2012-10-22 Initial Order Summons and Complaint

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CIVIL DIVISlON
MICHAEL E. MANN PhD
Vs. C.A. No. 2012 CA 008263 B
NATIONAL REVIEW, INC.
INITIAL ORDER AND ADDENDUM
Pursuant to D.C. Code 11-906 and District of Columbia Superior Court Rule of Civil Procedure
("SCR Civ") 40-I, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
(1) Effective this date, this case has assigned to the individual calendar designated below. All future filings
in this case shall bear the calendar number and the judge's name beneath the case number in the caption. On
filing any motion or paper related thereto, one copy (for the judge) must be delivered to the Clerk along with the
original.
(2) Within 60 days of the filing of the complaint, plaintiff must file proof of serving on each defendant:
copies of the Summons, the Complaint, and this Initial Order. As to any defendant for whom such proof of
service has not been filed, the Complaint will be dismissed without prejudice for want of prosecution unless the
time for serving the defendant has been extended as provided in SCR Civ 4(m).
(3) Within 20 days of service as described above, except as otherwise noted in SCR Civ 12, each defendant
must respond to the Complaint by filing an Answer or other responsive pleading. As to the defendant who has
failed to respond, a default and judgment will be entered unless the time to respond has been extended as
provided in SCR Civ 55( a).
( 4) At the time and place noted below, all counsel and unrepresented parties shall appear before the
assigned judge at an Initial Scheduling and Settlement Conference to discuss the possibilities of settlement and
to establish a schedule for the completion of all proceedings, including, normally, either mediation, case
evaluation, or arbitration. Counsel shall discuss with their clients prior to the conference whether the clients are
agreeable to binding or non-binding arbitration. This order is the only notice that parties and counsel will
teceive conceming this Conference.
(5) Upon advice that the date noted below is inconvenient for any patty or counsel, the Quality Review
Branch (202) 879-1750 may continue the Conference 2!!, with the consent of all parties, to either of the two
succeeding Fridays. Request must be made not less than six business days before the scheduling conference date.
No other continuance ofthe conference will be granted except upon motion for good cause shown.
(6) Parties are responsible for obtaining and complying with all requirements of the General Order for Civil
cases, each Judge's Supplement to the General Order and the General Mediation Order. Copies of these orders
are available in the Courtroom and on the Court's website http://www.dccourts.gov/.
Case Assigned to: Judge NAI'ALIA COMBS GREENE
Date: _Q<;tober 22, 2012
Initial Conference: 9:00am, Friday, January 25, 2013
Location: Courtroom 317
500 Indiana Avenue N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20001
Chief Judge Lee F. Satterfield
Caio.doc
ADDENDUM TO INITIAL ORDER AFFECTING
ALL MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASES
In accordance with the Medical Malpractice Proceedings Act of2006, D.C. Code 16-2801,
et seq. (2007 Winter Supp.), "[a]fter an action is filed in the court against a healthcare provider
alleging medical malpractice, the court shall require the parties to enter into mediation, without
discovery or, if all parties agree[,] with only limited discovery that will not interfere with the
completion of mediation within 30 days of the Initial Scheduling and Settlement Conference
("ISSC"), prior to any further litigation in an effort to reach a settlement agreement. The early
mediation schedule shall be included in the Scheduling Order following the ISSC. Unless all
parties agree, the stay of discovery shall not be more than 30 days after the ISSC." D.C. Code 16-
2821.
To ensure compliance with this legislation, on or before the date of the ISSC, the Court will
notify all attorneys and pro se parties of the date and time of the early mediation session and the
name of the assigned mediator. Information about the early mediation date also is available over
the internet at https://www:dccourts.gov/pa/. To facilitate this process, all counsel and pro se
parties in every medical malpractice case are required to confer, jointly complete and sign an
EARLY MEDIATION FORM, which must be filed no later than ten (10) calendar days prior to the
ISSC. Two separate Early Mediation Forms are available. Both forms may be obtained at
www.dccourts.gov/medmalmediation. One form is to be used for early mediation with a mediator
Jiom the multi-door medical malpractice mediator roster; the second form is to be used for early
mediation with a private mediator. Both forms also are available in the Multi-Door Dispute
Resolution Office, Suite 105, 515 5th Street, N.W. (enter at Police Memorial Plaza entrance).
Plaintiffs counsel is responsible for eFiling the form and is required to e-mail a courtesy copy to
earlymedmal@dcsc.gov. Prose Plaintiffs who elect not to eFile may file by hand in the Multi-Door
Dispute Resolution Office.
A roster of medical malpractice mediators available through the Court's Multi-Door Dispute
Resolution Division, with biographical information about each mediator, can be found at
www.dccourts.gov/medmalmediation/mediatorprofiles. All individuals on the roster are judges or
lawyers with at least I 0 years of significant experience in medical malpractice litigation. D.C. Code
16-2823(a). If the parties cannot agree on a mediator, the Court will appoint one. D.C. Code
16-2823(b ).
The following persons are required by statute to attend personally the Early Mediation
Conference: (I) all parties; (2) for parties that arc not individuals, a representative with settlement
authority; (3) in cases involving an insurance company, a representative of the company with
settlement authority; and ( 4) attorneys representing each party with primary responsibility for the
case. D.C. Code 16-2824.
No later than ten (I 0) days atler the early mediation session has terminated, Plaintiff must
eFile with the Court a report prepared by the mediator, including a private mediator, regarding: (I)
attendance; (2) whether a settlement was reached; or, (3) if a settlement was not reached, any
agreements to narrow the scope of the dispute, limit discovery, facilitate future settlement, hold
another mediation session, or otherwise reduce the cost and time of trial preparation. D.C. Code
16-2826. Any Plaintiff who is pro se may elect to file the report by hand with the Civil Clerk's
Office. The forms to be used for early mediation reports are available at
www.dccourts.gov/medmalmediation.
Chief Judge Lee F. Satterfield
Caio.doc
Michael E. Mann, Ph.D.
VS.
Mark Steyn
------
To the above named Defendant:
Superior Court of the District of Columbia
CIVIL DIVISION
500 Indiana Avenue, N.W., Suite 5000
Washington, D.C. 20001 Telephone: (202) 8791133
PlaintilT
Case Number
Dct'endant
SUMMONS
You are hereby summoned and required to serve an Answer to the attached Complaint, either
personally or through an attorney, within twenty (20) days after service of this summons upon you, exclusive
of the day of service. If you are being sued as an officer or agency of the United States Government or the
District of Columbia Government, you have sixty (60) days after service of this summons to serve your
Answer. A copy of the Answer must be mailed to the attorney for the party plaintiff who is suing you. The
attorney's name and address appear below. If plaintiff has no attorney, a copy of the Answer must be mailed
to the plaintiff at the address stated on this Summons.
You are also required to file the original Answer with the Court in Suite 5000 at 500 Indiana Avenue,
N.W., between 8:30a.m. and 5:00p.m., Mondays through Fridays or between 9:00a.m. and 12:00 noon on
Saturdays. You may file the original Answer with the Court either before you serve a copy of the Answer on
the plaintiff or within five (5) days after you have served the plaintiff. If you fail to file an Answer, judgment
by default may be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.
John B. Williams
....
Cozen 0 Connor
1627 I Street, NW,
Address
Washington, D.C.
202-912-4800
Telephone
Ste., 1100
20006
Clerk of the Court
\LY \Cv
Deputy Clctk
By
(
''\t' ') [2D I .. Date I " 2." _ -'-'/"".'------
tznmlilll,m'Htt! it (202) 879-4828 Veuil!ez appeler au (202) 879-4828 pour une traduction cO rn6t biu d!ch, hiiy gQi {202) 879-4828
l':!%fAI\!!, (202) 879-4828 h:1?" (202) 8794828 r ..
IMPOHTANT: IF YOU FAIL TO FILE AN ANSWER WITHIN TilE TIME STATED ABOVE, OR IF, AFTER YOU
ANSWER, YOU FAIL TO APPEAR AT ANY TIME THE COURT NOTIFIES YOU TO DO SO, A JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT
MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU FOR THE MONEY DAMAGES OR OTHER RELIEF DEMANDED IN THE
COMPLAINT. IF THIS OCCURS, YOUR WAGES MAY BE A'fTACHED OR WITHHELD OR PERSONAL PROPERTY OR
REAL ESTATE YOU OWN MAY BE TAKEN AND SOLD TO PAY THE JUDGMENT. IF YOU INTEND TO OPPOSE THIS
ACTION, DJll:lQLE!JlL.Jil..A.NSWER W!Ilil!'!. 71if: REQUIRED TIME.
If you wish to talk to a lawyer and fCc! that you cannot afford to pay a fcc to a lawyer, promptly contact one of the offices of the
Legal Aid Society (2026281 I 61) or the Neighborhood Legal Services (202279-51 00) for help or come to Suite 5000 at 500
Indiana Avenue, N.W., lOr more information concerning places where you may ask for such help.
FORM SUMMONS- Jan. 20 II
Sec reverse side for Spanish translation
Yea al dorso Ia traducci6n a! cspafiol
CASUM.doc
AI susodicho Dcmandado:
TRIBUNAL SUPERIOR DEL DISTRITO DE COLUMBIA
DIVISION CIVIL
contra
500 Indiana Avenue, N.W., Suite ;;ooo
Washington, D.C. 20001 TciCfono: (202) 8791133
Dcmandante
Nlunero de Caso:
Demand ado
CITATORJO
Por Ia prcsentc se le cita a comparecer y se le require entregar una Contestaci6n a Ia Demanda adjunta, sea en
persona o por medio de un abogado, en cl plazo de veinte (20) dias contados despues que usted haya recibido este
citatorio, excluyendo el dia mismo de Ia entrcga del citatorio. Si usted esta demandado en calidad de oficial o
agente del Gobierno de los Estados Unidos de Nmteamerica o del Gobiern(}del Distrito de Columbia, tiene usted
sesenta (60) dias contados dcspuCs que usted haya recibido este citatorio, ___ panl,_-<fptregar su Contcstaci6n. Tiene que
enviarle por correo una copia de su Contestaci6n al abogado de Ia pmte--demandante. El nombre y direcci6n del
abogado aparecen a! final de este documento. Si el demandado no tieqe que cnviarle a! dcmandantc una
copia de Ia Contestaci6n por corrco a Ia direcci6n que aparece en estEtCitatqri(>,.
A usted tambien se le require Ia Contestacign original ai.Tribunal en Ia Oficina 5000, silo en 500
Indiana Avenue, N.W., entre las 8:30a.m. y 5:00p.m., de l,unes;li viernes,o entre las 9:00a.m. y las 12:00 del mediodia
los sabados. Usted puede prcsentar Ia Contestaci6n original lint!'. 'FJuez ya sea antes que Usted le entregue al
demandantc una copia de Ia Contestaci6n o en el plaza de cinco (5) dias de haberle heche Ia entrega al demandante. Si
usted incumple con presentar una Contestaci6n, podrfa'--d_iptarse \m fallo en rebeldia contra usted para que se haga
efectivo el desagravio que se busca en Ia demanda.
SECRETARIO DEL TRIBUNAL
Nombre del abogado del Demandantc
Por:
Direcci6n Subsccrctario
Fecha
-------
TeJCfono
(202) 879-:4828 VeuiiJez appeler au (202) 879-4828 pour une traduction DE cO m6t b<lj d!ch. h;iy goi (202) 879-4828
I':!Qjlill':!'OfAI\!1, .(202) 8794828 . ri>'"'C'i lC/'9'' (202) 879-4828
IMPORTANTt Sl l.JSTED INCUMPLE CON PRESENTAR UNA. CONTESTACION EN EL PLAZO ANTES
MENCIONADO, O;c.SI LUEGO DE CONTESTAR, USTED NO COMPARECI; CUANDO LEA VISE EL JUZGADO, PODRiA
D!CTARSE UN FACLQ)iN REBELDiA CONTRA USTED PARA QUE SE LE COBRE LOS DANOS Y PERJUICIOS U OTRO
DESAGRAVIO QUE SE BUSQUE EN LA DEMANDA. Sl ESTO OCURRE, PODRiAN RETENERLE SUS INORESOS, 0
PODRiAN TOMAR SUS BIENES PERSONALES 0 RAiCES Y VENDERLOS PARA PAOAR EL FALLO. Sl USTED
PRETENDE OPONERSE A ESTA A CCI ON, NO DElE DE LA DEMANDA DENTRO DEL PLAZO EXIGIDO.
Si desea converser con un abogado y Je parece que no puede af!-ontar el costo de uno, !lame pronto a una de nuestras oficinas del
Legal Aid Society (2026281 161) o cl Neighborhood Legal Services (202-27951 00) para pedir ayuda o venga a Ia Oficina 5000
del 500 Indiana Avenue, N.W., para informarse de otros lugares donde puede pedir ayuda al respecto.
V ca al dorso cl original en ing!Cs
See reverse side for English original
C/\SUM.doc
vs.
CIVIL DIVISION
Washington, D.C. 20001 Telephone: (202) 879-1133
Plaintiff
Case Number
National Review, Inc.

