Excerpt from Steyn's MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT: "Michael Mann’s ill-conceived and baseless eight-year-old libel suit against cultural commentator Mark Steyn has gone on long enough. Discovery, now over, has shown that this suit is not about defamation. ... The eight years since Mann filed suit have only confirmed the essential truth of Steyn’s characterization of Penn State. However embarrassing that might be for a prominent beneficiary of that regime, he cannot seek to have Steyn found liable for Penn State’s guilt: that is a legal nonsense. Like discovery, this case itself should end now too."
By: Marc Morano - Climate DepotJanuary 25, 2021 11:32 AM
Flashback June 2020: Mark Steyn: “The Mann vs Steyn case is about to enter its ninth year in the choked septic tank of the District of Columbia (pending name change) “judicial” system.” … “The process IS the punishment.” The Costs of Mann Delay: or Michael E Mann, Loser (Again) and Deadbeat (for Sure) :: SteynOnline
#


Also see Mark Steyn’s devastating book: “A Disgrace to the Profession” – The World’s Scientists, In Their Own Words, On Michael E Mann, His Hockey Stick And Their Damage To Science – Compiled and edited by Mark Steyn, with illustrations by Josh
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1353165090992873472.html
https://ricochet.com/876134/mark-steyn-motion-for-summary-judgment/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
Mark Steyn’s Motion for Summary Judgment
I was woefully behind on this issue, but reading this helped bring me up to date, I think. I didn’t know a court filing could be written this way, though. It started out more like a moderate polemic, and then settled down into being very informative. It was also very readable.
I hadn’t known any of the details it contains about the Penn State committee that was supposed to investigate Mann. It fits my preconceived notions of how the deep state works to protect its own, though. For example, a member of the committee who had recused himself continued to be involved behind the scenes. And the President of the university, to whom the committee was supposed to be reporting, was giving feedback and suggestions regarding the drafting of the report.
Steyn makes the point that the Michael Mann case is of one piece with the Jerry Sandusky case, in which Penn State also fostered a culture in which the university’s reputation was temporarily protected at the expense of ethical considerations.