So, the bunnies ask, amongst them Barry Bickmore, Lucia, winger sites galore, what is with that clown Mark Steyn who keeps digging in deeper and deeper in his set to with Mike Mann. Besides, anybunny can see that Steyn is, shall one say, not in good doo doo with the National Review and the Competitive Enterprise Institute.Eli will hazard a guess. Steyn is judgement proof and he knows it. Raising money for his "defense" has given him a good income stream, that now, since he is without representation, is just pure profit. Living off the stream with probably no substantial real assets, hey, what's not to like :) especially when his "brave" replies to the court and in public win him plaudits from the crazies.
This is a huge problem for his former friends at National Review and the CEI. They gotta cut him loose but they can't.
Steyn's long-suffering lawyers may have an easy out- turn the case over to his literary agent.
ReplyDeleteHe could be judgment-proof in that his assets are elsewhere, and as a Canadian he could easily make himself be elsewhere as well.
ReplyDeleteOTOH, he could face a pursuit of his assets based on principle rather than the usual analysis of whether the effort expended is worth the potential gain.
Could it be that Steyn is making a foolhardy mistake? That would be unprecedented.
You have to give it to these grifters: they know how to grift.
ReplyDeleteBest,
D
The tell was Steyn's ditching his lawyers, the one expense that he had in this affair. From now on it's all profit, with maybe a cheap bankruptcy lawyer at the end. If Steyn owns a house Eli would bet it is now in the name of his wife or he will shortly be moving to Florida or Texas.
ReplyDeleteDear bad bunny:
ReplyDeleteJust as long as his move is away from Canada - I'm in. I'll even let it slip that In have a truck.
I know even less bankruptcy law than I know defamation law, but a quick check suggests judgments from intentional torts are not always dischargeable in bankruptcy. Might be a problem for Steyn.
ReplyDeleteTangential thought I hadn't seen elsewhere - law firms sometimes have to drop all clients in a case where a conflict of interest develops, even between a now-former client and a paying client. Who knows what really happened here.
In about ten years time, historians will write that the two greatest hoaxes in science were Piltdown Man and Piltdown Mann.
ReplyDeleteOakey doakey Gomer!
ReplyDeleteAre you responsible for this? hope you are not part of some conspiracy to "take care" of Steyn before discovery.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10151991362962523
Futzy, take a look. Your next. Oh, I forgot- you haven't done anything.
ReplyDeletehttp://hiizuru.wordpress.com/2014/02/10/a-list-of-manns-screw-ups/
eli,
ReplyDeletecan you explain what the fuss is at Lucia's about the whole R2 tree ring width issue. they all seem to be saying that Mann purposefully used this in some way that proves his fraud. did not follow it very clearly
Anonymous:
ReplyDeleteThe initials of the blog owner aren't "BS" for nothing. Brandon Schollenberger? Really? And the same old tired worn-out denialists you see on the half dozen or so prominent denialist sites are there in the comments, trotting out the same old crap they've been trotting out for a decade or more.
This is what denialists do. They don't contribute research, they rehash and rehash and rehash a 16 year old paper and a 1% sample cherry-picked from stolen e-mails (while praising the virtue of the thief).
I hope to live long enough to see a new argument from the denialsphere, something other than Mann! Mann! Hansen! Hansen! UHI! UHI! Climategate! Climategate! but am far too intelligent to hold my breath.
Tony Learns
ReplyDeleteI tried to determine for a long time what they were going on about. Apparently Mann didn't publish the R2 values for the various reconstruction segments compared to the Global and NH mean during the verification period. So, he made some reconstruction (say 1500 - 1980 and didn't publish the R2 value when you verify over the 1854 -1901 interval).
He did publish the R2 values compared to the NINO3 reconstruction, which were pretty awful, but I suppose he expected that?
anyway, their claim is pretty dumb. They say he hid the poor results of the R2 versus the NH mean as they were very low (around 0.01) and would show the reconstruction was poor. But the ones he did publish were just as 'bad' so 'hiding' them would make no difference.
It had nothing to do with tree ring widths as Lucia claimed in the OP, she was just using that as an example.
Nathan
The libelous remarks weren't about R2 values.
ReplyDeleteThe R2 values issue is being put forward as evidence of scientific fraud, which raises the "it isn't libel (accusing Mann of scientific fraud") if it is true".
ReplyDeleteI rather doubt that Mann's lawyers are particularly worried about this particular issue.
Mann is not going to win. It is going to be sweet watching all the bunnies collapse in a heap of despair on that day.
ReplyDeleteA sleaze ball, lying, ego maniac who profits off of the true believers with books and speaking engagements, will lose his frivolous action against Steyn. Mann is laughing all the way to the bank with your dollars. Obama Mann and Gore the three gods of the AGW nutcases.
1
We all know that libel suits are almost impossible to win in the United States, so your notion that we'll all collapse in a heap of despair if he loses is rather silly.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, this could turn into climate science's Dover, not Waterloo, despite proud proclamations of certainty on your part.
Steyn's insistence on representing himself reminds me of certain clownish aspects of that trial ...
On the other hand, if it were frivolous, one of the two judges would've likely dismissed it as frivolous. The rulings thus far make it clear that the current judge doesn't consider it frivolous.
