Damning Ruling Posted in the Mann-v-Ball ‘Trial of the Century’
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:
“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.”
“[12] Accordingly, I find that the delay is inexcusable. “ …. ”[14] I also find that there has been actual prejudice to the defendant as a consequence of the delay.”.…” [16] 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.” [emphasis added] In the circumstances, justice requires that the action be dismissed and, accordingly, I do hereby dismiss the action for delay.”
Mark Steyn, who is deep into a similar SLAPP case brought against him by the vexatious litigant, “Doctor Fraudpants”, offers a delicious reaction – well worth a read. Once again Dr Michael E Mann is exposed as a pathological liar, as Steyn puts it:
“Truly, the scale of Mann’s lies is the most impressive thing about him.”
Jovial Steyn dissects the diseased mind for his sick mischaracterisations:
“Mann always presents himself as the victim… He chose to sue – and without that conscious choice there would be no legal action. So, when Mann says there was no “finding that Ball’s allegations were correct”, Ball did not allege anything: That is a legal term and the only allegations before the Court were Mann’s, in his statement of claim against Ball. Those Mann allegations have been dismissed with prejudice – so, in layman’s terms, Mann lost and Ball won.”
As the cited passages prove, Mann was delinquent in the prosecution of his claim. As Steyn correctly points out:
“defendant Ball is not required to “prove” anything; the burden is on plaintiff Mann to prove his case. If he doesn’t bring a case, then (to use the English formulation) there’s no case to answer.”
In short, Ball used Mann’s hockey shtick and slapped the legal puck in Dr Fraudster’s mouth. We anticipate the contemptible little Mann will follow through on his cowardly threat and NOT honor the court order to pay Dr Ball’s legal costs.
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.
As we repeatedly predicted, Mann would never show his ‘secret science’ in court without revealing proof of his criminal intentions.
We can only hope that President Trump’s legal and scientific advisers realize what a golden opportunity Dr Ball has given them.
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
rod
| #
“We can only hope that President Trump’s legal and scientific advisers realize what a golden opportunity Dr Ball has given them.”
Reply
Tom O
| #
I find Steyn’s logic as well as yours as being a bit foggy. You publish a statement that says Mann is a fraud and a crook, or, in Ball’s case a statement that implies Mann belongs in jail. And then you say, in Ball’s case, he doesn’t have to prove anything. By that you are implying that Mann was supposed to prove he didn’t belong in jail. I disagree with your logic. YOU have to prove that you are not guilty of malicious intent when you attack another person’s character and potentially their livelihood. If that was not the case I could sit here and say you were a child rapist and by your logic, when you say you are not, the burden of proof is yours to prove that you are not a child rapist. Be careful about what you seek with the name calling, because the burden of proof will be on you to prove that he is what you say, not that he has to prove that he is not.
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
Mann stole Ball’s time and money. He has been found guilty of this and forced to pay restitution. Ball uttered “hurtful” words and followed it up with no action. Mann forced Ball to act. He forced him to show up in court. The physical attack came squarely from Mann.
Also, if Mann didn’t work at Penn State, there would be no punny JOKE to make. Mann is attacking freedom of speech and comedy. He’s a repugnant human being, and no I don’t need to prove that in court.
Reply
judy Ryan
| #
Well stated Zoe, especially your closing paragraph.
Reply
John O'Sullivan
| #
Tom, clearly you don’t understand that in libel law the truth defense requires the parties disclose all the key evidence. Mann signed a binding agreement in 2017 to release the key ‘secret data’ on condition Ball agreed to an adjournment of the scheduled trial. Ball’s statement, for which he was being sued, that Mann “belongs in the state pen, not Penn state’ was premised on the fact that Mann refused the release his hidden r2 regression numbers. Ball said those numbers were hidden ‘from a consciousness of guilt’ – that is, Mann knew any reasonable person who saw his hidden data would recognise he intentionally rigged his hockey stick graph – a crime.
Mann unlawfully breached the legal undertaking and that is now actionable. We are planning to seek a legal remedy.
Reply
Andy Rowlands
| #
Wow! Cracking article John!
Reply
Joseph Olson
| #
“Hockey Stickery Doc” > CanadaFreePress(.)com
Reply
K Kaiser
| #
Clearly, Mann being a generation younger than Ball, has been “playing for time.”
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Tom O: I find Steyn’s logic as well as yours as being a bit foggy. You publish a statement that says Mann is a fraud and a crook, or, in Ball’s case a statement that implies Mann belongs in jail. And then you say, in Ball’s case, he doesn’t have to prove anything.
JMcG: Right. Ball and O’sullivan have freedom of speech. They can say whatever they want. And there can be no civil penalties as long as their statement(s) don’t maliciously misrepresent the truth about Mann and/or they don’t cause damages. Mann brought suit, in effect claiming that Ball’s and O’sullivan’s statements were untrue, intentionally malicious, and caused damages (and it must be all three, not just one or two). The burden of proof is on Mann.
