More Doctored Evidence

Not in any of the cases in which I’m a defendant. At least, not yet. No, this is about a fabricated quote used by warm monger Michael Mann in his defamation suit against Mark Steyn.

There’s no way I’m going to try to beat Mark Steyn at telling his own story. Go read it here, but what it has in common with the suits in which I’m a codefendant is a sharp-eyed person catching a seemingly minor discrepancy, in Steyn’s case, the difference between the British and American spellings of rigour/rigor.

Read the whole thing.

2 thoughts on “More Doctored Evidence

  1. Hahaha Mann claims to have been “exonerated” by various inquiries…sounds like somebody else I know. Is there some kind of textbook or template these guys follow that I’m not aware of?

  2. And there’s more here –

    One of the commenters makes the following interesting observation:

    “The facts alleged in a complaint may allow one to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, but those same alleged facts may subject one to sanctions under Rule 11(b)(3).

    In ruling on a motion to dismiss, the court must accept the factual allegations in a complaint as if they were true. If those alleged facts (assumed to be true) would support a cause of action, then the motion to dismiss must be denied. However, if it later becomes clear that those factual allegations were false (“without evidentiary support” in the language of Rule 11), then the court can sanction the person responsible for the violation. However, the rule also allows the party who filed the offending pleading to correct it upon notice.

    It is possible that the defendants in this matter may have already served the plaintiff with a motion for sanctions based on the lack of evidentiary support for some of the allegations. The sanctions motion is not filed with the court, however, unless the offending pleading is not corrected within 21 days of receiving the motion for sanctions.

    To what extent the court relied upon the exonerations alleged in the complaint by Mann to defeat the motions to dismiss is unclear to me because, although both orders denying dismissal seem to rely heavily on Mann’s claim to have been exonerated, the orders don’t cite the specific allegations upon which the court relied. If a judge relied upon certain factual allegations to deny a motion to dismiss, and it later turns out that those allegations were unexcusably inaccurate (like, say, intentionally misquoting a document), my guess is that the judge might be inclined to revisit its previous orders.”

    PS if historical whois information or similar (e.g. DNS data showing what names were at what IP addresses) turns out to be useful feel free to drop me a line. That’s part of $dayjob

Leave a Reply