Posted on 02/08/2024 9:41:35 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Jurors are getting very benevolent with someone else’s money. Any one of them can do that to someone they just don’t like. It’s akin to destroying someone.. Who worked hard to eventually have some extra.. And a juror can take it all. A million is a lot of money!!!
The guys ability to make money is destroyed by what some skeptic says about him? The worth of his output can’t stand on its own? People now can’t have opinions? Don’t even try to tell me if the political poles were reversed here that the jury wouldn’t found as it has. I’m not buying anymore.
You represent yourself for one of two reasons, (a) you can’t afford a good enough attorney, or (b) you know the system is biased and the verdict is fore-ordained so why bother paying an attorney?
I suspect it was (b) for Steyn. In any case, he seems to have done a good job in court. It’s not possible to force people to share your opinions, in a country where 4/5 of the population have swallowed the climate change kool-aid, nobody could have won that case, at least not in that venue.
Steyn should go to Russia and seek political asylum. Or maybe crowd source the million bucks, sure it wouldn’t take long to raise it.
I had a partial victory representing myself in a defamation lawsuit in Canada, I was unable to get costs but the action was dismissed. In my case I had stated a left wing blogger was a Taliban supporter for taking a sympathetic view of Omar Khadr. I felt that with a little help from co-counsel (another defendant was involved) to get documents up to standard, I was able to do the job adequately and the judge (no conservative) told us that she appreciated our work in formulating arguments.
It is difficult work, I wouldn’t do it unless you are willing to do a lot of research and spend the time consulting experts. But my reason was (a) not (b). I had no choice if I wanted to be at trial, and if I didn’t show up, my co-defendants would have automatically lost and I would have been nailed with a large bill too.
That was a second go-round for me too, in a more complex case with many defendants, we did not succeed but then we had zero expectation of success given the political dynamics at work (trying to attack political correctness in Ottawa, sort of like saying cheese is dangerous in Wisconsin, or Joe Biden is a doofus in Delaware).
Mann Sued Dr Ball in Canada and lost. I feel sorry for Mark. I love his writing and work.
Yes, you do. What about this case? Crazy!
And Mann receive $1 in compensatory damages which will cause the $1M punitive to be vastly reduced, possibly to the point where Mann will lose money.
There wasn't any 'winning' this case, his co-defendant compared Mann to Sandusky, and Mark re-attributed it, thus both overcame Sullivan.
Yet for Steyn to be able to ably pillory Mann in open court, to exponentiate Mann's humiliation with not just the facts but Mark's extraordinary displays of oratory, do you actually believe for one millisecond that a courthouse gun-for-hire would have accomplished that?
Another reason Trump is correct about the DC. It shoild be federalized. It is a nest of ignorant DemocRat droids and career Federal parasites who have no use for anyone but corruot DemocRats. They can’t be trusted with their own governance. I hope Steyn appeals this to SCOTUS.
I had a partial victory representing myself in a defamation lawsuit in Canada...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I recall the case well and thanks for mentioning it... God bless you for taking it on. Corruption in the courts knows no borders.
The DC Swamp. You knew they would reach this verdict as soon as the DC Swamp was chosen as the venue. It is impossible to obtain a fair trial in that jurisdiction.
That’s crazy. He should have had an attorney….. Do you really think he should have lost his case?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Really? Having his own attorney would have made a difference? The idea that it would have made a difference reminds one of past lost elections where folks are ignoring the total fraud they witnessed and are instead spouting off stuff like “well, we did this wrong, we did that wrong, if only we had a better candidate…woulda/coulda/shoulda etc. etc.”. No, it was lost because it was rigged PERIOD and absolutely nothing would or could change that. Similarly, the verdict has nothing to do with “Steyn paying the price for the stupid Sandusky comments by the other defendant” that montag813 suggested. The comments weren’t stupid but it doesn’t matter one bit…. Yeah sure, let’s go barrelling down field one more time on Lucy holding that football…
Post 3 by Astrike says what is going on in the fewest words and frankly, there really is nothing else to say. This fact (which is simply recognition and acceptance that the tyrants have control) explains it perfectly and until that is incorporated as reality into one’s thinking, there is no moving ahead on anything. Post 8 by dadfly has an excellent example of cases similar to Mark’s and there are of course endless others. See the link about Jeff Clark in post 25 by ScaniaBoy.
How can anyone who isn’t a corrupt, leftist ideologue get a “jury of his peers” in the cesspool that is DC?
>A million is a lot of money!!!<
Do you think Hunter’s lawyer, Kevin Morris, will loan Steyn the money without any paperwork or expectation of payback? I hear that’s okay to do these days.
EC
Good to know
“his co-defendant compared Mann to Sandusky”
No. He used Sandusky as an ANALOGY. It is a bit like saying, “Biden is like Hitler in XXXXX”. It isn’t saying he IS Hitler, or that he does the exact same thing as Hitler, but that in some way there are similarities.
As I understand it, that is what happened here. They said “the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except for instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data...”. So the ONLY thing they accused him of was torturing DATA. They did not in any way accuse him of being a child molester. It is COMMON for “scientists” to be accused of torturing data because so many DO torture the data. I read a lot of papers that should never have seen the light of day.
That doesn’t “defame” someone. It indicates strong disagreement. That is all.
If I’ve followed the case correctly, a witness defined Mann’s data as BS and a it was shown Mann grossly overstated his perceived financial losses. Was this yet another case of being judged by persons ostensibly capable of being labeled ‘your peers’?
Steyn paid the price for a trial held in Washington D.C. Do you think any Conservative will receive a fair trial there?
“Mark’s opening and closing statements will rank with the finest oratory in civil trial history. really magnificent.”
Do you have a link for that? I didn’t watch the trial.
“The guys ability to make money is destroyed by what some skeptic says about him? The worth of his output can’t stand on its own?”
I know. Totally disgusting... And depressing, that this is what justice in America has become.
“Climate Scientist Michael Mann Wins Defamation Suit Against Mark Steyn and Rand Simberg”
From the article at above link:
“The punitive damages would seem to be the most vulnerable part of the judgment. Under existing Supreme Court precedent, excessive punitive damages violate Due Process. So, for example, in BMW of North America v. Gore, the Court held that a punitive damage award of $2 million was excessive given that the plaintiff had only been awarded $2,000 in compensatory damages. This 1000-to-1 ratio, the Court held, could not be justified even considering the extent to which the defendant had engaged in egregious conduct”
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.