• Home
  • Current News
  • Will Steyn now Stick it the O’Sullivan Way to Climate Fraudster Michael Mann?

Will Steyn now Stick it the O’Sullivan Way to Climate Fraudster Michael Mann?

Written by

Good news! As I predicted four years ago, alarmist climate scientist, Michael Mann’s gambit of using the courts to silence debate about his faked “hockey stick” graph is backfiring spectacularly. 17 mainstream media outlets now agree Mann should put up or shut up.

Mr FOIA

Back in April 2010 I prophetically penned, “Is Michael Mann Seriously Off his Head?” detailing the legal pitfalls the odious Professor Mann faced if he sued anyone for “defaming” him. Back then I pointed out that:

“If Mann takes a punt in the courts then his meta data and source codes used in his graphs are germane. The rules of discovery are clear; the respondents will be entitled to full disclosure of any and all evidence pertaining to the issues so that the trier of fact may determine the credibility of the allegations.”

I recently pointed out the fatal technical legal flaw in Mann’s case against Dr Tim Ball (skeptic climatologist). Mark Steyn (the writer also being sued by the litigious Mann), the mainstream press and others are playing catch up and cottoning on to the inescapable legal realities. Steyn, like Ball, has been sued for daring to question why any scientist who claims his work proves the planet is in great danger, won’t show us his proof.

Four years ago I brazenly challenged Mann to do his worst when I wrote:

“Unless the dodgy Penn. State professor divulges his computer codes that underpin his junk science no civil court will entertain him. Barking out his toothless threats scares no one. This fraudster is now a figure of ridicule and is set to go down in history as one of science’s worst abominations. I’ll call Mann a climate crook all day long: let him sue me, I’m game.”

Needless to say, four years on and I’ve not been sued, nor do I expect to be.

And now Mark Steyn has got up to speed by quoting the analysis of this lawyer (you can read ‘O’Sullivan’ in place of ‘Steyn’ to see where I’ve been coming from for 4 years):

“Defamation per se—Essential Factual Elements (Public Officer/Figure and Limited Public Figure)

Michael Mann claims that Mark Steyn harmed him by making the following statement: “Michael Mann’s hockey stick is fraudulent.”

To establish this claim, Michael Mann must prove that all of the following are more likely true than not true:

That Mark Steyn made the statement to a person other than Michael Mann;

That this person reasonably understood that the statement was about Michael Mann;

That this person reasonably understood the statement to mean that Michael Mann had used falsified or improperly selected data and computer programs in creating his hockey stick graph;

In addition, Michael Mann must prove by clear and convincing evidence that Mark Steyn knew the statement was false or had serious doubts about the truth of the statement.

So Michael Mann has a heavy burden to shoulder in order to win. He (not Mark Steyn) has the burden of proving that the statements are false AND he has to prove that Mark Steyn, at the time Steyn made the statements, believed them to be false or entertained serious doubts about the truth of the statement.”

Steyn (a Canadian resident in the U.S.) in his article, ‘Defaming for Beginners’ (March 17, 2014) then correctly adduces that the American legal system has been cynically played by Mann, lamenting, “the leisurely procedural torture of US “justice” would count as cruel and unusual punishment in most other systems.”

This is precisely why Mann’s ill-judged foray into the Canadian legal system to sue Dr Ball in the British Columbia Supreme Court, Vancouver, will prove to be the biggest error. I keep saying this with great confidence because there’s no way on earth Mann is going to reveal his “secret science” willingly – and the BC courts don’t allow litigants to snub discovery rules and keep key evidence hidden. Mann’s only hope is that Ball will walk away when Mann’s backer (David Suzuki) offers Ball a large suitcase full of cash. But then, will Ball bite?

Finally, the mainstream media has cottoned on to the wider and profound implications of Mann’s abuse of process. Not only has the Penn. State professor cynically been hiding his graph’s tortured r^2 regression numbers since 1998, but he’s now gotten his cronies at Columbia Journalism Review (March 17, 2014) to back his shameless ploy to subvert freedom of information laws (FOIA) and preserve the crumbling credibility of the “science” of man-made global warming.

