News that doesn't receive the necessary attention.

Tuesday, April 15, 2014

Mark Steyn v Hockey Stick on hold because Mann, for whom money is no object since the government is on his side, has case v National Review that NR needs to delay pending a decision on a related matter

4/12/14, "Mann the delayer," Watts Up With That, Anthony Watts

"Mark Steyn writes: "Breaking as-it-happens news about a trial that isn’t happening any day soon, or any half-decade soon. Previously on Mann vs Steyn et al, National Review had filed a motion asking for yet another stay in discovery pending the appeals court’s ruling on their appeal – or, indeed, the appeals court’s ruling on whether they’re allowed to appeal. Whatever. I’m bored by all this procedural flimflam and am anxious to proceed with discovery and go to trial, as I could have done by now in almost any functioning jurisdiction.
So I filed an objection. Michael Mann eventually filed an objection, too. He also wants to proceed with discovery but only against me, not against him. A voyage of one-way discovery. 

Anyway, yesterday Judge Weisberg announced his decision:

"Accordingly, it is this 11th day of April, 2014,

ORDERED that the motion of Defendant National Review, Inc. for a Protective Order Staying Discovery Pending Appeal be, and it hereby is, granted; and all proceedings in this case are stayed pending the decision of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals on the Defendants’ interlocutory appeals."

So we’re on hold for a while, again. I intend to use this period for trial preparation, including my investigation of Mann and my counterclaims against him. I’ve been immensely touched by the generosity of readers who understand how costly in time and money a campaign of this nature can be, and have supported the Steyn store to a degree I never expected.

Nevertheless, I explained in my objection why I was anxious to get on with it:

3. The charge that a man is a defamer is a serious one and profoundly damaging. With criminal charges, this nation provides a constitutional right to a speedy trial. It offers no such protections in civil court, even though to be accused as a defamer is certainly as damaging to one’s reputation and honor as all but the most serious criminal charges. For an independent writer such as Defendant Steyn, this is especially so: His livelihood depends entirely on his reputation, and as long as this charge stains his character without being answered he is being damaged. As the accused, he asserts his right to confront his accuser in open court in a timely manner.

4. Likewise, the Plaintiff is owed the courtesy of being received straightway without delay. As this Court noted in its Order of January 22nd, the allegedly defamatory statements “go to the heart of scientific integrity”, and thus to the heart of the Plaintiff’s character. If the Court truly believes that, then Dr Mann is entitled to a timely trial that settles the truth of the matter wheresoever it be.

Judge Weisberg acknowledged the unfairness of this in his ruling:

"To be sure, there has been too much procedural delay already in this case... A continuing stay of discovery will impose the burdens of additional delay on all parties, but particularly on Plaintiff and Defendant Steyn, who has distanced himself from the other Defendants and expressed his desire to proceed expeditiously, even if that means the case would go forward only on Plaintiff's claims against Steyn and Steyn's counterclaim, with the other Defendants left behind. Nonetheless, it would be costly, inefficient, and duplicative to have two rounds of discovery: one round between Plaintiff and Defendant Steyn, and a second round between Plaintiff and the other Defendants. The court is unwilling to sever Mr. Steyn's case from the other Defendants to accommodate his desire to go it alone. If it is not dismissed, there is no compelling reason to try this case more than once. The parties' interests are diverse and irreconcilable, in part because of the way they have chosen to exercise their legitimate procedural rights. A stay of discovery preserves the status quo long enough for the Court of Appeals to rule on the jurisdictional issue."

If you say so. Still, I like this footnote:

"Plaintiff opposes the motion to stay discovery and argues that, at a minimum, the court should permit him to proceed with discovery against Defendant Steyn. However, his idea of discovery against Steyn includes the right to take what he chooses to call "third party discovery" from the other three Defendants as it relates to Plaintiff's claims against Steyn. Beyond that, Plaintiff takes the ironic albeit legally correct – position that he should be able to proceed with discovery against Steyn, but Steyn should be precluded from taking discovery on his counterclaim

because Plaintiff's anti -SLAPP special motion to dismiss the counterclaim triggers an automatic statutory stay."

What's "legally correct" in this system isn't "ironic", it's tragic. That said, after the slapdash and incompetent Natalia Combs Greene, I regard a judge who sees Mann's discovery-for-me-but-not-for-thee stance as "ironic" as a positive development.""...

Read the entire piece here, including some frustration by the judge in the case:"

Blog editor's note: I included a few more paragraphs from SteynOnline above in addition to those provided on WUWT. There are more at SteynOnline. Susan


Among comments to Mark Steyn article at WUWT:


"Rud Istvan says: April 12, 2014 at 12:55 pm 
Steyn’s countersuit is not so easily dismissed by Mann. And now he has good semi pro bono counsel to pursue it. National Review needs to get out of the way, but cannot because Mann has a better Cause of action against them than against Steyn. It will take a while, but countersuit discovery will eventually come."


When money is no object and you have a bottomless pit of expensive, (subsidized) legal representation, you can delay matters ad infinitum if you’re the guilty party. Don’t all the elites work that way?"


 4/12/14, "Irony Alert," SteynOnline

Hockey Stick graph with Steve McIntyre correction via Volokh:


Comment: Mark Steyn's court case is happening because the US has only one functioning political party. Large countries with only one political party are dictatorships. The notion of "global warming" could've been laughed off the stage decades ago. The US has no political party whose interests are separate from massive, coercive, central government. George Bush #1 and #2 and their crowd merged the Republicans with the radical left Democrats. Rupert Murdoch is helping make sure the merger sticks and the peasants remain silent. By the Nov. 2008 election, the GOP was effectively dead. It's pretty obvious you have a problem when average Americans have to beg the so-called "Republican" presidential nominee, McCain, to act like he cares. The only reason you've heard from the GOP since then was to beat down the Tea Party which is simply the Silent Majority who figured out the Republican Party had sold the country out. Longtime Beltway "Republicans" like McConnell, Cochran, and Boehner have shepherded global warming for decades. Lugar was a big global warming and UN advocate and we were able to get rid of him. He's keeping busy supporting democrats. These corrupt politicians have stolen the lives of a generation over something that doesn't exist. Right now they're stealing Mark Steyn's life. They could put an end to CO2 fraud if they wanted to by simply listing the scientific facts via microphones to which they have access every day.




No comments:


Blog Archive

About Me

My photo
I'm the daughter of an Eagle Scout (fan of the Brooklyn Dodgers and Mets) and a Beauty Queen.