Damning Ruling Posted in the Mann-v-Ball ‘Trial of the Century’

Sunsettommy

Platinum Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
5,673
Reaction score
3,051
Points
1,050
Dr. Mann got the legal beat down he deserved, by the release of the official final judgement, his appeal will be dead on arrival, if the fool goes through with it. It was Dr. Mann who killed his own case in the first place, with his incessant foot dragging over the years.

From PSI

Damning Ruling Posted in the Mann-v-Ball ‘Trial of the Century’

Published on September 19, 2019

Written by John O'Sullivan

EXCERPT:

The Supreme Court of British Columbia has released the damning official final Judgment in the Mann-v-Ball ‘science trial of the century.’

Honourable Mr Justice Giaschi ruled that Mann’s multi-million-dollar, eight-year libel suit is “dismissed with prejudice” due to Mann’s “inexcusable delay.” (see: Para. 13).

The key points from the ruling are cited below:

Honourable Mr Justice Giaschi ruled:

LINK
 

flacaltenn

Diamond Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
58,490
Reaction score
13,063
Points
2,180
Location
Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
Dr. Mann got the legal beat down he deserved, by the release of the official final judgement, his appeal will be dead on arrival, if the fool goes through with it. It was Dr. Mann who killed his own case in the first place, with his incessant foot dragging over the years.

From PSI

Damning Ruling Posted in the Mann-v-Ball ‘Trial of the Century’

Published on September 19, 2019

Written by John O'Sullivan

EXCERPT:

The Supreme Court of British Columbia has released the damning official final Judgment in the Mann-v-Ball ‘science trial of the century.’

Honourable Mr Justice Giaschi ruled that Mann’s multi-million-dollar, eight-year libel suit is “dismissed with prejudice” due to Mann’s “inexcusable delay.” (see: Para. 13).

The key points from the ruling are cited below:

Honourable Mr Justice Giaschi ruled:

LINK
Guess he just didn't count on the plaintiff asking him to produce his data and methodology.... Imagine that... LOL....
 
OP
Sunsettommy

Sunsettommy

Platinum Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
5,673
Reaction score
3,051
Points
1,050
Dr. Mann got the legal beat down he deserved, by the release of the official final judgement, his appeal will be dead on arrival, if the fool goes through with it. It was Dr. Mann who killed his own case in the first place, with his incessant foot dragging over the years.

From PSI

Damning Ruling Posted in the Mann-v-Ball ‘Trial of the Century’

Published on September 19, 2019

Written by John O'Sullivan

EXCERPT:

The Supreme Court of British Columbia has released the damning official final Judgment in the Mann-v-Ball ‘science trial of the century.’

Honourable Mr Justice Giaschi ruled that Mann’s multi-million-dollar, eight-year libel suit is “dismissed with prejudice” due to Mann’s “inexcusable delay.” (see: Para. 13).

The key points from the ruling are cited below:

Honourable Mr Justice Giaschi ruled:

LINK
Guess he just didn't count on the plaintiff asking him to produce his data and methodology.... Imagine that... LOL....
The Judge didn't consider that important to the Dismissal order request by the Defendant of 21 March, 2019. Here is the actual decision from the Supreme Court of British Columbia, the decision is an easy read for most people who can think beyond 2+2=4 level:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

Citation:

Mann v. Ball,

LINK
 

flacaltenn

Diamond Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
58,490
Reaction score
13,063
Points
2,180
Location
Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
Dr. Mann got the legal beat down he deserved, by the release of the official final judgement, his appeal will be dead on arrival, if the fool goes through with it. It was Dr. Mann who killed his own case in the first place, with his incessant foot dragging over the years.

From PSI

Damning Ruling Posted in the Mann-v-Ball ‘Trial of the Century’

Published on September 19, 2019

Written by John O'Sullivan

EXCERPT:

The Supreme Court of British Columbia has released the damning official final Judgment in the Mann-v-Ball ‘science trial of the century.’

Honourable Mr Justice Giaschi ruled that Mann’s multi-million-dollar, eight-year libel suit is “dismissed with prejudice” due to Mann’s “inexcusable delay.” (see: Para. 13).

