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...

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...

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...

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 Eight began with Steyn's continuing cross-examination of the plaintiff. Michael E Mann's misogyny regarding Judith Curry audibly shocked the courtroom, but he recovered sufficiently to assert that the best proof that he really is a Nobel Laureate was that he was one of only two people to receive a standing ovation at some climate beano in Hawaii. Then, at the end of the day, the...

The action of making something obscure, unclear, or unintelligible. The Plaintiff's case hinges on making you, or rather the jury, believe — nay, they have to prove — that Mark and Rand knowingly falsified information and had an intent to ruin Mann's reputation. How are Mann's lawyers trying to do that? By making data falsification, fabrication, and every other journalistic standard, such as plagerism (which has been in the news of late, if we recall correctly), the exclusive domain of academia. These really smart people are the only ones who are educated enough to say what is right and what...

Michael E Mann's sixth and final witness is some guy called John Abraham, from the University of St Thomas in Minnesota, who presented himself to the court as an "expert" in investigations, whatever that means. Perhaps he's worked with Hercule Poirot. Mr Simberg's lawyers and Steyn promptly announced they would "voir dire" him, which will take place today. "Voir dire" is an old Norman French term meaning "truly dire", which accurately sums up the American justice system. The courtroom is turning into a mini-Minnesota, with not only Mr Abraham on the scene but also Mark's favorite presidential candidate Michele Bachmann...

Michael Mann took the stand for the third day at the trial of his own making to start Week 3. Mark's cross-examination continued in full force today. By the end of the day, Mann's lawyers were clearly flustered as illustrated by their attempts to rebut Mann's own testimony (in vain). C.S. Lewis (yes, that C.S. Lewis) once said, "Hell begins with a grumbling mood, always complaining, always blaming others." We witnessed a lot of blame in Room 132 of the DC Superior Court today, so hell must be near. As Mark detailed in exhibit after exhibit, Mann, despite his protestations...