National Review wins, Michael Mann loses!

By Andy May

The D.C. Superior Court dismissed Michael Mann’s lawsuit against the National Review today in a definitive way. The National Review was sued by Mann over a blog post that Mark Steyn posted in 2012 criticizing Mann’s work. Mark Steyn was not a National Review employee, and no one at the magazine had reviewed the post before he put it up.

Rich Lowry, the NR editor in chief, said: “It’s completely ridiculous that it took us more than eight years to get relief from the courts from this utterly meritless suit.”

Read more here.

Update:

Lots of discussion around the details of the lawsuit. Mann’s original complaint against the National Review and Mark Steyn can be downloaded here.

Mark Steyn updates us on the progress of the lawsuit here. One of the previous judges in the case had this to say:

The main idea of Defendant [Steyn]’s article is the inadequate and ineffective investigations conducted by Pennsylvania State University into their employees, including Jerry Sandusky and Plaintiff [Michael E Mann].

Indeed.
5 59 votes
Article Rating
168 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Carlo, Monte
March 19, 2021 6:06 pm

“It’s completely ridiculous that it took us more than eight years to get relief from the courts from this utterly meritless suit,” said NR editor in chief Rich Lowry. “And outrageous that Mann is still going to be allowed to harass Steyn and CEI.”

Mann may well appeal the ruling, while NR has the option of seeking attorney fees from Mann. It has already cost NR millions of dollars to defend against the litigation.

“Let’s just say if I were him, I’d be very worried about this possibility,” Lowry said.

Last edited 21 days ago by Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
March 19, 2021 7:45 pm

I do not believe Manny is at risk…some Left Wing lawyers and money are probably backing him as part of the war against anti-socialist/communist opposition. The war goes on.

Ron Long
Reply to  Anti-griff
March 20, 2021 3:14 am

I think you are correct, Anti-griff, however, remember wars are won by winning individual battles and this is a win for the side of actual science.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Ron Long
March 20, 2021 3:33 am

I don’t see how it’s a win for the side of science- the court simply said the blog wasn’t responsible for the offending post.

ATheoK
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
March 20, 2021 6:13 am

A) It identifies Mann’s lawsuit against National Review as frivolous, solely intended to punish the NR for allowing such posts on their blog.

B) It identifies all of Mann’s legal accusations against NR as likely perjury.

C) It puts Mann on the defensive; especially if NR sues for legal and perhaps punitive compensation.

  • Mann’s trickery of trying to ignore judicial decisions/demands gets much harder when he is simultaneously trying to defend himself against paying for expenses and grief he caused NR.
  • It allows NR to sue Mann for filing frivolous lawsuits as a means to silencing people/organizations with which Mann disagrees.
  • All of those false claims Mann had in his initial lawsuit filing(s) become evidence against Mann; e.g. Nobel Prize winner; e.g. 2, Mann has been vindicated/absolved by multiple “investigations”.
Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  ATheoK
March 20, 2021 8:31 am

ATK posted “A) It identifies Mann’s lawsuit against National Review as frivolous, solely intended to punish the NR for allowing such posts on their blog.”

Having not read the actual text of the the D.C. Superior Court dismissal ruling statement, I really question that the court would use such wording . . . more likely that statement came from National Review.

Does anyone know if the law suit dismissal was with, or without, prejudice?

Last edited 21 days ago by Gordon A. Dressler
Dave Allentown
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
March 20, 2021 9:15 am

The dismissal was on a motion for summary judgment, requiring Mann to lay bare his evidence. It was insufficient so the case was dismissed. Such dismissals are almost always with prejudice. The rare exceptions would not apply here.

The court did not rule on whether the Steyn post was or might have been defamatory. It merely ruled that National Review cannot be held liable for what Steyn blogged unless Steyn were an employee of the NR at the time. The court ruled that Mann had no evidence Steyn was an employee, and rejected Mann’s alternative arguments that NR employees knew Steyn was being dishonest, or that an agency vs employer-employee relationship would suffice to impose liability.

The dismissal is a good thing, but the history of the Mann litigation casts shame on the D.C. non-federal judicial system. It is no doubt a patronage haven filled with biased, result-driven leftists.

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
March 20, 2021 6:55 am

Why is this not a win for science? If Mann won, science would have lost and it would have set precedent for yelling fire in a crowded theater.

EWSTX
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
March 20, 2021 7:49 am

It also helps to say that blogs are allowed to have whomever they choose post. It helps in that their speech and ability to manage the speech on their site has been defended.
On the other hand, it points to the great corruption of our justice system that it took 8 years to get to this ruling.
The initial suit should have been dismissed at the beginning as frivolous.
This suit is the perfect example of leftard principles to employ the justice system to bankrupt those that disagree with them.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  EWSTX
March 20, 2021 8:31 am

I’m surprised Mann doesn’t sue most of us here- there must be hundreds of messages dumping on him here.

