Posted on 07/11/2017 3:16:12 PM PDT by detective
Is global-warming vanguardist Michael Mann in contempt of court or isn’t he? Climate realist and Principia Scientific International (PSI) director John O’Sullivan says yes. He writes that Mann missed a judge’s deadline to produce his data in what’s dubbed the “climate science trial of the century” and now faces defeat, financial consequences, and possible criminal investigation in the United States. As for Mann, his attorney denies the allegations, calling them “spurious.”
What is this about? Mann had launched a series of punitive lawsuits designed to silence critics, with journalist Mark Steyn, National Review Online, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and 79-year-old scientist Dr. Timothy Ball being targets. The last one, a libel suit filed six years ago in the British Columbia Supreme Court in Vancouver, resulted in a “Battle of the Graphs” and has, if O’Sullivan can be believed, blown up in Mann’s face. American Thinker’s Timothy Birdnow provides some background:
(Excerpt) Read more at thenewamerican.com ...
Michael 'Piltdown' Mann is in contempt of humanity. He's perpetrated the greatest, costliest, scientific hoax in history.
bkmk
Thinking back on them, they all looked intelligent. They all had very sharp, clear eyes. Every one.
Michael Mann is the dumbest looking scientist I've ever seen. If he even is a scientist, which I doubt.
I've never known a scientist who would even dream of suing someone who disagreed with their research. Those I have known would have never even have spoken of such a plan of action in jest. Absolutely inconceivable. They would be afraid they'd never again be taken seriously by any of the colleagues if they did such a thing, I am quite sure.
Being of the “look before you leap” persuasion, I think it’s a little early to celebrate Mann’s demise. I sincerely hope the fraudulent a$$ is held in contempt but I’ll wait to celebrate until the Canadian court actually makes a ruling. Politics has a way of swaying justice I’m sad to say and our Canadian friends seem to be riding high on the AGW bandwagon.
Worst of all, in contempt of God.
Such chutzpah laden bullshit artistry is the satanic mockery of faith.
Just watch. I wager a wave of actual faith in God with robust witnesses of miracles is coming down the pike.
I always thought Mark Stein should relish the opportunity to get Mann in a courtroom. I am sure Mark could produce volumes of expert testimony only rivaled by that produced for the Nuremburg Trails.
Stein is going top mop the floor with this guy if they ever get to court. I would almost feel sorry for MM if I had any compassion for commies. Instead I’ll just pop some corn and enjoy the show.
Or not. Most of the stories on the subject that I've seen here on FR appear to have been written by folks with an agenda who couldn't find a courthouse with a map.
I have no idea what Canadian law is on the subject, but in the US, there tends to be a lot of paperwork generated between the issuance of a subpoena and a ruling on a contempt motion.
If any writer would post pleadings, instead of spin, maybe we could figure out what is going on. If there are a mountain of pleadings with battling Motions for Protective Orders and Motions for contempt, then maybe there is some fire. But given the strong statement by the 'scientist's' attorney, I suspect that he is the one closest to the truth.
Until then, I'm taking all of the bloggers with a grain of salt, although I'll charitably call it ignorance rather than intentional falsehood.
Nice perspective, Steely Tom. Makes great sense.
Canada has fewer lawyers. They don’t need to generate so much make work.
Michael Mann - arch Climate Scientologist! All praise saints Hubbard, Barnum, Ponzi and the Holy Lysenko.
Rule 7-1 deals with document production in BC. It doesn’t look very different from the Federal Rules. It does look like they’ve made an effort to render it into simple English.
http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/168_2009_01
I tend to agree....it ain’t over until the fat lady sings.
In this case, Mann’s lawyers had to suspect this requirement to show the data would come up, and he had to know this day would come. The court is in a tough position because if they let Mann off this data requirement...there is a massive hole in the whole case.
I’m kinda betting that no contempt of court episode will occur but the judge will urge both parties to just quietly settle and end the mess.
Before they get there, Mann’s lawyers will probably argue that the data isn’t under his custody or control.
I do suspect that the ball is probably in Ball’s court (no pun intended). And Mann probably has a lot bigger war chest to play with since Global Warming is big business.
“there tends to be a lot of paperwork generated between the issuance of a subpoena and a ruling on a contempt motion.”
From the article:
“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.”
The facts seem straightforward. Refusing to provide information ordered by the court is contempt.
However, I have seen things occur in courts that would strain the credibility of even the most cynical.
Saying that you will agree to a continuance on a condition and having the court order the condition to be met are two completely different things.
If things are straightforward, the defense attorney should state them in a straightforward way. Instead, it seems to be the plaintiff that is making fairly clear statements.
Again, if there IS a court order, it should clear up the confusion fairly quickly. The fact that the defense isn’t waving around such an order says a lot to me.
No doubt the plaintiff can afford the best lawyer. But I’m still waiting to see the paper rather than the spin I’ve seen thus far. I tend not to think well of folks who appear to be trying to pull the wool over my eyes.
“Saying that you will agree to a continuance on a condition and having the court order the condition to be met are two completely different things.”
Thanks for your comments.
If what you say is correct then Mann agreed to provide the data. This was probably in response to Mann’s not fulfilling a prior discovery request.
Mann later reneged on his agreement.
The disagreement about what the court ordered is probably a dispute over specificity and completeness of information.
I am only guessing because the complete information was not in the article.
I'm not sure where you are getting that.
Just as likely something along these lines:
Me: Judge, we want to mediate to see if we can get this off your docket.
You: I'm willing to mediate if he gets me the documents I want.
Me: Judge, we can either try to work this out or put this on your trial calendar.
Judge: I'll set this for a status hearing in 90 days. Let me know if it settles before then. (OR) I order you all to mediate this by x date. If you can't agree on a mediator, I'll appoint one.
I don't know how it works there, but here federal courts routinely order mediation as a matter of course, or a settlement hearing in front of a magistrate judge. State courts may vary.
Here is more detail on the case.
Mann refused to provide data in fraudulent lawsuit, and then asked that the fraudulent lawsuit be delayed.
Dr. Tim Ball told colleagues at Principia Scientific International (PSI):
“What my lawyers did was demand a series of concessions, all of which were agreed. I can’t discuss the details but, under the circumstances, it is a good outcome.”
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.