Political Commentary, Science And Society

Our Recent Court Victory

55 Comments

ICYMI, Mark Steyn explains it:

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. The appellate judges have now tossed out anything relating to Mann’s original fraudulent complaint, including Judge Combs-Greene’s unbelievably careless ruling in which the obtuse jurist managed to confuse the defendants, and her subsequent ruling in which she chose to double-down on her own stupidity. Anything with Combs-Greene’s name on it has now been flushed down the toilet of history.

5. So everyone is starting afresh with a new judge, a new complaint from the plaintiff, and new motions to dismiss from the defendants. That’s the good news.

6. The bad news is that Mann’s misrepresentation of himself as a Nobel Laureate and Combs-Greene’s inept management of her case means that all parties have racked up significant six-figure sums just to get back to square one. In a real courthouse – in London, Toronto, Dublin, Singapore, Sydney – Dr Mann would be on the hook for what he has cost all the parties through his fraudulent complaint. But, this being quite the most insane “justice system” I have ever found myself in, instead the costs of the plaintiff’s vanity, his lawyer’s laziness and the judge’s incompetence must apparently be borne by everyone.

But at least, as a commenter noted in a related post, Professor Mann got a huge planet-destroying lump of coal in his stocking.

[Update in the evening]

I want to express my deep appreciation to everyone who has hit the tip jar today. I’ll try to deploy the resources to good use.

[Another update, a couple of minutes later]

Per that previous update, despite rumors/lies from Climate-gate deniers, I haven’t received check one from the fossil-fuel industry. The stingy bastards.

[Friday-morning update]

(Law professor) Jonathan Adler reports on the story over at the Volokh Conspiracy. He implies no disagreement with Steyn’s take.

55 thoughts on “Our Recent Court Victory”

  4. Mr. Steyn’s use of adjectives is hugely entertaining. Congrats on this milestone, and here’s hoping that this concludes quickly in your favor.

  5. I believe at times in law suits, if you make an offer to settle and the other side does not take it and then is awarded less (or losses) in court, you can recover legal fees. ut you have to set it up right from the beginning. so perhaps try to do this. Or perhaps you can do/also do what is called an anti-SLAPP suit – you allege that he suit is just meant to harass or to limit your freedom of speech. That sometimes allows you to recover fees.

  6. The NSF exoneration is priceless –
    Steryn / CEI/ national review – all accused Mann of using questionable statistical methods to create the hockey stick.

    From the NSF close out report:
    Analysis and Conclusion
    To recommend a finding of research misconduct, the preponderance of the evidence must show that
    with culpable intent the Subject committed an act that meets the definition of research misconduct (in
    this case, data fabrication or data falsification).

    Much of the current debate focuses on the viability of the statistical procedures he employed,
    the statistics used to confirm the accuracy of the results, and the degree to which one specific set of
    data impacts the statistical results. These concerns are all appropriate for scientific debate and to
    assist the research community in directing future research efforts to improve understanding in this field of research. Such scientific debate is ongoing but does not, in itself, constitute evidence of research misconduct.

    In other words, the NSF acknowledged the very thing Mann was accused of.

    2. On another thread, I posted a link to Steve McIntyre’s talk on “Hide the Decline.”

      I also speculated that the legal system and the scientific community work to different ethical standards. If a prosecutor withholds exculpatory evidence, although courts and politics being what they are, some prosecutors have gotten away with it, but it is widely regarded as a serious ethical breach if not a crime.

      The situation with the NSF is that it is OK for a prosecutor (to use a legal analogy) to not present evidence or to withhold it from the defense (McIntyre went round-and-round getting “da guys” to share their raw data). It is only a problem if the prosecutor just outright makes stuff up.

      But “da guys” in the Climate Gate e-mails thought themselves as prosecutors inansmuch as there was a lot of discussion of keeping certain data away from those evil “defense attorneys” (oil companies, deniers) who will “distort their meaning.”

      Many prosecutors view themselves on the side of justice, that they wouldn’t bring a case to trial if they weren’t convinced of guilt, and that defense attorneys are bad people in using “tricks” and “distorting the meaning of evidence” to get guilty people to go free. OK, maybe I don’t have direct evidence of this, by I knew of one former police officer-turned-Federal regulator who directly expressed to me this point of view.

      I would think that the Climate Gate e-mails display thinking contrary to the standard expounded by Richard Feynman in “Cargo Cult Science.” The Climate Gate e-mails are rife with discussions displaying confirmation bias — is Andrew W going to “call me out” for this claim? But I guess science oversight is “cool with that.”

