good report. here is an addition and a correction:
1. the venue here is The Superior Court of the District of Columbia. by way of further info that may interest some of your readers, this is a federal court only because DC is not a state. the DC superior court where this case is pending is not part of the larger federal court system, and this court is unrelated to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and not part of the federal district court system. finally, there is only one court of general appellate jurisdiction in the DC court system (as opposed to two in all the states i know), and that is the DC Court of Appeals. so an aggrieved party would have an appeal of right to DC's higher court, and from there its only recourse would be to ask SCOTUS to take the case, which it almost certainly would not
2. there is no due process right to a speedy trial in civil matters. the sixth amendment of the federal constitution applies only to criminal trials. the text of the sixth amendment is quoted below
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."
RBX: I'm a scientist, not an attorney, so it's always good to hear from a lawyer regarding the legal intricacies. It's good to see that none of your good comments undermined any of the Science arguments I presented that should make this a winning cases for Steyn.
An important distinction. Mark Steyn is not comparing Mann to Sandusky, he is only pointing out that Penn State handled both cases similarly, basically sweeping the allegations under the rug.
Thank you! There’s a FANTASTIC podcast by Unreported Story Society following this as well using actors to read highlights from the transcripts. Link here:
Fruit of a poisoned brain which erroneously declared its owner a recipient of the Nobel prize for physics must be evaluated as the font of another deadly error which ignores valid evidence regarding historical climate temperature evidence.
Subject deranged brain source of gross falsehood in matter of personal recognition leading to probability of malcognition in climate temperature record .
good report. here is an addition and a correction:
1. the venue here is The Superior Court of the District of Columbia. by way of further info that may interest some of your readers, this is a federal court only because DC is not a state. the DC superior court where this case is pending is not part of the larger federal court system, and this court is unrelated to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and not part of the federal district court system. finally, there is only one court of general appellate jurisdiction in the DC court system (as opposed to two in all the states i know), and that is the DC Court of Appeals. so an aggrieved party would have an appeal of right to DC's higher court, and from there its only recourse would be to ask SCOTUS to take the case, which it almost certainly would not
2. there is no due process right to a speedy trial in civil matters. the sixth amendment of the federal constitution applies only to criminal trials. the text of the sixth amendment is quoted below
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."
RBX: I'm a scientist, not an attorney, so it's always good to hear from a lawyer regarding the legal intricacies. It's good to see that none of your good comments undermined any of the Science arguments I presented that should make this a winning cases for Steyn.
I'd recommend Tony Heller if Mark Steyn needs back up of a real climate science guy!
Tony Heller is indeed a quality researcher on the climate issue.
An important distinction. Mark Steyn is not comparing Mann to Sandusky, he is only pointing out that Penn State handled both cases similarly, basically sweeping the allegations under the rug.
Yes, exactly.
John. This trial is exceptionally important. Thank you for elaborating on the merits.
Thank you! There’s a FANTASTIC podcast by Unreported Story Society following this as well using actors to read highlights from the transcripts. Link here:
https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/unreported-story-society4/episodes/Ep--4--Michael-Manns-Vomit-Excuse-Me--While-I-Puke-e2er0p0
Climategate is not a historical event. It is an ongoing process. It ain't over 'till it's over.
A clear Steyn win would be a "Mann-tastic" step in the right direction.
Fruit of a poisoned brain which erroneously declared its owner a recipient of the Nobel prize for physics must be evaluated as the font of another deadly error which ignores valid evidence regarding historical climate temperature evidence.
Subject deranged brain source of gross falsehood in matter of personal recognition leading to probability of malcognition in climate temperature record .
Do you have a statement you wish put forth? These are little more than random words.
Nick: TY. The case is not about the legitiomacy of climate change, but just about the very specific Hockey Stick graph — nothing more, nothing less.