I have to admit of tiring of this endless case. Today, Judge Jennifer M. Anderson ruled in Mann v. National Review, Inc. Sounds like a win for National Review. Volokh comments on the nature of the ruling. Basically, Mann can’t sue The National Review because Stein is not an employee. He’s a contractor. (Sure took a long time for this suit to get to that sort of ruling!)
Other suits continue.
Mostly, I figures it’s time for a new thread as the number of comments on the other threads are getting unwieldy.
Oh. And I have an appointment for a Covid shot tomorrow. I check “1b” on the grounds of being an educator and have consistently described in what sense any time there is a line to explain. I think I fit the rule as described– which is vaguely. It just says K-12 educator. Well, I tutor high school kids.
Tomorrow we’ll learn if Walgreen’s personnel ask more details and agree with me. If they do, I’ll get my J&J vaccine.
Open thread.
Update
After my vaccination, I went to the car, turned on a spotify driving channel, hit “shuffle play” and (I kid you not), this song started up:
As they say, the process is the punishment for National Review’s “crime”. There was never much hope for this to succeed given the US’s free speech laws and the protection of the press. But they will pay millions defending it which Mann’s defense can put up. I doubt very much the MSM would want that media legal standard in place anyway given the routine disparagement they use on a daily basis for their ideological opponents.
Congratulations on your vaccine, I doubt very much they will interrogate you, just don’t look guilty when you walk in, ha ha. I’ll be eligible on Monday in FL to make an appt.
No only did they NOT interrogate me, when presented the list, I saw “employed by school system or child care”. I told her I was a tutor, so it wasn’t a “school system” and she said that was fine.
.
Clearly, if I had been concealing anything, I would have broken under heavy questioning! I don’t know what the Governor’s specific ruling would have been. But it looked like I fit the letter of the rule so wasn’t going to interpret otherwise!!
.
Time of jab was 10:44 am. No side effects so far. 🙂
Haven’t had time to read the opinion yet, but I have questions about the rationale for the opinion. Generally, if you repeat something that is defamatory you are liable. Don’t see why it would make a great deal of difference whether the potentially defamatory statement was made by an employee or an independent contractor. I could see where you might have less of an obligation to review an independent contractor’s work.
….
Would add that Mann seems to be getting his *ss kicked. He was fined nearly $12,000 about 3 months ago for not providing discovery about his income. Reading a little bit between the lines, I get something of a sense that the trial judge doesn’t like Mann.
(typo: should be “…because Steyn is not an employee”, not Mann)
National Review is now out of the case. I seem to recall that Steyn separated his part of the case from the other defendants earlier on. So I think Simberg & CEI are still part of this case.
NR will presumably ask for costs, I suspect they’ll be turned down if they try.
P.S. Congrats on the vaccination, Lucia. Is the prescribed time to full effectiveness of the J&J vaccine also two weeks?
Lucia,
Standard request.. please report on color changes, brain eating desires, and any other zombie-like changes.
.
You are the first J&J person I know. You won’t be a fully protected from symptomatic illness, but are now very unlikely to suffer severe illness or death… and presumably less likely to transmit as well.
.
Florida’s reported deaths (7-day trailing average) have now fallen to 71, and seem to be dropping fast. Confirmed cases remain at ~4,500 per day. No doubt the apparent divergence between cases and death is due to most people over 65 already having received a vaccination. As of yesterday, ~70% of those over 65 have received at least one dose, and >50% both doses. With eligibility dropping to 50, Florida will soon have vaccinated most every at-risk person who wants the vaccine. ~99% of deaths in Florida are among those over 45. Unfortunately, there is still no publicity campaign to motivate the reluctant to get vaccinated.
.
If I were DeSantis, I would make a formal announcement of working with the legislature to completely eliminate all restrictions in Florida once those over 45 have all had an opportunity to receive the vaccine…. a gentle warning to those refusing the vaccine that they will no longer be protected by forcing others to change their behavior. I remain astounded by how many people are refusing the vaccines; unfortunately, some of those people will die of covid-19 for no good reason.
There’s an essay in the WSJ today about COVID vaccines and how they are the culmination of decades of research costing billions of dollars. It says this about the J&J vaccine:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/capitalism-is-what-will-defeat-covid-11616192690?mod=hp_opin_pos_1
Note that 12.7% of the J&J vaccine trial participants were in South Africa and 17.3% in Brazil. Most others live outside the US. That gives a lot of confidence that the vaccine will be effective against multiple strains and may be why the effectiveness is somewhat less than the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines.
This seams to be the heart of the ruling
“.. courts have consistently declined to impute actual malice to a defendant from another defendant if there is not an employer-employee relationship between them…â€
.
“.. Plaintiff has made no argument for this Court to consider that Defendant Steyn was an employee of National Review…â€
.
They opened up the FL registration 2 days early, I got an appt. for Friday. What a frickin relief. Apparently Pfizer since there is a 3 week delay between appts.
There is no doubt that J&J had an unfavorable testing region. It was still a bit less effective in the US, but clearly good enough in preventing severe illness.
.
Funny the contradicting takes today:
.
WSJ:
Capitalism Is What Will Defeat Covid
The vaccine revolution didn’t happen on its own. It’s a product of decades of planning and investment.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/capitalism-is-what-will-defeat-covid-11616192690
.
