Mark Steyn Moves to Endgame in Legal Battle with Michael Mann

Mann was never awarded the Nobel Prize. The IPCC was.

 

Yes. But he was part of the “IPCC collective” at the time. He worked on the content that prompted the award being given to the IPCC.

 

His claim to have won a Nobel Prize was directly and publicly refuted by the Nobel Committee.

 

Didn’t know the Nobel folks commented. Interesting. The Nobel folks have passed out awards for odd reasons before. They really must not like Mann to call him out.

 

The Nobel Committee was asked about Dr. Piltdown mann claims to have won the prize which they responded in saying no it was for the IPCC group only not an individual prize.

 

Cool. I don’t know much about him. Someone (a resident climate nutter) posted a podcast of Al Franken interviewing him a while back and I listened to it. Most of what I know is what he said in that interview. He gave a lot of verifiable disinformation in the podcast.

 

The jury nonetheless reportedly returned a verdict in favor of Mann. I suspect an appeal is likely.
Trial Of Mann v. Steyn, Part V: Jury Instructions And Closing Argument
February 08, 2024/ Francis Menton

• 
  As I write this on the afternoon of Thursday February 8, the jury is deliberating in the Mann v. Steyn case. They could come back at any time, so I’ll try to write this quickly in order that the post is not obsolete already when it is posted.
  
  
• The last day of trial, yesterday, was devoted to jury instructions and closing arguments. Unfortunately, I had to miss the opening argument from Mann’s counsel John Williams. But I was then able to listen to almost the entire argument of Simberg’s counsel Victoria Weatherford, the entire argument by Mark Steyn on his own behalf, and the entire final rebuttal from Mr. Williams.
  
  
• My overall comment on the closings of Ms. Weatherford and Mr. Steyn is that they were straightforward reviews of the evidence, or lack thereof, as it applied to each element of the claims, as those had been outlined by the judge in the jury instructions. Because Mann had presented little to know relevant evidence, the closings were quite devastating. Ms. Weatherford’s approach was more an item-by-item review of how plaintiff had failed to prove each element, while Steyn focused more on a few particularly noteworthy issues; but both were well within norms for this type of argument.
  
  
• By contrast, Williams’s rebuttal was almost entirely off point and/or improper. He drew repeated (and correct) objections, several of them sustained, ultimately forcing the judge to re-read to the jury the entire instruction as to the elements and burdens of proof for defamation in order to correct an incorrect statement of the law made by Mr. Williams.

READ MORE

 

This came up during the trial. Shows Mann as the worm that he is.

JC’s ethics complaint against Michael Mann
Posted on February 8, 2024 by curryja
by Judith Curry

BREAKING. The verdict is in – GUILTY.

Mann’s lawyer introduced into evidence an old ethics complaint against Michael Mann that I had addressed to the Penn State administration.

Continue reading →

 

Boom. Mann wins, decisively. Steyn has to pay him $1 million.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/...el-mann-wins-1-million-in-defamation-lawsuit/

Sadly for deniers, the law didn't care about their propaganda campaign. Mann is vindicated, the deniers are humiliated.

Deniers, how have you been told to spin this? I suggest you try saying the jurors are all stupid, and Mann is DOOMED on appeal, and that the USA is doomed if paid political hacks can't knowingly lie to defame people without suffering consequences.

 

Deleted

 

The Jury actually admitted there was no defamation which is why they have the $1 damages on it while the $1 million is already considered illegal as it well outside the standard ratio of damage to punishment meaning it is likely to appealed down to a lot less number maybe as low as $10.

He was never defamed a delusion warmists/alarmists push because they are not honest people.

 

Actual damages at $1. The $1M will not survive.

 

The struggle will continue.
A BITTERLY DISAPPOINTING VERDICT
Anthony Watts
"The U.S. Supreme Court has indicated that punitive damages awards 10 times greater than compensatory damages awards are generally unconstitutional. . . .
Where do we go from here? The trial judge was openly skeptical of Mann’s case, and seemed to take seriously the defendants’ motions for a directed verdict. Those motions presumably were renewed at the close of evidence, and the court might now take them up. It requires a brave judge to take away a jury verdict, but Judge Irving, presiding in this case, was low-key but seemed, if pushed too far, to have a backbone. So who knows, he might do the right thing.

In any event, the case is destined for more years in the appellate courts. . . . ."

 

By nitpicking in court, all Steyn did was prove Mann's point. You know, that the science was complicated, and good people could disagree.

Merely discussing science and disagreeing isn't what Steyn did to merit the lawsuit. Steyn went on an organized campaign to call Mann a fraud and pedophile, knowing that all of that was BS.

And the jury agreed.

That's why it's so dishonest for deniers to now claim this is about silencing science discussion. What Steyn did wasn't discussing science, it was baseless slurs.

Years in court? Steyn still has to pay up now, if he wants to appeal. In a appeal, the previous court is assumed to have gotten it right, and the burden of proof is on the one trying to prove the previous court made some sort of error. Given the facts, that would be almost impossible.

 

The jury didn't find any defamation which is why they gave just $1 for "damage" no one including you can define Steyn doesn't have to appeal the defamation part since the Jury didn't find any.

The appeal will be over the illegal $1 million because SCOTUS has already made it clear that it violates the constitution in a case not long ago.

 

Because you've all been so spot on correct with your legal theories and predictions before, I'm sure that will happen.

Oh wait ... no.

 

LOL, see you couldn't prove me wrong thus you have nothing which is why you said nothing and there is a recent SCOTUS decision that already make such decision that a $1 million from $1 damage setting makes it illegal that you completely ignored.

 

Can you tell us more about this magical decision?

 

Not hard to find.

Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003) A punitive damages award should have a single-digit ratio to the compensatory damages award. In other words, a ratio of 9:1 is the maximum acceptable. In addition, the court may not consider the defendant's assets to justify an excessive award.

The Supreme Court's Evolving View on Punitive Damages

 

You just don't understand that Dr. Piltdown Mann LOST the lawsuit as the Jury didn't find any defamation thus the $1 million stupidity will be removed eventually as it has nothing to do with the case, he lost but the jury decided against defendents the punishment for being a climate realist.

Here is an article showing that there was no demonstrated defamation in the trial,

What Should We Think Of Michael Mann’s Defamation Trial ‘Win’?

LINK

When is the slime Piltdown Mannboy who lost the defamation lawsuit with Dr. Ball going to pay the Ball family as ordered by the Judge and agreement with the lawyers.

 

Understood. You're really, really upset about deniers being defined by the courts as frauds.

No need for that. The courts just confirmed what everyone else already knew.

 

Yeah - the guys doing the defaming are claiming that basically it is all a hoax - wonder why??

 

Yep! The guys doing the defaming…….

 

Please see the link in #69.

 

As with so many other discussions, instead of actually doing the research, assuming arrogantly that you can punish others to do the work on your behalf...