Anthony Watts calls it correctly with his latest post on the matter, ‘Wow, even MSM reporters want to see Michael Mann’s UVa emails now,’ (March 17, 2014). Watts has been guided by astute analysis by attorney, Chris Horner, of the amicus brief filed by 17 top mainstream media outlets opposing Mann’s efforts to keep his data hidden. Joy of joys, the MSM has finally understood what a snivelling little crook Mann actually is. WUWT reports:

“Basically what has happened is that journalists are afraid that if Mann wins, it will set a legal precedent that will be used to restrict the ability of the press in future issues where work products and emails discussing research are needed for journalist investigations, but will be made off limits. So, they are going to throw Mann under the bus to keep their FOIA ability intact.”

Pass the popcorn!

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Comments (21)

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”donm”]The Navier Stokes equations describe fluid flow with changes in temperature and density. They are nonlinear, chaotic, with sensitive dependence on initial conditions. That means no finite set of state data is sufficient to predict distant future states. If anyone pretends to predict future temperature or density data from a finite data set, you know right there that they are frauds. This has been known since the 1963 paper “Deterministic Nonperiodic Flow” by Edward Lorenz.[/quote]

    People whose only intention is to pull the wool over the publics eyes using computers are going to be very careful to not broach subjects like Chaos Theory or The Science of Complexity. The frauds know that the public is enamored with computers. So the last thing they are going to do is to bring up subjects that demonstrate how severely limited computers are when it comes to predicting the future. Lorenz’s thinking alone render all conclusions drawn from computer models worthless.

  • Avatar

    jorgekafkazar

    |

    Mann’s only hope is that Obama will pass an executive order outlawing Skeptical Thought before the court reaches a verdict. Don’t laugh.

  • Avatar

    donm

    |

    The Navier Stokes equations describe fluid flow with changes in temperature and density. They are nonlinear, chaotic, with sensitive dependence on initial conditions. That means no finite set of state data is sufficient to predict distant future states. If anyone pretends to predict future temperature or density data from a finite data set, you know right there that they are frauds. This has been known since the 1963 paper “Deterministic Nonperiodic Flow” by Edward Lorenz.

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”LeChat”]The contention that “climate change” is caused by human activity is provably false. A thorough impartial scientific review of Michael Mann’s work would reveal that he has engaged in scientific fraud. The real-world problem is that there is so much money to be made from this fraud that it will continue for some time until it just runs out of gas.[/quote]

    Interesting comments. All true, of course.

    However, I don’t think the human tendency to look at the atmosphere as something mystical or magical is ever going to run out of gas. AGW advocates have one glaring weakness: scientific illiteracy and resulting complacency. The roots from which all of this misthinking grew are traceable back to Meteorology during the 1840. The best way to defeat them, IMO, is to hit them at their weakest point: do better science than they do.

    Regards,
    Jim McGinn
    http://www.solvingtornadoes.org

  • Avatar

    LeChat

    |

    The contention that “climate change” is caused by human activity is provably false. A thorough impartial scientific review of Michael Mann’s work would reveal that he has engaged in scientific fraud. The real-world problem is that there is so much money to be made from this fraud that it will continue for some time until it just runs out of gas.

  • Avatar

    Yelder Retep

    |

    Most intelligent people try to learn from their mistakes but apparently not John O’Sullivan. With Narcissisitc determination to get attention, he makes the same mistakes again and again with regard to the Mann v Ball case. His self-aggrandising article “Will Steyn Now Stick it the O’Sullivan Way to Climate Fraudster Michael Mann?” is loaded with references to his nonsensical predictions about the outcome of the Mann v Ball case. Hopefully Mark Steyn will ignore “ ,, the O’Sullivan Way .. ” of litigating and seek advice from a real and competent lawyer. All of John O’Sullivan’s fantasies about litigation that he has been or dreamed of being involved in seem to be based on “more hope than fact”, as Richard Treadgold suggested about the NZCSC case.