The key points from the ruling are cited below:

Honourable Mr Justice Giaschi ruled:

LINK
Guess he just didn't count on the plaintiff asking him to produce his data and methodology.... Imagine that... LOL....
The Judge didn't consider that important to the Dismissal order request by the Defendant of 21 March, 2019. Here is the actual decision from the Supreme Court of British Columbia, the decision is an easy read for most people who can think beyond 2+2=4 level:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

Citation:

Mann v. Ball,

LINK
Yeah -- but ---

The reason for the delay could be beyond the judge's description in that link.. I THOUGHT the defendant had asked for materials from Mann.. I remember hearing that... Materials were never specified, but I ASSUME it had to do with Mann's papers and research... That would explain why the prosecution was "just too busy" to move forward..

I'll see if I can dig that up...
 

westwall

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
65,250
Reaction score
17,145
Points
2,180
Location
Nevada
Dr. Mann got the legal beat down he deserved, by the release of the official final judgement, his appeal will be dead on arrival, if the fool goes through with it. It was Dr. Mann who killed his own case in the first place, with his incessant foot dragging over the years.

From PSI

Damning Ruling Posted in the Mann-v-Ball ‘Trial of the Century’

Published on September 19, 2019

Written by John O'Sullivan

EXCERPT:

The Supreme Court of British Columbia has released the damning official final Judgment in the Mann-v-Ball ‘science trial of the century.’

Honourable Mr Justice Giaschi ruled that Mann’s multi-million-dollar, eight-year libel suit is “dismissed with prejudice” due to Mann’s “inexcusable delay.” (see: Para. 13).

The key points from the ruling are cited below:

Honourable Mr Justice Giaschi ruled:

LINK
Guess he just didn't count on the plaintiff asking him to produce his data and methodology.... Imagine that... LOL....




That's because mann is a moron.
 

flacaltenn

Diamond Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
58,490
Reaction score
13,063
Points
2,180
Location
Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
Here ya go.. The reason for the unexplained delay....

Michael Mann Refuses to Produce Data, Loses Case

What happened was that Dr. Ball asserted a truth defense. He argued that the hockey stick was a deliberate fraud, something that could be proved if one had access to the data and calculations, in particular the R2 regression analysis, underlying it. Mann refused to produce these documents. He was ordered to produce them by the court and given a deadline. He still refused to produce them, so the court dismissed his case.

The rules of discovery provide that a litigant must make available to opposing parties documents that reasonably bear on the issues in the case. Here, it is absurd for Mann to sue Ball for libel, and then refuse to produce the documents that would have helped to show whether Ball’s statement about him–he belongs in the state pen–was true or false. The logical inference is that the R2 regression analysis and other materials, if produced, would have supported Ball’s claim that the hockey stick was a deliberate fraud on Mann’s part.

Need a confirming source on that because the link quotes Principia Scientific, which I don't fully trust.. But I saw this from MANY outlets back when the case was fresh....

This is why I always take terms like "one of the leading scientists" from the press with a whole shaker of salt.. USUALLY, these are just ones that make the most noise and run to the cameras for attention...
 

flacaltenn

Diamond Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
58,490
Reaction score
13,063
Points
2,180
Location
Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
Dr. Mann got the legal beat down he deserved, by the release of the official final judgement, his appeal will be dead on arrival, if the fool goes through with it. It was Dr. Mann who killed his own case in the first place, with his incessant foot dragging over the years.

From PSI

Damning Ruling Posted in the Mann-v-Ball ‘Trial of the Century’

Published on September 19, 2019

Written by John O'Sullivan

EXCERPT:

The Supreme Court of British Columbia has released the damning official final Judgment in the Mann-v-Ball ‘science trial of the century.’

Honourable Mr Justice Giaschi ruled that Mann’s multi-million-dollar, eight-year libel suit is “dismissed with prejudice” due to Mann’s “inexcusable delay.” (see: Para. 13).

The key points from the ruling are cited below:

Honourable Mr Justice Giaschi ruled:

LINK
Guess he just didn't count on the plaintiff asking him to produce his data and methodology.... Imagine that... LOL....




That's because mann is a moron.
He's just the DJTrump of the Climate Science Clan... :113: Always the "go-to" guy to get what the press and politicos want to hear.. And doesn't have to PAY for any of his publicity....
 

westwall

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
65,250
Reaction score
17,145
Points
2,180
Location
Nevada
I hope the good doctor is able to pursue the civil RICO case against mann. That would be DELICIOUS
 

westwall

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
65,250
Reaction score
17,145
Points
2,180
Location
Nevada
Here ya go.. The reason for the unexplained delay....

