Steve Kates has a helpful link to a piece by Mark Steyn. Buried in the documentation is a link to the actual Court document lodged by Mann’s lawyers to the civil division of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.
In this apparently sworn document we find two claims that Mann was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize – see paragraphs 2 and 17, for example
In 2007 , Dr Mann shared the Nobel Peace Prize …
Isn’t this perjury?
More important (by far) is the apparent ‘appeal to authority’ by Mann IN his claim by quoting all the inquiries which have verified his work. If that doesn’t allow the whole inquiry-roundabout to have their work reopened through discovery I would be very surprised. And the Penn emails would be included in that no doubt. As for other stuff, how I hope the scandalous Amman and Wahl scam is amongst them – see Casper and the Jesus Paper from Bishop Hill.
I don’t think words in an application are the same as a sworn affidavit plus the so-called prize ‘winners’ claims are meaningless (but for those who ceaselessly mock Monckton for claiming to be a winner are in for some re-education I suspect).
M Ryutin
26 Oct 12 at 6:56 am
Truth cheats in the AGW industry are as plentiful as drug cheats in cycling.
Blogstrop
26 Oct 12 at 7:09 am
This might be useful in cross-examination as a basis for an attack on his credibility as a witness of truth. At least is shows he exaggerates. The evidence might go to the issues depending on how the case develops.
rafiki
26 Oct 12 at 7:17 am
I would have thought that fantasies wouldn’t count.
If I were in court and claimed to be the King of England, I wouldn’t have thought it perjury. However, if I claimed that I was crowned by the archbishop of canterbury in Westminster Abbey, well, that’s another thing.
IANAL though, so a real one can easily set things straight.
brc
26 Oct 12 at 7:51 am
Not sure about British Columbia, but in NSW and by analogy; swearing an affidavit that contains matters known to be false would be a breach of the Oaths Act. Perjury is giving knowingly false evidence to a Court; so if the affidavit was read in proceeding in the Court then it would be perjury.
It is great cross examination material; any advocate worth his salt would start the cross-examination on that very point.
Brett
26 Oct 12 at 8:00 am
It’s bit like qualifying as an expert witness. The lawyer who wants to use your expertise generally establishes your bona fides to the court, via documentation or examination. Your testimony is then examined by the other side, who are also free to attempt to undermine your credibility as an expert, and call other experts who have differing views. If Mann claims to have won a Nobel Prize, I’m sure Steyn’s lawyers will contest it, and anything on the application to the court is contestable. That’s why applications have to be carefully written. Cases can be tossed out on such technicalities.
Keith
26 Oct 12 at 8:05 am
Samuel
I think it would be a long shot to have Mann charged with perjury in this instance. It would be worth a shot though.
I think CL suggested in an earlier thread that Steyn may lose the case as it’s a science matter.
However little Mann would fall under the category of a public figure and it’s devilishly hard to sue for defamation in the US if you’re a public figure.
Look, you can bring suit for anything. Winning is a different matter.
JC
26 Oct 12 at 8:26 am
It’s not perjury because the complaint is not under oath.
However, the parallel with Wilde v Queensberry is very strong. Mann, puffed up with ego and living in an echo chamber of admirers, has made a serious error.
When (not if) his misdeeds are laid clear his “admirers” will fall over each other to throw him to the wolves, just to protect themselves.
Popcorn time!
Cato the Elder
26 Oct 12 at 8:31 am
JC – this suit will be in a Canadian court, but their Supreme Court has created a similar public figure defence. See
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/741834–supreme-court-backs-press-in-major-libel-ruling
rafiki
26 Oct 12 at 8:35 am
Raf, it’s in the District of Columbia, read the Complaint
Cato the Elder
26 Oct 12 at 8:41 am
There were lots and lots of ‘experts’ who claimed that Steyn and Macleans wouldn’t beat the canuckistanian yuman rites kommissars, who at that point were running at a 100% ‘conviction’ rate.
The ‘experts’ were wrong.
Rabz
26 Oct 12 at 8:47 am
The complaint against Mark Steyn is confined to the ‘fraudulent’ comment which is more a matter of statistical analysis as was investigated by the Wegman committee and where Mann et al. were found to be incompetent.
manalive
26 Oct 12 at 9:05 am
JC, how would he lose on scientific grounds? Raw data from temperature records should suffice. Attacking Mann’s credibility will be like shooting fish in a barrel, starting with his false Nobel prize.
The Beer Whisperer
26 Oct 12 at 9:11 am
Alas, the worst that happens for Mann is a draw.
The fix is in.
That’s predetermined by the selection of the Judge….an ideological luvvie on the Whoopi Goldberg model.
Alfonso
26 Oct 12 at 9:23 am
I congratulate CL on showing some signs of common sense.
Cato the Elder makes a ridiculous comparison.