    On 29th April 2010 John O’Sullivan posted an article “Is Michael Mann Seriously Off his Head?” (http://climaterealists.com/?id=5634) – again on the blog of his enthusiastic supporter Gabriel Rychert. It seems reasonable to ask instead of the “prophetic” (or perhaps more realistically “pathetic”) “CEO and Legal Consultant” owner of a one-man-band private company PSI Acumen Ltd (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/spotlighton-psi-acumen-ltd.html) “Is John O’Sullivan Seriously Off his Head”!!

    Talking of PSI Acumen Ltd. (of which the PSI blog is claimed to be a “subsidary) it will be interesting to see John O’Sullivan’s notification to Companies House of PSIA’s current registered office. It will also be interesting to see his first annual return, appropriately due on April Fool’s Day 2014.

  • Avatar

    Yelder Retep

    |

    In this article John O’Sullivan boasts about how over the years since 2010 he has “prophetically penned” his opinions about the Mann v Ball case and “ .. brazenly challenged Mann to do his worst .. four years on and I’ve not been sued, nor do I expect to be .. ”. On 21st February 2014 he proclaimed “Michael Mann Faces Bankruptcy as his Courtroom Climate Capers Collapse”
    http://www.principia-scientific.org/michael-mann-faces-bankruptcy-as-his-courtroom-climate-capers-collapse.html. One big question is how reliable is the crystal ball that out-of-work high school art teacher John O’Sullivan insists on staring into? Another is what would be the point of anyone wasting their hard-earned money suing a Narcistic out-of-work art teacher.

    On 27th April 2010, following the termination of John O’Sullivan’s “employment” on the Climategate blog, Gabriel Rychert, owner of the Climate Realists” blog, started posting some of his articles (relevant E-mail exchanges at that time can be seen on http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/psi-due-diligence-20102011-selected-e.html, e.g. “ .. Hi John, I hope you .. have recovered from ClimateGate.com .. Have posted extracts at ClimateRealists.com … Gabriel .. ”). One of those articles was concerning “Kiwigate” (http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=5621), another of those Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change (CACC) events which spawned prophetic articles from John O’Sullivan and another of his failed crystal-ball predictions.

    On 1st August 2012 he proclaimed “Breaking: Courtroom Chaos as New Zealand Skeptics Rout Government Climatists .. New Zealand skeptics of man-made global warming score historic legal victory .. ” (http://johnosullivan.wordpress.com/2012/08/01/breaking-courtroom-chaos-as-new-zealand-skeptics-rout-government-climatists/). The individuals involved at the sharp end of that supposed “historic legal victory” seemed not too amused by John O’Sullivan’s speculative comments. Two days later Richard Treadgold responded with an article “With friends like these we need no enemies” in which he said “ .. John O’Sullivan expressed interest in our court project against NIWA. But some of his comments describe more hope than fact, possibly through a misunderstanding of NZ law and the nature of our court case .. The problem is that the judge hasn’t even made his decision .. ” (http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/tag/john-osullivan/).

  • Avatar

    dr.phillip freeman

    |

    A countersuit by STeyn is in order here.
    A standard application really.

  • Avatar

    Al Gore

    |

    I need the carbon taxes to fund my lifestyle and my boyfriends. Please leave my friend Mann alone.

    -Al Gore

  • Avatar

    Yelder Retep

    |

    Recently I have posted several home-truths as comments on the nonsense articles that John O’Sullivan has posted on PSI, the pseudo-science blog that this out-of-work part-time high-school art teacher co-founded with the eager support of several associates who no longer benefited from full-time employment. Most have now been deleted by his Web-designer and blog moderator Thomas Richard (sunsettommy). Openness and honesty about the PSI blog owner seem to be unwelcome there.