  7. The Global Warming proponents are willing to go to any lengths to perpetuate their myth so that their money keeps rolling in and they can use it to impose more controls on everyone else. This is what they live for.

  8. As much as I admire Mr. Steyn, I have to disagree that the judge did anything wrong in allowing the plaintiff to amend the complaint rather than dismissing his original complaint. That’s what 99% of federal judges do. She did clearly screw the pooch on the motion to dismiss and I’m glad a new judge will rule on that.

  9. I am afraid Mr. Steyn et al. did not get, and still do not get (though the judge did) that their real tort was not slander against Mr. Mann, but lese majeste against a member of a higher (i.e., Progressive) caste–by saying Mann could be fallible. This simply cannot and will not be allowed in this day and age, and may the legal costs serve notice such impertinence, such uppitiness, will not be tolerated.

  10. You can find the Hon. Natalia M. Combs-Greene’s ratings by DC-area lawyers here:

    therobingroom.com/dc/JudgeDetail.aspx?ID=3789

    Among attorneys she gets an overall 2.7 on a 10 point scale. Her best scores are still not impressive, a 4.8 on punctuality and a 4.2 on flexibility in scheduling. In temperament, she scores a miserable 1.8, just above a 1.0, which is defined as “awful”. She’s also ranked among the bottom ten judges in the DC court system. She’s so dreadful, you might say that it’s a crime to assign anyone to her courtroom.

    There’s brief bio here:

    judgepedia.org/Natalia_M._Combs_Greene

    She was appointed by Bill Clinton in 1998, so chalk that up to him. She’s now retired and is seeking senior status with its pay benefits. Senior status is described as: “Beginning at age 65, a judge may retire at his or her current salary or take senior status after performing 15 years of active service as an Article III or Federal Appeals judge (65+15 = 80). However, based on her graduation from college (1976), she’s more likely to be about 59.

    I wonder if she’s threatened, “I’ll not cry racism if you let me retire with senior status benefits.”

    There’s also this:

    “The Commission in its letter to Superior Court Chief Judge Lee F. Satterfield recommended Judge Natalia Combs Greene for appointment to senior status, but the Commission expressed its concern about the Judge’s intemperate demeanor on occasion, particularly during assignments in Landlord & Tenant Court.

    cjdt.dc.gov/publication/honorable-natalia-combs-greene-2013-determination

    This links to a commission report about her:

    cjdt.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/cjdt/publication/attachments/combs-greene.pdf

    And this from the ABA Journal:

    “The commission reviewed transcripts and cassette recordings in cases brought to its attention. Greene’s demeanor “was oftentimes less than courteous, and on occasion even rude and intimidating; moreover some of her comments during those proceedings were exceedingly inappropriate,” the letter said.”

    abajournal.com/news/article/judges_impatient_treatment_of_litigants_makes_her_ill-suited_for_busy_court/

    –Michael W. Perry, author of Hospital Gowns and Other Embarrassments: A Teen Girl’s Guide to Hospitals (includes advice about legal issues)

  11. Natalia Combes-Greene sure seems to b a poster-babe for the downside of Affirmative Action.

    Just sayin’

  12. The biggest Climategate Hockey Stick Team break from even the semblance of real science ironically appeared in (evidently pal review friendly) top journal Science this year, Marcott 2013 in which the input temperature proxies were re-dated to afford a temperature hockey stick:

    Input data for Marcott plotted from their own supplement:
    http://postimg.or…zirjyjd/

    Hockey Stick Mann himself celebrating it:
    http://s15.postim…2013.jpg

    It was the first hoax anybody without a statistical background could easily understand since the “super hockey stick” blade is a pure data drop off artifact falsified by each and every input proxy that do not show such a sharp end spike. One of the coauthors described it to NY Times reporter Revkin as a “super hockey stick!” with a swoosh sound.

    Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-11-discovery-prompts-global.html

  13. “2. 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.”

    Ouch!

    Sadly, this wont [prevent AGW Alarmists from claiming he won the Nobel Prize.

  14. Mark:

    Defend our island, whatever the cost may be, fight on the beaches, fight on the landing grounds, fight in the fields and in the streets, fight in the hills, and never surrender.

  16. My post saying that my Winston Churchill Quote got moderated also got moderated. What can I say to get this one not moderated? Lets try: Gay marriage help us!

  22. Dr Michael Mann’s lawyer, John Williams, and DC Superior Court judge Natalia Combs-Greene should be referred to the bar’s disciplinary committee for ethics violations. Both may have contributed to making Dr. Mann believe he had a case thereby defrauding him. Or worse. (You can tell I’m not a lawyer because I’m interested in justice, not lawyering.)

