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

[SSDD]

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.

in mann's case, putting up also equals losing. He knows full well that if he ever put up his data for all to see, it would likely be a career ending event.

 

[Sunsettommy]

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...

He didn't because he never had a case to start with, he is a pathological jerk with a massive chip on his shoulder. Notice that he has no true friends left, doesn't get any support from his once science buddies on his abusive legal pursuits. His own lawyer meekly accepted the cost penalty without dissent to the judge.

I know that Dr. Balls team is now considering with various unnamed parties a lawsuit against Dr. Mann for his abusive legal pursuits and his 1998 paper is fraudulent, lets see if that develops or not.

From PSI:

In that regard, we plan to take steps to have the B.C. Jugdment ‘domesticated’ in the U.S., and enforced by way of garnishment of Mann’s income and seizure of his assets. Of course, we will use the opportunity to make maximum public capital out of the disgraced professor’s unlawful antics.

Moreover, Principia Scientific International is currently negotiating with interested parties in the U.S. who wish to assist Dr Ball in pressing for a full RICO racketeering investigation into the 20-year criminal conspiracy around Mann’s fraudulent ‘hockey stick’ graph.

=====

In the Steyn vs. Mann lawsuit, there were a number of outside parties who sent affidavits of support for Steyn, ZERO for Jerkmann.

From Steyn's website:

Lest you doubt that, consider yesterday's request by the Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press and various other parties to file an amicus brief on the merits of the case - that's to say, on the danger Michael E Mann's victory would pose for the "right to freedom of speech and of the press". Those supporting our side in this battle include not only the chaps you might expect, such as Fox News, but an awful lot you might not - including NBC, The Washington Post and the ACLU. Because they all recognize the threat that Mann poses to a free society in demanding the courts adjudicate public-policy disputes.

Here is that list of supporters Mark Steyn got

APPENDIX List of Amici Curiae

NOTHING for Jerkmann!

DR. Mann lost because he was dragging out the suit with long periods of inaction, he is doing the same thing with Steyn, which will probably go to the Supreme Court, also don't forget Steyn COUNTERSUED Dr. Mann from the start.

It is clear DR. Mann is in serious trouble.

 

[westwall]

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.

in mann's case, putting up also equals losing. He knows full well that if he ever put up his data for all to see, it would likely be a career ending event.

Yup

 

[Oddball]

 

[Oddball]

Gee, I wonder where Krazy Kat is.

 

[Crick]

He still refused to produce them, so the court dismissed his case.

There is absolutely no mention of that in the final ruling.

 

[westwall]

He still refused to produce them, so the court dismissed his case.

There is absolutely no mention of that in the final ruling.

They were a requirement for the case to continue you willful idiot.

 

[abu afak]

It looks like you Missed the "Science Case of the Century" Ruling By app FOUR WEEKS!
This seems less than shattering/barely News.
"Case of the Century" will have to wait.. doncha think?

Search Mann v Ball/News Tab

Power Line (blog)
Michael Mann Refuses to Produce Data, Loses Case
Some years ago, Dr. Tim Ball wrote that climate scientist Michael Mann “belongs in the state pen, not Penn State.” At issue was Mann's famous ...
4 weeks ago

Daily Telegraph (blog)
STICKIN' IT TO THE MANN
My dear old friend Michael Mann's long-running defamation lawsuit against Canadian climate sceptic Dr Tim Ball has been thrown out by the ...
4 weeks ago

Lifesite
Leading global warming scientist ordered to pay opponent’s legal costs in libel suit
But another case, against Dr. Tim Ball, was decided by the Supreme Court of British Columbia, with Mann's case thrown out, and him ordered to ...
3 weeks ago

`

 

[westwall]

It looks like you Missed the "Science Case of the Century" Ruling By app FOUR WEEKS!
This seems less than shattering/barely News.

Search Mann v Ball/News Tab

Power Line (blog)
Michael Mann Refuses to Produce Data, Loses Case
Some years ago, Dr. Tim Ball wrote that climate scientist Michael Mann “belongs in the state pen, not Penn State.” At issue was Mann's famous ...
4 weeks ago

Daily Telegraph (blog)
STICKIN' IT TO THE MANN
My dear old friend Michael Mann's long-running defamation lawsuit against Canadian climate sceptic Dr Tim Ball has been thrown out by the ...
4 weeks agoLifesite

Leading global warming scientist ordered to pay opponent’s legal costs in libel suit
But another case, against Dr. Tim Ball, was decided by the Supreme Court of British Columbia, with Mann's case thrown out, and him ordered to ...
3 weeks ago

`

Yes, that was already posted, dumbshit. This new posting was the final ruling on manns pathetic attempt to keep the bullshit going. Now the asshole has to pay Dr. Balls Court costs too.

