By Charles Rotter | March 4, 2021
Another fantastic filing by Steyn’s attorneys. It’s filled with goodies. This is one of my favorites.
MANN’S MERITLESS BUT USEFUL MOTION
Rare is the motion that is at the same time both meritless and useful. Plaintiff Michael Mann’s motion to strike, for example, is just meritless: it is seven years too late. But his motion for partial summary judgment is one of the rare ones. It is meritless in that it applies the wrong law to imaginary facts. It is useful, however, in demonstrating why Defendant Mark Steyn, not Mann, should prevail on summary judgment and end this case’s eight-year-old damper on free expression on matters of public importance.
Mann’s motion for partial summary judgment is the mirror image of Steyn’s own already-filed motion for summary judgment on his defense of truth.
Steyn’s motion explains why the challenged statements in his post are true. Mann’s motion, in contrast, tries, but fails, to show they are false. Of those two dueling motions, only Steyn’s should prevail. Mann’s motion for summary judgment on falsity should be denied for the same reasons Steyn’s motion for truth should be granted.
And still on the first page.
Mann’s motion to strike Steyn’s defense of truth is seven years too late. Steyn answered Mann’s Amended Complaint on March 12, 2014, asserting as his Second Affirmative Defense that “[t]he statements at issue made by Defendant Steyn are true.” Williams Decl. Ex. 59 (Steyn’s Amended Answer and Counterclaims) ¶ 115. Superior Court Rule 12(f) requires a motion to strike to be filed “within 21 days” of the pleading it is addressed to, or on April 2, 2014. Mann filed his motion to strike on January 22, 2021. ED301J00214371
The filing is detailed and descriptive. Laying out the case clearly and logically.
Mann’s Climate War: Curry details how Mann has been “instrumental in the downward spiral of the climate science discourse” by withholding data from scientists who are critical of his statistical modeling, stifling criticism within the IPCC, distorting the peer review process, and leveling relentless personal attacks against anyone who dares to disagree with him. Steyn SJ Ex. TT (Curry Report) at 34. These attacks are “misconduct” because they violate fundamental norms of scientific discourse. Id. 16
During the Penn State investigation, Dean Henry Foley found Mann’s vitriolic “nasty” emails about his critics such misconduct as to be “worthy of censure.” ¶¶ 123, 144. “[T]hey were emails that you would not expect from people who are high minded and scientifically inclined.”
The conclusion is a forceful assertion of the truth defense, for statements both real and imaginary.
We have shown here, and in Steyn’s affirmative motion for summary judgment, that the three allegedly defamatory statements in paragraph 28 of the Amended Complaint are true. We have demonstrated that the three new “statements” Mann has concocted and tried to attribute to Steyn are also true.
Mann’s motion should in all respects be denied.