NYT:
Where Europe Went Wrong in Its Vaccine Rollout, and Why
While Washington went into business with the drug companies, Europe was more fiscally conservative and trusted the free market.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/20/world/europe/europe-vaccine-rollout-astrazeneca.html
.
Earth to NYT, it was the free market that allowed the US to pay more for early access.
HaroldW
These things are fuzzy, but it seems that’s how long to “one type of adjective effectiveness”, but you get more over time. Getting more over time seems to be true for the other ones too.
.
So far no desire to eat brains.
On side effect: I’ve obsessively monitored my temperature during Covid. My temperature has “soared” above 98 F: A full 98.1F. With my thermometer it’s usually in the 97’s. (Some other thermometers seem to only register in the 96s.). I will report if I ever reach 98.7 F which would be above “official” normal.
I’m a bit dubious about the “trusted the free market”. The EU negotiated as a single bloc for low prices. That’s exactly what I would call “trusting” the “free market”. It’s called a single payer using their ‘muscle’ to get a low price. Well, they got what they paid for. 🙂
Tom Scharf,
The EU’s supposed reliance on the ‘free’ market, was, of course, anything but free. What they were actually doing was, as the adage goes, penny wise and pound foolish. They saved a bit on the shots at a very high cost to their citizens.
In other news, we have discovered why Trump never seriously criticized Putin in public although Trump took much more serious action against Russia than Obama ever did, i.e. supplying lethal weapons to Ukraine.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/18/putin-wishes-biden-good-health-as-officials-demand-us-apology
And calling Putin a killer is not meddling in Russian politics? Pot, kettle, black or glass houses, throwing stones.
The US is at about 2.2M shots per day, or ~1.2M full vaccinations per day. It is reporting around 60K cases per day.
.
Vaccinations are leading cases officially at 20:1, with the same unknown multiplier for unreported cases, so maybe 8:1 in reality. That’s a good thing.
.
The US cases are in a plateau and it is difficult to guess what will happen from here. The deaths will likely continue to decline and cases may get a bit of a bump for a month or two as the UK variant takes over. People who engage in high risk behavior might be more likely to refuse the vaccine (?).
.
https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#vaccination-demographic
.
I find it quite curious that this shows women at 58% of full vaccinations and men at 42% and the equity police don’t care, ha ha. This is the first I have even heard of it.
Fauci is at it again:
*sigh* Yet more FUD.
Europe isn’t the US. We have more confirmed cases and many more vaccinated than any country in Europe. We should be much closer to herd immunity than, say, France where confirmed cases are only 6.4% of the population compared to 9.2% in the US. It’s also not really accurate to look at the sum of all European countries. The disease statistics in the individual countries are very different.
My company has been selling instrumentation to pharma houses for characterizing the sizes of adenovirus particles . like used on the J&J vaccine…for decades. The first paper describing that was about 1995 (L L Bondoc & S T Fitzpatrick – AKA me). The fundamental issue at that tine was how to keep the virus particles from aggregating badly during a freeze-thaw cycle. The development of the technology really has taken decades.
DeWitt,
Fauci is a political hack who should long ago have been fired.
J&J owns Jansen Pharmaceuticals. Jansen developed the J&J vaccine via their subsidiary Jansen Vaccines. Jansen vaccines was formerly called Crucell. Crucell (now Jansen vaccines) has used my instruments to characterize their adenovirus particles for about 20 years… since shortly after my initial publication of the characterization method.
Correcting my above comment 200288.. the work started in 1995, the paper came out in 1998.
SteveF,
Laser Light Scattering?
One problem with EU vaccine price negotiations for COVID vaccines was that they didn’t have a credible nuclear option of invalidating patents because of time constraints.
SteveF,
I suspect that if all the political hacks in DC were fired, there wouldn’t be much left. I seriously doubt that competence is sufficient to get you to the upper levels. It may even be a hindrance.
DeWitt,
No, physical separation of different particles at high g-force in a slight density gradient, based on sedimentation velocity, which gives 10 to 20 times better resolution than laser light scattering. You can directly relate the sedimentation velocity to particle size via Stokes’ Law of sedimentation. Once separated, the quantity at each size is calculated from measure turbidity via Mie scattering theory. I developed the basic technology in 1975, although I had to fudge the scattering calculations with approximations for lack of real-time computer power. That changed when PCs became available. Commercial production has been since 1994.
SteveF,
Kewl!
There’s an op-ed in the WSJ on how bad things have become in LitCrit because of Derrida, Foucalt et. al.:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/deconstruction-identity-and-the-dying-art-of-criticism-11616177190?mod=opinion_lead_pos7
Deconstruction is the foundation of Critical Legal and Race Theory.
Tom Sharf
Not surprising:
Medical: There are women and male doctors. But go to a hospital, md or dentist office. Office staff, nurses etc. skew female. Then you have teachers and daycare allowed today. Plus the elderly skew female. So. Yeppers: if both sexes want the shot equally, more the rules will mean more woman get the shot. I’ve had my vax. Jim: nope.
DeWitt
Even if they did invalidate the patents, these are novel technologies. No one else can copy really fast and be sure to remain safe.
