Vocal critics of Climate Science establishment? Lawyer up.

Adam87inSA
9:36p, 2/10/14
L
AG
One of the most effective ways to silence criticism and chill free speech is to bankrupt the critic in court. Behold a 14 month legal action that has gone nowhere and served no purpose other than to bleed the defendant dry financially. To intimidate others who would dare criticize the govt funded orthodoxy with too much forcefulness. To keep them from being to uppity. To beat them down with... wait for it... a hockey stick.

Mann vs Steyn

[This message has been edited by Adam87inSA (edited 2/10/2014 9:37p).]
NormanAg
9:45p, 2/10/14
L
AG
I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me a competent judge would have thrown out this case 13 months ago.

If anything, Mann should be brought up on fraud charges. Just kidding, but it would be equivalent to his defamation charges.

[This message has been edited by NormanAg (edited 2/10/2014 9:45p).]
Hotard06
7:51a, 2/11/14
A
AG
quote:
I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me a competent judge would have thrown out this case 13 months ago.


I believe this is all playing out in the DC courts, so good luck finding a competent judge.
dlance
8:56a, 2/11/14
L
AG
I think I'd make one statement. "Prove what I said is not true." No need for attorneys or fees. Hell I probably wouldn't even show back up in court. **** 'em.
Hotard06
9:22a, 2/11/14
A
AG
Wow, just read a lot more into this stuff. It is pretty crazy.

quote:
I think I'd make one statement. "Prove what I said is not true." No need for attorneys or fees.


This appears to be Steyn's plan. He apparently was part of a joint defense with National Review since the statements he made were in their publication. NR however just wasted an entire year and $500k filing motions and and appeals that were all ultimately denied so they are back at square one. Half a mil poorer, with nothing to show for it. So Steyn is now just going to represent itself.

The motions though did show some of the ridiculousness of the DC judges. One judge completely mixed up some material facts, attributing actions and statements to the wrong party and then issuing decisions based on those erroneous attributions. It was overturned later but ultimately didn't matter because the underlying motions were dismissed anyway.
MouthBQ98
9:36a, 2/11/14
L
AG
So they shop it to incompetent or dogmatic judges that deviate from legal precedent and use the law as a weapon of oppression?
KeithDB
10:08a, 2/11/14
L
AG
I suggest you read the complaint. http://www.scribd.com/doc/111163636/2012-10-22-Initial-Order-Summons-and-Complaint#download
They accused Mann of flat out criminal fraud, then tried to backpedal by saying that didn't mean to do that, and compared him to a convicted child molester.

The lawsuit has not been dismissed because Mann has stated a legally viable allegation of defamation. Certainly the parties dispute the facts, but the disputed fact issues are for a jury to resolve.
captkirk
10:17a, 2/11/14
L
AG
Didn't Mann claim to be a Nobel prize winner in court documents when he wasn't?
KeithDB
10:26a, 2/11/14
L
AG
Kirk, whatever Mann said about the Nobel Peace Prize (the IPCC won it for what the IPCC acknowledged was largely his work), that's not defamation and it does not affect the allegations of defamation against him. It's a diversion away from the fact that the defendants in this case accused him of criminal acts, and have already tried to weasel out of it by saying they didn't really meant it that way, even as they were comparing him to a convicted child molester.
MouthBQ98
10:36a, 2/11/14
L
AG
That's legit. I would guess if it is a private defamation lawsuit, it lasts as long as it lasts. I wonder how Mann keeps getting the wealth to pay his lawyer as well?
captkirk
10:38a, 2/11/14
L
AG
quote:
even as they were comparing him to a convicted child molester.
It was a metaphor I would not have used, but it was only a metaphor.
KeithDB
12:03p, 2/11/14
L
AG
It's a "metaphor" that in context clearly imputes a suggestion of criminal acts against Mann, notwithstanding the defendants' disingenuous denial of any such intent. That moves this to the category of defamation per se, where damages are presumed and do not have to be specifically pled or proven by the plaintiff.

During a motion to dismiss the court must presume any disputed facts in the fashion most favorable to the plaintiff. That's the law. The courts have done as they are required to do in denying the motions to dismiss so far.
captkirk
12:19p, 2/11/14
L
AG
quote:
in context clearly imputes a suggestion of criminal acts against Mann
Is the manipulation of data in published research a "criminal act"?
KeithDB
12:24p, 2/11/14
L
AG
It can be, and in the context of that "metaphor" and how it was otherwise stated in that article, it was clearly described as being criminal. Had they confined themselves to just your quote, without using the f-word ("fraud") repeatedly and that Sandusky metaphor, they'd have probably have been okay. But they didn't.

Once again, hard to compare the guy to a convicted child molester and then claim you aren't calling him a criminal. Yet, that's what these clowns did. It is unsurprising that they were sued and it is unsurprising that suit has withstood dismissal. I suggest the defendants consider a settlement that includes the retraction and apology requested by Mann before he sued.


[This message has been edited by KeithDB (edited 2/11/2014 12:29p).]
Cotton 94
12:43p, 2/11/14
L
sweet. where do I join the class action lawsuit for SUV drivers that have been told they were raping the planet?
Adam87inSA
12:47p, 2/11/14
L
AG
Yeah I'm gonna pass on reading a 48 page court doc.

Here is Steyn's actual article from 2012.

So, let's recap. If you even semi-favorably mention an article that accuses a scientist of torturing and molesting data like Jerry Sandusky molested kids: lawyer up. If you use the word "fraudulent" to describe the result of said torturing and molestation of data: lawyer up.

