• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Mark Steyn Tries (again) to Push the Mann Trial Forward

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,823
Reaction score
28,236
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Once again Mark Steyn is trying to drag Michael Mann into court. What's ironic is that it was Mann who filed suit. Now he doesn't seem to want his day in court. Too funny.

[h=2] Mark Steyn files to push Mann trial forward[/h]
The process is the punishment. Agents of the Big-government Blob have access to a bottomless pit of lawyers. They can not only afford endless trials, for them it’s an advantage. Drag it out, wear opponents down, exhaust their coffers. And while the case is ever-pending and never-ending it’s already a win for the accuser — silencing critics, and endorsing celebrity “victim-status”. When the defendants witnesses are older and wiser, there’s another dark advantage too — vale Bob Carter.
What they cannot afford though is discovery.
So they can’t afford to sue a guy like Mark Steyn.
This is about free speech and accountability of publicly funded scientists. Steyn could use your help. See also The criminalization of dissent.
As Steyn says: “It is particularly absurd that an interlocutory ruling on a piece of legislation intended to expedite cases has now taken over two years and counting.”
What is Mann hiding?
– Jo

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.’” Keep reading →
 

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,823
Reaction score
28,236
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent

Threegoofs

COVID survivor
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2013
Messages
53,803
Reaction score
19,710
Location
The birthplace of Italian Beef
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
A more realistic take on things:

BigCityLib Strikes Back: Mann Vs. Steyn: Who Is The Dead Denier?

Funny how he claims a witness died...but doesn't name the 'witness'.

Of course, Steyn is under the delusion that climate science will be litigated in court, when in reality it will be his despicable behavior that will be investigated.
 

Threegoofs

COVID survivor
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2013
Messages
53,803
Reaction score
19,710
Location
The birthplace of Italian Beef
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Interesting insight here:

Mark Steyn’s Latest Trick
Posted by Greg Laden on June 2, 2016

Grumpy_Old_Men_Climate_Change_Science_Deniers

Professor Michael Mann vs. Shock Jock Mark Steyn


You all know about the libel suit filed by Professor Michael Mann against Canadian right wing radio shock jock Mark Steyn. Steyn made apparently libelous comments linking Mann, who is widely regarded as the worlds top non-retired climate scientist, to the Jerry Sandusky scandal. (I don’t know what Steyn was implying but the only link is that both work(ed) at Pen State University!) There are other aspects of the libel suit as well, beyond the scope of this post.

The suit was filed in October 2012. I’m told this sort of law suit can drag on for years, and in this case, Steyn and the other defendants have taken action to delay what seems likely to be a decision against them, so this one might take a bit longer.

ADDED: It has come to my attention that some are arguing that Steyn has been trying to push this suit along while the other defendants are those responsible for the delay. You need to be aware of the fact that early on in the process, Steyn separated himself from the other defendants, and some observers have noted that he has been conducting his side of the process in such a way that has left legal scholars wondering if he has a competent lawyer. I have no personal comment on this. But it remains true that there is no way to separate the discovery part of this process among the parties. In other words, as the different parties in the defense take separate action, they are capable of playing something of a “good cop – bad cop” scenario, and that looks like what they are doing. In any event, Steyn has taken specific delaying action by filing a counter-suit.

Then, on June 1st, yesterday, Steyn’s lawyer requested that the DC Court of Appeals expedite the case.

Why is Steyn suddenly in a hurry to see this court case finished, when until now he has been more interested in delay?


Mark Steyn’s Latest Trick – Greg Laden's Blog
 

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,823
Reaction score
28,236
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
A more realistic take on things:

BigCityLib Strikes Back: Mann Vs. Steyn: Who Is The Dead Denier?

Funny how he claims a witness died...but doesn't name the 'witness'.

Of course, Steyn is under the delusion that climate science will be litigated in court, when in reality it will be his despicable behavior that will be investigated.


Regardless of what other defendants have done, Steyn has made clear from the beginning that his goal is to get MM in court.
 

Threegoofs

COVID survivor
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2013
Messages
53,803
Reaction score
19,710
Location
The birthplace of Italian Beef
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Regardless of what other defendants have done, Steyn has made clear from the beginning that his goal is to get MM in court.

No, he's made it clear that he wants to milk this case for ratings, pageviews and book sales.

Scumbag.
 

Threegoofs

COVID survivor
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2013
Messages
53,803
Reaction score
19,710
Location
The birthplace of Italian Beef
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
He's the one who wants to move things along. MM not so much.

His ratings must be down.

And as Greg Laden astutely points out:
Climate denialism is, as a movement, effectively sociopathic. And, as individuals in that movement realize that, they tend to wander off.

