Free Republic

On Thursday afternoon, Judge Irving of the DC Superior Court ordered vexatious litigant Michael E. Mann to pay Mark's co-defendants Competitive Enterprise Institute and Rand Simberg $477,350.80 in attorney's fees - within thirty days. This is related to counts that were dismissed on Anti-SLAPP grounds half-way through the case - one was against CEI for republishing a National Review editorial critical of Mann deemed protected speech and the other against CEI and Rand for "intentional infliction of emotional distress". According to anti-slapp.org: SLAPPs are Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation. These damaging suits chill free speech and healthy debate by targeting...

The European Union on Friday threatened to target US steel and textile exports in retaliation for Washington's restrictions on steel imports, unless the Bush administration agree to its demands for compensation. In an aggressive riposte to last week's White House decision to levy duties of up to 30 per cent on steel imports, the European Commission confirmed it was drawing up a list of US goods worth about $2bn which could face increased EU tariffs. The $2bn relates to the value of EU steel exports affected by the US tariffs. "The overall amount we'll be looking for is close to...

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...

What a difference a year makes. A year ago, Michael Mann was riding high after winning his 12-year-old lawsuit against journalist and pundit Mark Steyn and Rand Simberg over comments sharply critical of Mann’s famed “hockey stick” graph. That graph purported to demonstrate a sharp rise in global temperature following industrialization, supposedly caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions. The offending comments were by Steyn in a National Review blog post and by Simberg in a Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) blog post. Mann brought suit against all four, but in 2021 National Review and CEI won “summary judgment” (a peculiar term...

It would not have been surprising at all that a visitor to Mr. Mark Steyn’s home in New Hampshire, USA, on the evening of March 4th would have heard the popping of bottles of champagne being opened and the clinking of glasses amidst cheerful toasts. On that Tuesday, Justice Judge Alfred S. Irving, Jr. of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia issued a long (over 14,000 words) Final Judgment Order, reducing the punitive damages charged against Mr. Steyn from an astronomical $1 million to a modest $5,000 in a 12-years long defamation suit launched by the plaintiff Dr....

The satirist Ambrose Bierce had it right: The hardest tumble a man can make is to fall over his own bluff. I might suggest a rather inelegant rephrasing of an old proverb: Live by Falsifying Evidence, Die by Falsifying Evidence And, that's how it started.... "Setting aside questions of credibility" when it comes to Michael E Mann's iconic hockey stick... Mann opened this case in the District of Columbia Superior Court on October 22nd, 2012 – with a lie – a big whopper: It is one thing to engage in discussion about debatable topics. It is quite another to attempt...

BREAKING: A Washington DC court has just ruled on Mark Steyn and Rand Simberg's motion for sanctions against Michael Mann and his attorneys for misleading the jury at trial. Decision: Mann and his attorneys are SANCTIONED for bad faith misconduct and will be assessed costs

WASHINGTON (AP) — Giving a new meaning to the phrase mad scientists, angry researchers, doctors, their patients and supporters ventured out of labs, hospitals and offices Friday to fight against what they call a blitz on life-saving science by the Trump administration. In the nation’s capital, a couple thousand gathered at the Stand Up for Science rally. Organizers said similar rallies were planned in more than 30 U.S. cities. Politicians, scientists, musicians, doctors and their patients made the case that firings, budget and grant cuts in health, climate, science and other research government agencies in the Trump administration’s first 47...

Michael Mann, a leading climate scientist, previously won over $1 million from allegations that two columnists defamed him over his claims that humans worsened climate change, but the amount in damages previously awarded to him was significantly reduced Tuesday. Mann, previously a professor at the Pennsylvania State University and now the inaugural “vice provost for climate science, policy, and action” at the University of Pennsylvania, created a “hockey stick” graph asserting that human activity led to global warming, according to a report from Reason. Snip. Irving instead ruled that Steyn would have to face $5,000 in punitive damages rather than...

At the end of this week, I am - at least on paper - $995,000.00 better off than I was seven days ago. On Tuesday the dirty stinkin' rotten corrupt US justice system reduced climate mullah Michael E Mann's seven-figure judgment against me to a lousy five grand. Readers with vague recollections of The New York Times et al reporting on the stunning million-dollar victory for "climate science" have been waiting for those publications to update their stories and amend the headlines to a stunning thousand-dollar victory for climate science. Over at Just the News, Kevin Killough has noticed the...

In a stunning but not unexpected ruling today, Judge Irving of the DC Superior Court has reduced the unconstitutional punitive damages jury award against Mark from one million dollars to a mere $5,000. Our brilliant legal counsel Christopher Bartolomucci reacted to the news, "We argued for Mark that the $1 million in punitive damages awarded by the D.C. jury was grossly excessive and unconstitutional. We are pleased that the Superior Court agreed, held that the award violated the Due Process Clause, and reduced it to $5,000." Perhaps, Michael E. Mann's attempted bribe of a Supreme Court Justice was a tad...