  23. 1. 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.

    I’d have to see the complaint, but I’m betting that Steyn is falsely representing the complaint here, if the complaint alleges slander against Mann, and simply mentions his (incorrect) claim to be a Noble Laureate, that doesn’t make it an accusation of the crime of defaming a Nobel Laureate. As an analogy, if the complaint had been one of slander of “scientist Michael Mann” this would not qualify it as an accusation of the hitherto unknown crime of defaming a scientist.

    That’s the way I’m betting, going on Steyn’s history of twisting the truth.

          1. It can be hard to spot sarcasm when so much of the rest of the article is so flaky, are 2 through 6 supposed to be sarcasm as well?

  24. 6. The bad news is that Mann’s misrepresentation of himself as a Nobel Laureate and Combs-Greene’s inept management of her case means that all parties have racked up significant six-figure sums just to get back to square one. In a real courthouse – in London, Toronto, Dublin, Singapore, Sydney – Dr Mann would be on the hook for what he has cost all the parties through his fraudulent complaint. But, this being quite the most insane “justice system” I have ever found myself in, instead the costs of the plaintiff’s vanity, his lawyer’s laziness and the judge’s incompetence must apparently be borne by everyone.

    In a “real courthouse” Mann’s chances of winning his defamation complaint would be much higher as the defendants couldn’t appeal to the first amendment. Outside of the US the “free speech” defense isn’t so effective as a defense against telling lies about individuals.

    2. “In a “real courthouse” Mann’s chances of winning his defamation complaint would be much higher as the defendants couldn’t appeal to the first amendment. “

      Ja wohl!

      It’s just under the wire, and I nominate this as creepiest TM comment of the year. Just remember, when the Revolution comes, the useful idiots are the first up against the wall.

      1. I see one of the commenters, on Jonathan Adler’s post makes the same point I do, though no doubt puts it better:
        TarHeel22
        • 2 days ago

        Speaking of “insane” defamation jurisprudence, I’m fairly confident Steyn would not want to be the defendant in a defamation action in London, Toronto, Dublin, Singapore, or Sydney. For one thing, he would have the burden of proof that the statements were true.

        1. This is America, in case you were unaware. Specifically, the United States thereof. We have rules for this sort of thing enshrined in our founding documents. If you do not like it, you are free to emigrate to a place more congenial to your outlook.

          2. It’s Steyn “this being quite the most insane “justice system” I have ever found myself in”, who is being disparaging towards the US justice system, not me.

            Though I do agree with the system used in those “real courthouses” that the burden of proof should be on the defendant in slander/libel cases.

          3. “I think he lives in New Zealand.”

            Well, then, the best he can do is lobby to declare war against us and hope to subjugate us to his nation’s benighted rules. Fortunately for enlightened civilization, the odds against that happening are rather daunting.

          5. Suum cuique. I prefer one without thought police, or that allows the well-heeled to suppress criticism by those with lesser resources.

          6. Shhh! He likes to pretend he lives in a free country. How adorable! Let’s not ruin his precious dreams.

          7. Then again, his idea of “free” is “making those bad people who hurt my precious fee fees go away forever”.

          8. Well, then, the best he can do is lobby to declare war against us and hope to subjugate us to his nation’s benighted rules. Fortunately for enlightened civilization, the odds against that happening are rather daunting.

            Ahh, civilisation, I guess you’re referring to the civilisation that arrived in the US with the Hustler Magazine v. Falwell (1988) Court case, the Court extended the “actual malice” standard to intentional infliction of emotional distress in a ruling which protected parody, in this case a fake advertisement in Hustler suggesting that evangelist Jerry Falwell’s first sexual experience had been with his mother in an outhouse.

            In the 200 years before that case and a couple of others in the ’80’s, US defamation law closely followed that in Common Wealth nations. So if you think your “civilization” is based on that ruling,keep it.

          9. Rand, I think Andrew just essentially called you the Larry Flynt of Denialism. This may be actionable calumny in New Zealand, should you decide to pursue a Mannian lawsuit against him.

  25. ‘It’s Steyn “this being quite the most insane “justice system” I have ever found myself in”, who is being disparaging towards the US justice system, not me.’

    To paraphrase Sir Winston, it’s the worst there is, except for all the others.

    1. Steyn wasn’t paraphrasing Churchill.
      Maybe you should go back and read it all again, perhaps more slowly, so you might have a better chance of understand what Steyn was saying.

      1. And, I was not quoting or even paraphrasing Steyn. Maybe you should not be so slavish to the opinions of others.

Comments are closed.