismiss and Rule 12(b)(6) motion were denied on the grounds that a reasonable jury is likely to find in favor of Mann in his defamation lawsuit, Mann’s lawsuit against Steyn is far from frivolous or groundless.
Accordingly, it is hereby this 29th day of August 2019, hereby
ORDERED that Counter-plaintiff MarkSteyn’s counterclaims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
So presumably Mann got his attorney’s fee associated with this.
Also note what the judge said: Steyn’s motions were denied on the grounds that a reasonable jury is likely to find in favor of Mann in his defamation lawsuit, that doesn’t look good for Steyn.
Reasonable jury is the wild card here.
Where do you find that in this day of full court alarmist press?
I rely on the Friends of theCourt contributions from what remains of ethical urges from the press.
My how the need for the press to protect themselves must torment the demented activists among them.
—————————
—————————
Troll score=D-….buzz off, Jack.
The false illusion is in the straight shaft of ‘The Crook’t Stick’.
————-
————-
No biggie.
Mann to pay more for pre-trial discovery. This is separate to total legal costs of the full legal battle which may continue.
During pre-trial both parties can request evidence (eg. copies of documents or data) from the other. To reduce vexatious litigation the majority of the costs pre-trial can be charged to the plaintiff to pay the defendant. I’m assuming they take several factors into account like:
* which side makes the most onerous requests for documents/data;
* who started the fight;
* likelihood of legal success; and
* capacity to pay.
Laws vary greatly between countries and jurisdictions, if you need legal advice, ask a local lawyer.
…Watch this space…
Legal verdicts and judgements are one thing that climate scientists can’t fake.
I don’t wish to get into any of the arguments about the current position and who pays what. What I do want to know is why a Court can take this long to allow someone to obfuscate and refuse to provide information to support a case that he has brought against another party. If he thinks he has been wronged, he should be able to rapidly provide the information to support his case. if he cannot support his case then it is meretricious. The Court should tell him to provide his information forthwith. If he cannot it should dismiss the case with costs against Mann or even charge him with contempt of court. The court system is there for the provision of justice, not to nursemaid egos and it should not continue to delay decisions because a party cannot or will not produce their evidence. This is not a short period of time. It is already many years. Surely justice delayed is justice denied. Mann should put up or be shut up.
Almost all the time has been taken up by defence appeals.
The beaver dam turning this into a morass is the edifice fabricated bu the invasive species of tree borers and science warpers figureheaded by The Piltdown Mann and nourished by the activist propagandists and all the money and power backing them.
Our local commissars are nick and my dear old friend moshe, shamed though he be now.
——————
——————
Moshe reveals himself as cranky and intolerant but still an often reliable guide.
Stokes honors his ancestor’s name but his zeal embarasses his search for truth and meaning.
I prefer to believe the both of them are primarily motivated by fear, alarmed but fundamentally well meaning hearts.
Relax the two of ya; anthropogenic warming is mild and net beneficial; the greening by serendipitous anthropogenic CO2 would be miraculous if not so well understood, truly a cornucopia.
Capiche? I’m so glad. There will be further tests.
————-
————-
No need for fear, no reason for guilt.
This whole affair is a social tragedy, polity misled by science to the lasting detriment of all of us and all of our progeny.
That’s on the tests, hint, hint.
—————-
—————-
Almost all the time has been taken up with a lack of rulings from the court and a failure of Mann to provide discovery.
Steynd has asked for expedited rulings. Mann has not and has actively delayed the process as shown by the very ruling this piece is about.
“Michael Mann has lost a motion …”
Humm, a good dose of senna would cure that!
🙂
In science’ previous most egregious fraud, the Piltdown Man, the deception could and was ferreted out by physical observation from the cobbling together of bones of disparate creatures many years after the fraud was perpetrated. The definitive disclosure of this fraud, the Hockey Stick graph, which equals or exceeds the Piltdown Man hokum by cobbling together the data bones of disparate studies, relies upon disclosure of concealed data, which I suspect Michael “Piltdown” Mann will never expose to close scrutiny even as he was ordered by the judge in no uncertain terms.
In my trial practice of 4 decades, I never had an opposing party flagrantly stiff a judge’s order of discovery with no satisfactory explanation and see the party’s position survive. With this judge’s (and preceding judges’ ones) record in the suit, it is hard to tell what she would do in such case, but even this order is surprising to me.
‘cobbling together the data bones of disparate studies’, I like that a lot.
The Piltdown Mann cobbled on his devious lathe a shoe crippling the bones of all fleet mankind’s feet whatever disparate colors they be.
This kind of science is destructive, serviceable as it is to the false narratives needed by authoritarians to gain power. It is unsustainable, simply so.
——————
——————