Being accused of "molesting" data to promote climate alarmism is not worth $1 million in punitive damages, a judge ruled Tuesday in a 13-year-old defamation lawsuit that could have bankrupted the nation's most venerable conservative magazine. The District of Columbia Superior Court slashed the seven-figure punitive damages awarded to University of Pennsylvania climate scientist Michael Mann, best known for his "hockey-stick" graph on climate change, to $5,000, rejecting Mann's "entire rationale" for preserving the $1 million award: "deterrence and punishment." Just the News covered the trial. Judge Alfred Irving wrote that Mann "presented no persuasive evidence suggesting that he suffered...

Well, finally, after thirteen long years Michael E. Mann has been made to put some personal skin in the game. Followers of last year's trial in the District of Columbia will recall that Mann testified that he had not contributed anything to his legal action against Mark and his co-defendants National Review and CEI. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. Where did the funding come from to pay his several lawyers for twelve plus years of his lawfare? He was not required to reveal it under examination. And, we can only speculate... snip Between last night and today, the current DC Superior Court...

Following last month's verdict, Mann vs Simberg and Steyn moves on into its thirteenth year and the appellate phase ...oh, no, sorry, we've still got some post-verdict maneuvring to attend to. On Friday, my counsel filed three motions at the District of Columbia Superior Court. If, as with baseball cards, you're anxious to collect the set, they are: a) a Motion to Stay Execution ...wait, wuh? Nobody said anything about execution. Relax, it's merely a Motion to Stay Execution of the Judgment; b) a Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law; and c) a Motion for (gulp) a New...

The National Review is suing Penn State climate celebrity scientist Michael Mann for $1 million. “We cannot recover the time and effort that Mann has wasted, but we can recover more than a million of the dollars that we have lost defending our unalienable right to free speech,” the Review’s editors wrote Wednesday. Mann won a defamation suit against two conservative writers who had criticized his “hockey stick” graph, which other climate scientists have questioned. Mann and his colleagues say the research demonstrates a sharp rise in unprecedented temperatures in the past few decades. In 2012, Rand Simberg posted an...

Fani Willis, currently starring as Javert in the Fulton County dinner-theatre production of Les Magarables, took the stand yesterday. It was an arresting turn: FANI WILLIS: "Where's Belize? What continent? I'm not being funny. I don't know. I've been to Belize with him. I've been to The Bahamas with him. I've been to Aruba with him. Don't embarrass me. I'm not sure what continents those are on." pic.twitter.com/Cs1sGFT5je — Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) February 15, 2024 Well, you can't really blame someone in Georgia for not knowing the Bahamas are in Antarctica. On the other hand, Florida is a contiguous state......

As many of you know, late on Thursday a Washington, DC jury found that a) plaintiff Michael E Mann had suffered no actual damages from Steyn's National Review post; but b) ordered defendant Steyn to pay him one million dollars anyway. Late on Friday, the otherwise lethargic District of Columbia Superior Court entered the jury's verdict in final judgment. What happens now? Well, in the next few weeks, there will be certain "renewed" motions from defendants that one is obliged to do, although they are highly unlikely to find favor with Judge Irving. After that, the case will be appealed...

In the old days, American newspapers dispatched court reporters to cover trials for what they were: legal proceedings. Today, they don't send any reporters to court, but get their "climate correspondent" or "environment reporter" to file a story about "attacks on scientists" - even though, in this case, the "scientist" is the plaintiff. Into this wasteland of groupthink hackery came everyone's favourite Irish double-act, Ann McElhinney and Phelim McAleer, with an innovative and energetic format: Sit in court all day soaking up the atmosphere and the corridor conspiracies, and get a cast of professional actors to re-enact all the best...

Conservative pundit and radio host Mark Steyn has been ordered by a jury to pay a former Penn State professor and "climate scientist" $1 million in damages in a defamation lawsuit about blog posts, published in 2012, criticizing the professor's work. via AP:The jury in Superior Court of the District of Columbia found that [think tank fellow Rand] Simberg and Steyn made false statements, awarding Mann $1 in compensatory damages from each writer. It awarded punitive damages of $1,000 from Simberg and $1 million from Steyn, after finding that the pair made their statements with “maliciousness, spite, ill will, vengeance...

As many of you already know, a Washington, DC jury today found the Defendants (Mark Steyn and Rand Simberg) liable for defamatory speech and reckless disregard of provable facts. Putting aside the monetary damages, the real damage done by this case is to every American who still believes in the First Amendment. The precedent set today, and as alluded to by Justice Alito when the case was petitioned before the U.S. Supreme Court, means that disagreement and/or criticism of a matter of public policy — the founding principle of this country — is now in doubt. And should you choose...