DciCndant
SUMMONS
of the day of service. If you arc being sued as an officer or agency of the United States Government or the
John B. Williams
Name of Plaintiffs Attorney
CoZen O'Connor
1627 I Street, NW,
...
Address
Ste., llOO
Washington, D.C. 20006
202-912-4800
Telephone
Clerk of the Court
Date
P!l;';WIM!i. iltH$. ili' (202) 879-4828 Veuillez appeler au (202) 879-4828 pour une traduction cO m&t biti d!ch, hay goi (202) 879-4828
(202) 879-4828 !. l'd!?!;JAIR )C'I-9'' il'"'"l''i-l (202) 879-4828 R..<mil
IMPORTANT: IF YOU FAIL TO FILE AN ANSWER WITHIN THE TIME STATED ABOVE, OR IF, AFTER YOU
COMPLAINT. IF TillS OCCURS, YOUR WAGES MAY BE A'ITACHED OR WITHHELD OR PERSONAL PROPERTY OR
ACTION, !.2Qj>fQLEL1JLTO ANSWER WITHIN TilE BlillJllBED 7/ME.
If you wish to talk to a lawyer and feel that you cannot alford to pay a iCc to a lawyer, promptly contact one of the on!ces of the
Legal Aid Society (202-628- 1 161) or the Neighborhood Legal Services (202-279-51 00) for help or come to Suite 5000 at 500
Indiana Avenue, N.W., tOr more infOrmation concerning places where you may ask for such help.
FORM SUMMONS- Jan. 201 l
Vea al dorso Ia traduccibn al cspaflol
CASUM doc
AI susodicho Demandado:
DIVISI()N CIVIL
contra
Washington, D.C. 20001 Telefono: (202) 8791133
Dcmandantc
NUmero de Caso:
Dcmandado
CITATO RIO
PorIa presente se Je cita a comparecer y sc lc require cntregar una ContestaciOn a Ia Demanda adjunta, sea en
persona o por medio de un abogado, en el plazo de veinte (20) dias contados despues que usted haya recibido cste
citatorio, excluyendo cl dfa mismo de Ia entrega del citatorio. Si usted esta demandado en calidad de oficial o
agente del Gobierno de los Estados Unidos de Norteamerica o del Gobierno>'del l)istrito de Columbia, tiene usted
sescnta (60) dias contados despues que usted haya recibido este citatorio, __ para-: __ sl1 Contestaci6n. Tiene que
enviarle par correo una copia de su Contestaci6n a! abogado de la El nombre y direcci6n del
abogado aparcccn al final de este documento. Si cl dcmandado no que enviarle al demandante una
copia de Ia Contestaci6n por correo a Ia direcci6n que aparece en este-1tator,i0 __.
A usted tam bien se le require prcsentar Ia Contestaci6n original a! Tribunal en Ia Oficina 5000, sito en 500
Indiana Avenue, N.W., entre las 8:30a.m. y 5:00p.m., de lunes,a viernes;o entre las 9:00a.m. y las 12:00 del mediodia
los sabados. Usted puede presentar Ia Contestaci6n original ante. _el Juez ya sea antes que Usted le entregue a!
dcmandante una copia de Ia Contestaci6n o en el plazo df:: cinco (5) dias de haberle hecho Ia cntrcga al dcmandante. Si
usted incumple con presentar una Contestaci6n,_podria dictarse -un fallo en rebeldfa contra usted para que se haga
efectivo el desagravio que se busca en Ia demanda.
SECRETAR!O DEL TRIBUNAL
Nombrc del abogado del Demandante
Por:
Dirccci6n Subsccretario
Fecha

TeJCfono

t/llmtf!W., iff HE!! iiS (202) Veuillez appeler au (202) 879-4828 pour une traduction cO m6t bili d!ch, hily gqi (202) 879-4828
f!%fA!\!!, (202) 879-4828 .5t VI"'IC:K, )C'I>"' (202) 879-4828
JMPORTANT)i_: Sl 'tJSTED INCUMPLE CON PRESENTAR UNA CONTESTACION EN EL PLAZO ANTES