Michael Mann Refuses to Produce Data, Loses Case

What happened was that Dr. Ball asserted a truth defense. He argued that the hockey stick was a deliberate fraud, something that could be proved if one had access to the data and calculations, in particular the R2 regression analysis, underlying it. Mann refused to produce these documents. He was ordered to produce them by the court and given a deadline. He still refused to produce them, so the court dismissed his case.

The rules of discovery provide that a litigant must make available to opposing parties documents that reasonably bear on the issues in the case. Here, it is absurd for Mann to sue Ball for libel, and then refuse to produce the documents that would have helped to show whether Ball’s statement about him–he belongs in the state pen–was true or false. The logical inference is that the R2 regression analysis and other materials, if produced, would have supported Ball’s claim that the hockey stick was a deliberate fraud on Mann’s part.

Need a confirming source on that because the link quotes Principia Scientific, which I don't fully trust.. But I saw this from MANY outlets back when the case was fresh....

This is why I always take terms like "one of the leading scientists" from the press with a whole shaker of salt.. USUALLY, these are just ones that make the most noise and run to the cameras for attention...



Yup. It takes a true idiot to file a case knowing that you have to put up or shut up....and shutting up equals losing.
 

Billy_Bob

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Messages
22,624
Reaction score
7,062
Points
1,080
Location
Top Of The Great Divide
Here ya go.. The reason for the unexplained delay....

Michael Mann Refuses to Produce Data, Loses Case

What happened was that Dr. Ball asserted a truth defense. He argued that the hockey stick was a deliberate fraud, something that could be proved if one had access to the data and calculations, in particular the R2 regression analysis, underlying it. Mann refused to produce these documents. He was ordered to produce them by the court and given a deadline. He still refused to produce them, so the court dismissed his case.

The rules of discovery provide that a litigant must make available to opposing parties documents that reasonably bear on the issues in the case. Here, it is absurd for Mann to sue Ball for libel, and then refuse to produce the documents that would have helped to show whether Ball’s statement about him–he belongs in the state pen–was true or false. The logical inference is that the R2 regression analysis and other materials, if produced, would have supported Ball’s claim that the hockey stick was a deliberate fraud on Mann’s part.

Need a confirming source on that because the link quotes Principia Scientific, which I don't fully trust.. But I saw this from MANY outlets back when the case was fresh....

This is why I always take terms like "one of the leading scientists" from the press with a whole shaker of salt.. USUALLY, these are just ones that make the most noise and run to the cameras for attention...



Yup. It takes a true idiot to file a case knowing that you have to put up or shut up....and shutting up equals losing.
And he is forced to pay all legal fees and court costs...
 
OP
Sunsettommy

Sunsettommy

Platinum Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
5,673
Reaction score
3,051
Points
1,050
Dr. Mann got the legal beat down he deserved, by the release of the official final judgement, his appeal will be dead on arrival, if the fool goes through with it. It was Dr. Mann who killed his own case in the first place, with his incessant foot dragging over the years.

From PSI

Damning Ruling Posted in the Mann-v-Ball ‘Trial of the Century’

Published on September 19, 2019

Written by John O'Sullivan

EXCERPT:

The Supreme Court of British Columbia has released the damning official final Judgment in the Mann-v-Ball ‘science trial of the century.’

Honourable Mr Justice Giaschi ruled that Mann’s multi-million-dollar, eight-year libel suit is “dismissed with prejudice” due to Mann’s “inexcusable delay.” (see: Para. 13).

The key points from the ruling are cited below:

Honourable Mr Justice Giaschi ruled:

LINK
Guess he just didn't count on the plaintiff asking him to produce his data and methodology.... Imagine that... LOL....
The Judge didn't consider that important to the Dismissal order request by the Defendant of 21 March, 2019. Here is the actual decision from the Supreme Court of British Columbia, the decision is an easy read for most people who can think beyond 2+2=4 level:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

Citation:

Mann v. Ball,

LINK
Yeah -- but ---

The reason for the delay could be beyond the judge's description in that link.. I THOUGHT the defendant had asked for materials from Mann.. I remember hearing that... Materials were never specified, but I ASSUME it had to do with Mann's papers and research... That would explain why the prosecution was "just too busy" to move forward..

