DC Judge: No Stay. Mann Must Pay Lawfare Guide

UPDATE: Yesterday afternoon (4/3) Judge Irving of the DC Superior Court denied Michael E. Mann's request to stay enforcement of the half million-dollar judgement he has been order to pay National Review:

Here, Dr. Mann does not give any specifics as to his assets, net worth, or liquidity in support of his request....

Nor did the trial record establish the extent of Dr. Mann's assets, net worth, or liquidity at present: The only substantiated figures were drawn from Dr. Mann's W-2s from 2012 to 2017, showing an annual income of at most $198,877.40....

Dr. Mann's perfunctory and unsubstantiated assertions plainly do not meet his burden to show why he should be entitled to an unsecured stay....

("It is not enough merely to mention a possible argument in the most skeletal way, leaving the court to do counsel's work, create the ossature for the argument, and put flesh on its bones. . . ." (quoting Zannino, 895 F.2d at 16)).

Thus, the Court finds that, as with the first required showing under Akassy, Dr. Mann has not made the second required showing under Goldberg. The Court is therefore constrained to deny Dr. Mann's Motion for Stay.

Delaying payment of an Anti-SLAPP Act fee award would prolong the award recipient's loss of funds to meritless litigation and erode the compensatory value of the award. (Cf. Fed. Prescription Serv., 636 F.2d at 760)

In other news, everyone appealed and counter-appealed everything. More on that to come...

Context:

The Superior Court of the District of Columbia ruled in January that Mann owes National Review approximately $530,000 to cover the outlet’s legal fees after spending more than a decade locked in defamation litigation against the organization, and Mann subsequently requested a stay to postpone the payments. -https://dailycaller.com/2025/04/04/court-delivers-massive-blow-famed-climate-scientist/

For more than eight years, the climate scientist Michael Mann harassed National Review through litigation over a blog post — until, eventually, the First Amendment brought an end to his attack. This week, a court in our nation’s capital ordered Mann to pay us $530,820.21 worth of attorney’s fees and costs, and to do so within 30 days... This week’s award will not undo all of the damage that Mann has inflicted upon us, and upon journalism more broadly — we had asked for $1 million in fees and costs, and even that was a fraction of what we have spent — but it will, at least, go some way toward making us whole. - https://www.nationalreview.com/2025/01/pay-up-mr-mann/ But then I read:

A jury found two critics of climate scientist Michael Mann and his signature “hockey stick” model liable for defamation on Thursday, and the ruling could have serious repercussions for scientific discourse in the U.S. going forward, according to several critics of mainstream scientific consensuses. Each defendant must pay Mann $1 in compensatory damages. Additionally, Mark Steyn, one of the defendants, will have to pay $1 million in punitive damages, while Rand Simberg, the other defendant, owes Mann $1,000 in punitive damages. - February 10, 2024 https://dailycaller.com/2024/02/10/michael-mann-defamation-verdict-science-climate-free-speech/

“Additionally, Mark Steyn, one of the defendants, will have to pay $1 million in punitive damages...”

The appeals court has already reduced this amount to $5k, but it’s still a travesty. Mark Steyn’s health has been destroyed & his legal fees are astronomical as well.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.