And Steyn's got to keep the ratings up for as long as he can.
 

Threegoofs

COVID survivor
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2013
Messages
53,803
Reaction score
19,710
Location
The birthplace of Italian Beef
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Small Win for Mann in The War on Climate Science

Recent development in the Steyn douchebag case:

In the years since the initial filing, Mann's gotten two favorable decisions to allow the case to proceed. But in terms of courtroom drama, not much has transpired, with the exception of Steyn's decision to split from the other two defendants. This has been considered a questionable move, and by all appearances, it seems Steyn is more interested in wasting everyone's time, while complaining that it's Dr. Mann who's slowing the process.

But last week saw movement, as Steyn's request that the suit be dismissed was itself dismissed, as a similar request was in 2014. So this is a small win for Mann, and a loss for Steyn. The judge's patience with Steyn's antics seems to be wearing thin, as the ruling notes that "Only one thing has changed since the court last considered this issue on April 11, 2014 – the date."

The heart of the current issue is that Steyn wanted the discovery process to move forward for his case, while the NRO and CEI cases continue the appeals process. But since it's all really one case, that wouldn't make much sense, and would be a waste of time. According to Mann's statement: "We are pleased with the decision by the court. While we are prejudiced by further delay (as was indicated in the letter we submitted to the Court of Appeals), we opposed Steyn's request because proceeding with discovery without all defendants would be inefficient and unfair."

While Steyn is busy complaining about the slow pace of the courts, and some might think he has a point, a similar case in Canada took five years to resolve (in the climate scientist's favor.)

So even though Steyn laments the wait, his apparently pointless appeals suggest perhaps he's just trying to raise enough funds to pay off the damages Mann might just win. Given how rabidly he's been promoting his book attacking Mann and store to raise funds for the trial, that might not be so far-fetched.

A competent lawyer might have told him that when facing a defamation charge, expanding your attack into a whole book is about the dumbest thing a defendant can do, if said lawyer were being frank on Steyn's monstrous behavior.
 

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,823
Reaction score
28,236
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Small Win for Mann in The War on Climate Science

Recent development in the Steyn douchebag case:

". . . Oh, well. For all that, I've never felt more optimistic about how this case is going. If there is a "97 per cent consensus" on the science, all 97 per cent decided to steer well clear of Michael E Mann: Last fall, not a single amicus brief was filed on his behalf, not one. He claims he's "taking a stand for science", but evidently science is disinclined to take a stand for him.

On the other hand, and somewhat to my surprise, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Reporters Committee for Press Freedom, the American Society of News Editors, the Association of American Publishers, the Association of Alternative Newsmedia (The Village Voice et al), NBC Universal, Bloomberg News, the publishers of USA Today, Time, The Washington Post, The Chicago Tribune, The Los Angeles Times, The Detroit Free Press, The Seattle Times, The Arizona Republic and The Bergen County Record have all filed amici briefs against his attempted shredding of the First Amendment. They're in no way fans of mine, but they recognize that this is the most consequential free-speech case before the US courts since New York Times vs Sullivan, and if Mann wins it would be a catastrophic defeat for the First Amendment. That said, on global warming and "climate change", they largely agree with him. But I've also been heartened to learn how many scientists across the spectrum want nothing to do with Mann (scroll down here), and regard a defeat for him in court as a victory for genuine science.
Contrary to belief in some quarters, I'm not without legal representation - although I do reserve the right to conduct the deposition of Mann myself, if only because it will make for a better scene in the movie. Rather, my legal team is headed by Dan Kornstein, the driving force behind the most important free-speech legislation this century. We're preparing for the end of this ridiculous sideshow about anti-SLAPP interlocutory-appeal mumbo-jumbo, at which point we'll press for a trial as soon as possible, and Michael E Mann can defend his hockey stick on the witness stand. . . ."



Mann vs Steyn: The State of Play :: SteynOnline

www.[B]steyn[/B]online.com/6910/mann-vs-steyn-the-state-of-play


Mark Steyn


Jun 8, 2015 - Some readers have asked for an update on the looming Mann vs Steyn trial of the century. ... As you know, Michael E Mann, the inventor of the global-warming "hockey stick", the single most influential graphic in the history of climate alarmism, sued me for defamation for calling his ...
 

Threegoofs

COVID survivor
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2013
Messages
53,803
Reaction score
19,710
Location
The birthplace of Italian Beef
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
". . . Oh, well. For all that, I've never felt more optimistic about how this case is going. If there is a "97 per cent consensus" on the science, all 97 per cent decided to steer well clear of Michael E Mann: Last fall, not a single amicus brief was filed on his behalf, not one. He claims he's "taking a stand for science", but evidently science is disinclined to take a stand for him.

