Posted on 03/19/2021 5:41:36 PM PDT by billorites
Climate pseudo-scientist Michael Mann is litigious, but his track record is poor. Nearly nine years ago, he sued National Review, Mark Steyn and the Competitive Enterprise Institute over a post that Mark did at The Corner, which read in part:
Michael Mann was the man behind the fraudulent climate-change “hockey-stick” graph, the very ringmaster of the tree-ring circus. And, when the East Anglia emails came out, Penn State felt obliged to “investigate” Professor Mann. Graham Spanier, the Penn State president forced to resign over Sandusky, was the same cove who investigated Mann. And, as with Sandusky and Paterno, the college declined to find one of its star names guilty of any wrongdoing.
If an institution is prepared to cover up systemic statutory rape of minors, what won’t it cover up? Whether or not he’s “the Jerry Sandusky of climate change”, he remains the Michael Mann of climate change, in part because his “investigation” by a deeply corrupt administration was a joke.
Mann sued for defamation. His case is obviously ill-founded, as Mark’s post was a statement of opinion on a subject of great public interest. It is a scandal that Mark Steyn and National Review have spent millions defending themselves against a frivolous lawsuit for nearly a decade.
After years of procedural machinations, the D.C. court has finally dismissed Mann’s case against National Review, on the ground that any “actual malice” on the part of Mark Steyn, a non-employee, cannot be attributed to National Review. No kidding. That ruling should have been available eight years ago.
Mann’s frivolous, harassing lawsuit continues against Steyn and CEI. Those claims, too, should have been dismissed long ago. As Mark has often said, the process is the punishment. The only way this litigation can end with any semblance of justice is if the court assesses many millions of dollars in costs against the appalling Michael Mann.
Countersue for defamation and damages and legal expenses.
Something like a malicious lawsuit. Ie deliberately using the courts to swat someone when you know they havent done anything wrong.
I thought Steyn counter-sued, for million$ and million$.
The Mann has never coughed up his discovery.
Michael Mann did a really good job on Miami Vice though. Gotta hand it to him on that.
Here's Steyn's excellent book on Michael Mann:
Link goes to Barnes and Noble.
As Mark has often said, the process is the punishment.
Do yourself a solid and read this twitter exchange between Rich Lowry and Mark Steyn. It’s very entertaining and reaffirm. Steyn is the guy you hope he is and Lowry is even worse that you thought he was.
https://twitter.com/MarkSteynOnline/status/1373072607218708484
No love loss there.
Hear, hear
I thought you meant the director.
Michael Mann continues to try to censor the old “Hide the decline” parody but it is still around
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMqc7PCJ-nc
Didn’t Britain have a law that stated if you sued for libel and lost, you had to pay “reasonable” court costs incurred by the defense? In any event, think what would happen to the court backlog if we adopted that rule here.
I love the original story. I’m not sure if it was Mark Steyn or somebody else who said “that guy belongs in the State Penn, not Penn State”. That guy sued for defamation. The defendant said “if you want to prove defamation show your data” and the court agreed. That guy refused to show his data, and the case was dismissed.
Yes I think the UK does have that law. But these cases were in Canada and/or the USA where lawyers write the laws, lawyers regulate the laws, lawyers consult everyone on the laws, and lawyers adjudicate the laws.
“...the very ringmaster of the tree-ring circus...”
(chuckle)
Steyn should win the lawsuit on the strength of that one alone.
Ha! So Lowry claims that Steyn's legal fees are being covered by NR, and Steyn says, "That is not true. So piss off with that kind of talk."
Of course, Lowry must be lying, and Steyn must be telling the truth.
“I love the original story. I’m not sure if it was Mark Steyn or somebody else who said “that guy belongs in the State Penn, not Penn State”. That guy sued for defamation. The defendant said “if you want to prove defamation show your data” and the court agreed. That guy refused to show his data, and the case was dismissed.”
That reminds me of Ballsy’s attack on Kavenaugh. Should ‘couldn’t’ remember the day it happened (when Kavenaugh was alleged to have winked at her). Smart on her part because if she did give a specific date, and Kavenaugh had a strong alibi, then it would be game over for her. So, don’t give a date and make him ‘prove’ he never did it, for every day of the 2 years or so that claimed.
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.