    Following one of my revealing comments on his Feb. 2014 article “Mann v Ball Case hit by Fatal Technicality” (http://www.principia-scientific.org/key-global-warming-case-fails.html), another of his many malicious attacks on Dr. Michael Mann, John O’Sullivan commented (#29) “ .. For anyone wanting further proof Ridley is a pyscho, simply Google: peter ridley cyberstalker .. ”.

    I have a much more worthwhile suggestion. For anyone wanting further proof that John O’Sullivan is a liar google “John O’Sullivan” and “Liar” which will produce links to articles such as:
    – July 2011 “SO MANY LIES – AND THE LIAR WHO TELLS THEM” (http://hot-topic.co.nz/so-many-lies-and-the-liar-who-tells-them/)
    – July 2012 “John O’Sullivan, master manipulator – A Closer Look” (http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/john-osullivan-master-manipulator.html)
    – Dec. 2012 “LEYLAND JOINS THE ÜBER CRANKS: SIGNS UP WITH SERIAL LIAR O’SULLIVAN’S VANITY “SCIENCE” GROUP” (http://hot-topic.co.nz/leyland-joins-the-uber-cranks-signs-up-with-serial-liar-osullivans-vanity-science-group/),
    – Feb, 2014 “CLIMATEBALLS: O’SULLIVAN STRIKES AGAIN” (http://hot-topic.co.nz/climateballs-osullivan-strikes-again/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=climateballs-osullivan-strikes-again)
    – March 2014 “
    and last but by no means least

    – “Curriculum Vitae for John O’Sullivan (2010)” (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/curriculum-vitae-for-john-osullivan-2010.html).
    As I quote at the start of that article “The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is.” Winston Churchill (http://jpetrie.myweb.uga.edu/bulldog.html).

    John O’Sullivan adopted the fancy name “Principia Scientific International” for his blog and gave himself and his co-founders fancy titles, e.g. “CEO and Legal Consultant” for himself, “Chairman” for Tim Ball and “CFO” for his buddy Johannes Cornelis Schreuder. Oh, we mustn’t forget the Rev. Philip Foster, PSI’s “Compliance Officer”, who apparently knew nothing about his appointment!! Others were referred to as “Director”, even though at least one of them, Dr. Charles Anderson, had no idea that he had been appointed to the PSI “Board”.

    John O’Sullivan can delete revealing comments from his blog as much as he likes but the skeletons in the dark recesses of his cupboard have been caught in the brilliant spotlight of truth. He can huff and puff all that he wants but facts are facts!!

    Pete Ridley
    http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/spotlighton-principia-scientific.html

  • Avatar

    Yelder Retep

    |

    In his usual self-aggrandising style John O’Sullivan boasts in this article about his predictions for the Mann v Ball case, giving the impression to the casual reader that he is an authority. In his numerous profiles he has claimed to have been “ .. successfully litigating for over a decade in the New York State courts and U.S. federal 2nd circuit .. ” appears to base that claim on the lay assistance that he gave to his second wife as she pursued her own pro-se action, which ended in a dismissal of her claims. He also gave lay assistance to Thomas Neveu, the close associate of the PSI blog web-master Thomas Richard American who was also pursuing a pro-se defence against a copyright claim (see Appendix A, Note 5 of http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/spotlighton-principia-scientific.html).

    In a previous comment here I referred to “Judge Judy” because in Chapter 36 of his self-published “true” story “Summit Shock” out-of-work art teacher John O’Sullivan talked about the source of some of his legal knowledge “ .. Wed. 9th July (2008) .. Carla came back with a promise to clear my mortgage payment if I drafted a revised mandamus. I had used my time wisely. No longer was I the stumbling sophomore at the Law School of Judge Judy. Now Google had surrendered up Columbia Law School’s ‘A Jailhouse Lawyer’s Manual’ (6th Edition). Chapter 4 of Volume II gave me exactly what I needed to formulate my legal challenge to Kirkland’s corrupt Order .. ”. Andrew Skolnick kindly drew my attention to a recent case heard by Judge Judy involving a layman Mr. Wertheimer who seemed to think that he was entitled to earn a living by giving legal advice even though he had no licence to practice law in California. Maybe John O’Sullivan should listen to the lesson that she gave Mr Wertheimer (http://www.aaskolnick.com/JudgeJudy.mp3).