William Astley
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
March 20, 2021 2:08 pm

That is exactly what would happen… If the Left wing … Get to one government. One government is the EU.

One government requires media control. The news programs are now controlled.

One government now has control of Facebook and Google searchers.

The last place for intelligent free speech. Sharing facts and discussing facts/real science is blog’s like this.

The Left absolutely are going to try to shutdown free scientific discussion.

The Left are trying to make it a crime to scientifically challenge …their created Climate emergency on any media/source/blog.

To criticize government policy like climate change or the government’s climate change ‘experts’. Or covid treatments.

The Left are weaponizing the laws and the courts to push CAGW and forced spending on sun and wind gathering….

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
March 22, 2021 9:15 am

I think he knows that many here would destroy him in court as his corrupt science would be exposed and eviscerated. No doubt this guy is a partisan fool first, but his Achilles heel is the science which he can not support except with flailing emotional redirection.

Ten minutes of cross examination demanding that he apply the laws of physics to support the IPCC’s ECS that his fake climate catastrophe is contingent on, and he will be revealed as the idiot he is and fold in disgrace.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  EWSTX
March 20, 2021 8:39 am

Wow, read the following news clip: “As Clubhouse’s popularity skyrockets, some observers are raising questions about the spread of misinformation”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/as-clubhouse-s-popularity-skyrockets-some-observers-are-raising-questions-about-the-spread-of-misinformation/ar-BB1eMN2s?ocid=Peregrine

“As its growth skyrocketed this year, some technologists and academics began asking questions about how it moderates conversations. Outsiders were wondering about bots and the spread of misinformation – the same types of questions that have long been asked about Facebook, Twitter, and other social networks.”

The Inquisition has started! Who can claim to know “the truth” in order to repress freedom of speech?

JEHILL
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
March 21, 2021 6:39 am

I also find it “funny” that these are same people do not care about the other kinds misinformation i.e. Ancient Aliens conspiracies, Moon Landing conspiracies, JFK conspiracies, Elvis conspiracies, nor perhaps another dozen public conspiracies / urban legends.

For me it goes to their overall credibility… or lack thereof.

Big Al
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
March 21, 2021 8:16 am

Judge NOT owned by Deep State noteworthy .

ATheoK
Reply to  Anti-griff
March 20, 2021 6:03 am

some Left Wing lawyers and money are probably backing him as part of the war”

All of that support is to manniacal’s benefit. Which means that Mann must pay income taxes on those “millions”.
Leaving a strong suspicion that Manniacal and his “Left Wing lawyers and money” are committing income tax fraud.

IRS does pay “finder’s fees” to people who report people committing income tax fraud. Typically a substantial percentage of the income tax fraud funds.

One thing is certain. Penn State is not paying manniacal a millions per year salary to support his abusive frivolous lawsuits.

Gary Ashe
Reply to  Anti-griff
March 20, 2021 9:38 am

Willy Soon is the cash cow.

Derg
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
March 20, 2021 1:49 am

It’s not his money. He could care less.

Pariah Dog
Reply to  Derg
March 20, 2021 3:46 am

True enough, but by taking it those that are backing him financially might have second thoughts about getting their wallets out when he comes back with his begging bowl.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Derg
March 20, 2021 10:05 am

Actually he couldn’t care less.

Independent George
Reply to  Derg
March 20, 2021 10:25 pm

He COULD care less? So he does care some?

Jim in NEF
March 19, 2021 6:10 pm

Finally! A win for the good guys.

davidmhoffer
Reply to  Jim in NEF
March 19, 2021 6:31 pm

Yaaay!
Sadly, its only half a win. The judge managed to strike down Mann’s claim against NR while leaving his cases against Steyn and CEI standing. Plus Mann can still appeal. 8 years and who knows how many more until it is over. The court system works…for those with the patience and money to afford it. The rest of us are screwed.

Richard (the cynical one)
Reply to  davidmhoffer
March 19, 2021 7:13 pm

There is the angle that MMann wins publicity. If there was some way of depriving him of oxygen . . . I mean in the publicity sense of course; we wouldn’t want him to cease exhaling massive amount of CO2, now would we. Would we. Don’t all you be silent at the same time.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Richard (the cynical one)
March 19, 2021 8:46 pm

Here’s what will happen.

  • Mann claims lack of money to continue the lawsuit.
  • Lefty Losers start a GoFundMe campaign which nets Mann millions of bucks.
  • Mann buys a bigger jet than Kerry’s.
  • Mann and Al Gore go on a worldwide massage parlor tour, while calling everyone who complains about them industry shills.
commieBob
Reply to  Jim in NEF
March 19, 2021 8:05 pm

Ball was a definite win for the good guys. This one not so much.