That's ONE way to intimidate critics into silence. Or try to, anyway.
Adam87inSA
12:47p, 2/11/14
L
AG
quote:
sweet. where do I join the class action lawsuit for SUV drivers that have been told they were raping the planet?

THIS!!
KeithDB
12:48p, 2/11/14
L
AG
Defamation about a class or group of persons is generally not actionable by individuals in the class or group.
KeithDB
12:49p, 2/11/14
L
AG
"Criticism" that includes false allegations of criminal conduct may indeed require one to "lawyer up."
Cotton 94
12:54p, 2/11/14
L
quote:
Defamation about a class or group of persons is generally not actionable by individuals in the class or group.


Damn. Guess, I'll just not have to be a sensitive childish ***** (*) like Mann and go on with my life then.

* please note the absence of the words fraud and molestation - in other words, please don't sue me.
Hotard06
12:59p, 2/11/14
A
AG
quote:
During a motion to dismiss the court must presume any disputed facts in the fashion most favorable to the plaintiff. That's the law. The courts have done as they are required to do in denying the motions to dismiss so far.


This is why Steyn is representing himself now. He apparently told NR that all of their motions would be useless and to simply move ahead to discovery. They had the lawyers do it anyway and now, after a year and 500k, he was proven right.
KeithDB
1:06p, 2/11/14
L
AG
quote:
This is why Steyn is representing himself now. He apparently told NR that all of their motions would be useless and to simply move ahead to discovery

So even the defendant recognized that the rulings of the court that some here were so critical of, were legally inevitable. By your argument, the frivolous proceedings driving up legal costs were the motions filed by defendants' attorneys.
Adam87inSA
1:09p, 2/11/14
L
AG
You are seriously saying that calling Mann's hockey stick graph "fraudulent" is tantamount to accusing Mann of a crime?

Seriously?


Shall we pore though articles written by lefties, I don't know... maybe Paul Krugman, and see how many times they casually throw out the word "fraud" and "fraudulent" to describe ideas, conclusions, and people with whom they virulently disagree?

Shall we?

I have a better idea. Perhaps Mann and his ilk should grow the F up.
Hotard06
1:10p, 2/11/14
A
AG
quote:
I wonder how Mann keeps getting the wealth to pay his lawyer as well?


This is just a guess on my part, but it could be Penn State.

Since this defamation suit involves the work he does at the university they probably have some interest in protecting his reputation. Even though they can't much protect from all the damage he does to his own reputation.
KeithDB
1:14p, 2/11/14
L
AG
So, what's the prevailing view here on the defamation lawsuit by Steve Stockman for an advertisement that reported what Stockman previously admitted to?
coshatteag
1:15p, 2/11/14
L
If Steyn loses his appeal, W could clean up a majority of the left using Mann as precedent.

[This message has been edited by coshatteag (edited 2/11/2014 1:15p).]
KeithDB
1:15p, 2/11/14
L
AG
Adam, I would direct your attention to the Complaint for a contextual understanding of what was said. It was not merely calling it fraudulent. They did so in the context of comparing what he did to a criminally convicted child molester.
Hotard06
1:24p, 2/11/14
A
AG
quote:


quote:
This is why Steyn is representing himself now. He apparently told NR that all of their motions would be useless and to simply move ahead to discovery


So even the defendant recognized that the rulings of the court that some here were so critical of, were legally inevitable. By your argument, the frivolous proceedings driving up legal costs were the motions filed by defendants' attorneys.


I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish here. You basically just restated what I wrote already to make it appear as an argument.

Here, I can do it too.

Yes, the motions were useless and did nothing but transfer a lot of money to attorneys. This is why Steyn severed his relationship with that legal team.

That doesn't however lesson the ridiculousness of the judge issuing rulings while attributing actions and statements to the wrong parties. The DC judicial system is still a joke.
Cotton 94
1:36p, 2/11/14
L
quote:
I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish here. You basically just restated what I wrote already to make it appear as an argument.


Hotard meet Keith.

Keith this is Hotard.
Adam87inSA
1:37p, 2/11/14
L
AG
Wow. So it's verboten to point out that the entity that "cleared" Mann is the same one that cleared Sandusky.

Good to know.
KeithDB
2:01p, 2/11/14
L
AG
Really wasn't the same entity, and it was not "the entity" since Mann was cleared by numerous others.

However, it is not verboten to point that out. Had they done merely that, not defamation. However, when they accuse him of fraud, and then say that Mann himself (not Penn State) is "the Sandusky of climate change" (or words to that effect) they are going beyond that.

Of course, what you have done is merely created a fact question of whether they really did accuse him of criminal conduct, which is for the jury to answer, requiring the court to allow the case to proceed to jury.
Cotton 94
2:07p, 2/11/14
L
I was once called the Johnny Football of horseshoes. Clearly I should get a Heisman, too.
captkirk
3:02p, 2/11/14
L
AG
Torturing data =/= torturing underage boys.
KeithDB
7:05p, 2/11/14
L
AG
Here's the question. Is it possible a reasonable person reading that article get the impression it was accusing Mann of committing crimes? Well, let's see, says the court. It flatly accuses Mann of "fraud" and compares him to a convicted (as in criminal conviction) child molester (as in crime). Well yes, says the judge, I suppose it's possible a jury could decide that reasonable people would read that as an allegation that Mann committed criminal acts.

Thus, the judge must allow a jury to decide that question because that is what juries do. You can whine about it all you want, but rejecting the motions to dismiss was legally proper.

The paper went too far and definitely risked this sort of thing. The delay and legal expenses of which they complain were the product of their own futile motions that even their client new were doomed. Now that's just hutzpah.
Page 1 of 1