Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Throwing the mud back | Main | APS shows the way »
Friday
Feb212014

Steyn's counterblast

Well it has all kicked off overnight, hasn't it? Mark Steyn has decided that attack is the best form of defence and has decided to countersue Michael Mann for $10 million.

FIRST COUNTERCLAIM

130. Plaintiff [Mann] has engaged in a pattern of abusive litigation designed to chill freedom of speech and to stifle legitimate criticism of Plaintiff’s work. He is currently suing Dr Tim Ball in British Columbia over a hoary bit of word play (“should be in the state pen, not Penn State”) applied to innumerable Pennsylvanians over the years. Having initiated the suit, Dr Mann then stalled the discovery process, so that the BC suit is now entering its third year – Mann’s object being to use the process as a punishment, rather than any eventual trial and conviction. See Mann vs Ball et al, British Columbia VLC-S-S-111913 (2011) (exhibit attached).

...

131.At the other end of the spectrum, Plaintiff and his Counsel have issued demands that have no basis in law, as they well know – including the preposterous assertion, in response to a parody video by “Minnesotans for Global Warming”, that “Professor Mann’s likeness” is protected from parody and satire...There is a smell to the hockey stick that, in Lady Macbeth's words, “all the perfumes of Arabia will not sweeten” - nor all the investigations. And so Dr  Mann has determined to sue it into respectability.

132. At the same time, Plaintiff continues to evade the one action that might definitively establish its respectability - by objecting, in the courts of Virginia, British Columbia and elsewhere, to the release of his research in this field. See Cuccinelli vs Rectors and Visitors of the University of Virginia...

133. As with his previous legal threats and actions, Plaintiff has brought this lawsuit for the purpose of wrongfully interfering with critics’ statutorily protected right of advocacy on an issue of great public interest and constitutionally protected free-speech rights.

134.Plaintiff’s lawsuit was designed to have and has had the effect of inhibiting legitimate debate on the issues and public policy surrounding the theories expounded by Plaintiff and others and of restricting the free flow of ideas concerning the merits of those theories...

135. It is already having the desired effect. This very week, on February 19th, enraged by a Pennsylvania weatherman’s Tweet, Plaintiff instructed his acolytes through his Facebook and Twitter pages to call the CBS affiliate and demand to know whether this was “acceptable behavior”. Several went further and made threats to “add him to the lawsuit”, and similar. In the event that Mann succeeds in delaying discovery as he has in British Columbia, there will be three years for him and his enforcers to bully weathermen, parodists, fellow scientists and many others by threatening to “add them to the lawsuit”.

136. More particularly, Plaintiff’s lawsuit, with the intent to silence Plaintiff’s critics, has targeted Defendant Steyn, who has written articles critical of Plaintiff and his theories.

137. Such improper chilling of free, robust and uninhibited public debate over climate change taints and skews the democratic process and distorts the resulting governmental public policy response to alleged global warming.

138. Plaintiff’s lawsuit has damaged Defendant Steyn by interfering with his right to express opinions on controversial matters and causing him to expend time, money and effort in having to respond to this lawsuit.

139.The claims in Plaintiff’s lawsuit arise from an act in furtherance of the right of advocacy on an issue of publicinterest and Plaintiff’s lawsuit therefore violates the Anti-Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation Act (Anti-SLAPP Act) ...

140. As a result of Plaintiff’s campaign to silence those who disagree with him on a highly controversial issue of great public importance, wrongful action and violation of the Anti-SLAPP Act, Steyn has been damaged and is entitled to damages, including but not limited to his costs and the attorneys’ fees he has incurred and will incur in the future in defending this action, all in an amount to be determined at trial, but in any event, not less than $5 million, plus punitive damages in the amount of $5 million.

SECOND COUNTERCLAIM

...

142. Plaintiff’s wrongful interference with Defendant Steyn’s constitutionally protected rights of free speech and public expression and his engagement and use of the courts as an instrument of the government to carry out that wrongful interference violates the First Amendment and constitutes a constitutional tort for which Defendant Steyn is entitled to be compensated.

143. As a consequence of Plaintiff’s wrongful act, Defendant Steyn has been damaged and is entitled to damages, including but not limited to his costs and the attorneys’ fees he has incurred and will incur in the future in defending this action, all in an amount to be determined at trial, but in any event, not less than $5 million, plus punitive damages in the amount of $5 million.

WHEREFORE, Defendant Mark Steyn demands judgment as follows:

a. Dismissing Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint in its entirety;

b. On his First Counterclaim, awarding him compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial,  but in any event, not less than $5 million and punitive damages in the amount of $5 million, plus his costs and expenses including reasonable attorneys’ fees;

c. On his Second Counterclaim, awarding him compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial, but in any event, not less than $5 million and punitive damages in the amount of $5 million, plus his costs and expenses including reasonable attorneys’ fees; and

d. Granting such other and further relief as to the Court seems just.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (54)

It is interesting to note that numbered paragraph 25 of "DEFENDANT STEYN’S ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS TO AMENDED COMPLAINT" refers to "Dr Mann’s colleague Jerry Sandusky." Another true statement the mann won't like.