If I understand the linked story, and if it is correct, the case was decided on the following grounds:

… there’s no way NR could have had malice when the post wasn’t reviewed ahead of time and was posted by a nonemployee.

So the court didn’t decide the post was protected opinion or that it wasn’t defamatory. It just decided that the NR wasn’t guilty of malice when it published it.

The good news in the Steyn case was a while ago when the judge ordered Mann to cough up some costs. link It was a fairly paltry sum compared with what I suspect Stein and the CEI have paid so far, but it may indicate that the court is on to Mann and is losing patience with his misuse of process.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  commieBob
March 19, 2021 9:12 pm

That’s what SLAPP legislation is for, in the 30 states that have it. These cases shouldn’t even last more than one hearing. Mann has a history of bringing such obstructive suits.

The good news is, since Mann has never fulfilled his discoveries obligation vis a vis the data and statistical info for his hockey stick papers, said papers are de facto invalid because they’re incomplete.

commieBob
Reply to  Rory Forbes
March 20, 2021 6:20 am

Since Mann has avoided presenting evidence, we can infer that the evidence does not support him and that, as Ball put it, Mann belongs in state pen not in Penn State.

John Endicott
Reply to  commieBob
March 23, 2021 2:56 am

Careful, if Mann hears you say that you could be spending years in court. The process is the punishment.

Kpar
Reply to  Rory Forbes
March 20, 2021 2:49 pm

It is my understanding that Mann’s dog ate his homework.

Len Werner
March 19, 2021 6:32 pm

It is becoming difficult to envisage a Monty Python skit silly enough to accurately portray some of the world’s legal systems whose participants take seriously.

Thomas
Reply to  Len Werner
March 19, 2021 7:20 pm

The system is fine. It’s the misuse of it that must be dealt with.

MarkW
Reply to  Thomas
March 19, 2021 7:53 pm

The problem is that those in charge of the system like the way it is working now. They will never permit it to be changed.

rbabcock
Reply to  Thomas
March 19, 2021 7:59 pm

Wrong. A system that allows this misuse is not fine.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  rbabcock
March 19, 2021 9:13 pm

Those were my thoughts exactly.

Hunter
Reply to  rbabcock
March 20, 2021 4:04 pm

Name for us any perfect system of government for a truly large population.

JEHILL
Reply to  Hunter
March 21, 2021 6:51 am

I am chasing not after perfection… that’s a fools errand. However….

When the government wins +90% of its cases there is something wrong. There seems to conclusion between the courts and prosecution. The Courts actually want the government to win all cases. There’s a documented history of how we, the USA, got here – go research it for yourselves.

Derg
Reply to  Thomas
March 20, 2021 1:53 am

Do you think the system will punish those responsible for Trump Collllluuuusion?

I don’t think the DOJ will do anything. That is the US justice system in a nutshell.

Gary Ashe
Reply to  Derg
March 20, 2021 9:50 am

You leftist progressives and your conspiracy theories, what are you like.

Drake
Reply to  Derg
March 20, 2021 12:22 pm

Of course those responsible for the TRUMP! Russian collusion story will never be prosecuted. Those in the inJustice Dept. FBI, CIA, DNC, Hillary for Pres,, NYT WaPo, CNN, MSNBC, etc. will never be prosecuted for their conspiracy to overthrow a duly elected president of the US.

But look at the excessive aggressive prosecution of a “conspiracy to armed insurrection” that had NO GUNS, i.e. no arms according to congressional testimony by the FBI.

The tide may be changing. A judge, in a dissent of the dismissal of a libel suit against obnoxious false reporting, brought up the extreme bias of the major media and stated it is past time to overturn the 1964 SCOTUS ruling that set the media free to lie incessantly without consequences unless they can be proven to have acted with malice, not just incompetence, or in the case of the NE liberals, hatred.

Of course my dream is to overturn that judicial activism, and to require the loosing party to not just pay all costs, pay a punitive judgment, but to print the retraction at the same location, same font, same number of column inches, etc., and as many times as the falsehood was originally posted. All other “reporters” repeating the falsehood without independent confirmation required to do the same, and any CONFIDENTIAL sources who lied for the basis of the story to be identified so that the libeled person can sue them directly for the slander. So to your insanity above, imagine CNN having to run their banner for the next 3 year stating “we lied about TRUMP!/Russian collusion, BTW, this is a list of the “past or current US government” who fed us the lies. Every night CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC required to have their “news” reader spend time equivalent to their original reporting explaining they were incompetent and LIED, night after night, for YEARS. Then the liars would loose their security clearances and be prosecuted for any associated violations of espionage laws up to including treason.

I wonder how many Biden appointees would loose their jobs and freedom?

Komeradecube
Reply to  Derg
March 20, 2021 10:02 pm

Is Derg the new Griff? Inquiring minds want to know.