SteveF,
So I get to give you part of my thanks for the J&J vaccine? Happy to give it!
Lucia,
Perhaps a very, very small part…. I did it mostly for the money, after all. 😉 I guess the main point is that technological progress it taking place all the time… even when the public is unaware of it.
Yes. The high speed push was only possible because progress has been happening a along. It’s actually not different from “the bomb”. Lots of things were being learned before the war. That’s what allowed a sudden infusion of government money to use money to apply new things learned to create something they wanted quickly.
.
I, for one, and happy to be vaccinated. I almost became visibly emotional in public. 🙂
I became visibly happy…. no more safety motivated limitations on travel. Which is not to say there will not be continuing disruptive policies.
.
In California, the people I interacted with seem to all agree: masks, shutdowns, social distancing, etc. forever, in spite of vaccinations, are just dumb.
.
Another observation: people are unhappy with their governor because he is an obnoxious, arrogant a$$hole, not specifically because of his stupid policies. I’d say the recall has a chance.
I’m vaccinated. In roughly 14 days I don’t need to worry about anyone else. It’s quite likely they don’t need to worry about me. And everyone know this. After all, that was the whole point of vaccines.
.
Are new variants a potential problem? Yes. But until they are a problem, well.. it’s a potential problem, not an actual one. We’ll see if it’s a real problem within 2 months.
.
Honestly, people know this.
lucia,
Did you get a choice as to which vaccine?
I will, btw, wear a mask in public until everyone has a chance to be vaccinated. This is not to “protect” anyway. It’s just that it’s too hard to communicate ‘I’m vaccinated’. The claim is not quickly verifiable. Wearing a mask at the grocery store for a while is a small price to pay to make those still vulnerable comfortable.
lucia: “I will, btw, wear a mask in public until everyone has a chance to be vaccinated. This is not to “protect†anyway. It’s just that it’s too hard to communicate ‘I’m vaccinated’.”
Exactly. It’s an annoyance, but not a large price to pay to avoid concern (and possible over-the-top and dangerous) reactions from others.
Maybe those who have been vaccinated should wear a distinctive green button with a smiley face which says, “I’m safe! I’ve been vaccinated!”. (Maybe a hypo going into the smiley face…)
HaroldW,
After 10 straight hours, I find in a bit more than an annoyance.
.
I agree that it would be nice for people to say they are basically immune…. maybe a star patch on their shoulder? On second thought, maybe better to just offer vaccines to everyone at risk that will accept a vaccination, and cut the rest loose to suffer the consequences of their choices.
SteveF,
I think Illinois is opening vaccines to “everyone” on April 12. There will still be a period during which people will jockey to get the vaccine, but I suspect by May 1 nearly anyone who wants vaccine will have been able to get it. ( I’ll gauge that by when Jim can get it!)
.
Until that time, I’m happy to make people (like Jim) who can’t get the vaccine comfortable and wear a mask at dance venues which he also wants to go to. I know a few other people who can’t yet get vaccines and I’d rather they felt more comfortable. I can’t tell them all “I’ve been vaccinated” and they can’t verify even if I do.
But it’s certainly true that at some point those who don’t want the vaccine should basically be treated as assuming whatever risk they chose to assume for whatever reason. So my guess is May 1, June 1 or sometimes around then, no one is going to wear masks for anyone else’s sake any more.
Lucia,
“So my guess is May 1, June 1 or sometimes around then, no one is going to wear masks for anyone else’s sake any more.”
.
I hope you are right, but I fear it will be a lot more complicated than that. There are people, and not a few, who appear to have actually been driven mad by the pandemic. They are going to scream about any attempt to eliminate restrictions. The Biden administration will only make the return to normal mor difficult and prolonged, and destructive. I can almost guarantee schools will not return to normal in-person operation in September in many places.
lucia,
That’s exactly why I said there were time constraints without going into details. I suspect that manufacturing equipment would have to be built as well because it’s likely there is no spare capacity available. I would avoid generic biologics for similar reasons.
SteveF
Let them be as mad as Miss Havisham. At some point their screams will be ignored.
.
I also know people who are against getting the vaccine no matter what. We are going to have to let these people do what they are they are going to do.
.
More business for tutors and pods. It’s sad because the kids who will be hurt the most are those whose parents don’t have $$$ or whose parents have 0-$$ but have other priorities. With $$$ priorities will almost not matter. Those parents will spend money on tutors, pods, whatever. But with only 0-$$, they matter a lot especially on the lower end of $.
.
One reason for the push to put teachers on the top of the list for vaccines is to open schools. In some communities they are still not going to be willing. With some luck, kids will get vaccinated by fall.
Lucia,
AFAIK, none of the vaccines are approved for kids, and really, there is zero reason for anyone to bother gaining approval…. kids rarely get very sick, even if infected. If the teachers are going to insist on kids getting vaccinated, then it will be multiple school years lost. It is all madness.
I sit on a plane at this moment next to a nurse (actually a nurse manager) from California. She is going to West Palm Beach to visit her elderly (79) father who has refused to get the vaccine, even though he has been eligible since December. He is a big-time dancer who goes to dance clubs multiple times per week.
.
