Mamooth is LYING like hell!
He writes this bullcrap:
"Ball asked for endless delays because all his witnesses had died, and because his health was poor, and because he had no credibility, hence he couldn't defame Mann. That's right, Ball admitted in court to having no credibility.
All of Mann's data and methodology is available online for anyone to examine. Therefore, it would be insane to ask a court to order Mann to provide it, as the answer would be "here's the website address". That's why nobody did such a thing. "Mann wouldn't turn over documents!" is a denier cult myth.
There was no "Mann must pay Dr. Ball's legal bills" order. That's another denier cult myth.
Essentially, Ball just ran out the clock. Mann could keep pressing, but I think he's taking pity on Ball for being in poor health and stupid, and for already being a laughingstock."
=========================
I told this liar over 30 minutes before his lie posted this in reply to him:
Post 43
"Gawad you are so thick headed!
Dr. Mann lost the case because he wasn't pursuing his case for libel, he sat on it for long periods of time doing NOTHING! Dr. Ball ended up requesting shutting the case down due to Dr.. Mann foot dragging, heck the twerp was the one who stopped the trial in the first place!
I posted the FULL LEGAL judgement and YOU ignored the entire thread I started, you are so pathetic on this, since as the Judge's ENTIRE Ruling has been posted in my thread, which you completely avoided."
===================
It is clear you never read the Official Decision at all since what you post is a flat out LIE!
From THIS LINK, you never read
[1]
THE COURT: I will render my reasons on the application to dismiss. I reserve the right to amend these reasons for clarity and grammar, but the result will not change.
[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.
[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."
and,
"[7] There have been at least two extensive periods of delay. Commencing in approximately June 2013, there was a delay of approximately 15 months where nothing was done to move the matter ahead. There was a second extensive period of delay from July 20, 2017 until the filing of the application to dismiss on March 21, 2019, a delay of 20 months. Again, nothing was done during this period to move the matter ahead. The total time elapsed, from the filing of the notice of civil claim until the application to dismiss was filed, was eight years. It will be almost ten years by the time the matter goes to trial. There have been two periods, of approximately 35 months in total, where nothing was done. In my view, by any measure, this is an inordinate delay.
[8] I now turn to whether the delay is excusable. In my view, it is not. There is no evidence from the plaintiff explaining the delay. Dr. Mann filed an affidavit but he provides no evidence whatsoever addressing the delay. Importantly, he does not provide any evidence saying that the delay was due to his counsel, nor does he provide evidence that he instructed his counsel to proceed diligently with the matter. He simply does not address delay at all"
and the clincher,
"[12] Accordingly, I find that the delay is inexcusable.
[13] With respect to prejudice, such prejudice is presumed unless the prejudice is rebutted. Indeed, the presumption of prejudice is given even more weight in defamation cases:
Samson v. Scaletta, 2016 BCSC 2598, at paras 40-43. The plaintiff has not filed any evidence rebutting the presumption of prejudice.
[14] Moreover, the defendant has led actual evidence of actual prejudice. The evidence is that the defendant intended to call three witnesses at trial who would have provided evidence going to fair comment and malice. Those witnesses have now died. A fourth witness is no longer able to travel. Thus, in addition to finding that presumption of prejudice has not been rebutted, I also find that there has been actual prejudice to the defendant as a consequence of the delay.
[15] Turning to the final factor, I have little hesitation in finding that, on balance, justice requires the action be dismissed. The parties are both in their eighties and Dr. Ball is in poor health. He has had this action hanging over his head like the sword of Damocles for eight years and he will need to wait until January 2021 before the matter proceeds to trial. That is a ten year delay from the original alleged defamatory statement. Other witnesses are also elderly or in poor health. The memories of all parties and witnesses will have faded by the time the matter goes to trial.
[
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."
I hope your Kitty sized brain can digest this simple to understand ruling in favor for Dr. Ball....