Sunsettommy
Reply to  Derg
March 21, 2021 9:20 am

Derg,

Ha ha, it upsets you that dr mann is a proven liar and loser of frivolous lawsuits?

Mickey Reno
March 19, 2021 6:43 pm

RICH Lowry (you said Mark Lowry) , is the executive editor of National Review. The cases of Mann v. Mark Steyn and Mann v. Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) are still open.

A small, first victory, but much more is needed.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Mickey Reno
March 19, 2021 7:07 pm

Don’t forget Dr. Tim Bell’s victory in the British Columbia Supreme Court. That took something like 9 yeas, but Mann lost, with prejudice and Bell received costs in the cause (which should amount to a tidy sum).

mikebartnz
Reply to  Rory Forbes
March 19, 2021 7:12 pm

Yes but has Dr Tim Ball been paid yet.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  mikebartnz
March 19, 2021 7:24 pm

Yes but has Dr Tim Ball been paid yet.

Not a chance. That’s the problem with civil law, you must go to court to enforce the penalty (getting a contempt of court judgement might help, though). They’ll just run out the clock. Dr. Ball is near 90 and ill, I believe.

Quilter52
Reply to  Rory Forbes
March 22, 2021 3:56 am

Does his estate have a right to go after the damages? If it did – because any beneficiary would be entitled to them – then MM may have a very long term and expensive problem. Especially if the Canadian court could persuade another country’s court to enforce. MM may find leaving Penn State a very difficult problem. I really don’t understand the law here so I am just raising possibilities.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Quilter52
March 22, 2021 10:00 am

For Tim Ball, the case was never about the money. I’m not sure about how court awards are handled in a will, especially internationally. I’d guess Dr. Ball would offer the costs to his lawyers to offset the fees they didn’t charge him. Mann has never had to pay for any of it so I doubt he cares.

Herbert
Reply to  Rory Forbes
March 19, 2021 7:27 pm

Rory,
See my questions to Andy May on this thread about the possibility of any BC award of costs in Mann v. Ball being registered or enforced in the US.
Looks murky.

Editor
March 19, 2021 6:51 pm

The First Amendment survives another fascistic onslaught… 👍👍

Duker
Reply to  David Middleton
March 20, 2021 12:23 am

First Amendment only applies to government entities restricting speech ..or porn. Etc
National Review is a private business , while they aren’t doing so , can publish or not what they wish.Mann of course is a mere professor

Reply to  Duker
March 20, 2021 2:22 am

The courts are government entities.

Duker
Reply to  David Middleton
March 20, 2021 2:54 pm

The arent in the sense you mean. Having jurisdiction isnt the same as being a defendant or plaintiff

paul courtney
Reply to  Duker
March 20, 2021 8:42 am

Duker: If you are correct, how was NR tied up in court for 8 yrs (!)? Mann is using gov’t to restrict speech, and it’s finally over,but it worked. I’m a long-time NR reader, and watched it avoid attacking AGW kooks for the past 8 yrs.
Mann is responsible, but consider the DC Court judges- It was evident 8 yrs ago that Mark Steyn was not an employee, therefore NR malice could not be shown. The legal analysis should have taken 8 minutes, done in the very first motion. For me, it’s the judges who (to paraphrase Mark’s “neo-colonial” view) refuse to learn/understand the legal system they snear at and want to overthrow.

Duker
Reply to  paul courtney
March 20, 2021 3:01 pm

Guess who is preventing more judges being appointed to handle case load. But you other point , its been mentioned here that the ‘not employee’ defence came late in the case
The rest of your stuff is nonsense, have you taken the time to look up websites which will show this case progress and motions files etc over the years to give an informed comment.
My quick check shows it was Mann who moved quickly to dismiss the case under the anti SLAPP Act, that was denied which was appealed.

In fact there was many hearings and appeals and counter appeals as Mann used every legal strategy to avoid losing…thats what taken years

March 19, 2021 7:00 pm

One battle at a time. 😉

Independent
March 19, 2021 7:10 pm
  1. It would be very interesting to learn who is paying Mann’s legal bills.
  2. NR, Steyn and CEI absolutely NEED to be awarded attorney’s fees if there is to be any sort of (massively delayed) justice in this case.
Gary Ashe
Reply to  Independent
March 20, 2021 9:54 am

.
..

Last edited 21 days ago by Gary Ashe
Rory Forbes
Reply to  Mike
March 19, 2021 9:16 pm

Strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP legislation)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation

Thomas
March 19, 2021 7:19 pm

How on God’s green earth is it even possible for a court to take eight years to find that the plaintiff had no standing? That fact alone is so utterly absurd it begs the question of the courts motivation. I’d sue the damn court for wasting my time and money (if one can even do that), and the plaintiff for malicious prosecution. Mann probably has no significant money but his attorneys have malpractice insurance. Attorneys don’t just slip on the courthouse steps and accidentally file bogus lawsuits.