DESMiRA VJO QUE SE RUSQUE EN LA DEMAND A. SI ESTO OCURRE, I'ODRiAN RETENERLE SUS INGRESOS, 0
PODRiAN TOMAR SUS BIENES PERSONALES 0 RAiCES Y VENDERLOS PARA PAGAR EL FALLO. SJ USTED
PRETENDE OPONERSE A ESTA A CCI ON. NO DE.!E DE CONTI!STAR LA DEMANIJA DEN7110 DEL PLAZO EX/GIDO.
Si dcsca converser con un abogado y le parece que no pucde afrontar el costo de uno, !Jame pronto a una de nucstras olicinas del
Legal Aid Society (202-628-1161) o el Neighborhood Legal Se1vices (202-2795! 00) para pedir ayuda o venga a Ia Oficina 5000
del 500 Indiana Avenue, N.W ., para informarsc de otros Jugarcs don de puede pedir <1Yuda al respecto.
Yea al dorso cJ original en ing]Cs
Sec reverse side for English original
Ci\SUM.doc
CIVIL DIVISION
PlaintifT
VS.
ooos:oJw ::
Case Number
Rand Simberg
----
DcfCndant
SUMMONS
You are hereby summoned and required to serve an Answer to the allached Complaint, either
John B. Williams
Name of Plaintiff's Auomcy ____ .... ___ ..__
Cozen O'Connor
.., ......
Address
Clerk of the Court
By
( .... V\i'(( t\S< .. -
Deputy Clerk
202-912-4800 Date \/'- \ ? 2-1?0 Z
Telephone
pom:flt, llt!T-'t!it (202) 879-4828 Veuillez appeler au (202) 879-4828 pour une traduction cO mOt bili dich, hay goi (202) 879-4828
lti"iii! l':!"51AII'!, (202) 879-4828 st 1'/,"'/C>;' )C'J?" (202) 879-4828
IMPORTANT: IF YOU FAIL TO FILE AN ANSWER WITHIN THE TIME STAlED ABOVE, OR IF, AFTER YOU
COMPLAINT. IF THIS OCCURS, YOUR WAGES MAY BE ATTACHED OR WITHHELD OR PERSONAL PROPERTY OR
ACTION, f2QNQL.1J.L..[Q ANSWElU1IJJJN. 7HE REOWRED [!ME
If you wish to talk to a lawyer and feel that you cannot affOrd to pay a fCc to a lawyer, promptly contact one of the offices of the
Legal Aid Society (202-628-1161) or the Neighborhood Legal Services (202-279-51 00) for help or come to Suite 5000 at 500
Indiana Avenue, N. W., tOr more infOrmation concerning places where you may ask fOr such help.
FOHM SUMMONS- Jan. 201 J
Yea al dorso Ja traducci()n al cspmlol
CASLJM.doc
---------
TRIBUNAL Slll'EIUOR DEL DISTRJTO DE COLUMBIA
DIVISI(JN CIVIL
contra
Washington, D.C. 20001 TclCfono: (202) 879-1133
Dcmandantc
NUmcro de Caso:
Dcmandado
CITATO RIO
Por Ia presente se Ic cita a comparecer y se le require entregar una Contestaci6n a Ia 'J)Cmanda adjunta, sea en
persona o por media de un abogado, en el plazo de veinte (20) dias eontados despues que uste<l. haya reeibido estc
citatorio, cxcluyendo el dia mismo de Ia cntrcga del citatorio. Si usted csta siendqdenwndadoen calidad de oficial o
agentc del Gobierno de los Estados Unidos de Norteamerica o del Gobierno J.)istrito 5Je Columbia, tiene usted
sesenta (60) dias contados despues que usted haya recibido este citatorio, para entregar su Contestaci6n. Tiene que
enviarle por correo una copia de su Contestaci6n a! abogado de Ia partedemaridante. EI nombrc y direcci6n del
abo gada aparecen al final de este documento. Si el demandado no tieile abogadO, tiene-quc enviarle a! demand ante una
copia de Ia Contestaci6n por correo a Ia direcci6n que aparece en este-Citat()rio.
A usted tambien se le require presentar Ia Contestaci6n original al.Tribunal en Ia Oficina 5000, sito en 500
Indiana Avenue, N.W., entre las 8:30a.m. y 5:00p.m., de lunes a viernes;o entre las 9:00a.m. y las 12:00 del mediodia
los s3bados. Usted puede presentar Ia Contestaci6n _original ahte el- Juez ya sea antes que Usted le entreguc al
demandante una copia de Ia Contestaci6n o en el plazo de cinco (5) dfas de haberle hecho la entrega al dcmandante. Si
usted incumple con presentar una Contestaci6n, podrfa dictarse _-un fallo en rebeldfa contra usted para que sc haga
efectivo cl dcsagravio que se busca en Ia demanda.
SECRETA RIO DEL TRIBUNAL
Nombre del abogado del Dcmandante
Por:
Direcci6n Subsecretario
Fecha
Tc!Cfono
PDm:lfiliW,Ut!TEI!'&i {202) Veuillez appeler au {202) 879-4828 pour une traduction Di: cO mi)t biti d1ch, hiiy gQi (202) 879-4828
f:!OfA]\!l, (202) 87Q-4828 .5!. )C'I-9" (202) 879-4828
JMPORTANTE: Sl USTED JNCUMPLE CON PRESENTAR UNA CONTESTACION EN EL PLAZO ANTES
MENCIONADO. O;.Sl LUEGO DE CONTESTAR. USTED NO COMPARECE CUANDO LE A VISE EL JUZGADO, PODRiA
DICTARSE UN FALEQ.liN REBELDiA CONTRA USTED PARA QUE SE LE COBRE LOS DANOS Y PERJUJCJOS U OTRO
DESAGRA VIO QUE SE BUSQUE EN LA DEMAND A. Sl ESTO OCURRE, PODRiAN RETFNERLF SUS INGRESOS, 0
PODRiAN TOMAR SUS BIENES PERSONALES 0 RAiCES Y VENDERLOS PARA !'AGAR EL FALLO. Sl USTED
PRETENDE OPONERSE A ESTA A CCI ON, NO DEJE DE CONTESTAR !A DEMANDA DENTRO DEL PLAZO EX!GlDO.
Si desea converser con un abogado y le parcce que no pucdc afrontar cl costo de uno, llame pronto a una de nuestras oficinas del
Legal Aid Society (202-628-1 161) o el Neighborhood Legal Services (202-279-5100) para pedir ayuda o venga a Ia Oticina 5000
del 500 Indiana A venue, N.W ., para infonnarse de otros lugares dondc puedc pedir ayuda al rcspecto.
Vca al dorso cl original en inglCs
See reverse side for English original
CASUM.doc
Michael E. Mann, :Ph.D.
CIVIL DIVISION
Plaintiff
VS.
1:;
Case Number
Competitive Enterprise Institute
Defendant
SUMMONS
John B. Williams
Name of Plaintifrs Attorney
Cozen O'Connor
_1621 I Street, NW, Ste., I I 00
Address
202-912-4800
Telephone
By
Date
Clerk oft he Court
" 1\t \0.1 .. . . :"'.)
' \,, j\ .X \ .. :.,:,, _. C>
Deputy Clerk
(202) 879-4828 Veuillez appeler au (202) 879-4828 pour une traduction D& cO mQt bili d!ch, hay goi (202) 879-4828
I'JO'flil: l':!"i-AII'J. (202) 879-4828-"'. l'lo"''CI' )C"J9" (202) 879-4828
IMPORTANT: IF YOU FAIL TO FILE AN ANSWER WITHIN THE TIME STATED ABOVE. OR IF, AFTER YOU
COMPLAINT. IF THIS OCCURS, YOUR WAGES MAY BE ATTACHED OR WITHHELD OR PERSONAL PROPERTY OR
REAL ESTATE YOU OWN MAY BE TAKEN AND SOLD TO PAY THE JUDGMENT. IF YOU INTEND TO OPPOSE TillS
ACTION, DO NOT FAIL TO ANS.WER Wl7HIN THEEEOUIRED TIME.
If you wish to talk to a lawyer and fCc! that you cannot afford to pay a fee to a lawyer, promptly contact one of the offices of the
Legal Aid Society (202-628-!!61) or the Neighborhood Legal Services (202-279-51 00) for help or come to Suite 5000 at 500
Indiana Avenue, N.W., for more inf(mnation concerning places where you may ask for such help.
FORM SUMMONS- Jan. 201 I
Sec reverse side lOr Spanish translation
Yea al dorso Ia traducci6n al cspai'iol
CASUM.doc
DIVISION CIVIL
contra
Washington, D.C. 20001 TciCfono: (202) 8791133
Dcmandantc
Nt'lmcro de Caso:
Demandado
CITATO RIO
Por la presente sc lc cita a comparecer y se le require entregar una Contestaci6n a J;i])emanda adjunta, sea en
persona o por medio de un abogado, en el plazo de vcinte (20) dias contados que uskd haya recibido este
citatorio, excluyendo el dfa mismo de Ia entrcga del citatorio. Si usted esta sien<J,<:Jdet)landada,en calidad de oficial o
agente del Gobierno de los Estados Unidos de Norteamerica o del Gobiernpidel))istrit? de Columbia, tiene usted
sesenta (60) dfas contados dcspues que usted haya recibido este citatorio,.para.'entregar Su Contestaci6n. Tiene que
enviarle por corrco una copia de su Contestaci6n al abogado de Ia parte. El nombre y direcci6n del
abogado aparecen al final de este documento. Si el demandado no tiene abogadO_,_ tier,te que enviarle al demandante una
copia de Ia Contestaci6n por COJTeo a Ia direcci6n que aparece en este Citat?ti_().
A usted tainbien se le require presentar Ia Contestaci6n original aLTribunal en Ia Oficina 5000, sito en 500
Indiana Avenue, N.W., entre las 8:30a.m. y 5:00p.m., de lunes.a viernes.o entre las 9:00a.m. y las 12:00 del mediodia
los sabados. Usted puedc presentar Ia Contestaci6n original ante._ e!-''Juez ya sea antes que Usted Je entregue a!
demandante una copia de Ia Contestaci6n o en el plazo de cinco (5) dias de haberle hecho Ia entrega al dcmandante. Si
usted incumplc con prescntar una Contestaci6n, podria dictarse un fallo en rebeldia contra usted para que sc haga
efectivo el desagravio que sc busca enla demanda.
SECRET ARlO DEL TRIBUNAL
Nombre del abogado del Demandante
Por:
Direcci6n Subsecretario
Fecha ______ , __ ,
Te!Cfono
lRHEt! it {202) 879-4828 Veuillez appeler au {202) 879-4828 pour une traduction cO mQt b3i dich, hiiy goi {202) 879-4828
lti"''i!! (202) 879.'4828 I;/ AIR nmlc'i' )C"W' N"'""/1) (202) 8794828
IMPORTANT: Sl USTED INCUMPLE CON PRESENTAR UNA CONTESTACION EN EL PLAZO ANTES
MENCIONADO, <\.SI LllEGO DE CONTESTAR, lJSTED NO COMPARECF CUANDO LF A VISE EL JUZGADO, PODRiA
DICTARSE UN FALLQ.EN REI3ELDiA CONTRA USTED PARA QUE SE LE COBRE LOS DANOS Y PERJUICIOS \J OTRO
DESAGRA VJO QUE SE 13USQ\JE EN LA DEMAND A. S! ESTO OCURRE, PODRIAN RETENERLE SUS INGRESOS, 0
PODRIAN TOMAR SUS BIENES PERSONALES 0 RAICES Y VENDERLOS PARA PAGAR EL FALLO. Sl USTED
PRETENDE OPONERSE A ESTA A CCI ON, NO DE.JE DE LA DEMANDA DENT/10 DEL PLAZO EXJGIDO.
Si desea converser con un abogado y le parccc que no pucde afiontar cl costo de uno, !lame pronto a una de nuestras oficinas del
Legal Aid Society (202-628-1161) o el Neighborhood Legal Services (202-279-5!00) para pedir ayuda o venga a Ia Oficina 5000
del 500 Indiana Avenue, N.W ., para informarsc de otros lugarcs donde puede pedir ayuda al respecto.
V ca al dorso cl original en inglCs
See reverse side f(H English original
CJ\SUM.dor
St:I'ERJOR COURT OF THE r>rSTHICT OF COLlil\tlUA ---=--""'---1
CIVIL DIVISION RECFi\fFD
MICHAEL E. MANN, PH.D.,
Pennsylvania State University
Department of Meteorology
University Park, PA 16802