I'll see if I can dig that up...
It is true the Defendant requested specific material from Dr.Mann, but that isn't what the Judge is basing his decision to dismiss the case on. He stated this:

[2] The defendant brings an application for an order dismissing the action for delay.
[3] The plaintiff, Dr. Mann, and the defendant, Dr. Ball, have dramatically different opinions on climate change. I do not intend to address those differences. It is sufficient that one believes climate change is man-made and the other does not. As a result of the different opinions held, the two have been in near constant conflict for many years
.
bolding mine

and,

[4] The underlying action concerns, first, a statement made by the defendant in an interview conducted on February 9, 2011. He said, “Michael Mann at Penn State should be in the state pen, not Penn State.” This statement was published on a website and is alleged to be defamatory of the plaintiff. The notice of civil claim also alleges multiple other statements published by Mr. Ball are defamatory. It is not necessary that I address the many alleged defamatory statements.
bolding mine

He has made clear that he will NOT address Climate change differences, and alleged defamatory statements. His ruling is all about DELAY, which is clearly spelled out in the link.

Recall that DR. Ball had requested DISMISSAL based on Delay by Dr. Mann

"[2] The defendant brings an application for an order dismissing the action for delay."

and,

"g) July 20, 2017, the date of the last communication received from Mr. Mann or his counsel by the defendant. No steps were taken in the matter until March 21, 2019 when the application to dismiss was filed;"

bolding mine

and,

"[16] I find that, because of the delay, it will be difficult, if not impossible, for there to be a fair trial for the defendant. This is a relatively straightforward defamation action and should have been resolved long before now. That it has not been resolved is because the plaintiff has not given it the priority that he should have. In the circumstances, justice requires that the action be dismissed and, accordingly, I do hereby dismiss the action for delay."

bolding mine


The Lawsuit was dismissed because of Dr. Mann foot dragging it out with long periods of inactivity, and his filed excuses for them are not accepted by the Judge. Go read his DECISION

Takes 10 minutes to read, it is EASY to understand.
 
Last edited:
OP
Sunsettommy

Sunsettommy

Platinum Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
5,673
Reaction score
3,051
Points
1,050
Mark Styne's case here in the US is going to love this...
Here is Mark Steyn's response:

Michael E Mann, Loser

by Mark Steyn
The War on Free Speech
September 17, 2019

LINK
 

flacaltenn

Diamond Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
58,490
Reaction score
13,063
Points
2,180
Location
Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
I hope the good doctor is able to pursue the civil RICO case against mann. That would be DELICIOUS
He'd have to raise a TON of funds to do that... Right now, he's the defendant because Mann's feelwings were injured by a troll comment...

I just don't see any preeminent scientist in their field ever being bothered by "the peanut gallery".. Must have personal esteem issues -------------------------- or be hiding stuff...
 

Ringel05

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2009
Messages
58,759
Reaction score
14,440
Points
2,180
Location
Duke City
Dr. Mann got the legal beat down he deserved, by the release of the official final judgement, his appeal will be dead on arrival, if the fool goes through with it. It was Dr. Mann who killed his own case in the first place, with his incessant foot dragging over the years.

From PSI

Damning Ruling Posted in the Mann-v-Ball ‘Trial of the Century’

Published on September 19, 2019

Written by John O'Sullivan

EXCERPT:

The Supreme Court of British Columbia has released the damning official final Judgment in the Mann-v-Ball ‘science trial of the century.’

Honourable Mr Justice Giaschi ruled that Mann’s multi-million-dollar, eight-year libel suit is “dismissed with prejudice” due to Mann’s “inexcusable delay.” (see: Para. 13).

The key points from the ruling are cited below:

Honourable Mr Justice Giaschi ruled:

LINK
Trial of the century? How come I've never heard of it? :dunno:
 

flacaltenn

Diamond Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
58,490
Reaction score
13,063
Points
2,180
Location
Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
Dr. Mann got the legal beat down he deserved, by the release of the official final judgement, his appeal will be dead on arrival, if the fool goes through with it. It was Dr. Mann who killed his own case in the first place, with his incessant foot dragging over the years.

From PSI

Damning Ruling Posted in the Mann-v-Ball ‘Trial of the Century’

Published on September 19, 2019

Written by John O'Sullivan

EXCERPT:

The Supreme Court of British Columbia has released the damning official final Judgment in the Mann-v-Ball ‘science trial of the century.’