National Review, I say gut them and leave their remains twisting in the wind, as a warning to others who might also try to misuse the law. It’s your civic duty. Stand up and do your part. We must put a stop to this madness. Properly conducted Judicial proceedings are all the separate us from the tooth-and-claw jungle.

Thomas
Reply to  Thomas
March 19, 2021 7:22 pm

Or mount a petition to impeach that judge. Monsieur Steyn?

Dave
Reply to  Thomas
March 19, 2021 7:48 pm

My understanding is that NR only this year brought up the argument that Steyn was not their employee, and no one from the magazine reviewed his work before it was published.and

Roger Knights
Reply to  Dave
March 20, 2021 1:59 am

Holy cow!

paul courtney
Reply to  Dave
March 20, 2021 8:52 am

Dave: I’m pretty sure a SLAPP motion required Mann to show evidence supporting his claim about 8 yrs ago. DC judge should have noted then that Mann could not show malice, whether NR raised it or not (I bet they did, and first two judges were too biased to see it). Those two judges caused NR and Steyn to split, and served to silence uncounted attacks on Mann and his false “science”.

hiskorr
Reply to  Thomas
March 20, 2021 8:33 am

As we have learned, “judicial proceedings” (see FISA) are a part of the “tooth-and-claw jungle”.

Herbert
March 19, 2021 7:24 pm

Andy,
Does the US SPEECH Act 2010 prevent Dr. Tim Ball recovering any costs award given in British Columbia against Mann?
Normally the US recognises the reciprocal enforcement of valid foreign judgements pursuant to an international treaty.
However the SPEECH Act 2010 makes foreign libel judgements unenforceable in the US unless-
(a) the foreign legislation applied provides at least as much protection as the First Amendment,
(b)the losing party would have been found liable if the case had been heard in the US.
Is the judgement a “default” judgement?
Is the BC Judgement a “libel judgement”?
Is there a lawyer in the house ?
Dr. Ball is potentially the beneficiary of scores if not hundreds of thousands of Canadian dollars.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Herbert
March 19, 2021 8:57 pm

Herbert, I’ll respond to your other post here. I’m not a lawyer but I believe I know enough about the case and Canadian civil law to answer some of your questions.

In this case, none of the provisions relating to libel would apply in this case, because Dr. Ball won, as the respondent, by default. Mann had dragged his feet for so long in answering a court order, the court became impatient with him for his “inexcusable delays” and dismissed his case with prejudice. Ball’s lawyers asked for and received “costs in the cause”, legalese for court costs at level 3 I believe. This does not include legal fees, although much of those were pro bono.

So, in answer to your question, I seen no impediment to Ball perfecting his claim on the court ordered costs … since the US 1st amendment would not apply. You’re right, the costs alone would be quite considerable in this case. Eight + years of hearings (transcripts of discoveries alone would be in the 1000s), affidavit filings, chambers costs, motion filings etc. do add up, even at level 3.

https://andrewlawton.ca/like-the-sword-of-damocles-judge-dismisses-michael-manns-lawsuit-against-tim-ball/

Joel O'Bryan
March 19, 2021 7:42 pm

Mann’s lawyers and legal bills in this matter are being paid by the GreenBlob, the Libtard billionaire consortium that funds the Green-Climate NGO’s. So Mann never had any personal financial skin in the law suits. They were merely meant as deep-pocketed Lawfare as a warning to other journalists not to attack Mann’s and others climate science fraud ways.

Last edited 21 days ago by joelobryan
Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
March 19, 2021 10:43 pm

Global Warming Defense Fund?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
March 20, 2021 8:29 am

Global Warming Scam Defense Fund.

Weekly_rise
March 19, 2021 8:03 pm

This motion for summary judgement reads to me like NR is completely hanging Steyn out to dry. Essentially claiming they wash their hands of anything he wrote (claiming they never even read his blog before posting it to their site). The “win” rings a bit hollow from where I sit.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Weekly_rise
March 19, 2021 8:31 pm

Once again, you are wrong. Don’t you get tired of being wrong? You didn’t read far enough, and jumped to a conclusion.

Also, Mark Steyn’s legal fees have always been covered by our legal insurance, and still are. Finally, we have the presumptive right for Mann to pay our legal fees for some of the case, an option that, as it happens, would require even more expenditures in the short term. Our legal insurance has never covered all of our fees, and the policy is not inexhaustible.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/03/a-victory-but-miles-to-go/

From where I sit, your opinion rings a bit hollow.

Weekly_rise
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
March 19, 2021 8:44 pm

One wonders how long the National Review will be willing to fund the legal defense of a non-employee whose published work they never looked at and whose legal troubles they’re now free and clear of. If I were Steyn, the motion for summary judgement claiming “we barely know this guy” wouldn’t exactly instill confidence that NR has my best interests at heart. But who knows, maybe they have a contractual obligation to pay for Steyn’s defense indefinitely.

