UPDATE: Rick Piltz has posted the motion over at Climate Science Watch
Eli pretty much has gone into popcorn mode on Mann vs. Steyn, kind of enjoying the thrashing about of the bunnies favorite pro se litigant. It is a bit cruel watching someone demonstrate how unclear on the concept he is as Mark Steyn, but what the hey. OK, now and then Eli throws a firecracker into the various on line clown shows, but really, nothing much has happened and won't until the other defendants, CEI, Simberg (but Eli repeats himself) and National Review and Mann and the judge seriously get to discovery. That is not to say that several have not been jumping up and down in glee at how Steyn in his counter complaint has put it to the judge and Mann.
Well, never let it be said that Michael Mann and his lawyers, Williams, Fontaine, Reilly and Grimm want to leave everyone sitting on the couch filling out their NCAA bracket. Today they filed their own motion to dismiss Steyn's counterclaims, and oh yes, by the way, they asked for costs and fees under the DC Anti-SLAPP Statute.
Finally, this Court should award Mann his costs and attorneys’ fees in responding to Steyn’s counterclaims as provided in the Anti-SLAPP Act. Steyn’s counterclaims lack any merit whatsoever, and his assertion of these claims in the face of this Court’s previous rulings is yet another manifestation of his disdain for this Court and its processes. Shortly before this Court denied the defendants’ motions to dismiss the amended complaint, Steyn filed a motion to vacate the Court’s July 19 orders—which was nothing other than an extended diatribe against this Court, accusing it of “improper”, “grotesque”, and “zombie-like” behavior. See Mot. to Vacate Order, dated January 21, 2014 at ¶ 8, 10, 12. This conduct should not be sanctioned, and attorneys’ fees should be awardedEli and the bunnies have quite enjoyed Steyn's full bore crazy act. Almost as good as Richard Tol on Frank Ackerman, but there are other styles and Mann's lawyers prefer the drier way. The anti-SLAPP statute applies only to issues being of public interest and, well what do you know
Mann can also make a prima facie showing under the Anti-SLAPP Act because Steyn is undoubtedly a public figure. The Anti-SLAPP Act defines an “issue of public interest” to include “an issue related to health or safety; environmental, economic, or community well-being” or “a public figure”. D.C. Code § 16-5501(3). There can be no question that Steyn should be deemed a public figure under the Anti-SLAPP Act. Steyn’s Counterclaims essentially concede the point, providing this Court with a litany of his public activities:
- Steyn says that he is a self-described “popular writer and columnist on matters of public interest.”
- Steyn says that he is the author of two “international bestselling books.”
- Steyn says that he has been “published over the years by the leading newspapers and magazines throughout the English-speaking world, including The Wall Street Journal, The Times of London, The National Post of Canada, The Australian, The Irish Times, The Jerusalem Post, The Spectator, Maclean’s, and The Atlantic Monthly.”
- Steyn says that he is a “human rights activist whose efforts on behalf of freedom of speech have been recognized by the Canadian Committee for World Press Freedom, by the Danish Free Press Society, and by the repeal in 2013 of Canada’s Section 13 censorship law.”