7 thoughts on “The Mann Amici Briefs”

  1. I’m sorry, but only Steyn is holding the Mann beast to task. The rest of you, Simberg, NRO & CEI are only singing a version of the song “Make the World Go Away”.

    1. I think Steyn is more obviously on the offensive, but I think it is two different strategies, and not far from the Kimberlin situation. In the case of Kimberlin, justice would have been dismissing that case before it ever went to trial. No question Kimberlin’s case was vexatious. That can’t quite be said of Mann, but lacking evidence, I still have a theory that Mann and Kimberlin cases are similar in harassing via courts opinions in which they disagree. In short, it is standard lawfare.

      Lawfare works because regardless of the outcome, the defenders have to expend money on a legal defense, which is then lost to more useful endeavors. Defending yourself isn’t a waste, but it is not the best use of limited funds. So the best solution to lawfare is to get the case dismissed before expenses pile up and more money is diverted. In that regard, I think Rand et al have the right strategy.

      Still kudos to Steyn for reducing lawfare costs by representing himself and going on offense. It is a dangerous strategy, but if successful it would be a more satisfying win.

      1. Actually, Mark is no longer representing himself. He now has very competent counsel who ares fully on board with his strategy (they may be doing it pro bono, in fact).

  2. Off topic, but Mike Griffing is channeling Rand Simberg on the AvWeek article about the disillusioned sentiment around the asteroid return mission. The end is near. Buy guns and bullets

  3. Nice to see that you have a broad array of legal talent defending your right to biting commentary about the border of infinity.

    I am thoroughly amused by Steyn’s use of “fraudulent” in his brief with the kind meanings that your lawyers are trying to disclaim for your post.

    Bravo for being the spark of this century’s Scopes Trial on the side of science vs. SCIENCE SO SHUT UP!

  4. “And they’d done so, according to Mann, even though the right-leaning magazine and think tank were well aware that he has been cleared in academic and regulatory inquiries about some troubling emails stolen from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom that appeared to raise questions about the integrity of his research.”

    Hmm, wasn’t this done by a whistle blower?

    1. Mann’s pattern of asserting something as factual, when conclusive evidence is stubbornly absent, rears its ugly head again.

Comments are closed.