Last edited 21 days ago by Weekly_rise
Mr.
Reply to  Weekly_rise
March 19, 2021 9:37 pm

Significantly, Mann could not raise even ONE amicus lodgment n his action against Steyn.

But I guess that’s expected for “A Disgrace To The Profession”

fred250
Reply to  Weekly_rise
March 19, 2021 9:43 pm

The FACT you support a blatant fraud in mickey man….

…. shows us all your true colors

Another FAIL. !!

Lrp
Reply to  Weekly_rise
March 19, 2021 9:49 pm

Or, who knows, maybe they have legal advice that Mann is wrong.

Weekly_rise
Reply to  Lrp
March 20, 2021 8:21 am

Maybe, but then one wonders why NR chose to move for summary judgement on the basis that they had no idea what Steyn had written in his blog and have no responsibility for his actions since he is a non-employee. There’s no way to read NR’s position as anything other than, “we barely know this guy and had no idea what he was writing about.”

If they persist in paying Steyn’s legal fees after insisting they have no relationship with him then I imagine Mann will be shortly making an appeal on that basis.

To be clear, I think NR’s position is perfectly valid, here. It’s just quite embarrassing for them to be confessing that they exercise no editorial discretion whatsoever over the content they present and know nothing about the people they contract to write for them. They’re literally claiming not a single National Review employee even skimmed Steyn’s work before publishing it.

Last edited 21 days ago by Weekly_rise
michael hart
Reply to  Weekly_rise
March 20, 2021 8:50 am

In other words, Weekly_rise, NR is like so many other publishers these days: People who might have been employees with a real boss in years gone by are just given a continuously renewed gig as an external consultant with effectively no oversight.

I can understand their tax/financial reasons for doing so, but it infuriates me to see people like Richard Black and his successors at the BBC. They continuously spout green crap and politics, double-dip from billionaire-funded external ‘green’ sources, and yet no one is ever called to account.

MarkW
Reply to  Weekly_rise
March 20, 2021 11:17 am

When in a court case, you throw up every argument that you have. Sounds to me like you are desperate to paint this as beneficial to your side, even if you have to make a fool of yourself.

Weekly_rise
Reply to  MarkW
March 20, 2021 12:24 pm

I don’t have a “side” in this matter. Mann has a legitimate claim to having been defamed, Steyn has a legitimate defense in claiming protection under the first amendment. The courts will decide. My opinion is that The National Review has abandoned Steyn by laying out the defense that they don’t know him and have never read his work (that they published). It’s certainly a legal “win” for NR, but an embarrassing position for them to have taken.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Weekly_rise
March 20, 2021 11:58 am

“If they persist in paying Steyn’s legal fees after insisting they have no relationship with him …”

Perhaps NR feels a moral obligation to support someone who is being oppressed for publicly stating his opinion.

Mark Steyn
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
March 23, 2021 7:56 am

For the umpteenth time, that is a flat-out lie by the duplicitous sh*t Lowry.

If you give money to NR for their battle against Mann, it goes not to me or my legal bills but into the NR general fund.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Weekly_rise
March 20, 2021 11:54 am

“One wonders how long the National Review will be willing to fund the legal defense …”

That is entirely different from your original statement that NR had hung Steyn out to dry, in your unsupported opinion.

Mark Steyn
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
March 23, 2021 7:53 am

That highlighted line is completely false – and characteristic of Rich Lowry and National Review’s lies, on which I expound (under oath) here: https://www.steynonline.com/documents/11106.pdf

If you give money to NR to “fight” this “battle”, it goes straight into NR’s general fund to pay Lowry’s $426,000 salary for running a once great publication into the ground.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Mark Steyn
March 23, 2021 7:49 pm

Mark,

Thank you for setting the record straight. I wasn’t planning on sending NR any money. I’m sorry to hear that they aren’t supporting you.

fred250
Reply to  Weekly_rise
March 19, 2021 9:45 pm

The incomprehensibility of your mindless and baseless opinion…

…. needs to be drawn to everyone’s notice.

Stein’s legal fees covered by NR’s insurance…. is hardly hangig out to dry, is it twerp.

Your daily-FAIL, yet again. Striving to make it hourly.

Last edited 21 days ago by fred250
Mark Steyn
Reply to  fred250
March 23, 2021 7:59 am

It is a lie by Lowry that they are covering my legal fees. I told him so on Twitter: https://twitter.com/MarkSteynOnline/status/1373073292194631688

He is a weasel prudent persons should steer clear of.

Robert of Texas
March 19, 2021 8:24 pm

It took 8 years of legal wrangling…I would hardly call that a victory for NR, but at least it is a failure for Mann.