He contracted covid, and now is hospitalized…. in serious enough condition that the family has been called to attend. I explained to her that in Florida there are relatively few restrictions…. no masks in the open air, no restaurant restrictions, etc. She was H.O.R.R.I.F.I.E.D! I don’t think she is going to like her visit to Florida.
There’s a good possibility that the Twitter shame mobs may have a whiplash change in mentality once vaccines become readily available. They will focus their ire on the voluntarily unvaccinated. The fact that Republicans may be a group that are most hesitant will have nothing to do with this /sarc.
.
So the media narrative might just change. I think easy vaccine access will change things nearly overnight. People will readily ignore ultra-conservative health lectures and the politicians will lift restrictions because they don’t want to appear weak when there will be open disobedience.
I saw some statistics that show kids below 14 are already safer than the vaccinated. These kids are basically over 99% safe from severe illness and death due to their age. Of course they can probably spread it more easily but the point is that it isn’t necessary to vaccinate the kids to lift restrictions if the adults are vaccinated.
.
I haven’t even gotten my first shot and am sick to death of this pandemic, you can feel the tension in the populace that people are chomping at the bit to move on. We probably have some boosters or updated shots in our future, but this thing needs to end one way of the other.
Tom,
I agree shame mobs will focus their ire on the unvaccinated. Yes, everyone is chomping at the bit to move on.
Side effects: My “fever” persists at 98 F. This is higher than my normal 97.4- 97.6. I have slight pain in the injection site. My theory about the “fever” is my immune system is kicking in.
.
I was a little to ebullient last night and drank more wine that I ought to (three glasses.) I have a slight headache. This is supposed to be a somewhat common side effect. However, my diagnosis is the vaccine does not prevent slight headaches. (I have taken aspirin and am drinking coffee. Oh gosh. Maybe I shouldn’t have taken aspirin? )
.
The adenovirus already injected it’s genetic payload into your cells. Aspirin won’t likely make much difference now.
lucia: “Oh gosh. Maybe I shouldn’t have taken aspirin? ”
From the CDC
So, aspirin is OK.
[Side note: it’s bizarre that they suggest “talk to your doctor”. I can’t imagine talking to my doctor every time I’m considering taking aspirin/Tylenol/ibuprofen/Aleve for an ache. The second sentence — “you can take these medications…” is quite sufficient. Another bit of advice to be ignored.]
WSJ: Covid-19 Vaccine Manufacturing in U.S. Races Ahead
Vaccine makers are expected to produce 132 million doses this month, nearly tripling last month’s figure, boosting vaccination drive
https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-19-vaccine-manufacturing-in-u-s-races-ahead-11616328001
.
“(48 million in February) The increased output should be enough to * fully * vaccinate 76 million people in the U.S. in March, another 75 million in April and then 89 million more in May, according to estimates from Evercore ISI analysts. The Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines require two doses.”
.
The private sector solving the pandemic with inventing and vast production of vaccines. The public sector: Wear two masks, we don’t really know how transmission works yet, and you can protest with our blessing if we like your cause. Medical sector: Still no effective treatment, the other way out of this pandemic, a bit disappointing.
.
That comparison is a bit unfair of course, but not too far off. The basic R&D to get to mRNA was likely funded by the government (I don’t know the actual story here) and the government funded much of the effort to get the vaccines so the companies didn’t need to take financial risks. Contrast this to why very few new antibiotics are in development, the companies have to spend a billion dollars on a risky venture only to see the end product used only sparingly because medicine doesn’t want resistance to build up against the new product.
.
Big pharma is the real hero here, and they should be treated like one. I have little doubt the elite media will try to rewrite this history for a more favored narrative.
HaroldW,
Articles routinely says “talk to your doctor” about everything even remotely related to health. Considering a diet? Talk to your doctor. Planning to start a moderate exercise program? Talk to your doctor. No one could possibly talk to their diet about anything and everything and no sane person does.
.
On the aspirin after taking it I googled and saw “don’t take aspirin” for chicken pox vaccine. So thought it might have been more prudent not to. But it was too late anyway. (The chickenpox is a specific problem. So my taking probably doesn’t matter.)
.
Tom,
The hero’s have been in this pandemic have been:
* Big pharma.
* Retail workers (especially public facing grocery.)
* Some physicians especially early on when things were looking very bad and very little was known.
* Whoever that was who brought us project warp speed. (Even if assholes.)
The rewrite already in progress about evil big pharma. They even have a new phrase for it, the “vaccine gap”.
.
NYT: Rich Countries Signed Away a Chance to Vaccinate the World
Despite warnings, American and European officials gave up leverage that could have guaranteed access for billions of people. That risks prolonging the pandemic.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/21/world/vaccine-patents-us-eu.html
“A growing chorus of health officials and advocacy groups worldwide are calling for Western governments to use aggressive powers — most of them rarely or never used before — to force companies to publish vaccine recipes, share their know-how and ramp up manufacturing.”
.
The evildoers won’t give up their patents and know how and are artificially suppressing production. The developing world is made to suffer at the hands of the evil rich capitalists. My naïve view is the developing world should be saying “thank you” for the free development and funding for vaccines to be given to their people.
.