Honourable Mr Justice Giaschi ruled that Mann’s multi-million-dollar, eight-year libel suit is “dismissed with prejudice” due to Mann’s “inexcusable delay.” (see: Para. 13).

The key points from the ruling are cited below:

Honourable Mr Justice Giaschi ruled:

LINK
Guess he just didn't count on the plaintiff asking him to produce his data and methodology.... Imagine that... LOL....
The Judge didn't consider that important to the Dismissal order request by the Defendant of 21 March, 2019. Here is the actual decision from the Supreme Court of British Columbia, the decision is an easy read for most people who can think beyond 2+2=4 level:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

Citation:

Mann v. Ball,

LINK
Yeah -- but ---

The reason for the delay could be beyond the judge's description in that link.. I THOUGHT the defendant had asked for materials from Mann.. I remember hearing that... Materials were never specified, but I ASSUME it had to do with Mann's papers and research... That would explain why the prosecution was "just too busy" to move forward..

I'll see if I can dig that up...
It is true the Defendant requested specific material from Dr.Mann, but that isn't what the Judge is basing his decision to dismiss the case on. He stated this:

[2] The defendant brings an application for an order dismissing the action for delay.
[3] The plaintiff, Dr. Mann, and the defendant, Dr. Ball, have dramatically different opinions on climate change. I do not intend to address those differences. It is sufficient that one believes climate change is man-made and the other does not. As a result of the different opinions held, the two have been in near constant conflict for many years
.
bolding mine

and,

[4] The underlying action concerns, first, a statement made by the defendant in an interview conducted on February 9, 2011. He said, “Michael Mann at Penn State should be in the state pen, not Penn State.” This statement was published on a website and is alleged to be defamatory of the plaintiff. The notice of civil claim also alleges multiple other statements published by Mr. Ball are defamatory. It is not necessary that I address the many alleged defamatory statements.
bolding mine

He has made clear that he will NOT address Climate change differences, and alleged defamatory statements. His ruling is all about DELAY, which is clearly spelled out in the link.

Recall that DR. Ball had requested DISMISSAL based on Delay by Dr. Mann

"[2] The defendant brings an application for an order dismissing the action for delay."

and,

"g) July 20, 2017, the date of the last communication received from Mr. Mann or his counsel by the defendant. No steps were taken in the matter until March 21, 2019 when the application to dismiss was filed;"

bolding mine

and,

"[16] I find that, because of the delay, it will be difficult, if not impossible, for there to be a fair trial for the defendant. This is a relatively straightforward defamation action and should have been resolved long before now. That it has not been resolved is because the plaintiff has not given it the priority that he should have. In the circumstances, justice requires that the action be dismissed and, accordingly, I do hereby dismiss the action for delay."

bolding mine


The Lawsuit was dismissed because of Dr. Mann foot dragging it out with long periods of inactivity, and his filed excuses for them are not accepted by the Judge. Go read his DECISION

Takes 10 minutes to read, it is EASY to understand.
Seems like Prinicipia Sci is the ONLY media that's been following the case in any detail.. Which is a shame.. I checked Toronto Star and ---- nothing...

So if you're quoting PSI for the ruling, THEY have said the delays were caused by missing repeated deadlines for producing data and methodology... They ASSERT there was a July 2017 deadline that kept getting extended...

This is a shame, because PSI is more a philosophy cult than a scientific org... And I'd really like some confirmation that Mann and team just didn't proceed BECAUSE they were asked to turn over the goods...
 
OP
Sunsettommy

Sunsettommy

Platinum Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
5,673
Reaction score
3,051
Points
1,050
Dr. Mann got the legal beat down he deserved, by the release of the official final judgement, his appeal will be dead on arrival, if the fool goes through with it. It was Dr. Mann who killed his own case in the first place, with his incessant foot dragging over the years.

From PSI

Damning Ruling Posted in the Mann-v-Ball ‘Trial of the Century’

Published on September 19, 2019

Written by John O'Sullivan

EXCERPT:

The Supreme Court of British Columbia has released the damning official final Judgment in the Mann-v-Ball ‘science trial of the century.’

Honourable Mr Justice Giaschi ruled that Mann’s multi-million-dollar, eight-year libel suit is “dismissed with prejudice” due to Mann’s “inexcusable delay.” (see: Para. 13).