    His claims that he “ .. has acted as consultant to, and is a close colleague of, Canada’s most prominent climatologist, Dr. Tim Ball, who is currently defending libel suits in the British Columbia Supreme Court against fellow climate researchers, Dr. Michael Mann and Dr. Andrew Weaver .. ” is just as questionable.. His “close colleague” Tim Ball said on 27th April 2012 “ .. I legally disassociated myself from O’Sullivan very early and though he provided commentary he never acted as legal counsel .. ” (see E-mail of 23rd Aug 2012). There seems to be some conflict between those two claims.

    In another of those articles John O’Sullivan claimed that “Michael Mann faces Bankruptcy as his Courtroom Climate Capers Collapse”, more nonsense posted on his PSI blog.

    Several articles on this blog have been “Written by PSI Staff” but who are the “staff” of this “subsidiary” of PWSI Acumen Ltd. a one-man band owned and run by John O’Sullivan? At one time he was claiming on his PSI Acumen Ltd. web-pages that PSI members were his “employees”, which probably came as a big surprise to the majority of those claimed “members” (http://www.principia-scientific.org/About/why-psi-is-proposed-as-a-cic.html). As always, John O’Sullivan’s claims should never be accepted on face value.

  • Avatar

    Yelder Retep

    |

    John O’Sullivan has posted numerous self-aggrandising, malicious and misleading articles and comments attacking Michael Mann and others who challenge his nonsense, whether they support the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change (CACC) hypothesis or not. Commenting on his PSI blog article “Mann v Ball Case hit by Fatal Technicality” (http://www.principia-scientific.org/key-global-warming-case-fails.html John O’Sullivan claimed “I am a party to the action in the Mann-v-Ball case .. ” (comment #9). Following another of his malicious attacks on Michael Mann “Michael Mann Faces Bankruptcy as his Courtroom Climate Capers Collapse” (http://www.principia-scientific.org/michael-mann-faces-bankruptcy-as-his-courtroom-climate-capers-collapse.html) he claimed “ .. I am an actual party in this action .. ” (comment #90). Over one year ago he made a similar unfounded pronouncement that “ .. Both Mann and Weaver are about to have their cases dismissed because neither will turn over their data for open court examination .. ” (http://johnosullivan.wordpress.com/about/). As always with his claims, close scrutiny is warranted rather than acceptance on face value.

    Following John O’Sullivan’s claim to be a party to the Mann v Ball case, retired investigative journalist Andrew Skolnick advised on 19th March 2014 that Michael Mann’s lawyer Roger McConchie had responded with “ .. O’Sullivan is not a party to the lawsuit, actual or otherwise .. ”. Unlike John O’Sullivan, Roger McConchie qualified in law through recognised channels rather than watching Judge Judy, reading a prisoners’ guide to law then purchasing his LL.B from an Internet diploma mill like Hill University in 2010. As someone who has enjoyed a successful career as a lawyer for decades (http://www.libelandprivacy.com/roger-mcconchie_bio.html) Mr McConchie has demonstrated a highly professional rather than lay understanding of law. On the other hand John O’Sullivan has had 18 years of intermittent employment as a high-school art teacher followed by a few years blogging as a “legal analyst” (http://johnosullivan.wordpress.com/about/).

    Many would regard Roger McConchie’s opinion as much more likely correct than that of layman John O’Sullivan.