 

[Sunsettommy]

It looks like you Missed the "Science Case of the Century" Ruling By app FOUR WEEKS!
This seems less than shattering/barely News.

Search Mann v Ball/News Tab

Power Line (blog)
Michael Mann Refuses to Produce Data, Loses Case
Some years ago, Dr. Tim Ball wrote that climate scientist Michael Mann “belongs in the state pen, not Penn State.” At issue was Mann's famous ...
4 weeks ago

Daily Telegraph (blog)
STICKIN' IT TO THE MANN
My dear old friend Michael Mann's long-running defamation lawsuit against Canadian climate sceptic Dr Tim Ball has been thrown out by the ...
4 weeks agoLifesite

Leading global warming scientist ordered to pay opponent’s legal costs in libel suit
But another case, against Dr. Tim Ball, was decided by the Supreme Court of British Columbia, with Mann's case thrown out, and him ordered to ...
3 weeks ago

`

Yes, that was already posted, dumbshit. This new posting was the final ruling on manns pathetic attempt to keep the bullshit going. Now the asshole has to pay Dr. Balls Court costs too.

The blind fool didn't read MY first post that showed this in the open:

"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:"

=================
4 weeks ago it was BENCH ruling, yesterday is the full explanation for that bench ruling of 4 weeks ago. Lets see if Aboo blind booo will slink away or try harder to show how feebleminded he is.

The fool calls my first post funny even though it is 100% based on the British Columbia website, the one he NEVER read. Now he calls this post funny too even though it is 100% based on the Judges ruling, which he obviously NEVER read.

Who is paying Abooo to be this willfully stupid?

 

[westwall]

It looks like you Missed the "Science Case of the Century" Ruling By app FOUR WEEKS!
This seems less than shattering/barely News.

Search Mann v Ball/News Tab

Power Line (blog)
Michael Mann Refuses to Produce Data, Loses Case
Some years ago, Dr. Tim Ball wrote that climate scientist Michael Mann “belongs in the state pen, not Penn State.” At issue was Mann's famous ...
4 weeks ago

Daily Telegraph (blog)
STICKIN' IT TO THE MANN
My dear old friend Michael Mann's long-running defamation lawsuit against Canadian climate sceptic Dr Tim Ball has been thrown out by the ...
4 weeks agoLifesite

Leading global warming scientist ordered to pay opponent’s legal costs in libel suit
But another case, against Dr. Tim Ball, was decided by the Supreme Court of British Columbia, with Mann's case thrown out, and him ordered to ...
3 weeks ago

`

Yes, that was already posted, dumbshit. This new posting was the final ruling on manns pathetic attempt to keep the bullshit going. Now the asshole has to pay Dr. Balls Court costs too.

The blind fool didn't read MY first post that showed this in the open:

"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:"

=================
4 weeks ago it was BENCH ruling, yesterday is the full explanation for that bench ruling of 4 weeks ago. Lets see if Aboo blind booo will slink away or try harder to show how feebleminded he is.

The fool calls my first post funny even though it is 100% based on the British Columbia website, the one he NEVER read. Now he calls this post funny too even though it is 100% based on the Judges ruling, which he obviously NEVER read.

Who is paying Abooo to be this willfully stupid?

Abooo is a walking example of deaf, dumb, and blind....and, because he is little more that the village idiot, he can't do anything but laugh like the hyena he is.

 

[Oddball]

 

[jc456]

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.

to summarize, the judge did blame the plaintiff. Mann. he lost. his case was dismissed because of him. he refused to post the data. not sure how you read what the judge ruled any other way. sorry, I'll disagree with you. all the bolded info, point directly at Mann.

 

[Billy_Bob]

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...

I think we are all interested. That said, Ross McKitrick laid Mann's whole deception bare and we just want confirmation of it and Mann refused to present his data to prove any slander occurred. Now why would Mann not present his data and work if it was not above board?

The Court simply killed the case due to Mann's gross negligence and foot dragging. His Data and work methods are still very suspect and Styne is now the individual that needs to get that data/methods info. I'm willing to bet Mann refuses to produce here as well. If Mann did produce his career would be over as a liar and a fraud.