v.
NATIONi\L REVIEW, INC.
215 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10016,
-and-
COMPETITJVE ENTERP!ZlSE INSTITUTE
1899 L Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036,
RAND SJMBERG.
c/o Competitive Enterprise Institute
J 899 L Street, N. W.
Washington, D.C. 200%,
- and -
MARKSTEYN
c/o National Review, Inc.
215 Lexington A vcouc
New York, NY 10016,
j
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
I
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
- --)
COMI'LAIYJ'
s C> _:_::;_c e
'T"220\2
QC L
JCRY DFMANDFD
PlaintifC Michael E. Mann, Ph.D., !1){' his c:omplaim ilgainst Defendants Notional Review
Inc., Competitive Enterprise Institmc, Rand Simherg, and Mark Steyn, alleges as 1hllows:
li\TJWDUCTION
1. This is a dd\unation action brought by Midtael E, Mann, Ph.D. against two
publishers, the National Review Inc. and the Competitive Enterprise !nstitutc;, and two of their
jourm;lists, Rand Simberg and :Vlmk Steyn, for tl1eir utWrly false and deihmatory statements
against Dr. Mann-accusing him of academic lhllld and comparing him to a convicted child
molester, Jerry Sandusky, the disgraced former football coach at Pennsylvania State University.
2. Dr. Mann is a climate scientist whose research has focused on global warming.
A long wilh other resewrchers, he was one of the first to document the rise in surface
temperatures during the 20"' Century and the steep inercasc in measured tcmperntures since the
!950s. As a result of this research, Dr. :vlann and his colleagues were awarded the Nobel Peace
Prize.
3. Nevertheless, the defendants, lor bw;ine.ss and other reasons, assert that global
warming is u "hoaxn and have accusc:d Dr. Mann of jmproperly rnanipulating the underlying data
to reach his corwlusions. In response to these accusations, acl!demic institutions and
governmental entities alike, including the U.S. Environtnenlcli Protection Agency and the
National Science Foundation, have conducted investigations into Dr. Mann's work, and i'ound
the allegations of academic fi'aud to he baseless. Every such investigation--and every
replication of Dr. \I ann's work '""has concluded that Dr. Mann's re';earch and conclusions were
properly conducted and i'airly presented"
4. Recogni7ing that they conte:3l' the science behind Dr. 1\1rmn 's \:Vork, the
conrrnry lO known nnd clear nnd infending io impose vicious injuty, have
nevertheless maliciou::dy .'lccused him ofacndemic fraud, the most fundantental defamation that
can be levied against a scien1ist and a Vv'ith iheir lacerations of his
0
- ,;.. -
professional reputation, dclcndants have malir;iously attacked Dr. Mann's personal
reputation with the knowingly f:alse comparison to a child molester.
5. II is one thing to engage in discussion about debatable topics. It is quite another
to attempt to discredit consistently validated scientific research through the prolt:ssional and
personal defamation of a Nobel pri7.e recipient. Responsible media reviews, including the
Columbia Journalism Review, have described the defendants' a!tacks against Dr. Mann as
"deplorable, if not unlawful." Responsible scientific publications, including Discover \1agazine,
have described these attacks as "slimy," "disgusting," nnd "defnmatory." Even one of the
defendants in this case, the Competitive Enterprise Jnstitutc, has conceded that at least a portion
of its statements were ''inappropriate," bttl continues to republish its allegations of academic
iiaud.
6. The defendants' statements against Dr. Mann are hrlse, malicious, and clchunalory
per se. They arc so outrageous as to amoum ted he intentional infliction or ernotional
Dr. :vlann seeks judgment against each and all of the defendants as in the elaims below
and the award of compensatory and punitive damages against all defendants, jointly and
severally.
PARTIKS
7. Dr. Mann is a faculty member in the Departments ofiiJcteorology and
Cieoscienccs within the College ofEanh and Mineml Sciences m Pennsylvania State l:niversity.
Dr. Mann is a resident of Pennsylvania.
S. Defendant Heview, fnc. (hereinafter '"\Rl") is a corporation IHlving its
principal place of business at 215 Lexington /\venue, New York, NY, I 0016. NRI maintains an
oiTice at 2:\3 Pennsylvmlia Ave, S.I,., Washington J).C. :worn. NR! publishes National Review,
0
- . ) .
a bi-motHhly print magazine, and liationa/ Review 011/ine. Hath publications tout themselves as
"America's most widely read and influential magazine and website tbr Republican/conservative
HC\VS: commcutary and opinion.n National Revinv and National Review Online) a1e widely read
and circulfrlcd in tho District of Columbia. Accordingly, NR! is narJS>1cting and doing business
within the .Distrkt of Columbia and is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to DC
Code 13--422.
9. Defendant Competitive Enterprise Institute (hereinafter "Clil ") is a 501 ( e)(3)
cMporation having it c. principal place of business at I S99 L Street, N.W., Washington, DC
20036. C:FI describes itself as a "non-protit public policy organi7Jrtion dedicated to advancing
the principles of limited government, nce and individual liberty." C:EI has been a
tireless opponent of the mainstream climnte change community. CFT publishes, among other
thi11gs, OpcuMarkct.org. Cl:::J's principal place of business is within the District of Columbia and
as such it is tnmsacling and doing business within the District of C:olurnbia and subject to t!Je
jurisdiction of t.his Court pursuant to DC Code 13-422 and 13-423(a).
10. Dekndant Rand Sirnberg, upon ini(mnation and bclicJ: is an adjunct scholar at
CEI, a contributing c.ditor to OpcnJv1arket.org, and a resident of Idaho. \1r. Simbcrg's writings
are widely read and c.irculated in the District of Columbia. Accordingly, .Vir. Simbcrg is
trnnsacting and doing business within the District of Columbia <md is subject to the jurisdiction
of this Court pursuant. to DC Code 13-423(a).
J I. Defendant Marl< Steyn, upon information and bdief, is an author who among
other things serves as a regular contributor to National ReFlew. Mr. Stcyn is a resident of
Canada. !v1r. Steyn 's writings are widely read and drnrlated in the District of Columbi<t.
Accordingly, Mr. Stcyn is transacting and doing business within the District of Columbia and is
subject to the jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to UC Code l3-42:l(a).
12. V cnuc in this Court is proper as the District of Columbia has personal jurisdiction
over defendants.
STATE\-lENT OF FACTS
D1. ;vrann and the "llockev Stick" Graph
13. Dr. 'vlann received his undergraduate degrees in Physics and Applicclf\..Jath from
the 1Jniversity of California ill Berkeley, an \l.S. degree in Physics tlom Yale Unive.rsity, and a
Ph.D. in Geology and Cleopl1ysics f:l-om Y11le University. Dr. Mann's research focuses on the use
of theoretical models and observational data to better understand our Farih's climate system.
Prior io Dr. Mann's {[,culty appointment at Penn State, be was a G1culty member within the
University oCVirginia's Dcparlmcntofi:Onvironmcntal Sciences and a faculty member within the
University or Massachuscth 's Department of Gcoscicn(OCS.
14. Dr. Mann was a lead author on the Observed Climate Variability and Change
chapter of' the Intergovernmental Panel on Clirnalc Change (fl'CC) fhircl Scientilic Asscssme111
Report in2001 and was the organizing committee d1air for the National Academy or Sciences
Frontiers oj'Science in 2003. Dr. lvJann has received numerous honors and awards including, in
2002. the t,'ational Oceanic nnd Atmospheric Administration's outstanding publication award
and .selection by Scicnrijic ,1men'ctm as nne of the iifty J.:ading visionaries in science and
technology. In 2012, Dr. Mann was inducted as a Fellow of the American Geophysical Union
and awarded the Hans Ocschger M eclai of the European Union.
15. Dr. Mann is well known i(lr his work regarding glob,d war'llling w1d the so"calkd
"Hockey Stick Craph." fn 1998 and 1999, together with Raymond S. Bradley and Malcolm K.
' 5 -
Hughes, Dr. Mann published two research papers showing a steady rise in surface temperature
during the 20
111
Century and a steep increase in measured temperatures since the 1 950s (the "1 998
Paper" and the" I 999 Paper"). These papers concluded that the recent 20
11
' cent my rise in global
temperatme is likely unprecedented in at least the past millennium, and that the temperature rise
correlates with a concomitant rise in atmospheric concentrations of COr-a gas whose heat-
trapping properties have long been emitted by the wmbustion of fossil
fuels.
16. The 1999 Paper included the follov-.ing graph depicting the 20'h century rise in
global temperature:
Yb\11
The graph came to he known as the "Hockey Stick," due to its iconic shape--the "'shaftn
retlecting a long-term cooling trend from the so-called "Medieval Wmm Period" (hom
approximately I 050 AD to J 450 AD) through the "Little lee Age" (approximately 1550 AD to
I 900 ,\D), and the "blade" reflecting a dramatic upward tcmpcntturc swing during thl' 20
111
century ihat cul.tninatcs in mwmalous late 20
111
century vvannlh.
17. The work of Dr. Mann and the JPCC has received considerable ac<.:oladcs within
the scientific community. In 2007, Dr. Mann shared the Nobel Peace Prize with the other IPCC
authors f{lr their work in climate change, induding the development of the Iloekcy Stick (}raph.
18. However, Dr. Mann's research and conclusions have been and continue to bG
attacked by certain individuals and organizations who do not accept the concept that the Earth is
becoming warmer. This resistance has been characterized not by a serious challenge to the
aelual science underlying Dr. Mann's conclusions, bur rather by invective and personal auacks
against Dr. Mann and his integrity---often by those with economic interests and political agendas
tied to maintaining the status quo and the current regulatory structure with respect ro clim8te
policy.
The Theft of from CIW
19. In November 2009, thousands oC em ails were stolen liorn a computer server at the
Climate Research Unit ("CRU") at the Cniversiry of East Anglia in the United Kingdom. The
CRU em ails, some of which were excl1anged between Dr. Mann and researchers at the CRt: and
other climate change research institutions, were posted anonymously on the World Wide Web
shortly before the United Nation's Global Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, Denmark
in December 2009. A few oftlwse em ails were then taken out of context, mischaracterizcd, and
misrepresented by climate change deniers to J1tlscly imply impropriety on the part of the
scientists involved, including Dr. Mann.
20. The climate d1angc deniers went on to claim tllllt the C:RU emails proved that
global is zt hoax pcrpL:tratcd by scientists from across the globe and th;::u these scientists
were colluding with government olllcials to somcl10w reap nna.ncial benefits. In fact, and as
discusscxl below, these cmails rcllcctcd only the commorrplacc and legitimate give ami take of
academic debate .:md inquiry.
The Exoneration ol' Dr, Mann
21. Following the publication of the CRU em ails, Penn Stme m1d the I Jniversity of
East Anglia (in four scpamtl' instances) and live governmental agencies (the U.K. House of
Commons Sdcncc and Technology Committee, the U.K. Secretary of State lor Energy and
Climate Change, the Inspector General of the U.S. Department o!'Commcrcc, the U.S.
Envil'Onmental Pl'Otection Agency, and the National Science Foundation) have conducted
separate and independent investigations into the allegations of scicntitic misconduct against Dr.
Mann and his colleiJgues. Every one of these investigations ha' reached the same conclusion:
there is no basis to any of the 11llcgmions ofscicntif]c misconduct or manipulation of data.
22. Notably, in July 2010, CI::l, a defendant in this case, and others, filed a request
entitled Peliliom 10 Reconsider !he Hndan);ermem and Cause or Col'llribu/e Findings for
Greenhouse Gases under Secliun 202(a) o/lhe Cleon Air Act. In rcsponse,lhe Fnvironmenml
Protection Agency published a smnrnary of its lindings, entitled "Myths vs. Facts: Denial of
Petitions lor Reconsideration of the Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for
Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act,'' which stated:
Myth: The University of East /\nglia's Climatic Research Unit (ClUJ) emails
prove that temperature dara and trends \VCrc manipulated.
Fad: Not true. Petitioners say that ctnails disclosed from CRU provide evidence
of a conspiracy to manipulate data. The media coverage af'lcr the emaih were
released \\:as basGd on email s1atement8 quoted out of context mH.! on
unsubstantiated theories of conspiracy. The ClUJ emails do no! show either that
the science i;, Jlawed or thai the scic:ntiiic process ha., been eompromised. FPA
reviewed r!n: CRU emofh andfnund no imhcmion q.f'improper dar a
numlJ-ntlofhJn or misF'<!presenlalwn
Myth: The jury is still out un climate change and CRU cmails undermine the
cre:di bil ity of climate cha1Jge science overal I.
Fact: Climate change is real and i! i;; happening nmv. The U.S. Global
Research National /\cadctny of Science::-;, w1d the lntergovernrnenlnl
8
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have each independently concluded that
warming of the climate system in recent decades is "unequivocal." This
conclusion is not drawn from any one somcc of data but is based on rnulliplc lines
of evidence, including three worldwide temperature datasets showing nearly
identical warming trends as well as numcTOliS other independent indicators of
global warming (e.g., rising sea level.\ shrinking Arctic sea ice). Some people
have "cherry-picked" a limiteu selection oi'CRU email statements to draw broad,
unsubstantiated conclusions about the validity of all climate science.
!J.S Environmema! Pro/N:Iion Al{ency, "Decision Document, Denial of Petitions for
Reconsirlenttion of Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings fOr Greenhouse
G11ses under Scction202(a) of the Clean Air Act" (.luly 29, 201 0). Available at
23. In August 201 l, the lnspector General of the 1'\ational Science Foundation
('NSF"), an independent agency ofthe United States govemment tasked with promoting the
progress of science in this country, reported on the outcome of its independent review of charges
of misconduct against Dr. Mann. NSF concluded that:
Although [Dr. ;vJann's] data is still available and still the focus of significant
critical examination, no direct evidence has been presented that indicates [Dr.
\-!ann] l:itbricat.ed the raw clata he used for his research or ii;lsitled his results.
Much of the current debate l(Jcuses on the viability of the sratistkal procedures he
employed, the statistics used \0 con finn the accunwy of the rcsu.lts, and the degree
to which one specific set ofdma impacts the snuisticalresults. These concerns are
all appropriate for scientific dob:c:nc and t'o assisllhc research comm1..mlty in
directing future research ctTons to improve understanding in this field of research.
Such scientiJic dcbaLe is ongoing but not, in itsell; constittilc eviclcnec of
research misconduct Lacking any direcr evidence of research misconduct, as
delineu under ibe :'-lSF I<.cscarch Misconduct Regulation, we are do:;ing thi:;
lnvcstigntion with IH) funhcr