    Andrew Skolnick suggested that as far as the court is concerned O’Sullivan has absolutely no standing in the case, being neither a plaintiff, defendent, one of their attorneys, or even a filer of any motion in Mann’s lawsuit past or present. Although Andrew Skolnick has submitted two sworn affidavits to the Supreme Court of British Columbia in connection with the case he does not consider himself to be a party to case.

    It seems that John O’Sullivan is simply a party to a contract (or perhaps more accurately, a bet) with Tim Ball regarding the outcome of the case, not a party to the case itself, but as is frequently the case, he tries to give others the impression that he is a significant participant rather than an insignificant non-entity.

  • Avatar

    Yelder Retep

    |

    Making misleading and self-aggrandising claims is something that John O’Sullivan indulges in persistently so let’s go some way towards setting the record straight about this.

    He has posted some very impressive profiles of himself on various web-sites (e.g. http://johnosullivan.wordpress.com/about/, http://johnosullivan.livejournal.com/profile and http://www.linkedin.com/pub/john-o-sullivan/19/6b4/84a) but it is prudent to never accepted on face value any of his claims. He frequently boasts about the cobbled collection of blog articles that he co-ordinated and had published under the title “Slaying the Sky dragon .. ”. Rather than taking the scientific world by storm as he claimed it would it has been scorned not only by supporters of the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change (CACC) hypothesis but even by respected scientists and others who reject the hypothesis.

    John O’Sullivan has claimed to be “ .. an accredited academic .. taught and lectured for over twenty years at schools and colleges in the east of England .. ”. For a long time he was claiming in his LinkedIN profile to have been a ” .. Lecturer University of Northampton .. September 1987 – August 1999 (12 years) .. ” but when the University was notified of that claim by a retired American investigative journalist in Nov. 2012 it quickly responded that ” .. the University has no record of a Mr John A. O’Sullivan being employed by the University .. ” (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/spotlighton-principia-scientific.html Appendix A, Note 9 and http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/curriculum-vitae-for-john-osullivan-2010.html Notes 4 and 4a). Shortly afterwards John O’Sullivan changed the entry in his LinkedIN profile to simply read “Nene College (University of Northampton) Lecturer”. At best he may have done some evening lecturing of further education art students during 1992/3 at Nene College which is located about 20 miles away from the school where he was teaching art.

    What John O’Sullivan refers to as his 20-year teaching/lecturing career appears to have been a somewhat patchy career teaching art to high-school students until that came to an abrupt end in 2003. He was suspended following allegations by a 16-year-old friend of his step-daughter, for which he was tried but acquitted in Feb, 2004. When challenged he confirmed this in E-mail exchanges that took place on 11th and 12th December 2011 (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/selected-e-mails-with-slayerspsi.html). He now appears to be little more than an out-of-work art teacher spending his waking hours writing malicious articles and comments to post on his blog and elsewhere.

  • Avatar

    Heidi

    |

    Hello there! Do ƴoou know if they make any plugins to assiѕt wіth Search Engine Optimization?

    I’m trying to get my blog to rank for some tarցetеd keyաords but I’m not seeing νery good reѕults.
    If you knߋѡ of any please share. Many tɦanks!

    Feel free to surf to my website: [url=http://morpheusfxsolutions.com]stealth forex
    scam[/url]

  • Avatar

    Yelder Retep

    |

    John O’Sullivan has posted numerous self-aggrandising, malicious and misleading articles and comments attacking Michael Mann and others who challenge his nonsense, whether they support the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change (CACC) hypothesis or not. Commenting on his PSI blog article “Mann v Ball Case hit by Fatal Technicality” (http://www.principia-scientific.org/key-global-warming-case-fails.html John O’Sullivan claimed “I am a party to the action in the Mann-v-Ball case .. ” (comment #9). Following another of his malicious attacks on Michael Mann “Michael Mann Faces Bankruptcy as his Courtroom Climate Capers Collapse” (http://www.principia-scientific.org/michael-mann-faces-bankruptcy-as-his-courtroom-climate-capers-collapse.html) he claimed “ .. I am an actual party in this action .. ” (comment #90). Over one year ago he made a similar unfounded pronouncement that “ .. Both Mann and Weaver are about to have their cases dismissed because neither will turn over their data for open court examination .. ” (http://johnosullivan.wordpress.com/about/). As always with his claims, close scrutiny is warranted rather than acceptance on face value.

