Michael Mann's Brief Lays Out Details On Nat. Review Case; Accusation Of Dishonesty Is Defamation
In a brief filed today in the DC Court of Appeals as part of his defamation lawsuit against the National Review and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Dr. Michael Mann once again argued his case and requested that the Court proceed to adjudicate the merits of Defendants' appeal of the trial court's denial of their motion to dismiss. The stated intention of Dr. Mann's request is to expedite moving to trial on a case that has been long-delayed in procedural tangles.
In January 2014 District of Columbia Superior Court Judge Weisberg found that Dr. Mann's lawsuit should not be dismissed pursuant to the District Of Columbia's Anti-SLAPP statute. Accusing a scientist of conducting his research fraudulently is a factual allegation that can be proven true or false, not mere hyperbolic opinionating. If it is false it is defamatory, and if it is made with actual malice it is actionable. So said Judge Weisberg in tossing out motions by defendants National Review et al. to dismiss Prof. Michael Mann's defamation complaint. This should have moved the case toward discovery proceedings and a jury trial. Then, on January 24, 2014, Defendants appealed Judge Weisberg's denial of their motion to dismiss. That further delayed movement toward discovery and trial.
Since then, briefs have been filed with the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, on the matter of the Defendants' appeal, and in particular on the Court's jurisdiction with regard to the appeal. Today, Dr. Mann's lawyers filed a 64-page brief with the Court, which says, on the question of jurisdiction:
For the reasons articulated in Dr. Mann's April 25, 2014 Opposition to Appellants' Response to the Court's Order to Show Cause, an appeal of the denial of a motion to dismiss under the Act does not meet the stringent requirements of the collateral order doctrine, and also substantially delays the progression of meritorious lawsuits such as Dr. Mann. However, in light of the fact that Dr. Mann's lawsuit has been effectively stayed for almost two years, and the fact that this Court has sought briefing on the merits of Defendants' motions to dismiss[,] at this juncture Dr. Mann no longer opposes Defendants' arguments that this Court has jurisdiction. Dr. Mann respectfully requests that this Court proceed to the merits of Defendants' appeal so that his lawsuit can move forward to trial.
EDIT
http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2014/09/03/michael-mann-dc-appeals-court-brief-sept3-2014/
= new reply since forum marked as read
I suspect you will find that the ACLU defends the National Review's additional
*opinion-based* comments (e.g., smearing Mann as a pedophile) rather than
the factually invalid & illegal accusation of professional fraud.
(ETA: If, however, you are correct in your claim that the ACLU is actively
defending the fraud accusation despite having zero evidence to support it,
it sounds like the ACLU has been infiltrated by right-wing zombies.)