The court systems just are not setup for a rapid recognition and dismissal of fraudulent suit. That alone will keep this as a tool to attack critics of main-stream pseudo-science.

michael hart
Reply to  Robert of Texas
March 20, 2021 8:55 am

Many states do actually have anti-SLAPP legislation to address these kind of frivolous lawsuits, and both sides were well aware of it. This probably had a significant effect on the decision of which state to file the lawsuit in.

The travesty is still the amount of time it took for the case to be dismissed.
“Justice delayed is justice denied”, is, or was, something often publicly voiced by people in the Law profession.

Doonman
March 19, 2021 8:44 pm

Is this the definition of climate justice?

tygrus
March 19, 2021 8:44 pm

Court cases take longer because of many reasons. Writing arguments; pre-trial judgements; delays & arguing against discovery requests; parties involved with multiple related cases and counter claims; request summary judgements; appeal judgements; arbitration; winning party wishes to claim costs. To prove claims in print against Mann et. al., parties have requested data/documents that Mann et. al. have not been willing to hand over. You can’t blame the court or single party for delays, it’s complicated.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  tygrus
March 19, 2021 9:28 pm

All one needs to do is read Charles Dickens ‘Bleak House’, which provides a very well written account of two families, Jarndyce v Jarndyce, in a legal conflict.

Based on an 1853 letter of Dickens,[1] the first of these cases has been identified[2][3] as the dispute over the will of Charles Day, a boot blacking manufacturer who died in 1836. Proceedings were commenced in 1837 and not concluded until at least 1854.

The second of these cases is generally identified[2] as the dispute over the will of the “Acton Miser” William Jennens of Acton, Suffolk. Jennens v Jennens commenced in 1798 and was abandoned in 1915 (117 years later) when the legal fees had exhausted the Jennens estate of funds;[4][5] thus it had been ongoing for 55 years when Bleak House was published.

RelPerm
Reply to  tygrus
March 19, 2021 10:14 pm

You can’t blame the courts…

You can lay some blame to money grubbing lawyers whose financial interests are to draw anything through the courts as long as possible, especially if deep pocket funders are on both sides.

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  RelPerm
March 19, 2021 10:48 pm

However, IIRC, Mark Steyn referred to the DC Courts as a cesspool. They took several years to try to determine if SLAAP applied. I’m not sure that they’ve issued a decision on that question yet.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
March 19, 2021 11:53 pm

Looks like many US courts are beyond redemption. Just look at the disgrace of their non-action following what was obvious election fraud on a massive scale. Either they lacked the requisite level of disinterest or they were terrified of mob violence. Whatever their excuse, they were wrong. The fact they took no action in the face of such overwhelming evidence is a new low in US jurisprudence.

Duker
Reply to  Rory Forbes
March 20, 2021 12:34 am

Non action, over 50 cases heard and dismissed most because no real evidence offered, others were procedural about extra days of early voting or extended time to recieve postal votes. In Pennsylvania even judges appointed by Trump dismissed his baseless claims.
That answers your question ,action was taken. You like the sore loser didnt like the result…..something you have in common with MEM

As for federal courts , you might ask the GOP why they won’t allow more judges to be appointed , DC is part of federal system

Derg
Reply to  Duker
March 20, 2021 2:01 am

Lol…sure Biden won 😉

MarkW
Reply to  Derg
March 20, 2021 11:28 am

All that Duker cares about is that his side won. Therefore everything that happened that led up to this must have been good.

whiten
Reply to  Duker
March 20, 2021 4:16 am

That is a plain lie, and you know it.

No court apart from the Legislature, of the States accused with election fraud and election gross misconduct, could process and/or deliver in such cases,
as the mischievous governments in these States did rush to immediately officially declare the election result, after a very prolonged extended period of the actual election process these very governments produced.

But the case of fraud and gross misconduct in such States was heard by the Legislature in each and every State concerned,
and not treated and/or dismissed as you claim.

Also as a result, a constitutional legitimate and valid objection, towards and against the official election results in such States, was invoked and filed by the mean of
alternate Certificates of Electors, which were and remained valid and legit till the January 6th… equal to all other Certificates of Electors at/in that day.

cheers

MarkW
Reply to  whiten
March 20, 2021 11:29 am

He’s brought up this claim many times, and been corrected every time.
Much like the courts, justice is not what Duker is after.

Duker
Reply to  whiten
March 20, 2021 3:09 pm

The states legislatures have no role in certifying a federal election…thats the law, the rest of your comment is just gibberish
The alternate electors were self appointed and had no validity.
You dont change the rules after the election has been validated to come up with new ‘results’ In fact big Donnie is in legal peril in Georgia having been taped solicting an election official to change the legal results….more than once

whiten
Reply to  Duker
March 21, 2021 3:24 am

The State Legislature is the only authority with the indisputable power to overrule and overthrow a state’s election result, either certified or not… in a Federal election.

“…self appointed electors… “, wow that is a new low.