    Following John O’Sullivan’s claim to be a party to the Mann v Ball case, retired investigative journalist Andrew Skolnick advised on 19th March 2014 that Michael Mann’s lawyer Roger McConchie had responded with “ .. O’Sullivan is not a party to the lawsuit, actual or otherwise .. ”. Unlike John O’Sullivan, Roger McConchie qualified in law through recognised channels rather than watching Judge Judy, reading a prisoners’ guide to law then purchasing his LL.B from an Internet diploma mill like Hill University in 2010. As someone who has enjoyed a successful career as a lawyer for decades (http://www.libelandprivacy.com/roger-mcconchie_bio.html) Mr McConchie has demonstrated a highly professional rather than lay understanding of law. On the other hand John O’Sullivan has had 18 years of intermittent employment as a high-school art teacher followed by a few years blogging as a “legal analyst” (http://johnosullivan.wordpress.com/about/).

    Many would regard Roger McConchie’s opinion as much more likely correct than that of layman John O’Sullivan.

    Andrew Skolnick suggested that as far as the court is concerned O’Sullivan has absolutely no standing in the case, being neither a plaintiff, defendent, one of their attorneys, or even a filer of any motion in Mann’s lawsuit past or present. Although Andrew Skolnick has submitted two sworn affidavits to the Supreme Court of British Columbia in connection with the case he does not consider himself to be a party to case.

    It seems that John O’Sullivan is simply a party to a contract (or perhaps more accurately, a bet) with Tim Ball regarding the outcome of the case, not a party to the case itself, but as is frequently the case, he tries to give others the impression that he is a significant participant rather than an insignificant non-entity.

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    I wonder if Mann has put much thought into the larger implications of all of this. Even if he does decide to withhold the data and declare bankruptcy and resign himself to being a Martyr for the AGW movement, him and his cohorts are not indemnified (I don’t know if that’s the right word) from class action lawsuits regarding FOIA violations. (One way or another the public is going to get ahold of that meta data, IMO.) And these kinds of lawsuits can often be stepping stones for criminal prosecution. And that is when the rats really start fleeing the ship. It only gets worse from there.

  • Avatar

    jsullivan

    |

    Countersuits by Steyn and Ball have been filed. We know Mann’s Canadian attorney, Roger McConchie is rated among the best, so he will pull every stunt necessary at Mann’s behest to buy as much time as he can. But now that 17 mainstream media outlets are switching sides to heap more pressure on Mann to reveal his hidden data, it’s a case of the longer this drags on, the more devastating the outcome for Mann – legally, professionally and financially.

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    Unless Mann pulls some incredible rabbit out of his hat–something completely unforseen–then it would appear that he has no choice but to drop both of his suits against Steyn and Ball. I am assuming that when this happens countersuits will be filed (or have they been filed already?). But does that mean that all of this is going to drag on for another 3 or 4 years? Mann has every incentive to continue to drag this out into eternity. John, do you have any kind of estimate as to how much longer it might be until something definitive comes from all of this?

  • Avatar

    jsullivan

    |

    Thanks Peter. In the four years since I first showed why Mann would lose his court battles we have seen qualified lawyers who really know their stuff increasingly confirming my analysis.

  • Avatar

    Plchampness

    |

    Interesting Post! Thanks John. You know the law. I just hope tha the Judge knows his/her law as well as you do. Lots of cases show that is not necessarily the case.

    One thing that Michael Mann might not have to prove:” that Mark Steyn ….had serious doubts about the truth of the statement”
    I would expect that Mark Steyn might help him with that part.

Comments are closed