Feb 23, 2014 at 6:47 AM | Unregistered CommenterColonial

Another reference to "going round in circles" is found in numbered paragraph 69 of Steyn's "answer and counterclaims".

In numbered paragraph 127 ("Fourteenth Affirmative Defense"), Steyn makes an appeal to the judge's patriotism and knowledge of the U.S. Constitution (emphasis mine):

127. Defendant Steyn has said substantially the same things or worse about the fraudulence of Plaintiff’s hockey stick for many years in far more prominent publications in Australia and other jurisdictions without attracting legal action by Dr Mann. It cannot be the intent of the First Amendment that it should leave citizens of the United States with fewer rights to free speech than those of countries that remained within the British Empire.

Feb 23, 2014 at 9:31 AM | Unregistered CommenterColonial

There has been some other successful litigation on this issue in the recent past that few if any people seem to be aware of, and which, I believe, could have a serious impact on this case, and the fight against the global warming hoax in general.

I believe that there's a chance to put an end to this entire revolting fraud through the courts, however it will take a concerted effort by people like Mr. Steyn, along with some talented attorneys and one or more dedicated sponsors with very deep pockets. Anyone capable of helping this effort in any capacity should contact the team pursuing it at:

climate.facts@hmamail.com

Please include your contact info and a brief description of the role you would like to play in this effort.

fs

Feb 27, 2014 at 3:14 AM | Unregistered CommenterF. Swemson

Following that ludicrous claim by John O’Sullivan, owner of the PSI blog that Michael mann faces bankruptcy there were euphoric comments posted by several readers and was eagerly referenced on numerous other blogs by gullible individuals. This nonsense from the self-styled “CEO and Legal Consultant” was quickly rebutted by respected CACC sceptic Anthony Watts (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/22/michael-manns-legal-case-caught-in-a-quote-fabrication-fib/)

A commenter hiding behind the false name “Swifty” commented “Sorry to burst your bubble but...It has been confirmed by Steve McIntyre (climateaudit.org) who spoke to Tim Ball himself. He told him that the lawsuit has not been dismissed, it is merely delayed due to outstanding discovery requests .. ” and linked to the Watts article. Not to be outdone, O’Sullivan sent “richybear” a rebuttal to Watts’s rebuttal, which included

QUOTE: .. Hi Richy, Feel free to publish and circulate the following: .. I am an actual party in this action and thus likely to be better informed on matters than Steve McIntyre or Anthony Watts. My article was in part a public challenge to Mann; I unequivocally call him a fraud and a criminal and I declared his prosecution against Dr Ball now unwinnable on a technicality, due to his unwillingness to comply with Canadian rules on evidence disclosure. I say he will not (cannot) disclose the metadata for his fraudulent 'hockey stick' graph otherwise he would likely render himself liable to criminal prosecution .. As for Wattts, he has his own private agenda and acts with bias against Principia Scientific International (and the 'Slayers') banning all comments on his site from our members/supporters. Thankfully, even his loyal readers are now realizing that Watts is no objective honest broker. He has even banned me from emailing him. .. John O'Sullivan CEO: Principia Scientific International http://principia-scientific.org/ ..
UNQUOTE (http://www.dailypaul.com/313141/climate-change-global-warming-sham-is-collapsing-rebuttal-to-wattsup-article).

The Daily Paul Disclaimer page advises readers “ .. Don’t believe anything just because you read it, or just because you heard it .. ” (http://www.dailypaul.com/162294/daily-paul-disclaimer). It is prudent to heed that advice as far as anything that is said or written by O’Sullivan, sole owner of PSI Acumen Ltd. (PSIA). When he set up that private company in March 2013 he declared his PSI blog to be a “subsidiary” of PSIA (see the small print at the footer of his web-pages) and declared in the “ABOUT” section of his PSIA promotional material that the PSI blog’s “members” were employees. That must have come as a great surprise to most of the CLAIMED members (http://www.principia-scientific.org/About/why-psi-is-proposed-as-a-cic.html).

Don’t believe a word that O’Sullivan writes or says. If you wish to know then pop over to my blog and read the “SpotlightON” and related articles about PSIA, PSI and its membership, starting with “ “” (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/curriculum-vitae-for-john-osullivan-2010.html).

These articles began in May 2012 following John O’Sullivan’s unsubstantiated allegations of defamation against Professor Judith Curry, Andrew Skolnick and me (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/professor-judith-curry-threatened-with.html). As John o’Sullivan’s second wife has said repeatedly since contacting me in June 2012 following the first “Spotlight” article “And the beat goes on”.

There is much much more to come about PSI and its founding members.

Best regards, Pete Ridley (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/)

Mar 1, 2014 at 12:35 PM | Unregistered CommenterPete Ridley

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>