So, as usual, you're wrong.
"Obama, Mann and Gore the three gods of the AGW nut cases"? Get back on your meds, dude, I'm worried about your mental stability.
"The rulings thus far make it clear that the current judge doesn't consider it frivolous."
ReplyDeleteBuzz. Wrong again. The judge had no discretion in the matter. He had to view the plaintiff's complaint in the most favorable way, that is the law.
Thanks for playing.
1
#1 you are missing the point. The judge would have dismissed if he concluded the case was frivolous. Whether it is winnable is another matter.
ReplyDeleteWould be interesting if there's been a case, ever, that's survived a motion to dismiss and still found to be frivolous in every claim.
ReplyDeleteMy guess would be no, with two exceptions: motions as part of a case could be frivolous, and new facts found during discovery could render further pursuit of a case frivolous. Neither applies here, at least not at this point.
And there's the possibility that the lower court judgment could be reversed. Even so, that wouldn't by itself support a claim that it's frivolous.
"A sleaze ball, lying, ego maniac who profits off of the true believers with books and speaking engagements"
ReplyDeleteGag me with a My Sharia Amour coffeecup.
Sharia amour indeed!
ReplyDeleteShall we all try to see if we can make AT1's pointy, little head explode?
ReplyDeleteIt's amazing he can even read his screen through all the spittle.
"The judge would have dismissed if he concluded the case was frivolous. Whether it is winnable is another matter."
ReplyDeleteNope. Did not matter what the judge thought. He had to view it in the context of the plaintiff's allegations were true. He made no judgment as to whether they were true or not or what he thought.
1
Perhaps Judge Weisberg can set the context for us.
ReplyDelete"Viewing the allegations of the amended complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, a reasonable finder of fact is likely to find in favor of the plaintiff."
Next, maybe a_ray's head will explode and Dilbert will die from a colonoscopy gone bad.
1
It's so sad when anonytrolls try to be funny. They try so hard and fail. But then their experience in the rest of their lives has no doubt taught them all about failure.
ReplyDeleteFederal judges can, indeed, decide that a libel suit is frivolous, based on their opinion of the underlying claims and facts:
ReplyDeletehttp://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/2012/12/delecia_holt_libel_lawsuit_inm.php
Wouldn't it be a riot if we bought the anonymous one the souvenir franchise for Nigeria's next Miss World competition?
ReplyDeleteHere is the blurb on this quality product from the My Sharia Amour coffee mug section of Steyn's web emporium:
" Mark's satire on the new culturally sensitive international beauty contest was a big hit with readers and remains one of his most requested columns - especially his parody lyric for "My Sharia Amour". Now you can sing along every morning, with all the words emblazoned on our cool, extra-culturally sensitive coffee mug. If we've got to have an unending jihad stretching into the next century, we might as well have a laugh along the way - and this song will have you warbling over your waffles."
Given Christy & Spencer's proud support of missionary work in Africa, it is time Nigerian oil started pulling its weight in the Climate Wars by inviting the Heartland Institute to hold its next International Conference in some ecumenical hotspot like Kano or Port Harcourt.
"A federal judge has dismissed a convicted felon's $75 million libel lawsuit against OC Weekly and a veteran staff writer after concluding the accusations had no merit."
ReplyDeleteThe parallels between the above and Mann's case are startling.
Ah more nonsense from a_ray, who continue his delusion of living in a cartoon world. You should seek treatment.
1
dhogaza - as per my comment, I expect that case you linked to was decided early, and not after surviving a MTD.
ReplyDeleteJudges really hate "nuisance suits" from prisoners with lots of time on their hands, and are quick to get rid of them. Lots of chaff there, maybe some wheat gets thrown out as well.
"dhogaza - as per my comment, I expect that case you linked to was decided early, and not after surviving a MTD."
ReplyDeleteSure. I'm not the one saying the parallels between it and Mann's case are startling. Nor am I claiming that Mann's suit is frivolous. Nor did I claim that the judge could not have thrown out the suit if it were frivolous, indeed I linked to that case to show the opposite.
Nor did I, some time ago, claim that the defendent's appeal being denied forced Mann "back to square one", therefore being a positive outcome for the defendants.
Those gems all belong to Anon 1.
" I'm not the one saying the parallels between it and Mann's case are startling."
ReplyDeleteA humorous comment, why so serious Dhogaza?
"Nor am I claiming that Mann's suit is frivolous."
Yep that is what I claimed.
"Nor did I claim that the judge could not have thrown out the suit if it were frivolous,..."
Neither did I. All I said is he was required, by the law, to read the plaintiff's case in the "most favorable way". With that condition Mann's case is not frivolous. Without that restriction, I can easily say it is frivolous. The whining's of a big p....
"Nor did I, some time ago, claim that the defendent's appeal being denied forced Mann "back to square one", therefore being a positive outcome for the defendants."
It did go back to square one, and the appeal was judged on a second time with zero reference to the first. Are you always so thick?
Are you taking misdirection and how to lie lessons from Brian?
1
Okay, I give up. What does EINALBHBWO stand for?
ReplyDeleteEli is not a lawyer but he blogs with one:)
ReplyDeleteJust not a very good one.
ReplyDelete1