The key points from the ruling are cited below:

Honourable Mr Justice Giaschi ruled:

LINK
Guess he just didn't count on the plaintiff asking him to produce his data and methodology.... Imagine that... LOL....
The Judge didn't consider that important to the Dismissal order request by the Defendant of 21 March, 2019. Here is the actual decision from the Supreme Court of British Columbia, the decision is an easy read for most people who can think beyond 2+2=4 level:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

Citation:

Mann v. Ball,

LINK
Yeah -- but ---

The reason for the delay could be beyond the judge's description in that link.. I THOUGHT the defendant had asked for materials from Mann.. I remember hearing that... Materials were never specified, but I ASSUME it had to do with Mann's papers and research... That would explain why the prosecution was "just too busy" to move forward..

I'll see if I can dig that up...
It is true the Defendant requested specific material from Dr.Mann, but that isn't what the Judge is basing his decision to dismiss the case on. He stated this:

[2] The defendant brings an application for an order dismissing the action for delay.
[3] The plaintiff, Dr. Mann, and the defendant, Dr. Ball, have dramatically different opinions on climate change. I do not intend to address those differences. It is sufficient that one believes climate change is man-made and the other does not. As a result of the different opinions held, the two have been in near constant conflict for many years
.
bolding mine

and,

[4] The underlying action concerns, first, a statement made by the defendant in an interview conducted on February 9, 2011. He said, “Michael Mann at Penn State should be in the state pen, not Penn State.” This statement was published on a website and is alleged to be defamatory of the plaintiff. The notice of civil claim also alleges multiple other statements published by Mr. Ball are defamatory. It is not necessary that I address the many alleged defamatory statements.
bolding mine

He has made clear that he will NOT address Climate change differences, and alleged defamatory statements. His ruling is all about DELAY, which is clearly spelled out in the link.

Recall that DR. Ball had requested DISMISSAL based on Delay by Dr. Mann

"[2] The defendant brings an application for an order dismissing the action for delay."

and,

"g) July 20, 2017, the date of the last communication received from Mr. Mann or his counsel by the defendant. No steps were taken in the matter until March 21, 2019 when the application to dismiss was filed;"

bolding mine

and,

"[16] I find that, because of the delay, it will be difficult, if not impossible, for there to be a fair trial for the defendant. This is a relatively straightforward defamation action and should have been resolved long before now. That it has not been resolved is because the plaintiff has not given it the priority that he should have. In the circumstances, justice requires that the action be dismissed and, accordingly, I do hereby dismiss the action for delay."

bolding mine


The Lawsuit was dismissed because of Dr. Mann foot dragging it out with long periods of inactivity, and his filed excuses for them are not accepted by the Judge. Go read his DECISION

Takes 10 minutes to read, it is EASY to understand.
Seems like Prinicipia Sci is the ONLY media that's been following the case in any detail.. Which is a shame.. I checked Toronto Star and ---- nothing...

So if you're quoting PSI for the ruling, THEY have said the delays were caused by missing repeated deadlines for producing data and methodology... They ASSERT there was a July 2017 deadline that kept getting extended...

This is a shame, because PSI is more a philosophy cult than a scientific org... And I'd really like some confirmation that Mann and team just didn't proceed BECAUSE they were asked to turn over the goods...
Understand your reluctance, but the full ruling from the Judge showed WHY he accepted the March 21, 2019 motion to dismiss for DELAY. Here is the link straight from the website, British Columbia Court.

2019 BCSC 1580 Mann v. Ball

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

Citation:

Mann v. Ball,

2019 BCSC 1580

Date: 20190822

Docket: S111913

Registry: Vancouver

Between:

Michael Mann

Plaintiff

And:

Timothy ("Tim") Ball

Defendants

Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice Giaschi

Oral Reasons for Judgment

In Chambers

Counsel for the Plaintiff:

R. McConchie

Counsel for the Defendant, Timothy (“Tim”) Ball:

M. Scherr

D. Juteau

Place and Date of Hearing:

Vancouver, B.C.

May 27 and August 22, 2019

Place and Date of Judgment:

Vancouver, B.C.

August 22, 2019

===================================================

Mark Steyn has posted on the decision, and Watts Up With That? will post their article on it tomorrow as well. The news of the decision is spreading beyond PSI.