24. i-\ll of the nbove inve.stig.:ltions fbund thnt there wa.s no evidence of any flrmd,
data frdsifknlion, sr<Hisrieal or misconduct ofnny kind by Dr. IVlnnn .. All ofthe
above reports and puhlicntions were widely nv,Jilable nnd comnH::ntcd upon in the national and
.. 9 ..
inJernationnl media. All were read by the Defendants. To the extent there was ever any question
rcgmding the propriety of Dr. Mann's research, it was laid to rest as a result of these
investigations.
The Dcfamntory Statements
25. Ncvcrthdess, despite the fact that CEI's daims or data manipulation were labeled
a "m:1h" by the EPA in2010, and despite the bet that NSF deemed the allcgcllions of scientific
misconduct "closed" in 20 II. the climare-change deniers saw an opportunity lo work themselves
up once again in the wake of the publication of the results of an investigation at Penn State
conducted by Louis Frech (the former director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation) regarding
the university's handling of the Jerry Sandusky child abuse scandal. lvlr. Sandusky had been
convicted of molesting ten young boys. The Frech Report concluded that senior officia\r; at Penn
State had "a lotnl and consistent disregard" for the welfare of tire children, had worked
togdher to Mr. Sandusky's assaults, and had done so om of fear of bad publicity for the
university. For the climate change skeptics, the Sandusky scandal presented a new avenue to
castigate Dr. Mmm and impugn his reputation and un the theory that a
dif1erent investigative panel of the university had cleared Dr. Mann of' nrisconduet.
26. On July 13, 2012, an ankle authored by Dc!Cndanl Rand Simbcrg emit led "The
Other Scandal In Unhappy Valley" appeared on Opcn\,1arket.org, a publi:ation ol'CEI.
Purporting to comment upon Penn State's handling of the Sandusky scandal, Mr. Simbcrg
hearkened his readers hack to "anorher cover up and whitewash" that occurred at the university.
lv1r. Simherg and CF:J stakd as fill lows:
perhaps it's time that we revisit the Michael Mann afiair, particularly given how
rnuch \-ve\'e learned about his and others' hockcyustick deceptions since.
M01111 cnuld he .wid Jo he !he .Jcny Sandusky of'climole science, excepifiJr
insleat.l (!/"mo!esling children, he has mo!eslt!d and ror1wed data in rhe servh:e ql
.. 10 ..
politicized science that could have dire economic conscgucnccs for the twtion and
planet.
(Emphasis added). tv1r. Simberg and CFJ went on to state that after the leaking of the CRU
emails,
many of the luminaries of the "eli mille science" community were shown to
have been behaving in ll most unscientific manner. Among them wae
Michael Mann, l'roji!ssor o(Meteorology at Penn State, whom rhe email.\'
revealed had been engaging in datamanipulalion to keep tho blade on his
f(1mous hockey-stick graph, which had become an icon for those
dererntincd to reduce human carbon emissions by any means necessary.
iviann has become !he pos/erboy i!f'lhe corrupt ami di.\'graced climate
science echo chamber. No university whitewash invesTigation will change
that simple
\Vc saw what the university administration was willing to do to cover up
heinous crimes, and even let them continue, rather than expose them.
Should we suppose, in light of what we now know, they woulcl do any less
to hide academic and scicm{jic misconducl, with so much at stake?
See Exhibit A (emphasis added).
27. After this publication was released, the editors ofOpenmarkct.org removed the
sentence stating that "Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science .
stating that the sentence was "inappropriate."
28. On July 15. 2012, an article entitled "Football and Hockey"' appeared on Nmional
Review Online. See Exhibit B. The article, authored by Defendant Mark Steyn, commented on
and extensively quoted fiom Mr. piece on Opcnmnrket.org. Mr. Steyn and NRI
reproduced the following quote:
J'm referring to another cover up and whitewash ibm occurred [at Penn
State] two years ago, before we kamccl how rottcnnnd corrupt the culture
at the university was. But now that we know hO\v bad it was, perhaps it's
lime thnt \VC revisit I be Michael J'viann nffair, p.:nticulnrly gjven how mud1
II
we've also lcamccl about his and others' hockey-stick deceptions sincle.
Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except
tlmt instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured d81n in the
service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences
for the nation and plane!.
Perhaps renli7.ing the outrageousness of Mr. Simberg's comparison of Dr. Mann to a convicted
child molester, Mr. Stcyn conceded: "Not sure I'd have extended that metaphor all the way into
the locker-room showers with quite the zeal Mr. Sirnbcrg cloos, bur he has a point." Mr. Stcyn
and l\RJ wen! on lo SlHle that. "Michael Alann was !he man behind lhefi-audulenl c/imo/e .. change
'hockey-stick' graph /he vmy ringmasJct !![!he tree-ring circus."
29. Mr. Steyn and NRl reproduced rhe defamatory statements of Mr. Simberg and
CEI verbatim, even al'\er CFl's acknowledgment !hat at least some of those statements were
inappropriate. The tid I guote fiom Mr. Simberg and C:EJ remains visible on Narional Review
Online, in spite of the fact thnt CEI bad already removed the self .. deseribed "inappropriate"
stD.temen!s from OpenMmkel.org.
30. ln the wake ofthcosc attncks on Dr. ll,hmn, a number ofrespcc!nhle and wdl-
rc,gnrdcd journalists chose to weigh in on the matter, describing these new almcks on Dr. Mmm
as deplorable, untruthtiJI, and outrageous. The Columbia Journii/ism Review, perhaps lhe most
highly rcgardcJ media authority, staWd that Mr. Steyn 'sand NRJ's accusations of"acaclcrnic
iiaud" "drcdg/ed/up a discredited charge" and ignored "almost half a dozen investigations !that
haJJ afi1nned the int<Ogrity of Mann's research." See Brainard, Curtis. (20 12, .T uly 25). 'I don' l
bJulf: Michael J\1ann's lawyer says National Review mus! retract and apologi:<e. Columbia
Journalism Review. Retrieved fiom
C:olumhia Journalism Rcvievv f'urlher cornrnented LhuL Dr. J\.'hmn has endured "witch hums and
dt:ath threats in order lo de.fi::.nd his \Vorkn and !hat ''tht:" h)\.v lo \Vhich Sirnbcrg and Stcyn ~ l o o p e d
. 12.
is certainly deplorable, if not unlawful." !d. Similarly, 1he ;;cientitic publication Discover
Jlfagazinc described the attacks as ""limy," "clisgusting,'' nnd "defamatory.'' See Plait, Phi I.
(2012, July 23). Deniers, disgust, and defamation. Discover .Magazine., Retrieved hom
los) s. d i vennagn ne. co m/bsd 8 st rono n1 y,n 0 12/07/23/ cl en i i sg u st-and-de ion/.
Further, ll1e Union of Concerned Scientists, through its program manager, ]Vlichael Halpern,
stated that it '':::1ghast'' m these attacks, describing them as "disgusting,') and a
"defamation of chmactcr." Ser Jblpcrn, M ichacl. (20 12, July 23 ). Union of Concerned
Scicl!ti sts. Ecowa!ch. Retrieved fion1 http://ecowatch.mvLlQJ2/tllink-tank:el i lnatc-seiql]list!.
The Refusal to Apologize ot' Retl'act the Statements
31. After the publication of the ahove statements, Dr. l'vfann demanded retractions and
apologies fiom both NRI and CFI. Dr. Mann advised NRI and CFI that their allegations of
misconduct and dahr manipulation were false and were clearly made with the knowledge thai
t.hey were fnlse. Dr. lvlann 1\uthcr s1<1ted that it was well known that rh(:rc hnvc been numerous
investigations into the issue of academic fraud in the wake of the disclosure of the CRU cmails,
and that every one of these investigations has concludc<lthat there is no bvsis to i11ese allegMions
and no evidence of any misconduct or data manipulntion.
32. On August 22, NRI published a response from its cditor Rich Lowry on National
Review Online entitled "Get Lost." Exhibit C. While NRJ refused to npologizc for or
retract "Football ami Hockey", Mr. Lowry did notckny (!,c. lahity of the dcfarnawry ;tatemwts,
nor its knowledge ortheir Julsity. Rather, \-Jr. Lowry's defense was that his publication bad not
intcndecl to accuse Dr. \-hum offhwd "in the criminal sense.'' Neverthele:;s, !vir. Lowry then
pro Geed eel to repeat the dd;rmatory charges, thHt Dr. Mann's rcscareh "''" "imclkctually
bogus," another accusation which is actionable in and of itself. Semantics aside, the nllegation
that Dr. Mann's research was "intellectually bogus" is yet another allegation of academic thud.
33. On August24, 2012, CEI issued a press release entitled "Penn S'fale Climate
Sdenlisl Michael Mann Demands Apolo&n;.tiom CEJ: CE! Reji1ses to Retrae/ Commenlwy." See
Exhibit D. In its statement, CEl linked to and adopted Mr. Lowry's response.
COUNT I
(Libel pc.- se against all defendants)
34. Each of' the preceding paragraphs 1 through 33 hereby ineorporarccl herein by
rciCrcnce.
35. The aforementioned written statements by the dekndants accusing Dr. Mmm of'
iiaud are defamatory per se and tend to Dr. "-'!ann in his prolbsion because they
falsely impute to Dr. Mann academic corruption, iiaud, and deceit as well as the commission of a
criminal oftense, in a manner injurious to the reputation and esteem of Dr. \'!ann professionally,
locallY., nationally, tmd globally.
36. The aforementioned statements proximmely caused Dr. Mann damages in the
HJJm ofiqiury to his reputation throughout the United State'S and intc:rnlllionally.
37. By publishing the aforementioned statcnwnts, defendants knew they would be
republished and read by rhc general public throughom the United States and elsewhere. The
statements were in htcl republished and read by members of the gcncnll public throughout the
Lnitccl States 8\td elsewhere as a dirc,cl, natural, prohublc, and foreseen biG conseqncncc oftiJC.ir
publkatious.
3t::. The aforcrne.nLioncd :-;;tatcmc,nts arc and were htlsc when mach-::.
knC\V Of should ha VC known the .:-;tntements \Vere when made .
.. J ,.
39. Dekndants made the aforementioned statements with acturtltmtlke and wrongful
and willful intent to injure Dr. Mann. The statements were made with reckless clisreg>trd J(Jr their
trlllh or falsity or with knowledge of their falsity and with wanton and willful disregard of the
reputation and rights of Dr. Mann.
40. The af0remenrioned stntements were made of and concerning Dr. Mann, and were
so understood by those who re,id defendants' publications oflhem.
41. The aforementioned statcnwnts hnvc been widely published throughout the
United States and elsewhere.
42. Dekndants knew or should have known thai the statements were injurious to Dr.
:VI ann's and reputation.
43. As a proximate result of the aforementioned statements and their publications Dr.
Mann has suffered and continues to suffer damages in an amount to be determined at trial but not
less than thejuri,;dictional minimum of this Court. The full nature, extent and arnountoftlrese
damages is currently unknrlwn, but this (\lmplaint will be amended at trial to insert said
information if deemed necessmy by the Court.
44. The afc'lrementioned tilJse and deiilmatory statements were made by the
defendants with actual m81icc and either with knowledge of their falsity or in reckless disregard
of the truth or falsity of the statements.
45. Dclcndanls cooperated among themselves in the llrlse ,md defilrnatory
statements by, among other acts, rcpubli,hing and cnclor,ing the cleJ"mwtions of their co-
det(:ndanls. They arcjoinl tortl.casors and as suclljointly and severally liable to Dr. M:1nn for
danwge-s.
- 15-
46. Jn making the dei!nnatory statements, Jclcndants acted intentionally, maliciously,
wilHlilly and with the intent Lo injure Dr. Mann, or lo benefit defendants. Defendants arc liable
to Dr. Mann for damages in an amount in accordance with pr<)(lf at trial.
COUNT II
(LibclJJCr se against CEI and Rami Sirnbet'g)
47. Each of the preceding paragraphs 1 through 46 is hereby incorporated herein hy
rclcrcucc.
48. Mr. Simbcrg's statements, published by CEI on Openmarkcl.org, that Dr. Mann
had engaged in ''data manipulation, "academic and scientific misconduct," and \vas "the
posterboy of the corrupt and disgraced climate scironce echo chamber" are defamatory per se and
rend to injure Dr. M<lnn in his profession because they lltlsely impute to Dr. Mann academic
corruption, fimtd and deceit ns well as the commission of a criminal ofi'cnse,. in a manner
injurious to the reputation and esteem of Dr. Mann professionally, locally, nmionally, and
globally.
4'1. The aforementioned statements proximately caused Dr. Mann damages in the
form of iniury to his reputation throughout the United States and internnt.ionally.
50. l:ly publishing tile aJ{Jrcrncntionccl statements, CEl and Simberg knew they would
be republished and read by the general public throughout the United States and elsewhere. The
were in n.tct rropublished and read by members urthe general public throughout the
and Si1nberg '>
51. The aJbrcmenlioned statements m<.> Lil'c ami were 11tlsc wlh:.n rnadc. CEJ and
Simberg knew or should have kliO\Vll tbc slawments were- \vhcn
