I thought I’d mention somewhere, by the conventional wisdom, it appears that Steyn is behaving foolishly by roiling the waters and acting as his own counsel. I wonder, though, if there isn’t something of a Randian flavor to it. In Hank Reardon’s words:
“I will not help you to pretend that I have a chance. I will not help you to preserve an appearance of righteousness where rights are not recognised. I will not help you to preserve an appearance of rationality by entering a debate in which a gun is the final argument. I will not help you to pretend that you are administering justice.”
“But the law compels you to volunteer a defence!”
There was laughter at the back of the courtroom.
“That is the flaw in your theory, gentlemen,” said Rearden gravely, “and I will not help you out of it. If you choose to deal with men by means of compulsion, do so. But you will discover that you need the voluntary co-operation of your victims, in many more ways than you can see at present. And your victims should discover that it is their own volition – which you cannot force – that makes you possible. I choose to be consistent and I will obey you in the manner you demand. Whatever you wish me to do, I will do it at the point of a gun. If you sentence me to jail, you will have to send armed men to carry me there – I will not volunteer to move. If you fine me, you will have to seize my property to collect the fine – I will not volunteer to pay it. If you believe that you have the right to force me – use your guns openly. I will not help you to disguise the nature of your action.”
Would anyone happen to know whether Mann’s glaring hypocrisy (He’s actually doing what he’s suing to claim people are doing to him) is legally relevant to the ongoing court cases? I’m hoping it is, but I don’t know.
Before a jury it is sure the f*** relevant. It’s like someone who makes a living starting bar fights trying to sue someone for punching back.
That was basically what I was hoping. That, plus how it reflects upon the plaintiff’s truthfulness. (and there are apparently other issues there as well, such as the issue with a quote in the complaint).
I suppose almost anything is admissible in court, in someway, but
there needs to be a relevance.
I don’t think the defense is “He’s a bad man”
I’m not a lawyer, but I’m guessing that a pattern of making false statements could be relevant regarding the plaintiff’s veracity.
Not on the front side issue but almost anything can go to credibility.
Of course that same attack will roll against Rand. Rand has some some
pretty incredible stuff.
“Of course that same attack will roll against Rand”
From what I understand of the case, the two are nothing alike. Rand only has to believe what he said is true regardless of how incredible it is. And Rand isn’t the one who brought the lawsuit or suing a bunch of other people either. Remember, Mann isn’t the one on trial here.
Mann is suing a bunch of people while engaging in the type of behavior he is suing for. Mann’s suit against Rand is for defamation. The suit claims that Mann operates with integrity and and that all investigations of his integrity have found no fault. Mann asserts that all claims otherwise are ground for a defamation lawsuit.
Lying to the court, even if it isn’t outright perjury at this stage, when you bring suit to defend your integrity, isn’t going to help make your case.
Your second sentence is seven words too long.
His second sentence reads like DN-guy finds Rand non credible. Perhaps he’s begging to be sued too.
I thought I’d mention somewhere, by the conventional wisdom, it appears that Steyn is behaving foolishly by roiling the waters and acting as his own counsel. I wonder, though, if there isn’t something of a Randian flavor to it. In Hank Reardon’s words:
Would anyone happen to know whether Mann’s glaring hypocrisy (He’s actually doing what he’s suing to claim people are doing to him) is legally relevant to the ongoing court cases? I’m hoping it is, but I don’t know.
Before a jury it is sure the f*** relevant. It’s like someone who makes a living starting bar fights trying to sue someone for punching back.
That was basically what I was hoping. That, plus how it reflects upon the plaintiff’s truthfulness. (and there are apparently other issues there as well, such as the issue with a quote in the complaint).
I suppose almost anything is admissible in court, in someway, but
there needs to be a relevance.
I don’t think the defense is “He’s a bad man”
I’m not a lawyer, but I’m guessing that a pattern of making false statements could be relevant regarding the plaintiff’s veracity.
Not on the front side issue but almost anything can go to credibility.
Of course that same attack will roll against Rand. Rand has some some
pretty incredible stuff.
“Of course that same attack will roll against Rand”
From what I understand of the case, the two are nothing alike. Rand only has to believe what he said is true regardless of how incredible it is. And Rand isn’t the one who brought the lawsuit or suing a bunch of other people either. Remember, Mann isn’t the one on trial here.
Mann is suing a bunch of people while engaging in the type of behavior he is suing for. Mann’s suit against Rand is for defamation. The suit claims that Mann operates with integrity and and that all investigations of his integrity have found no fault. Mann asserts that all claims otherwise are ground for a defamation lawsuit.
Lying to the court, even if it isn’t outright perjury at this stage, when you bring suit to defend your integrity, isn’t going to help make your case.
Your second sentence is seven words too long.
His second sentence reads like DN-guy finds Rand non credible. Perhaps he’s begging to be sued too.