Read the link!
 

flacaltenn

Diamond Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
58,490
Reaction score
13,063
Points
2,180
Location
Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
Guess he just didn't count on the plaintiff asking him to produce his data and methodology.... Imagine that... LOL....
The Judge didn't consider that important to the Dismissal order request by the Defendant of 21 March, 2019. Here is the actual decision from the Supreme Court of British Columbia, the decision is an easy read for most people who can think beyond 2+2=4 level:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

Citation:

Mann v. Ball,

LINK
Yeah -- but ---

The reason for the delay could be beyond the judge's description in that link.. I THOUGHT the defendant had asked for materials from Mann.. I remember hearing that... Materials were never specified, but I ASSUME it had to do with Mann's papers and research... That would explain why the prosecution was "just too busy" to move forward..

I'll see if I can dig that up...
It is true the Defendant requested specific material from Dr.Mann, but that isn't what the Judge is basing his decision to dismiss the case on. He stated this:

[2] The defendant brings an application for an order dismissing the action for delay.
[3] The plaintiff, Dr. Mann, and the defendant, Dr. Ball, have dramatically different opinions on climate change. I do not intend to address those differences. It is sufficient that one believes climate change is man-made and the other does not. As a result of the different opinions held, the two have been in near constant conflict for many years
.
bolding mine

and,

[4] The underlying action concerns, first, a statement made by the defendant in an interview conducted on February 9, 2011. He said, “Michael Mann at Penn State should be in the state pen, not Penn State.” This statement was published on a website and is alleged to be defamatory of the plaintiff. The notice of civil claim also alleges multiple other statements published by Mr. Ball are defamatory. It is not necessary that I address the many alleged defamatory statements.
bolding mine

He has made clear that he will NOT address Climate change differences, and alleged defamatory statements. His ruling is all about DELAY, which is clearly spelled out in the link.

Recall that DR. Ball had requested DISMISSAL based on Delay by Dr. Mann

"[2] The defendant brings an application for an order dismissing the action for delay."

and,

"g) July 20, 2017, the date of the last communication received from Mr. Mann or his counsel by the defendant. No steps were taken in the matter until March 21, 2019 when the application to dismiss was filed;"

bolding mine

and,

"[16] I find that, because of the delay, it will be difficult, if not impossible, for there to be a fair trial for the defendant. This is a relatively straightforward defamation action and should have been resolved long before now. That it has not been resolved is because the plaintiff has not given it the priority that he should have. In the circumstances, justice requires that the action be dismissed and, accordingly, I do hereby dismiss the action for delay."

bolding mine


The Lawsuit was dismissed because of Dr. Mann foot dragging it out with long periods of inactivity, and his filed excuses for them are not accepted by the Judge. Go read his DECISION

Takes 10 minutes to read, it is EASY to understand.
Seems like Prinicipia Sci is the ONLY media that's been following the case in any detail.. Which is a shame.. I checked Toronto Star and ---- nothing...

So if you're quoting PSI for the ruling, THEY have said the delays were caused by missing repeated deadlines for producing data and methodology... They ASSERT there was a July 2017 deadline that kept getting extended...

This is a shame, because PSI is more a philosophy cult than a scientific org... And I'd really like some confirmation that Mann and team just didn't proceed BECAUSE they were asked to turn over the goods...
Understand your reluctance, but the full ruling from the Judge showed WHY he accepted the March 21, 2019 motion to dismiss for DELAY. Here is the link straight from the website, British Columbia Court.

2019 BCSC 1580 Mann v. Ball

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

Citation:

Mann v. Ball,

2019 BCSC 1580

Date: 20190822

Docket: S111913

Registry: Vancouver

Between:

Michael Mann

Plaintiff

And:

Timothy ("Tim") Ball

Defendants

Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice Giaschi

Oral Reasons for Judgment

In Chambers

Counsel for the Plaintiff:

R. McConchie

Counsel for the Defendant, Timothy (“Tim”) Ball:

M. Scherr

D. Juteau

Place and Date of Hearing:

Vancouver, B.C.

May 27 and August 22, 2019

Place and Date of Judgment:

Vancouver, B.C.

August 22, 2019

===================================================

Mark Steyn has posted on the decision, and Watts Up With That? will post their article on it tomorrow as well. The news of the decision is spreading beyond PSI.

Read the link!
So you're not at all concerned WHY Mann and legal team didn't vigorously pursue this case and instead stonewalled for years?? I certainly am...
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top