Are we to believe the developing world would just instantly build massive complex vaccine factories in Ghana if they only had a blueprint? Where would all that money and expertise come from? The incentives are already in place for companies to make as many as they can as soon as they can. If the WHO was in charge of all vaccine production it would be an utter disaster.
.
Vaccine access is a zero sum game for now. As usual all the performative virtue signalers out there can give up their own and their family’s doses so others less fortunate may have them. This is just as likely as them giving up their kid’s seats at Harvard.
Yes, I would be remiss to not state that frontline healthcare workers are actual heroes who risked their own actual lives daily and did remarkably little complaining along the way. True professionals and worthy of all the praise they receive.
Yes, they did. The severe disease looks awful. No one knew what to do. Nurses, doctors and so on had to find it so demoralizing and scary.
lucia,
ER doctors and nurses in NY and NJ especially must really have to be able to compartmentalize or something to be able to deal with the knowledge that some of the things they were doing early on were probably detrimental, like overuse of ventilators at too high pressure. OTOH, they could be like Cuomo and just be in denial.
DeWitt,
Cuomo is not in denial…. he is just effectively a stinking, lying sack of dog excrement. He knows he is lying. We know he is lying. He knows that he killed thousands with foolish policies. We know he killed thousands with stupid policies. He knows he has been inappropriately hitting on his administrations underlings… if they happen to be young and attractive. We know he has been hitting on his administration’s underlings if they happen to be young and attractive.
.
The only question is if the people of NY will have the sense to get rid of him ASAP. I am guessing they will not. There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.
SteveF,
The problem with getting rid of Cuomo is who replaces him. The drive to get rid of him is actually being led by the progressives. Cuomo is too conservative for them. They want someone more like de Blasio. Well, maybe smarter than de Blasio, but definitely more progressive. Sadly, compared to de Blasio style progressives, Cuomo is the voice of reason.
Cuomo’s potential replacement is a problem for NY, not anyone else. Here in FL we hope the progressives take charge and chase all the rich people straight out of NY. At least CA has some real amenities to keep people there regardless of their crazy politics, NY not so much.
.
Cuomo is waiting out all the drive by cancelers on the left who only seem to care about unproven MeToo accusations. I think he will win the battle as they have such a short attention span. It is telling how little they focus on an outright blatant coverup of covid deaths for political purposes. Such a strange world politics is.
Tom Scharf,
I suspect the only thing that gets Cuomo out is a criminal prosecution by the Justice department for blatant deception on nursing home deaths…. wait, Biden was elected….. never mind, Cuomo will get away with it. He should be in prison, but he will get away with it all.
Tom Scharf,
“At least CA has some real amenities to keep people there regardless of their crazy politics, NY not so much.”
.
You are much too kind. Crappy climate 6 months a year, astronomical taxes, corrupt politicians, and stupid, destructive lefty policies. I really can’t imagine why anyone with other options (personal, financial) would opt to stay a resident of NY. Even someone as dumb as OMB got out.
DeWitt,
Thank goodness for term limits. DeBlasio will soon be out of office, and he is unelectable anywhere but the nutty world of NYC; he is after all essentially a communist. He will become a ‘contributor’ to nutty cable channels like MSNBC, where his insane left wing views will seem main stream.
Steyn separated from National Review, and withdrew from the motion to dismiss. This was because he was upset that for a case brought in 2012, the lawyers in 2014 were discussing fees for 2015, and he thought it best to just go to trial.
The case dragged on, and only has gotten some resolution because of a change in the judge. I suspect the media briefs on behalf of NR put the appeals court judges in a bind, and that they got help from someone on Mann’s side. After a long delay, they issued an opinion that was just a repeat of the previous with a few changes. The extra footnotes had some errors that it looked like at the time they could use to rule in favor of Mann, which they eventually did after another long delay.
Mark Steyn’s deposition in the case with Mann’s lawyers.
He loves mentioning his book calling Mann, A Disgrace to the Profession.
At one point, he mentions he finds reading 30 page online PDFs difficult so would just print them out. This is about page 20 of the much longer PDF.
https://www.steynonline.com/documents/11106.pdf
Mann’s whole lawsuit has been part of the campaign to misuse the legal system — particularly tort law — to harass and impose costs on dissenters and anyone that points out inconvenient truths. It’s just an extension of how Mann and company misused the publication process to try to silence critics.
Steyn got an e-mail in discovery, from Mann to Phil Jones, I think
thanks Phil.
there is a possibility that I can ruin National Review over this.
Going to talk w/ some big time libel lawyers to see if there is the potential for a major lawsuit here that will bring this filthy organization down for good.
mike
I thought Mark Steyn was mixing people up when he talked about Wahl deleting e-mails, then I realized the court reporter actually has the transcription wrong with ‘Jude Wahl and Casper Ahmed’.
Things I’ve learned in the deposition:
Wellesley is named for the Duke of Wellington.
One does not graduate from high school in the UK or get a diploma.
MikeN Do you have a link to Mann’s deposition. They should have taken it by now.
JDOhio,
The link to the deposition is on Steyn’s blog that MikeN linked to above….. it is hundreds of pages ling and way beyond tedious. Mann’s lawyer keeps asking Steyn if he read all the reports “exonerating” Mann in ‘climategate’. Steyn keeps replying that he read some but not all, and that the reports have nothing to do with why he thought the hocky-stick graph was fraudulent. Really, not worth the time to read except for it’s slight humor value. Steyn keeps referencing his book “A disgrace to the profession” and constantly says Mann is dishonest.
