Wednesday, August 28, 2019

Follow-up Statement From Mann's Lawyer


18 comments:

David in Cal said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
David in Cal said...

I am confused by the contradictory statements put out by Mann, Ball and their lawyers. Ball says Mann lost his suit because Mann failed to provide certain material. Ball says Mann had agreed to provide this material in response to Ball's demand in 2017, when Mann requested that the trial be delayed. Mann's lawyer McConchie says it's not the case that that Mann failed to provide materials ordered by the Court. These statements appear contradictory. However, maybe McConchie is splitting hairs. Maybe Mann's failure to provide certain material is why the case was dismissed, but that material was not literally "ordered by the Court." Instead, it was agreed to by Mann in response to a request from Ball.

Of course, this is just a hypothesis. However, if there was no tricky wording, then someone must be outright lying.

Cheers

Entropic man said...

Anyone got a transcript of the judge's statement?

David Appell said...

I don't, but will try to get one. I think it's here:

https://justice.gov.bc.ca/cso/esearch/file/hearingDetail.do?fileID=2215840

David Appell said...

DiC, where is Ball saying these things?

BTW, Mann didn't "lose" the suit.

Entropic man said...

David Appell

Thank you for the link to the BC court system.

This is the text of the order from the bench.

Order
1) Order that the claim made by Plaintiff be dismissed.
2) Costs will follow the event and of the action since the action is dismissed.




David in Cal said...

David - I believe I gave you Ball's version a couple of days ago. Here it is again

As Dr Ball explains:

“Michael Mann moved for an adjournment of the trial scheduled for February 20, 2017. We had little choice because Canadian courts always grant adjournments before a trial in their belief that an out of court settlement is preferable. We agreed to an adjournment with conditions. The major one was that he [Mann] produce all documents including computer codes by February 20th, 2017. He failed to meet the deadline.”

Punishment for Civil Contempt

Mann’s now proven contempt of court means Ball is entitled to have the court serve upon Mann the fullest punishment.

https://principia-scientific.org/breaking-fatal-courtroom-act-ruins-michael-hockey-stick-mann/

What do you mean that Mann didn't "lose" the suit? Do you mean, he merely failed to win the suit? Under that interpretation, a plaintiff can never "lose" a suit.

Cheers

David Appell said...

Mann won in the sense that the defendant admitted/argued he wasn't popular or credible enough for his words to be taken seriously.

Layzej said...

"2) Costs will follow the event and of the action since the action is dismissed."

I tried to run this through Google translate but it couldn't recognize the language. (seems there is no option for Lawyerese) ;P

Entropic man said...

Layzei

I've been searching myself and found this definition.

Costs Follow The Event Definition:
An award of costs will generally flow with the result of litigation; the successful party being entitled to an order for costs against the unsuccessful party.

A general principle of the law of costs that a party who is substantially successful in litigation is entitled to costs.

It is a principle only, as in costs, barring a statute to the contrary, the determination is a matter of judicial discretion.

Layzej said...

In this case I presume that Tim Ball is the "substantially successful party". I wonder why Michael Mann says "...the Court's order relating to costs does NOT mean that I will pay Ball's legal fees"?

Entropic man said...

While the principle of "cost follows the event" is that the loser pays the costs of the winner, the winner must submit a request for costs to the court. Ultimately the amount of costs is decided by the judge. I've been browsing a few cases and costs awarded have varied from 100% down to zero depending on a number of factors.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Costs_in_English_law

The above link refers to English law, and Canada follows a similar pattern.

Layzej said...

Interesting. Thanks.

Phil Clarke said...

Dr Ball can make any 'conditions' he likes, but unless they are given force by the Judge, they have no legal meaning. The Judge made no such order. Mann's lawyer couldn't be clearer; they complied fully with all requests for information.

John O'Sullivan has shown himself more than capable of outright fabrication, I really would advise against relying on anything he posts until you've checked it thoroughly.

David in Cal said...

Phil - The trouble with Mann's lawyer's statement is that it does not clearly explain why Mann's case was dismissed.

Cheers

Entropic man said...

David in Cal

The judge knows, but, until he publishes a written judgement, the rest of us are just speculating.

That includes the plaintiff, the defendant and their lawyers.

David in Cal said...

Entropic man -- don't you think the judge announced his grounds orally when he dismissed the suit?

Cheers

Marco said...

I accidently found this:
https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/ca/19/02/2019BCCA0223.htm
regarding an appeal of Weaver vs Ball
We see Ball apparently arguing that a) he's old and sick, and b) his comments have no negative impact.

Also, it appears not all Supreme Court decisions are published, so maybe Mann vs Ball may not be published, either.