Tom O: By that you are implying that Mann was supposed to prove he didn’t belong in jail.
JMcG: There is no implication that Mann has to prove anything. But if Mann expects to win his lawsuit then we would expect that he would make an attempt to prove his claim that Ball’s and O’sullivan’s statements were untrue, intentionally malicious, and damaging to him or his reputation.
Tom O: I disagree with your logic. YOU have to prove that you are not guilty of malicious intent when you attack another person’s character and potentially their livelihood.
JMcG: No, neither side is obligated to prove anything. This is not a criminal case. This is a civil case.
Tom O: If that was not the case I could sit here and say you were a child rapist and by your logic, when you say you are not, the burden of proof is yours to prove that you are not a child rapist.
JMcG: No, because you have free speech. You can say that. But if it could be demonstrated in court that your statement resulted in unfair damages and that you did so with malice then you might have a civil judgement leveled against you. But the fact that you stated this does not mean that your target is under any obligation to dispute it or even acknowledge it. Mann could have ignored Ball’s statement. (And I bet now he wishes he did.) If Mann’s r2 regression data is honest science then one can only wonder why he does not release it now and why he did not release it a long, long time ago.
We all have free speech. It protects us from saying things that are malicious and it protects us from saying things that are untrue. And it even protects us from saying things that are malicious and untrue if they don’t cause damages. But it does not pretect us from saying things that are both malicious and untrue if they cause damage to others.
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
Correction to The Current Model of Hydrogen Bonding in Water
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=17448
Reply
Tom O
| #
To say something once in a joking manner might very well be “an exercise of freedom of speech.” To say it repetitively, is not the same thing. When you call someone a name or imply the same thing a number of times in public venues, you are not exercising freedom of speech, you are intending to impugn the character of someone, and since that someone is a public figure, quite conceivably impact their livelihood. The statements themselves, when added together, would appear to me to be adequate proof of malicious intent.
Having carefully read the wording of the “final ruling,” I am not convinced that Mann lost the case or that Ball won, it reads to me like the judge decided that Ball had suffered enough, but did not indicate in the wording anything other than the case took too long to close. You can read into it, I suppose, anything you want, but words do generally have distinct meanings.
And perhaps I should also point out that I have no use for Mann and think his work is questionable, and he personally is far overrated. I do not appreciate what his work has done to the world I live in, but just like every other person, he too has rights. There are those that should have long since been in jail for real crimes but still walk the streets. Mann’s work can be considered an unwarranted attack on human life itself, but I would no more call him a fraud or crook repeatedly as some do because I have no proof of that to be true, nor do I accept that others can’t duplicate his “secret formula” as proof of anything other than they don’t know how it was accomplished. Since it doesn’t fit the facts that I know, I ignore it. And since he says nothing of interest to me, I ignore him as well.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Tom O: The statements themselves, when added together, would appear to me to be adequate proof of malicious intent.
JMcG: I agree. Ball might even agree. However, was there, “willful intent to spread harmful untruths?” No. Not in my opinion. I am seeing a willful intent to spread the truth as perceived by Ball. And so, even if Mann’s lawyers can prove that Mann doesn’t belong in the state penitentiary Ball’s statement is protected if it can be demonstrated that he really did believe Mann’s actions are criminal. Essentially, Mann’s lawyer would have to prove that Ball’s statement would result in personal gain by Ball. And even then Mann’s lawyer would have to prove that Ball knew he would make this personal gain.
Tom O: Having carefully read the wording of the “final ruling,” I am not convinced that Mann lost the case or that Ball won,
JMcG: The case was dismissed. Of course Mann, being the lying piece of crap he really is, is going to try to spin it that he won. But the fact is that the case was dismissed because he refused to bring forth the r2 regression data. And keep in mind that this purported data has cost the american taxpayer hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars.
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
The current meteorological paradigm is comprised of morons who think hurricanes are caused by warm water. The energy of hurricanes and all storms comes from jet streams and is delivered through vortices in the form of low pressure. (Wind shear at low altitudes is the most important predictor of severe weather.) Warm moist air/water is not the source of the energy of storms, it’s the target of the low pressure energy of vortices:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=210#p122351
Reply
Mark
| #
When dealing with Public Figures, which both people are, the bar is even higher. You also have to prove willful intent to spread untruths and cause harm. Intent is hard to prove if one makes a joke, no matter how nasty it is. Thank God for the First Amendment. By the way, I have spent many an hour in court. Have all of you??
Reply
Steve Parker
| #
I found this comment on another site very funny. I’m sure you’ve heard it before but here it is. It is in regards to the hockey stick:
It’s “Mann-Made” Climate change.
Reply
Strelnikov
| #
From one litigator to another, well done, indeed.
Reply
John O'Sullivan
| #
Thanks, we plan to go on the offensive now and expose the climate fraud in the courts.
Reply