But continue the bush lawyering for which this site is famous.
steve from brisbane
26 Oct 12 at 9:31 am
Canada’s Criminal Code (2007) defines perjury at Section 131(1) :
cohenite
26 Oct 12 at 9:33 am
CRM 114 Discrimination services transcript:
Do not ever accuse the fantastic Ms Gillard of wrongdoing
.
26 Oct 12 at 9:36 am
Come for the bush lawyering, stay for the snark!
wreckage
26 Oct 12 at 10:02 am
You’re a dickhead steve; and obviously a hater of Australia because ‘bush lawyering’ is a fine Australian tradition.
cohenite
26 Oct 12 at 10:04 am
Cohenite
The complaint was made and filed in Washington DC. More importantly, it was not made under oath, so it can’t be perjury.
Cato the Elder
26 Oct 12 at 10:05 am
If the defamatory comments were made in Canada, how come the case is in Washington?
Ottawa should declare Independence
Bill
26 Oct 12 at 10:28 am
Oh, I thought it was made in Canada; my mistake.
In the US the General Code says this:
Mann’s complaint is here. Complaints presented to a court of any jurisdiction have the status of an oath given that they are signed off by a solicitor/lawyer.
Clause 5 of the complaint first introduces the declared truth that Mann is a “Nobel Prize recipient”.
If it can be shown that he is not a “Nobel Prize recipient” then I think he has misled the court, ie committed perjury.
More generally Mann’s complaint raises the validity of AGW science; the complaint says this science, including the hockeystick is true, valid and been confirmed.
This is a lie; in fact the opposite is true, AGW has been disproved.
This is a stand by the empire to attack one of its leading critics. I really hope Steyn is funded and willing to take Mann on in the wider context.
cohenite
26 Oct 12 at 10:31 am
Interesting comment from a practising lawyer.
SteveC
26 Oct 12 at 11:46 am
The Mann’s a complete fantasist. From his statement of claim:
In his Statement of Facts he supports this impressive claim by reference to papers he published with Bradley and Hughes in 1998 and 1999.
In fact, the IPCC Second Assessment Report (published in 1995) thoroughly discussed the 20th Century temperature rise, citing Jones and CRU (1988 and 1994), Hansen (1988) and Vinnikov (1990), NASA’s satellite data set, and the long term balloon data.
The SAR also thoroughly discusses the 20th Century trend in context of reconstructions of the past several thousand years. It particularly cites the ice core studies and a whole bunch of work in the 1980′s and early 1990′s trying (unsuccessfully) to correlate CO2 with surface temperature.
Mann’s work is entirely derivative. It probably wouldn’t have earned a PhD at that time – far less a Nobel Peace Prize.
Bring on the popcorn. Let the Jaffas roll.
Dr Faustus
26 Oct 12 at 11:46 am
.
Why?
cohenite
26 Oct 12 at 12:07 pm
Cato – thanks. I should have checked. I can plead in mitigation only that I was led astray by Brett’s reference to British Columbia.
rafiki
26 Oct 12 at 12:50 pm
as a nobel prize winner, mann is a public figure so he must show “actual malice” – the defendents published with either knowledge of falsity or in reckless disregard for the truth. This is a difficult standard for any plaintiff to meet.
A fairly high threshold of public activity is necessary to elevate people to public figures:
1. a public figure, either a public official or any other person pervasively involved in public affairs, or
2. a limited purpose public figure, meaning those who have “thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved.”
Jim Rose
26 Oct 12 at 6:46 pm
did he share in cashing the prize cheque?
Jim Rose
26 Oct 12 at 6:48 pm
Look, a Statement of Claim will always have some dodgy or misleading facts alleged, as will a Defence.
If a Claim or Defence had to state the truth subject to the rules of perjury, then the legal system would frankly come to a crashing halt, dogs would lie with cats, and sulphurous meteorites would come crashing to earth.
No-one expects truth, it is not on Oath, and is therefore not perjury.
A Statement of Claim is the allegation – the sworn “evidence” is supposed to be the truth.
Simple distinction from a bush lawyer.
Kaboom
26 Oct 12 at 7:11 pm
On reflection Kaboom, I would agree that the Complaint does not leave Mann open to perjury for materially incorrect statements such as being a Nobel Prize Recipient.
The execution by the lawyer is as the Complainant’s agent and does not then become an oath as when the lawyer’s execution testifies personally to the validity of the contents of the document as with Gillard and the missing application for association.
cohenite
26 Oct 12 at 10:53 pm
Uh oh. The Nobel Committee has just burned Dr Mann:
Pop goes the ego.
Bruce of Newcastle
27 Oct 12 at 8:17 am
Golly, bush lawyer corrects practising lawyer!
SteveC
27 Oct 12 at 9:00 am