Not exactly…Steyn separated from the ongoing appeals from the initial motions to dismiss (specfically, from the motion to reconsider the initial appeal en banc)…he never waived or dropped the motion itself.
The case is now at the summary judgment stage…Steyn filed his in late January, and linked to it at his site. I believe the opinion in the NR summary judgment was written by the third judge, who just left; and we are waiting to see what the fourth judge does with Steyn’s summary judgment motion.
(Steyn’s grounds are of course far different from NR’s — they’re all about actual malice and free speech.)
P.S. – I actually enjoyed the Steyn deposition, but I can see how it wouldn’t be everyone’s cup of tea. Mostly I was admiring his technique, for saying what he thought, not looking evasive, and still not giving the opposition anything that could be twisted to look like “malice.”
JosephW, I can’t keep track of all the judges and motions, but if there was an appeal of the motion to dismiss, then that would mean he lost the original motion to dismiss, so the result of withdrawing would be to go to trial. That’s why there is a deposition of Steyn, but not NR or CEI or Simberg.
JD, I haven’t kept track, but at one point a judge ruled there can be a deposition of Steyn by Mann, but not a deposition of Mann by Steyn. There was some discovery.
This is not a current deposition, but from some time last year. He is providing Mann ammunition in the National Review motion to dismiss, calling them out as liars in their legal briefs.
I was pleasantly surprised to see it ended at page 200, with the last 50 pages being an index of words in the deposition.
Yes, he lost the original motion. There was an appeal, which Steyn lost; and a motion to reconsider the appeal en banc, which Steyn did not join, and which the other defendants ultimately lost.
But the result is not necessarily a trial. After these appeals came years of discovery (the deposition you read being part of this discovery). After discovery come motions for summary judgment. That’s where the case is now. NR won their summary judgment motion; Steyn filed his but it has not been ruled on yet.
If he loses that, then the result is (almost certainly) a trial.
I suppose I can’t find it in me to blame you, if you aren’t riveted to your screen for every minute of this excitement…
I thought I was riveted to my screen watching this, but then I found out they went to the Supreme Court and lost when I thought we were still waiting on the appeals court after their footnotes update.
SteveF (Comment #200539) I skimmed through Steyn’s depo a little. No big surprises there. I consider Mann to be a major league blowhard and was hoping to see his deposition. Don’t know if they have taken it yet, or whether it is under wraps temporarily.
Sort of…they went to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court refused to take the appeal. (That is, they denied certiorari.). Too much adrenaline will make you miss these details.
Motion for summary judgment by Steyn:
https://www.steynonline.com/documents/10973.pdf
List of ‘Undisputed facts’:
https://www.steynonline.com/documents/10974.pdf
MikeN,
Even in the very unlikely event the court issues a summary judgement for Steyn (remember, this is Washington DC, not Bismark ND), it is certain Mann would appeal and the case would go on….. probably for years. The process is the principle punishment, and that is exactly what Mann set out to do with this case: punish people who are widely heard and who disagree with him politically. Of course, should Mann ever get the case in front of a DC jury, then Steyn will certainly lose…. DC is full of people who loath conservatives of any stripe, and Steyn is no exception.
And if that happens, then it goes to the Supreme Court for real. (After stopping off in the D.C. Court of Appeals again first.)
FWIW, I came across Steyn’s deposition thanks to the link on this page, and I wasn’t as impressed by it as others seem to be. During the deposition, Steyn seems to demonstrate he doesn’t have much grasp of the facts surrounding Michael Mann’s work, to the point he justifies claiming Mann’s work was fraudulent based on things that have nothing at all to do with Mann’s work.
I’m not sure what impact that will have on the overall lawsuit, but after this deposition I think Mann’s lawyers have at least some ammunition to suggest Steyn has never even looked at the hockey stick he calls fraudulent. That could go some distance toward showing he had a reckless disregard for the truth of the accusations he made.
I didn’t feel like typing, and I need to start practicing public speaking again so I made a small video discussing one of the more glaring examples in the deposition. In case anyone is interested:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7R02pUzJ5fs
Well then perhaps Steyn will just say at the trial that he relied on the work of Brandon Shollenberger who said Michael Mann is a fraud.
Granted you said this after the case started, but he can still claim that was the impression he got.
MIkeN, that would be a lie. And that’s the problem here. For Mark Steyn to lose his case, Michael Mann’s lawyers would basically have to convince a jury Steyn lied. To win a defamation lawsuit as a public figure, the standard of behavior required is either the person knew what they said was false or acted with reckless disregard to that possibility.
If the jury believes Steyn genuinely believed the things he said, he wins the case (if the jury follows the law, at least). That means Mann’s lawyers would love to paint Steyn as being dishonest. One way they can try to do that is to point out things he says and argue nobody could have actually believed them. That’s what’s on display here. Steyn could not possibly have looked at Mann’s hockey stick and believed the things highlighted in this video.