16
52. CEl and Simbcrg made the aforementioned statements with actual malice and
wrongful and willful intent to inj urc Dr. Mann. lhc statements were made wifh reckless
disregard J(ntheir truth or falsity or with knowledge of their falsity and with wanton Bncl willful
disregard of the replllation and rights of Dr. Mann.
53. The atorcmcntioned statements \Vcrc made of and concerning Dr. Mann, <mel were
so understood by those who read CEI'.1 and Simberg's publications of them.
54. The aforcmenrioned statements have been widely published throughout the
United States atld elsewhere, including to all persons who to or read
Open Market. Or g.
55. CEl and Simberg knew or should have known that the stmements were injurious
to Dr. Mann's career and reputation.
56. As a proximate r<Osult of the al(>remcntioncd statements and their publications Dr.
J'v!ann has sufJ'c!red and continues to suff{;.r damages in an amount tube.: dctcrminccl at trial but not
less than the jurisdictional minimum of this Cour!. The 1\.dl nature, extent and amount ofthcsc
damages is currently unknown, but this Complaint will be amended at trial to insert said
information if deemed necessary by tho Coun.
57. The nlorernenlioned false and defamatory statements were made by CJ::l and
Simberg with actual malice and either with knowledge of their li;lsity or in reckless disregard oJ'
the truth or falsity of the statements.
58. In making the defamatot')' statements, CEI and Simbcrg acted intentionally,
maliciously, willii;lly and with the intent to injure Dr. Mann, orlo benefit CEI and Simbcrg.
/\ccordingly, CFr and Simhcrg arc liable to Dr. l'vlann f(lr punitive damages in an amount in
accordance witlr proof m tri11l.
.. 17
COUNT Ill
(Libel per sc against NRI nnd Mark Steyn)
59. Each ofihe preceding paragraphs 1 58 is by incorporated herein by
rtdbrence.
60. Mr. Steyn's statement, published by NRI on National Review Online, that Dr.
Manr1 "was the man behind the frmrdulent climate-change "hockey.stick" graph, the very
ringmaster of the tree-ring circus" is delitmatnry per sc and tends t() injure Dr. :vlann in his
profession because it tlilsely imputes to Dr. IV[ann rtcademic corruption, fhllld and deceit as well
as the commission of a criminal oJicnsc, in a manner injurious to the reputntion and esteem of
Dr. Mann prolcssionally, locally, nationally, and globally.
61. The nJoremenLioned slaLernent proximately caused Dr. IV1ann damages in the form
ofinjury to his reputation throughout the (;nited Stutes m1d internationally.
62. Dy publishing the aforementioned stalemenl, l'<RI and Stcyn knew the statement
would be republished and read by the general public lhrougbout lire United Stales and c.Jscwherc.
The statement wac; in 1f;ct rcpuhlisf1ed and read hy members of the general public; throughout the
United States and elsewhere as a direct, natuml, probable, and foreseeable con:oequence ofNRJ's
and Stcyn's publication.
ol. The nJ(wementioned slnlemenl is tnlse, and was false when made. NRI and Steyn
knevl' or :::hould have known the ::::tntement. was ffllsc when made.
64. NR I and Steyn rnnde the aforementioned stf!ternent V/ith actual malice and
\\
1
rnngfu1 and wil!l'ul to injure Dr. )\.ilann. The .sln1erm:nt wa:-i rnade \;...:ilh reckless disregard
l:(lr its truth or tillsit.y or with knowledge of its fnlsity nnd with want<)l1 and willful dio;rcgard of
!he reputation and rights of Dr. fvfnnn.
. 18 .
65. The aforementioned statement was made of and conccming Dr. Mann, illld was so
understood by those who read NRl's and Stcyn's publication of it.
66. Tile aforementioned statement has been widely published tbroughout the United
States and elsewhere, including to all persons who subscribed to or read Narionaf Review Online.
67. NRI and Steyn knew or should have known that the stakmcnt was injurious to Dr.
!Vlann's career and reputation.
68. i\s a proximate result of the aforementioned statement and its publication, Dr.
Mann has suffered and continues to sutler damnges in an amount robe determined at trial hut not
I e." than the jurisdictional minimum of this Court. The full mlturc, extent and amount of these
damages is currently unknown, but this Complaint will be amended at trial to insert said
information if deemed nc:ecssary by the Court.
6'!. The aforementioned h1lsc and defamatory statement was made by NRJ and Stcyn
with actual malice, and citilcr with knowkugc of its falsity or in reckless disregard of the truth or
falsity of the staterncnt.
70. In mal<ing the dd\nllatory e>lat:emenL NRI <mel Steyn acted intentionally,
maliciously. willfi.tlly and \\ith the intent to injure Dr. Mann, or to NRJ and Stcyn.
Accordingly, NRf and Steyn are liable to Dr. ]Vfann for punitive damages in an mnount in
accordance with proof at trial.
COU'ITIV
(Libel per se against NRI)
71. Endl Llf lhc prcctXling paragr.:-tphs 1 lbrou!_l,h 70 is hereby ineorporCJh::cl he-n .. in by
1\:J(:rcncc..
72. Mr. Lowry's statement, publislwd by NKJ on Nalional Revie''' Online, calling Llr.
\1nnn's "intellectually bogus'' is d('fRnwtory per sc .:md !ends to injure Dr. JVlnnn in his
. 19
profession because it Ialsely imputes to Dr. :-.1ann academic corruption, llaud and deceit as well
as the commission of a criminal offense, in a manner injurious to the rcoputation and esteem of
Dr. ;-.,rann professionally, locally, nationally, and globally.
73. The aforementioned statement pmximately caused Dr. damages in the form
of injury to his reputation throughout the t:nited States and internationally.
74. By publishing the aforementioned statement on the Internet, NRI knew it would
he nnd read by the general public throughout the United States and elsewhere. The
statement in fact republished and read by members of the general public throughout the
United States and elsewhere as a direct, natural, probable, and foreseeable consequence ofNRI's
publication.
75. The aforementioned statement is tllise, and was false when made. NRJ knew or
should have known the statement was f.1lse when made.
76. !\Rl made rhe statemelll with actual malice and wrongiLti and
willful intent to injure Dr. Mann. The ,;tatement was made with reckless disregard J{Jr its truth or
talsity or with knowledge of its falsity and with wanton and willful disregard of the reputation
and rights of Dr. Mann.
7'1. The oforemcntion(:d statement was made of and concerning Dr. Mann, and was so
understood by those who read Nl<l's publiciltions of it.
78. The aforementioned statement has been widely published throughornthe United
Stillcs Mld elsewhere, including to all persons who subscribed to or read National !?eview Online.
79. NRI knew or should haw; known that rhc statement was injuriou.s to Dr. Mann's
Cflreer and reputation.
-20 ..
As a proximaw result of the ai(Jrementioncd statement and its publicmion, Dr .
.'vlunn has and continues to sufJer damages in an amount to be determined at trial but not
less than the jurisdictional minimum of this Court. The full nature, extent and amount of these
damages is currently unknown, but Complaint will be amended at trial to insert said
information if deemed necesAary by the Court.
Sl. The aforementioned false and defamatory statement was made by NRI with actual
malice, and either with knowledge of irs fi1lsity or in reckless disregard of the tmth or falsity of
the slatcmcm.
82. In making the defamatory statement, NRI ;rctcd imentionally, malicionsly,
wiiii\Jlly and with the intent to injure Dr. Mann, or to bcnctlt \.JRJ. Accordingly, NRI is liable to
Dr. 'Aann J(Jr punitive damages in an amount in w.:wruancc with proof at trial.
COUNT V
(Libd per se against CEl)
83. bach of the preceding paragraphs I through 82 is hereby incorporated herein by
reference.
CEl's prcso; release adopted and rcpublishcci!Vlr. Lowry's dcl'ilnwtory srarement
calling Dr. ,\1ann's research "intdleelually bogus: The. aforcrncntioned statement is ddiunatory
per se and lends to injure Dr. Mann in his proJe.ssion because it falsely imputes to Dr. _v!ann
acaUernic c.ornrption, Jhwd and deceit as vvell as the commission criminal oth--:Hsc, in
rnanncr injurious lo the reputation cmd esteem oi'Dr. i'vfann proli::ssiunally, locally, nationally,
and glolxtlly.
85. 'fhe u.torementioned stawrnenl proxirnmcly caused Dr. Mann damngcs in the Jimn
of injury to his reputation throughout the Unikd Stale;; and internationally.
2 I -
86. Ry publishing the aforementioned statement on the Internet, CEJ knew it would
be republished and read by the general public throughout the States and elsewhere. The
statement was in fact republished <mel read by members of the general public thmughout the
United StatloS and elsewhere as a direct, natural, probable, and foreseeable consequence ofCF.l's
publication.
87. The aJoremenlioned statement is Jalse, and was Jalsc when made. C:El knew or
should have known the statement was false when made.
88. CFJ made the aforementioned with actual malice and wrongfcd and
willful intent to injure Dr. Mann. The statemcrrt was made with reckless disregard tor its truth or
tlrlsity or with knowledge of its fa.lsity and with wanton and willfUl disregard of the reputation
and rights of Dr. Mann.
89. The aJi:>rcmcntioncd stntcment was nwde of and concerning Dr. Mann, and was so
umkrstoocl by those who read CEI's publications of them.
90. The aforementioned statement has been widely published throughout the Cnited
Stall'S and ebcwhcrc.
91. CEJ knew or should have known that the statement was injurious to Dr. Mann's
career and reputation.
92. As a proximate result af(Hetnentioned statement and its Dr.
Mann has suffered and continues io suffer damages in an amounllo b<: determined m !Jial but not
less than the jurisdictional minimum of this CourL The full nature, extent and a111ount of these
damages is currently unknown, bui this Complaint will be arncnded at trial to insert snicl
intormation if deemed necessary by the Court.
93. The aforementioned H1be and defamatory statement was made with acLUal malice,
and either with knowledge of its falsity or in reckless disregard ofthe truth or tabity of the
statement.
94. In making the detimwtory ;;tatement, CEJ acted intentionally, maliciously,
willfully and with the intent to injure Dr. \!ann, or ro benefit CEJ. /\ccordingly, CEI is liable to
Dr. Mann for punitive damnges in an amoum in accordance wirh proof at trial.
couxr VI
(Iuteutioual infliction of emotional distress against all defendants)
95. Each of the preceding paragraphs I through 94 is hereby incorporated herein by
reference.
96. CE!'s and Simbcrg's statcmcnl, <lllcl NRI's and S1:eyn's republication thereof, tilat
Dr. Mann "could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except t(lr instead of
molesting children, he has !Tlnlcstcd and tortured data in rhc service ofpolitici7.ed science that
could have dire cconoJnic consequences for the nation and planet" occurred i.ntentionnlly with a
desire to harm Dr. Mann.
97. The manner by which defendants sought to harm Dr. Mmlll, including the steps
described hcrcin
1
w.as extreme and outrageous.
98. As a result o l ' t h ~ actions oJ'ddcmdanto, inc:luding, inter alia, bcsmirchints Dr.
Mann's reputation and comparing himro a convicted child molestt'r. Dr. Mann has experienced
extreme emotional distress.
99. ;\sa result of the actions of deGcnJ,mts, the character and reputation of Dr. Mann
were harmed, his standing and reputation among rhe community were impaired, he suflered
financially, and he suffered mental anguish and pcr;;onal humiliation.
I 00. Defendants eoopewted among themselves in the republication and endorsement
of these statements. They arejoint tortfcasors and as such arc jointly and severally liable to Dr.
'vi ann tor damages.
I 01. As a direct and proximate n::sult of the actions of dd'tendants, Dr. Mann has been
materially and substantially damaged. Furthermore, the actions of dekndants were made
intentionally, maliciously, willfully and with rhe intent to injmc Dr. Jvlann, or to benefit
{kfcndants. Accordingly, defendants are liable to Dr. Mann for punitive damages in an amount
in accordance wilh proof ai trial.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Michael Mann judgment, jointly and severally against.
Competitive Fnterprise l.nsritute, \Jational Review, lnc., Rand Simbcrg and Mcrk Steyn for: (I)
compensatory clmnagcs in an amount to be proven at trial; (2) punitive damages in an amount to
be proven at trial; (3) all costs, interest, attorneys' fees, MJci disbursement to the highest extent
permitted by law; (4) such other and J(irllwr relief as this Court may deem _just and proper.
DATED: October 22, 2012 Respoclfully submitted,
COZE\J O'CONNOR
-'1::7 &
JO [A>,tp.-----------
. - --- "'""" - .. - -- -- ----------
.IOHJ\ B. WILLlA/vlS (D.C. Bar No. 257667)
BER'IARD S. GR!!I-1M (D,C. Bar No. 378171)
CATilERI'\1 ROSAI'O REILLY
1627 I Street, W ., Suite J 1 00
\VaslliHg1ull, DC 20006
Tel: (202) 912--4800
Facsimile: (S77) 2609435

