Helen Dyer sends this. It is a web chat between Jim Simpson and Dr. Tim Ball about his legal fight with Michael Mann in Canada, you know, the one I wrote about at American Thinker a couple of days ago.

Hi Tim

Trust you’re well & bearing up under the strain of what I notice on PSI’s web site are a number of Blogs (initially by John O’Sullivan) regarding your ongoing legal issues with Michael Mann, though nothing mentioned on your web site.

As concerned ‘Climate Realists’ both myself & others within our Group in Sydney would dearly love to see the Canadian Court come out with a ruling in your favour. The more recent Blogs on PSI suggest something might be afoot.

If you’re able to provide more detail, we would be most interested on where things stand?


Rgds, Jim Simpson

Convenor

Climate Realists of Five Dock

"De Omnibus Dubitandum” – Question Everything!

Further insight, per John O’Sullivan at PSI into the ongoing legal tangle re Michael Mann V’s Tim Ball soon to come to a head in Canada.

http://principia-scientific.org/breaking-michael-mann-doubles-down-over-contempt-issue/

Jim

Hi Jim:

Basically what Mann did was bring a lawsuit against me then deny me the documents I need to defend myself. Here is the balance of the details.

O’Sullivan is mostly correct. We agreed to an adjournment because Canadian courts always grant them before a trial in the hope of an out-of-court trial. In return we made certain demands that Mann agreed to that included producing computer codes and all documents and data used to create the ‘hockey stick.’ He had to produce these by February 20th, the original date of the trial. He did not produce them. This is where O’Sullivan went a little too far. Technically this puts Mann in contempt because he is denying me documents I need to prove my innocence. However, that judgment must be made by the court and we are in the process of seeking a ruling.

My lawyer and I understand that Mann is claiming that he does not have to turn over the material because a US court ruled it is his intellectual property (Cuccinelli State of Virginia against Mann). His problem is that Canadian courts that he cannot bring a charge against me then refuse access to material necessary for my defense. It is almost certain they will rule in my favour but it is not fait accompli.

In Canada, contempt sanctions mean the judge must grant Ball whatever reasonable remedy he requests to rectify the contempt. This means, upon Ball’s application, the court can make a finding that Ball’s statement that Mann "belongs in the state pen, not Penn. State” is a "precise and true statement of fact.” That’s because Canada has the distinctive "Truth Defense”, which mandates that the court must rule, upon Ball’s written application, that Mann’s failure to produce the documents means Mann hid them out of motivation to conceal his crime. Thereafter, because it is ruled Mann did commit a crime, the court can do no other (under the legal doctrine of "unclean hands”) than dismiss the entire suit and order Mann to pay costs and legal fees to Dr. Ball.

I chose the "Truth Defense” precisely because it allowed me to demand discovery. I could have chosen the Fair Comment” defence which would result in considerably less damages if I lost but did not allow for discovery.

Incidentally, I continue to prepare for my third lawsuit (all brought by members of the IPCC) brought by Andrew Weaver. He was a lead author on the computer model chapter for four of the IPCC Reports (1995,2001, 2007, 2013). His problem is that since he filed the lawsuit he ran for political office in British Columbia and was elected to the legislature as the leader of the Green Party.

One court journalist wrote, Weaver is in a difficult position because the history of Canadian courts is to dismiss scientists who become politicians as biased by the "noble cause” syndrome. My lawyers think he will evade the trial like Mann and this raises another problem.

The other distressing bias of my lawsuits is that they can simply do nothing, that is, effectively, let them drop. Yes, I could appeal for damages but this would take years and thousands more dollars. As it is I am looking at legal bills of well over 1 million dollars.

There are larger issues because the lawsuits are what they classify as SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits against Public Participation). The legal people are so concerned that this allows the law to silence and punish people rather than protect them that many jurisdictions are passing anti-SLAPP legislation. It is important to note that 8 of 10 Canadian Provinces have such legislation. All three of my lawsuits were filed in British Columbia, one of two without such legislation (The other is Ontario).

I will not stop because I am preparing a very large public campaign to help the people understand the science corruption that occurred as well as the misuse of the legal system.

As the Yiddish proverb says, "The truth never dies, but lives a wretched life.”



Hope that helps? Let me know if you have any further questions

Tim

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 08:03 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 875 words, total size 6 kb.