The same thing is on display in Steyn’s book which he liked to refer to so much. It is filled with tons of errors, misrepresentations and even blatant misquotations. Imagine you knew nothing about the topic and someone presented 50+ cases of Steyn saying things that were obviously untrue. Would you feel confident saying he actually believed the things he said? I wouldn’t. Unless the defense’s argument was just, “Mark Steyn is a blathering idiot, but he’s an honest one,” I’d conclude he was dishonest.
Mann’s hockey stick was fraudulent. I think everyone should acknowledge that. I think any competent defense of Steyn would be able to argue it doesn’t matter what Steyn did or did not believe because what he said was true and truth is an absolute defense. The problem is Steyn’s testimony and his filings contain so many errors Mann could win on the facts. It doesn’t matter if Mann really did commit fraud if Steyn and his attorney can’t make a good case showing that.
And even worse, if Steyn loses because of putting on an incompetent defense, that will largely be viewed as vindicating Mann. Even if Steyn wins for legal reasons, if the factual arguments he makes are shown to be the nonsense they have been thus far, Mann will be viewed by many as being vindicated.
Bad arguments drown out good arguments. Anyone who dislikes what Mann has done should speak out about Steyn’s errors because right now all Steyn is doing is helping Mann look good.
Yes, there appear to be many errors in Steyn’s deposition and lawsuit. However, I was surprised by your video.
Besides your voice being nowhere near what I was expecting, I was surprised by the choice of topic.
It’s not as clear cut an example of incorrectness, as you were able to give a partial explanation with the WMO chart.
If anything your video would lead Steyn & his legal team to ignore your complaints. I suspect Steyn has viewed it.
MikeN, if you think pointing to a chart where someone misrepresents Michael Mann’s work in any way justifies Mark Steyn saying Mann’s work is fraudulent, I don’t know what to tell you. No court would take that idea seriously. That’s like saying it’s justified to accuse Mann of murder because you know somebody stole his gun and shot a person. It doesn’t make the slightest bit of sense.
If Steyn has viewed the video and continues making such an idiotic argument, then he will prove himself to be a liar. The argument is not rational or honest. If someone like Mann had made it, you and Steyn would both ridicule them.
Now pardon me while I go write an article misquoting Steyn so Mann can sue him over the fake quotations I create.
Brandon, I’m pretty sure you know more about the WMO chart. If memory serves, you have the full RC archive so you certainly should.
I noticed a number of errors while reading the deposition, but this one didn’t really bother me. It is like when I pointed out that an error Mosher and Fuller made in their book(possibly the same issue), and Steve McIntyre responded it needed some clarification.
Brandon
I think “reckless disregard” is a term of art. They need to show Steyn suspected what he thought was false. Period.
Maybe he never looked at it. That wouldn’t be “reckless disregard”. Your argument is then done.
.
Moreover, you might think no one could have looked at the stick and believed something or other. But I think you have to make that case to a jury. People can believe an awful lot of things. So your argument falls apart again.
Bradon
Many?
Notwithstanding the verdict either way:
* Those who fully support Mann will continue to view Mann as right (in some sense.)
* Those who fully sort Steyn will continue to view Steyn as right (in some sense.)
* Those who are swayed by the verdict will be swayed in the direction of the winner.
* Very, very few people are paying attention to the details of the pleadings. The whole thing is just way too drawn out and complicated.
MikeN:
I don’t know what this “RC archive” you refer to is, but I do know quite a bit about the WMO chart. I even know of one point which could be used to criticize Michael Mann regarding it. But it’s not anything Steyn said. In fact, I’m certain Steyn has no clue about it. (Mann was sent an e-mail asking to look at the chart, and he said it seemed okay. It was not any thorough review, but the fact he signed off on it means he’s not completely innocent on the issue.)
<blockquoteIt is like when I pointed out that an error Mosher and Fuller made in their book(possibly the same issue), and Steve McIntyre responded it needed some clarification.
That book was chock full of errors, including a number of errors Steven Mosher insulted people for making in later discussions despite having made the same ones in his own book. The fact nobody called out the errors at the time despite promoting the book is a pretty disgraceful.
But that’s been a consistent problem. So much misinformation about the hockey stick debate has spread because critics of Michael Mann just don’t seem to care what’s true or not. The ones who know better don’t correct the many errors they see, and the rest don’t care to put in the work to learn better.
Personally, I think things would be a lot better if people did.
Ack. Screwed up a blockquote tag and can’t edit my comment. Sorry about that.
lucia:
Indeed. That’s why the argument I suggested was to say he couldn’t have actually believed what he said. If he couldn’t have believed what he said then he likely suspected or knew it wasn’t true. And despite your claim the “argument is then done” because Steyn could claim ignorance, in his deposition he testified he read the papers in question and followed the topic closely. By his own testimony, he cannot make that argument without committing perjury.
Things like this is why I didn’t say the argument is guaranteed to win. I said Steyn provided an argument that could be used against Steyn. Pointing out Steyn could argue against it doesn’t change that having access to the argument helps Mann more than not having access to it would. If Steyn’s factual comments had been largely accurate instead of ranging from inaccurate to bewilderingly wrong, Mann’s case against him would be weaker.