crci I !vtUJcozen.co1n
--- ........... -
-- 24
OF COUNSEL:
PETER .1. FONTII!NE
COZEN O'CONNOR
1900 Market Street
Philadelphia, I' A 19103
Tel: (856) 910-5043
Facsimile: (866) 850-7491
plontainc@cozcrl.corn
Counse/ji!r 1'/ainli[/
- 2S -
EXHIBIT A
The Other Scandal fn Unhappy Va!Jcy
R e gJll.9.Lillu
i\]co)lqiii,cgul;1_li(l!1 f\oundtip
Il_ealrh_
llcultJJi:illS
(l
'
Ltdmr
' Moi2ilil\c
N B
o

I{gg_uLDJi\ln _ oJtb<:'D tl\'
<) Spac:c_
'
liconOJJl.Y
SJi.Jn
' _l_in:)J))J)):I]l<;!ll
' I):()JWrtY I',ight;:
.. F_n.t;rgy
' J)JJmlill

;\
(JJpl)ai.Wacming
o
"
Jl1h1lHlLtw.u!l
"

ludv. I jbcrty
c. _l'jn_n_tJY

The Other Scandal In Unhappy VaHey
htt markc1.t1rg/20 I 2/07! ll lthc-ot her- :c;canda 1- in --unhappy-\' alley I
Page 2 of 19
10/19/2012
The Other Scandal In Unhappy Valley
Page :l of 19
T \1\ieCt 2?.
Uke 136 peopiG ilke tt!s. Be tl;e first of your friends.
So it turns out that Penn State has covered up wrongdoing by one of its employees to avoid bad
publicity.
But I'm notttdking about the No, I'm
referring to another cover up and whitewash that occmred there two years ago, bei(>re we learned how
rotten and corrupt the cultme etl'he university was. Rut now that we know how bad it was, pcrhaJ"'
it's time that we revisit the fv1ichael 1\.{ann particularly given ho\.V mucl1
about his and others' hockey-stick deceptions since.
To review, when the cmails and computer models were leaked iiotn the Climate Research Unit at the
University of East Anglin two and il half years ago, many of the luminaries of the "climate science"
coJnnJunity were Among them v..:ere
Michael Mann, . .'it.m<;, whom the cmails revealed had been f,JW!l!bim;
DlQi:!(UJllilui)ml1l_ti\m to keep the blade on his f(unous hockey--stick graph, which had become an icon
fi1r those determined to rcdnce human carbon emissions by any means necessary.
As a result, in November of 2009, the university issued a that it was going to undertake
its own investigation, independently of one that had been launched by the J\ational Academy or
Sciences (Nt\S) in response to a demancll\om Congressman Sherwood Boehlert N.Y.). In July of
the next year: the panel set up lo investigate
Penn State Professor Michael Mann has been dcmeJ of any wrongdoing, according to
report of the investigation that was released today (July 1). \-!ann was under investigation
for allegations of research impropriety that surfaced last year alter thousands of stolen e--
mails were published online. Thee-mails were obtained fiom computer servers at the
Climntic Rcse,lrch Unit oftllc University ofl:!ast Anglia in England, one ofrhe main
r(:posi1odcs of informatio11 about Glinuttc change.
The panel of leading scholars tiom various research fields, all tenured l}l'ofcssors at
Penn State, began its work on 'vlarch 4 In look at whether Mann had "engaged in,
directly or indireGtly, any actions lhat seriously deviated tl-om nccepted practice;.; \\ .. ithin
the act'ldcm.ic community for pJ:oposing, conducting or reporting rescarGh or urher
scholarly a eli vities,"
My emphasis.
Despite the hwt that it was compktely inkrnallo Pc,nn Stale, and they ,lic[l_t_JJ?J,0)).c:L!.f-')JJLC:n:i_\:\Y
um:'l!L\:_<;_>:__ccpi__M_1tltl __ b_i_rl:t,''<-'lf and seemingly ignored the contents of the ernails, the warm mongers
d<;Qjarcd hint 0X,<lncrnh:d (and lite biggest victim in the history ofihe world). Dut many in the skeptic
eommuni1 y .
This is not surprising lhat J\1alln's o\vn unjvcrsity circled lhc wagons and narrowed the
us of its OWTJ invcsligatio11 to declare him clhical.
The fact thm the investigation cited lv!ann's 'level of success in proposing research and
obuining func1inff son of'proofthnt he was meeting the 'highcsi sumda.rd:-l
1
1
fells
h tlp ://www. opcnmarket.org/20 12/07! l .Yt hc--orhcr--scandal-- in--unhappy --val ky! I Oil <l/20 !2
Other Sc.andalln Unhappy Valley
you that Mann is a sacred f'unding <.:ash cuw. At the height of his tlnancial
career, similar sentiments could have been said about !3crnie Madorr.
:Vlann has become the postcrboy of the corrupt and disgraced climate science echo
chamber. No uuivcrsity whitewash investigation will change that simple reality.
Lindzen of MIT weighed in as well:
"Penn State. has dearly demc)n>lrated that it is incapable of monitoring violarions of
sdentific standards of behavior internally," Lind;,cn solid in an c-mailliom France.
Page 4 of I<)
But their criticism was ignored, pmticulnrly afler the relense of the NAS report, which ''n".;!le''
But ln rereading the- NAS $Ome \.Vords stand out now.
first, was criticized l\1r hi:; statistical techniques (which was the basis of the criticism that resuhed
in his unsciemific behavior). But more importantly:
The OIG also independently reviewed Mann's emails and PSIJ's inquiry into whether or
not Mann deleted cmails as requested by Phil Jones in the "Climategate" em ails (aka
Allegation 2). The OIG concluclcd alkr reviewing the the published CRU emails and the
:Hlditional informHtion fHovid(od by I'SU that "nothing in l.thc cmailsl evidenced
research within the definition of the NSP Research Miscondu<.:t Regulation."
Furthermore, the OIG accepted the conclusions of the PSIJ inquiry regarding whether
Mann dele.ted emails and agreed with l'SU's conclusion thM 'vi ann had not.
Again, my emphasis. In other words, the Ni\S investigation relied on integrity of the university to
provide them with all relevant materinl, and was rhus not tndy independent. We now know in
hindsight that it could not do so. Beyond that, there arc still relevant emails that we haven't seen, two
years later, because the University of Virginia continues to stonewall on a FOIA request, and it's
h_ct1ding to the SiJprer11c.(ourtp(tbc.Cor.nmwlW9tlrh slL"LiDJiL'lZ!
Michael Mann, like Joe Paterno, was a rock star in the 1:omext of' Penn State University, bringing in
rnillions in research funding. The same uniwrsity president who resigned in the wake: of the Sandusky
scandal was also the president when Mann WitS being while,va:ffietl investigated. We saw what the
university administration was willing to do to cover up lNinous nimes, and even let thc.m continue.
rnther th;m expose them. Should we suppose, in light ofl:vhm we now know, they would do any Jess to
hide ac;;Jdcrnk and scientific misconduct., wi1h so much ttl stake?
It's time Jbr a Ji'esh, truly independent invcstigntion .
.,,.Two inappropriate .}'entences tit at appeared in t!rls post have been reJJW1
1
tNI by the editor.
This is one of the most disgusting and amoral 1{) smear Wl honc:!->t and courageous
scicntises reputation that I have ever seen. Dr. has been cleared nf any o!'
ht tp://\.v\VW .o pcnmarkc-t.org/2(11 2/0 7/ J ill-ltJ 1l 1appy- valley/ I 0/1 ')12012.
EXHIBITB
Football and Hockey- National Review Online Pagel of2
NAf!ONfl.l REVIEW ONLiNE PRINT
The Corner
lhc one <md only.
Football and Hockey
By Mark Swyn
4iuly i5, 2012 6.22 P.M
In the wake of Louis Frech's report on complidtv in serial rflpe,
Rand Simberg writes of Unhappy Valley's Q!her::;ci!1_1(lil!:
I'm referring to another cover up and whitewash that
occurred there two years ago, before we learned how rotten
and corrupt the culture at the university was. But now that
we know how bad it was, perhaps it's time that we revisit the
Michael Mann affair, particularly given 11ow much 'I>\I{YJ;U_1l.Q
learned about his and others' hockey-stick deceptions since.
Mann could be said to be the -Jerry Sandusky of climate
science, except that instead of children, he has
molested and tortured data in the service of politicized
science that could have dire economic consequences for the
nation and planet.
Not sure I'd have extended that m.etapl1or all the 1vay into the locker-room
showers with quite tbe zeal Tvlr Sirn berg does, bur he has a poinL Michael Mann
was the man behind the !1-audulent clin1Me-change "hockey-stick" graph, the
very ringmaster of the tree-ring circus. And, when the East Anglia cmails came
out, Penn State felt obi iged to "investigate" Professor Mann. Graham Spanier,
the Penn State president !()reed to resign over Sandusky, was the same cove
hti p :!fwv./\N .na tionolrev Jl//30941 2 10/1912012
Football and Hockey- National Review Online
who investigated Mann. And, as with Sandusky and Paterno, the college
declined to find one of its star names guilty of any wrongdoing.
Page 2 of2
If an institution is prepared to cover up systemic statutory rape of minors, what
won't it cover up? Whether or not he's "the Jerry Sandusky of climate change",
he remains the Michael Mann of cl imatc change, in part because his
"investigation" by a deeply corrupt administration was a joke.
(i) Nat1onal Review Online 2012. All Reserved.
liQme ! Sr:wm 1 NR I DicitgJ J Domlle. I tterJ!a..tSJt l I
http:/ /YV\VW. J w tiona J rc:v i c \V. c 01 n/b J o g;;.;/p r i J 1 t/3 094t..f 2 I 0/19/2012
EXHIBIT C
Get Lost -l\ational Review Online
NAI"IONAL Rt:ViEW ONLIN!:: www.naiion(!lrovicw com PRINT
Get Lost
So, as you rnight have heard, Michael \lann ofC!imategate int:1my is
threatening to sue us.
P<1ge 1 of2
Manni::: very, very with )his Mark Steyn Corner post, which
had temerity to call Mann's hockey stick "fraudulent." The Steyn post was
mild compared with other things that have been said about the notorious hockey
stick, and, in fact, it tell considerably short of an itenr about Mann published
elsewhere that Steyn quoted in his post.
So 1.vhy threaten to sue us? I rather suspect it is because the Steyn post was
savagely witty and stung poor Michael.
Possessing not an ounce of Steyn 's wit or eloquence, poor Michael didn't tr:i to
engage him in a debate. He sent alal!gbJll:>JyJLu:<,:Jll.Gning lettf:r and proceeded to
1.vritc pathetically lame chest-thumping posts on his Facebook page. (Is it too
much to ask that world-renowned climate scientists spend less time on
Faccbook?)
All of this is transparent nonsense, as oullines.
In common polemical usage, ''fhwdulcnt" doesn't mean lr<mc.:;l-lo-goodness
crirn i 11a I fraud. Jt means intdlcciually bogus and wrong. l lvlann ',;
prospective lawsuit fiaudulcnt. Uh-oh. l guess he now has mwther reason to sue
us.
hli p:l/www. nn tionn lrevie w. comiblogslpri nt/ll46RO I 0/ I ')/1.0 12
Get Lost- National Review Online Page 2 of2
Usually, you don't welcome a nuisance lawsuit, because it's a nuisance. It
consumes time. It costs money. But this is a different matter in light of one
word: discoverv .