On the other hand, and somewhat to my surprise, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Reporters Committee for Press Freedom, the American Society of News Editors, the Association of American Publishers, the Association of Alternative Newsmedia (The Village Voice et al), NBC Universal, Bloomberg News, the publishers of USA Today, Time, The Washington Post, The Chicago Tribune, The Los Angeles Times, The Detroit Free Press, The Seattle Times, The Arizona Republic and The Bergen County Record have all filed amici briefs against his attempted shredding of the First Amendment. They're in no way fans of mine, but they recognize that this is the most consequential free-speech case before the US courts since New York Times vs Sullivan, and if Mann wins it would be a catastrophic defeat for the First Amendment. That said, on global warming and "climate change", they largely agree with him. But I've also been heartened to learn how many scientists across the spectrum want nothing to do with Mann (scroll down here), and regard a defeat for him in court as a victory for genuine science.
Contrary to belief in some quarters, I'm not without legal representation - although I do reserve the right to conduct the deposition of Mann myself, if only because it will make for a better scene in the movie. Rather, my legal team is headed by Dan Kornstein, the driving force behind the most important free-speech legislation this century. We're preparing for the end of this ridiculous sideshow about anti-SLAPP interlocutory-appeal mumbo-jumbo, at which point we'll press for a trial as soon as possible, and Michael E Mann can defend his hockey stick on the witness stand. . . ."



Mann vs Steyn: The State of Play :: SteynOnline

www.[B]steyn[/B]online.com/6910/mann-vs-steyn-the-state-of-play


Mark Steyn


Jun 8, 2015 - Some readers have asked for an update on the looming Mann vs Steyn trial of the century. ... As you know, Michael E Mann, the inventor of the global-warming "hockey stick", the single most influential graphic in the history of climate alarmism, sued me for defamation for calling his ...

Not sure if you know, but legal cases are not decided on the number of amicus briefs filed on each side.

I'll also note that Amicus briefs are usually filed in the defendants case when Nazi's are scheduling marches, or the KKK is on trial.
 

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,823
Reaction score
28,236
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Not sure if you know, but legal cases are not decided on the number of amicus briefs filed on each side.

I'll also note that Amicus briefs are usually filed in the defendants case when Nazi's are scheduling marches, or the KKK is on trial.

Indeed. You can't tell the players without a score card. Currently in the DC courts, my defenders are down to notorious Koch-funded denialist groups like the American Civil Liberties Union, the Reporters Committee for Press Freedom, the American Society of News Editors, the Association of American Publishers, the Association of Alternative Newsmedia (The Village Voice et al), NBC Universal, Bloomberg News, the publishers of USA Today, Time, The Washington Post, The Chicago Tribune, The Los Angeles Times, The Detroit Free Press, The Seattle Times, The Arizona Republic and The Bergen County Record.
Whereas Michael Mann's defenders are Eli Rabett and Greg Laden.
~On Saturday Dr Mann took part in a panel to discuss the "climate wars" in New York. The moderator, Jodi Dean, introduced Mann as a "Nobel Peace Prize winner". He did not correct her. Mann was forced to withdraw his original defamation complaint against me after falsely claiming to be a Nobel Laureate and submit an amended complaint that procedurally bollocksed up his own lawsuit to an extent from which it has yet to recover. The Nobel Institute itself has told Mann to knock it off with the "Nobel Prize winner stuff", as has the IPCC. There's something rather pitiful about the way he can't let go of this purloined bauble.
(Incidentally, Mann won't debate me or Steve McIntyre or Judith Curry, but he's happy to appear with Ms Dean, who thinks the hammer and sickle is not a symbol of mass murder but a fashion accessory.) [UPDATE: My mistake. Jodi Dean is deadly serious about "the Communist ideal". It's not just a fashion pose.]
 

Threegoofs

COVID survivor
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2013
Messages
53,803
Reaction score
19,710
Location
The birthplace of Italian Beef
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Indeed. You can't tell the players without a score card. Currently in the DC courts, my defenders are down to notorious Koch-funded denialist groups like the American Civil Liberties Union, the Reporters Committee for Press Freedom, the American Society of News Editors, the Association of American Publishers, the Association of Alternative Newsmedia (The Village Voice et al), NBC Universal, Bloomberg News, the publishers of USA Today, Time, The Washington Post, The Chicago Tribune, The Los Angeles Times, The Detroit Free Press, The Seattle Times, The Arizona Republic and The Bergen County Record.
Whereas Michael Mann's defenders are Eli Rabett and Greg Laden.
~On Saturday Dr Mann took part in a panel to discuss the "climate wars" in New York. The moderator, Jodi Dean, introduced Mann as a "Nobel Peace Prize winner". He did not correct her. Mann was forced to withdraw his original defamation complaint against me after falsely claiming to be a Nobel Laureate and submit an amended complaint that procedurally bollocksed up his own lawsuit to an extent from which it has yet to recover. The Nobel Institute itself has told Mann to knock it off with the "Nobel Prize winner stuff", as has the IPCC. There's something rather pitiful about the way he can't let go of this purloined bauble.
(Incidentally, Mann won't debate me or Steve McIntyre or Judith Curry, but he's happy to appear with Ms Dean, who thinks the hammer and sickle is not a symbol of mass murder but a fashion accessory.) [UPDATE: My mistake. Jodi Dean is deadly serious about "the Communist ideal". It's not just a fashion pose.]

