Without comment, other than I disagree with the headline.
[Update a few minutes later]
The tables turn.
[Monday-morning update]
A good analysis of the judge’s ruling.
[Bumped]
Without comment, other than I disagree with the headline.
[Update a few minutes later]
The tables turn.
[Monday-morning update]
A good analysis of the judge’s ruling.
[Bumped]
I can somewhat understand your disagreement. Still, I’d like to see Mann ordered to pay your attorney fees for his false representation.
He was so ordered, and we were ordered to tell him what they were. They won’t be a lot, though; just a few thousand bucks.
Too bad you cannot bill him your consulting rate for the time you spent preparing your defense with counsel. Or can you?
Glad to hear it.
I gave up on NRO when they gave up Steyn to save their own pocketbooks.
In the end, what is Mann going to have to show for all this? He won’t get an unconditional validation of his claims (legal or scientific). He will impose costs on Steyn and Simberg but he won’t have ruined them professionally or financially. The case won’t stop criticism of his work, or the vulgar abuse that is directed at him and every other prominent figure on every side of the climate debate. It all seems a bit like Jarndyce vs Jarndyce, where after many years the plaintiff and defendants both fail in their objectives and only the lawyers gain any benefit.
What “objective” do you imagine I had at which I have failed or will fail (other than getting the suit tossed)? He owes Mark and I much more than we owe him.
I did mean the objective of “getting the suit tossed” to defend your reputation and avoid all the costs to which you’ve been subjected.
You are possibly entitled to charge your standard consulting rate or more for every hour you spent on your defense, travel, etc. If you spent an hour on this defence, that’s an hour you were unable to work at a paying job. Tack on your lawyer’s fees, it all adds up.
I hope you get to wring the SOB dry.