If Mann sues us, the materials we will need to mount a full defense will be
extremely wide-ranging. So if he files a complaint, we will be doing more than
fighting a nuisance lawsuit; we will be embarking on ajournalistic project of
great interest to us and our readers.
And this is where you come in. If Mann got:s through witl1 it, we're probably
going to call on you to help fund our legal fight and our investigation of Mann
through discovery. If it gets that far, vie may eventually even want to h.ire a
dedicated reporter to comb through the materials and regularly post stories on
Mann.
l'vly advice to poor i'v1ichael is to go away and bother someone else. [fhe doesn't
have the good sense to do that, we look forward to teaching him a thing or two
about the law and about bow ti.ee debate works in a t!ee country.
!-le's going to go to great trouble and expense to embark on a losing cause that
will expose more of his methods and maneuverings to the world. ln short, he
risks making an ass of himself But that hasn't stopped him before.
~ R i c h l.own is the edilor of'Nr\ fi(JN:\1 REiin::w.
h!ip:/ /w\vw.nationalrcview.com/blogs/printn I '1680 I 0/19/2012
EXHIBITD
Penn State Climate Scientist )v!ichael Mann Demands Apology I'rom C:EI Competitive E ... !'age 1 of2
Con1petitive Enterprise Institute
.Free M<:ll'ket.s nnd Lilnil.cd novenmwnL
ISSUES NEI/'iS!.:.OOI1 EXPER.TS PUSUC!\TIONS EVENTS
Penn State Climate Scientist Michael Mann Demands
Apology FI'Om CEI
CEJ RefUSes to Retract Cnrnrnenlary
By Q'!_ristine Ha;l
August 24, 2012
fl:lill U:ma:J
Washington, D.C.
1
August 24, 2012 - -:-h: l:d:::r;.n<,;:; re(-:; V"--'": A
idtr.r (H'! A.J-QL:st 21 from an -c;:;:csenting ::>enn State Un vcr;,;ity f'rofcs;;or l"i!ct,,:,c:f
E. Mann that c:r;:mands th1t CEl n:ctrcct Qlld Oq:o!o(Ji;-:e for .'l posl: on C:Cl's b!og,
OpennHlrl<'Jt.:.;r;,;, writti0!-'1 1)\.' CEI SC"':.;.Iur r;0nd Si:l1IJcr9, -1-r; :r:-lt:: <Jiso
t'I1QI: ''intend to ,'Ill 2lp;::;:opliate: rewe;::ies on beh.nJt of' Dr. H<>r.n."
V.<JJIC')'," ttl<: Jul}' U, 201? post at cdi!';i1:C!:j
Professor a clltTtate sclenti:;t s hct:> bt:!;unr<: ;1 k<:1d:nq in
tl1e pul)lic "or gf(lb<'ll f1:J'111 ,vas lead of rc;sl;!arch
tile l!lfWIT't.:lll';i hockey ::;Ur;:k lernpr;or<<lure ;r-"p)-. IKlr.Ke-, !itir:k fec;turcd i11
the lJN Pan.-::1 0'1 Climat{) Char1ge.-s Tlrird (?.DOl). l.:ul
w2 . .:: rlmpp.::d it'> Rl':pott (2007). E:-rr;;lls r>-::n1 and to f'.'l<lllll
pr DITiitl0ill'Y n -... :.o:nown tile'! scanda,
St<ltorncnt by CEI General Cot>n::::el S<1m
wr.-r:k c:r:r r<',C\O:vr.:J a le:tter front 1>1 ctt.:lel !'--1-:1:1n's attorne;r, John B. Willi_,.rr;, ol C:<--t.:.:d
O'Connor", thn cr:=: retrilc:t and 00olnq:;-,o:- fr_-r :-l
J2.QS1 H<Jnn's work. u:cr tlrdl lol.'dS 1-'Lo:i:.;h:-d n t"Hllu y, Cfl
mmr,v(:d sentences tl1<.lt it Howe'!t:l', ,;c! vkw Lhc pos'. ;r.,;. ,1
;;,'llor.l commf:'1l'OliY on l'e!:n>lrr.h w,,_ r't'!:(!:-:1 the =lad'"l Uldl' tills rt::search ,,n&
do.:->r2iy -::x,lrrrirrcd, IC'l <IOrrc c;<OrlH.:Jtcd, <lll'{ c,( the ro '.VIlliBi"ns's
letter.
NfrlrOrl<ll <:i.irlrter oc: a letter fmn 1'1<mrl'c; h.'l:t
SJ!ll'llCd up u.e "l)flttCf' in a r<"sponse by i.ind L!W ,IA.-t;.ll:.:<)li(Jil'o;;
And 110v.: ::;.!'. ,,JS""" work, il5 i!> d n:1::.y to
/'.r::.t /1nendn1ent filW I'J.;gardir.f iJ\Ii;liC :;t::b'-lt:C OV1:r (._(l'l:I!JV::r:;j\JI i'''i(hc:d rl"i"',
wl!! a ,va!lnr,g tl.rect, his an un;mmded LO
Penn Profc;;:;scl t1il:ili:l!"l! f,((wn's ci:Jirr:r; th<;t iflV(::;tiy..rl.i<Jrr..; 0td_ir;r'l:L
ttwe ail Httr,n. Jv;ost of:i1c:se :rwe:sl-Wti0ns not
l'rofe::-. .,-,or f'c.nn'c. cor1(krct "vr<rl !'fl0.ntion hrn, <-lf"ld Pr:rn lrwesti\Jatic1
l(pi::Ul Of .'I fc' lu'<'-l: ..
The in;\1 PN:/<"fl'>tir hCJI'.h."y stkk ,,; s: II t<Jken seri:;t .. sl;o- :r-. .. pu':!ic
UcL>(,L\: s Jn ll'rd tlwr. pr:oplr hc;wm't ;-,e,.;rd l,"hr, Wr::;r:r.':ln .c the llct.:;e Ener\})'
eli' c) Corr.nrtcrc<: ,'JdliorJ.:!I ll.('c;(.'ilr dr 1 en l ht :; of
McJr.tyn:: CJ.l(i =<.os.::
SfARCI1 CE!.ORG
CEl ON THE WEE\
... "f\N!TffR
lf1 fA(.'t::BOOK
YOU"I :)Sf:
;--? OPEN BLOG
J(ij GLOBALWARMING.ORG
-.;;,' WORKPI.ACECHOlC!::.OitG
.ORG
J;4 CEI ON DENANO VlDEO
:.-; LIP.>ERTY ','/EEl< PODCAST
I \ NEWS[..12TTER SIGNUr
;,,) RSS FEEDS
Ctl SPFCI/.\1. PROJECTS
H lO,SOO
/J.GEIIJDA CQR CONGRESS
!(t: CNVIP.ONII'lENTAL SOURCE
VV5J f[LLOWSH!P
I/\ 1\PPE/\R/\NCES
: 'il.f'Slhtf\:lll il_!_:"i<:O. CtlCl.l-:tr
1 . -_,
hltp;//cc:i. org/J lcws-rc ti st -m i chae !-1nann -dem::mds--apo logy--... I 0/ 19/2012
Penn State Climate Michael Mann Demands Apology From CEll Competitive E ... Page 2 of2
K<!r:n's 11d:oocy is no rnc:; r01i;;b!e uv,n <;C'0r',lifi( Hi!;
recer.t DOOK, Tlie f1oc_l.;(,_>' S.'i::.'( .:;r:d the C!ii.,...t!IP Wal.';: f.!!r.pa!t.'/ll''.; !he tmflf l.ir:es,
rt;!rr.<!t.<; nl.lfneroll$ t\lct;r:!' :.:1 Urern CEI.
hrtp;//cei .org/ncws-H) Jnate-seicnt bt JlJ i dmcl mands-n pology-... J 0/ I 9/20 12

2012-10-22 Initial Order Summons and Complaint

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2012-10-22 Initial Order Summons and Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

You might also like