Free Republic

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...

[Tweets excerpted]: The judge is going over the verdict form question by question Simberg - defamatory? Lead Juror: Yes Provably false: Yes Simberg's statement false: Yes Simberg knew it was false: Yes Mann suffered injury: Yes Simberg Verdict Compensatory Damages: $1 Punitive Damages: $1000.00 Steyn's verdict Defamatory statements: Yes Provably False: Yes False Statements: Yes Published With Knowledge Of Falsity: Yes Entertaining serious doubts: Yes Reckless Disregard Mann Suffered Injury: Yes Compensatory Damages: $1 Punitive Damages: $1,000,000.00

On Wednesday, late in the day at 4pm Deep State Standard Time, Mann vs Simberg and Steyn finally went to the jury, and they retired to deliberate. So now we await their verdict - as, on this same day just a few blocks away, President Trump awaits the decision of a supposedly "conservative" Supreme Court on whether he can be permitted to appear on the ballot. I am exhausted by what passes for "justice" in America, and I expect he feels the same. In my case, the last phase of the trial - closing arguments - began yesterday after lunch:...

Michael Mann is not a victim. That was the theme of Mark's closing today in court. The judge began the day by reading the jury instructions and the afternoon was devoted to closing arguments. First up was the Plaintiff's counsel. Then Victoria Weatherford on behalf of Rand Simberg. And then Mark. The Plaintiff then got 15 minutes to rebut the Defenses' closing before the jury began its deliberations. By this point, any one of Mark's readers could write the Plaintiff's closing. Mann was severely wronged... his life was terrible... That Mark and Rand are guilty of actual malice and knowingly...

Today, after twelve years of procedural bollocks and four weeks of trail, Mann vs Simberg and Steyn will supposedly be going to the jury. We shall see. Mark has not been well this week, but he hopes to be sufficiently healthy to deliver his closing argument. Our friends Ann McElhinney and Phelim McAleer will be there of course, as they have been every day - unlike slipshod outlets such as NPR, for whom court reports do not involve actually sending a reporter to court, or The Washington Post, who dispatched their "climate reporter" to cover a trial. The poor lad...

Let's recap where the case stands as we enter the final days of the (Climate) Trial of the Century. Michael Mann sued Rand Simberg and Mark Steyn in 2012 for defamation after the "statements at issue" were published. The case then languished in the DC court system for 12 years. It has cost the Defendants millions in legal fees — not to mention the immeasurable physical toll to Mark and Rand. Now, in court, the onus is on the Plaintiff to prove the Defendants acted with malice and that there was harm incurred due to the blog posts. So, has...

Ann McElhinney and Phelim McAleer are back with their dramatised reconstruction of Mann vs Simberg and Steyn, now installed in a far grander courtroom - 132 - at the District of Columbia Superior Court. Day Twelve began with Judge Irving unleashing what US legal scholars call a can of jurisprudential whupp-ass on the Plaintiff: Plaintiff's presentation of the case at times seemed a bit disjointed. And, yes, there were many evidentiary objections, but they were ground -- there were grounds for them... It seemed that there was very … … intended to go back with the jury during deliberations, figures...

There was a reason that Dante consigned hypocrites to one of the deepest, darkest reaches of hell in the Inferno. Hypocrites and hypocrisy writ large have, throughout history, caused more damage than almost all others. They believe they have carte blanche to do or say whatever they want — for fame, money, power, name the vice — but those same rules don't apply to their own lives. History has tried to educate the present with the thousands upon thousands of essays, books, and profiles dedicated to the subject, but those who have the most to gain ignore the wise counsel...

In the meantime, here are Ann McElhinney and Phelim McAleer with their dramatised reconstruction of the most recent events. In this episode, Dr Judith Curry takes the stand - a woman sorely traduced by the misogynist pig Michael E Mann, who spread false rumors that she was a slut who slept her way to the top. Simply click below: Mark is played by the Australian actor Thomas Bromhead, who in America is one of the voices of the Geico Gecko and also Rocket in I Got a Rocket, and in the UK and elsewhere is perhaps best known for the...

The Mann v. Steyn trial in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia is now in the middle of its third week. For more background on the case, see my post from a few days ago here. I have been watching some substantial chunks of the trial on the court’s livestream, although unfortunately several other matters have prevented me from watching the entirety. Today at the lunch break, the plaintiff Michael Mann concluded the presentation of his case. The technical term is that the plaintiff “rested.” So I thought a short update would be timely. Because I haven’t seen...

It is true that I have been in Washington, mostly to attend the Michael Mann v. Mark Steyn trial. I will write up my thoughts on the trial (or at least, those portions I have seen) when I have time. But something else has been distracting me: leftists firebombed my office last Saturday night. At around 2 am, they broke into the building that houses Center of the American Experiment and two other conservative organizations with which we often collaborate, along with many other businesses. The arsonists set two fires: one was in the first floor corridor between American Experiment’s...

Dr. Wyner is a professor, statistician, and, oh, chair of the undergraduate program in statistics and data science. His specialty is probability models. He has worked with ESPN (Money Ball anyone?) and has received grants from the National Science Foundation, the very same NSF of which we've heard so much about the two last weeks. Dr. Wyner knows numbers.

On Day Ten of the Mann vs Simberg and Steyn trial in the District of Columbia Superior Court, the Plaintiff finally closed his case - after a fortnight of repetitive testimony about the joys of "peer-review" from witnesses the judge himself said he failed to see the need for. If you've missed the first three weeks of this trial, Kerry Wakefield in this week's edition of The Spectator Down Under provides an excellent primer. Here's the first sentence: No single artefact did more to launch the climate change scare than Professor Michael E Mann's famous – or should that be...

Today, the Plaintiff (finally) rested their case — after 10 days, including jury selection, and four witnesses, to include Mann himself. The Plaintiff's last witness, Dr. John Abraham of the University of St. Thomas (Minnesota), was called as an expert witness. After a rigorous voir dire, Abraham was allowed to testify, but only as a fact witness. Which is really legal jargon for being Mann's BFF. And how did putting Dr. Abraham on the stand work out for the Plaintiff? The below excerpts from the cross-examination (by the Defense and Mark), pretty much sum up Mann's entire case. Excerpt One...