Posted on 12/30/2013 11:33:52 AM PST by neverdem
A propos the big campaign here to fight off Michael Mann’s assault on free speech, several readers have asked me directly and also inquired in comments on NR’s fundraising post below what the appeals court judges’ ruling actually means in English. I agree that it’s helpful, when one is soliciting donations for a legal campaign, to provide an update on how the battle’s going, so I don’t know why one of NR’s editorial staff could not have posted the court order with an accompanying explanation. But what it means is this:
- Dr Michael Mann’s lawyer, John Williams, filed a fraudulent complaint falsely representing his client as a Nobel Laureate, and accusing us of the hitherto unknown crime of defaming a Nobel Laureate.
- After Charles C W Cooke and others exposed Dr Mann’s serial misrepresentation of himself as a Nobel Prize winner, Mann’s counsel decided to file an amended complaint with the Nobel falsehood removed.
- Among her many staggering incompetences, DC Superior Court judge Natalia Combs-Greene then denied NR’s motion to dismiss the fraudulent complaint while simultaneously permitting Mann’s lawyers to file an amended complaint...
Ping
Seriously? Mann is passing himself off as a Nobel Laureate?
He has problems. And unfortunately, people tend to condemn all scientists for the actions of a tiny minority.
US law enforcement goons put it this way: "You might beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride."
Given the fact that most scientific papers are probably wrong, I'd say it's more than a tiny minority.
What I found particularly odd was that Steyn was out with his usual column on Friday—but it was nowhere to be found on the NR site.
Instead, it was on his own site — http://www.steynonline.com/5933/sharia-protector — with a byline as “National Review’s Happy Warrior”.
There are dopey judges and frauds posing as scientists.
Maybe that idiot ‘editor’ he was debating suspended him.
After Rich Lowry canned Ann Coulter, NR has pretty much been on my Do Not Read list. Except for Steyn.
Judges are instructed to be liberal in allowing amendments to complaints. The Judge in this case is probably following that principle. However, while admissibility varies between jurisdictions the prior complaint can be admitted-again in some jurisdictions-for consideration by the jury. What one puts in a complaint is considered by all jurisdictions as a “Judicial Admission.” The issue being the effect of the amendment on the prior admission.
Andy McCarthy and Victor Davis Hanson have merit, but nobody over there comes close to Steyn.
You mean the same judge who scolded me because my lawyer made a typo on my marriage date, implicating that I probably did not care about the marriage in the first place when I divorced since I did not know the real date?
They are liberal about it when it fits their agenda.
All the better for Steyn. He needs to get away from that rag before the stink of the GOPe rubs off on him. I canceled my subscription in 08’ after NR displayed its disgusting Romney fetish. Back then Steyn’s article at the back of the mag was often the only thing worth reading. I can’t imagine it has gotten any better since then.
I waited a bit longer. When they fired Derbyshire, I cancelled my subscription. Steyn is the only guy worth reading now and I usually just go to his website.
Judge Combs-Greene looks mildly retarded (Mongoloid) in her web pictures. Wide-set, heavily lidded eyes. A Clinton diversity appointee.
Unless Steyn has already concluded that this judge is such a flaming hack that the decision in her court will go badly no matter what and is deliberately goading the judge into blowing it with her decision, I wouldn't have gone so far as to have put that comment in print.
Mark Steyn ping.
Freepmail me, if you want on or off the Mark Steyn ping list.
Thanks for the ping neverdem.
...Given that sort of quality judicial work, I suppose it is no surprise that Judge Natalia M. Combs Greene is rated in the bottom ten judges of the Washington D.C. area by the Robing Report.
“Most scientific papers are probably wrong”
Of course they are. THAT IS WHAT SCIENCE IS ABOUT.
When I read a paper (I’m an M.D.), my first and usually my only thought is “where did they go wrong and what experiment could be done to show it?”
The key to real science, now almost extinct, is falsifiability.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.