Yes. Some number of them would likely have continued to support Mann regardless, but even their views and discussions of of him would likely be impacted. And there are many people who don’t really care much about Mann so will likely only pay attention to the headlines. I was talking to a climate scientist just yesterday. He didn’t support Mann and openly said he didn’t like John Cook, but he also had no idea to what extent criticisms of the two ran.
For instance, he genuinely thought people’s criticism of Mann’s hockey stick was about how Mann displayed his data, like Steyn says. That’s a false narrative Mann has been spinning for years, and it’s worked. The outcome of this case could easily impact the way people like him view Mann. His remark to me was, “A lawsuit seems unnecessary, but I get why someone would be upset over lies about their work.”
To a person like him, there could be a big difference between hearing, “Mann’s lawsuit dismissed because opinions are protected speech” and something like, “Mann’s lawsuit dismissed after judge finds sufficient evidence to justify saying his work was fraudulent.”
Brandon,
I agree Steyn did provide an argument that can be used against Steyn. I just don’t think it’s a slam dunk for Stein’s state of mind. We’ll see.
.
As far as I can tell, you are supporting your choice of “many” based on a sample of 1 guy from a very small subset of people (that is a climate scientist)
>I don’t know what this “RC archive†you refer to is,
Have I forgotten the primary name? The UEA e-mails, ClimateGate 1,2,…
lucia:
I agree. In fact, I’d go further and say the argument should ultimately be irrelevant to the court case as a good defense could easily deal with (or even bypass) it. The concern I have is Steyn’s attempts thus far at defending against the lawsuit have been… less than impressive. If the handling of his defense continues to be as bungled as it has been thus far, I worry things like giving Mann’s lawyers arguments like this could wind up losing Steyn the case.
Nope. I think what I said is trivially true and something we should all agree about without needing any sampling. I think we all agree some people would continue to support Mann regardless of the outcome of this case. If Mann lost the case, I think we can agree many of those people would look for reasons to spin the outcome in their favor. With that in mind, suppose the judge dismissed the case saying something like, “While Steyn has made many factual errors, it’s clear he genuinely believed what he said therefore it is impossible to prove he acted with actual malice.”
I think it’s unremarkable to expect that would be spun/viewed by such people as vindicating Mann, such as by saying, “Yes Mann lost his case, but the judge agreed that Steyn was wrong.” Concluding many people might take a view like that seems unremarkable to me.
In addition to that though, I would go further and say I expect such a narrative would have some impact on the views of more casual observers as I’ve seen narratives catch on and be accepted by casual observers quite a few times regardless of whether they were true or not. Heck, just look at how Steyn has fallen for the false narrative Mann created regarding the issue I discussed in this video. If Mann’s false narratives like that have fooled even his critics, I expect a truthful narrative regarding the outcome of his lawsuit (supposing this particular outcome) would also be fairly successful.
MikeN:
It’s been called a number of things, but the e-mails came from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Angalia. Plenty of e-mails from RealClimate authors got caught up in it, but overall they’re pretty distinct. There was a lot of communication between RealClimate authors that didn’t wind up in it, and there was a ton of communication not involving RealClimate at all that was included.
That said, I do have the entire archive. I’ve even read (or at least skimmed) every e-mail in it. It was really boring. I was actually going to post them all online for anyone to read at some point, but after going through them myself I’m not sure there’d be any value.
Brandon,
I think what your worded seemed to convey is trivially false. But I guess that depends on what point you are trying to make.
Some who support Mann will continue regardless of outcome. So they won’t be swayed. Equally some who support Stein will continue to support Stein.
Well, sure. If all you mean is those who will support Mann regardless of outcome will continue to support him, yes. Of course they will in the event of this particular outcome. But they wouldn’t change their minds with other outcomes either. So if this is the “many” you mean, yes: they won’t change their minds if the verdict goes to Stein, but they won’t no matter what the reason.
.
Yes. They’ll say it “vindicates” Mann, when that verdict wouldn’t be vindication. It’s just nothing vis-a-vis vindication. But they’d think he’s right either way and still pick something to say that “vindicates” Mann. So if your point is their opinions will be affected by the ruling, I disagree. If your point is their rhetoric will, sure.
Bradon
I doubt there are many casual observed left. Those who are casual are no longer observing. It’s dragged on too long.
lucia:
In fact, I was originally not talking about support at all. I was talking about perception and narrative. A person could continue to support Mann without perceiving the outcome of his lawsuit as a vindication of him. A person could continue to defend Mann without telling people the lawsuit vindicated him. My expectation is if the outcome of the case involved some sort of factual ruling in Steyn’s favor, Mann’s supporters would mostly refrain from thinking about or discussing the case, but if the case involved some sort of factual ruling in Mann’s favor, they would think about and discuss it a fair bit. That is what I was discussing.
One might believe the narratives created by Mann’s supporters won’t influence the level of support Mann receives in the future. My impression, however, is narratives such as those have worked in many cases before (both with Mann and in more general matters) as such rhetoric does seem to work at swaying some amount of opinion. Even if they don’t sway the broad opinion of favor/disfavor, they certainly seem to impact levels of enthusiasm and interest.
Mann is a glory hound who loves publicity. If nothing else, I would be happy to see him deprived of the attention and praise he’d get from a narrative of him being “vindicated” by this lawsuit.