I'll also note that Amicus briefs are usually filed in the defendants case when Nazi's are scheduling marches, or the KKK is on trial.
 

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,823
Reaction score
28,236
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent

Threegoofs

COVID survivor
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2013
Messages
53,803
Reaction score
19,710
Location
The birthplace of Italian Beef
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Just happened to see this. Looks like Steyn got smacked down again in court last June.

Heres the best excerpt:

In the years since the initial filing, Mann's gotten two favorable decisions to allow the case to proceed. But in terms of courtroom drama, not much has transpired, with the exception of Steyn's decision to split from the other two defendants. This has been considered a questionable move, and by all appearances, it seems Steyn is more interested in wasting everyone's time, while complaining that it's Dr. Mann who's slowing the process.

But last week saw movement, as Steyn's request that the suit be dismissed was itself dismissed, as a similar request was in 2014. So this is a small win for Mann, and a loss for Steyn. The judge's patience with Steyn's antics seems to be wearing thin, as the ruling notes that "Only one thing has changed since the court last considered this issue on April 11, 2014 – the date."

Also:
So even though Steyn laments the wait, his apparently pointless appeals suggest perhaps he's just trying to raise enough funds to pay off the damages Mann might just win. Given how rabidly he's been promoting his book attacking Mann and store to raise funds for the trial, that might not be so far-fetched.

A competent lawyer might have told him that when facing a defamation charge, expanding your attack into a whole book is about the dumbest thing a defendant can do, if said lawyer were being frank on Steyn's monstrous behavior.
It looks like he's shut up about the case - guess his libelous book sales havent been as good as he hoped.

A
 

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,823
Reaction score
28,236
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Just happened to see this. Looks like Steyn got smacked down again in court last June.

Heres the best excerpt:



Also:

It looks like he's shut up about the case - guess his libelous book sales havent been as good as he hoped.

A

Although this case arises out of a dispute over climate change, that’s not what the case is about. Climate change is a serious problem, and one that policymakers need to do more to address. But legitimate concern about climate change should not be a pretense for chilling protected speech, whether by independent advocacy groups, opinion publications or others. Environmental concern is no reason to abandon constitutional principle or to dampen freedom of speech.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ion-suit-2016-edition/?utm_term=.8fe9d2ddf4f4
 

Threegoofs

COVID survivor
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2013
Messages
53,803
Reaction score
19,710
Location
The birthplace of Italian Beef
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Although this case arises out of a dispute over climate change, that’s not what the case is about. Climate change is a serious problem, and one that policymakers need to do more to address. But legitimate concern about climate change should not be a pretense for chilling protected speech, whether by independent advocacy groups, opinion publications or others. Environmental concern is no reason to abandon constitutional principle or to dampen freedom of speech.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ion-suit-2016-edition/?utm_term=.8fe9d2ddf4f4

I agree to some extent, but recognition that AGW is a serious problem won't be helped by dismissing the lawsuit.
 

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,823
Reaction score
28,236
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent

Threegoofs

COVID survivor
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2013
Messages
53,803
Reaction score
19,710
Location
The birthplace of Italian Beef
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I can't think of anything more harmful to the AGW cause than MM on the stand under oath. Btw, Steyn is doing just fine. His television show debuts on 5 December.

https://www.crtv.com/the-mark-steyn-show

But it's not about climate, and no matter how much Steyn pretends, Mann won't be on trial. It's Steyns disgusting statements that will be.
 

Lord of Planar

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
45,987
Reaction score
13,444
Location
Portlandia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
But it's not about climate, and no matter how much Steyn pretends, Mann won't be on trial. It's Steyns disgusting statements that will be.

Mann's loss if he will not face his accuser.

He's a Chicken...
 

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,823
Reaction score
28,236
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
But it's not about climate, and no matter how much Steyn pretends, Mann won't be on trial. It's Steyns disgusting statements that will be.

Steyn wants MM on the stand. MM's reputation won't survive that encounter. That's why he's been stalling.
 
Top Bottom