by Egon Von Greyerz, Gold Switzerland: Egon von Greyerz joins his dear friends and Matterhorn Asset Management advisors, Grant Williams and Ronnie Stoeferle, to address the unique risks—economic, geopolitical, military—making headlines at an alarming rate. This timely and highly important conversation opens with the financial, political and trade moves from West to East as evidenced […]
One of the most bizarre conclusions of D.C. Judge Combs-Greene were her findings that it was actionable to “question [Mann’s] intellect and reasoning” and that calling his work “intellectually bogus” was “tantamount to an accusation of fraud”. These absurd findings are all the more remarkable because, as National Review pointed out in their written brief, Harry Edwards, then Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C.
I have an audio copy of the oral argument in Mann v Steyn, which I’ve posted up (see link at the end of this post). One of things often under-estimated by those readers (especially at WUWT) who are bloodthirsty for litigation as a means of settling scores is that it’s not easy for litigation lawyers to fully assimilate a complicated history. In the oral argument of the anti-SLAPP motion, both the lawyers and judges seem too often to be playing blind man’s bluff with the facts, making a decision both unpredictable and probably somewhat random.
