Regular Rush Limbaugh listeners remember Mark Steyn’s many guest appearances.
I didn’t follow his show later but saw this in a British site:
Mark Steyn has quit his show after claiming the channel wanted to hold him liable for paying Ofcom fines. The conservative presenter was under investigation for anti-vaccine comments made on his show last year and has been absent from the show in recent months after suffering two heart attacks.Feb 7, 2023 The Standard.UK
We are so fn fkd.
only DC nuked could save
I believe SCOTUS precedent hold that punitive damages in ratio to actual damages of more than 9 or 10 to 1 is a due process violation. That may be what’s referred to in the article
Mann’s research is fraudulent. There is no doubt about that.
piing
That’s crazy. He should have had an attorney.
Mark’s whole case, deportment, reason, and evidence was magnificent. having heard the whole thing, i would have acquitted him in a NY minute if i were a juror. if i was the judge i would have dismissed the case faster than that.
however, as expected by all, including Mark, a complete and total injustice was perpetrated by a DC judge and jury, who decided the case on political grounds, just as they have done to all our political prisoners.
Seems like Steyn paid the price for the stupid Sandusky comments of the other defendant.
i should add that this was, imho, a pyrrhic victory for mann and the climate fraud side. even though part of mann’s lawfare strategy was to stall and bleed Mark for 12 years, Mark stayed the course and destroyed mann and co in court, no matter what the verdict.
mann and co looked very, very bad in the end. poor Mark though. i know his health has suffered badly. i’m glad it’s over for now. Mark get’s some well deserved time off before offcom in the UK.
i can’t bless and thank Mark and Rand enough for taking this case to the mat. thanks to Mark and and Rand’s evidence and case, everything is now on record, penn state’s then administration and mann came out looking like corrupt, vituperative, vindictive, vapid, stupid, sexist pigs, and climate science was totally discredited as a leftist political sham.
and finally, i believe, Mark’s opening and closing statements will rank with the finest oratory in civil trial history. really magnificent.
Insane.
Courts are corrupt and compromised.
RICO is now a tool concept in the hands of our communist masters...
At least it wasnt a billion dollar fine as is the going rate for lawfare these days.
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.
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.
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.
How can anyone who isn’t a corrupt, leftist ideologue get a “jury of his peers” in the cesspool that is DC?
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’?
“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”