You must be kidding.Are you.

cheers

Last edited 20 days ago by whiten
Red94ViperRT10
Reply to  whiten
March 20, 2021 4:00 pm

The biggest problem, for all courts involved, was there was no way to quantify exactly which votes were fraudulent and therefore should be removed. So either the judge/jury is asked to eliminate a block of votes, which could and probably would have removed votes cast in good faith and as much as possible in accordance with all the (often confusing and contradictory) directions given out by the various parties involved, some of which likely were illegitimately involved, or they could order a new election. Nothing in between. I’m trying to go easy on the courts, even if they’re irredeemable they’re the only system we have, and we need some kind of system to resolve disputes, so this is the only thing I can see that would justify their apparent cowardice in the face of slam-dunk evidence. In at least 8 states, I believe the presidential election should and could have been ruled illegal and illegitimate and impossible to produce a winner from the processes used up to that point, and ruled a new election take place before [the counting of the electoral votes]. And even though the date January 6 is included in the Constitution, I believe the electorate would have accepted delaying that date by at least two weeks, and likely would have been the least damaging of the numerous unconstitutional activities that surrounded this election. As it is, we have over half the legal voters were disenfranchised, their legal votes cancelled out by illegal activities, up to and including not only illegal votes but also suspect counting and tabulation activities, and a majority of them unlikely to trust the result of future elections, either. I have heard, all my life, people claiming that they don’t vote because it just doesn’t matter. They may be right.

I’m not an attorney, I can’t produce an argument based in law, this is just what I would have liked to see happen.

whiten
Reply to  Red94ViperRT10
March 20, 2021 11:52 pm

So either the judge/jury is asked to eliminate a block of votes, which could and probably would have removed votes cast in good faith…….
————————————–

As I understand it, no court or any other authority can interfere with the procedure of an adjudicator authority.

Mostly courts can change overthrow dismiss an adjudicator decision if the case be, after.
But in the case of Presidential election, the power of the adjudicator, the Legislature of the State, is ultimate, non disputable by any other authority, constitutionally.

So the only adjudicator power that the Legislature of a State delegates to the State Government, the concluding, decision or the official certification of the election result, can not be actually forcefully challenged or overthrown by any court, but only by the Legislature of the State,
or as by constitutional means of objection, either by the alternate Certificates of Electors or in the Congress in the January 6th, whichever comes first.

Courts can ask and direct a given State Government in consideration of the election and the election result,
but still lack grounds to forcefully challenge or overthrow
a certified election result, in the general elections…
Even the Supreme Court lack grounds in such a given.

Still any State Government can be investigated sued for misconduct, fraud and Constitution infringement in consideration of the General Presidential Elections.

cheers

Graemethecat
Reply to  Duker
March 20, 2021 4:30 am
philincalifornia
Reply to  Graemethecat
March 20, 2021 3:41 pm

“Georgia is recognized as a national leader in elections”

Wrong again Raffensplurger.

“Georgia is recognized as a national leader in election fraud “

Well done though, idiot.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Duker
March 20, 2021 7:01 am

Another new ZhouBot arrives to set everyone straight.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Duker
March 20, 2021 10:37 am

The number of irregularities was unprecedented. Trump losing is a statistical impossibility. There should have been action in all cases brought before a judge. They were terrified of Democrat supported violent reprisals. Restricting access to the poll watchers, alone should have cancelled the election process. You need to stop watching the MSM.

The voter misconduct was so obvious and wide spread only a partisan fool would fail to see it. Trump and his team did no more than he was obligated and duty bound to do for his constituents and far less than others have done in the past.

Duker
Reply to  Rory Forbes
March 20, 2021 3:12 pm

Every proper statistician has said that the so called evidence you mention is the sort of thing they show in high school to have no statistical basis. I bet you dont even have high school level stats…

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Duker
March 20, 2021 6:25 pm

So, you’re saying that you have had personal contact with “every proper statistician” or have a notarized affidavit from someone who has. That’s impressive. Who determines what “proper” means?

I’m guessing you never passed a course in fundamental logic. Your hasty generalizations are showing … not to mention your belief in unicorns and faerie tales.

I mentioned many different types of empirical evidence aside from the statistical evidence. I watched many examples with my own eyes, from ballots rising in a vertical jump, hours after polls closed and all observers were sent home, to film of 1000s of uncounted ballots being revealed after the polls closed, hoardings being erected to obscure visual observation, ballot harvesting all over the US, evidence of dead people voting, evidence of people voting outside their jurisdiction, evidence of voting machines switching candidates … eye witnesses of numerous other violations.

MarkW
Reply to  Duker
March 20, 2021 11:26 am

I see you are still determined to spread your lie that no evidence was presented.

If you knew half as much as you claim to know, you would know that until trial, no evidence is presented.
In all cases the courts ruled that either the plaintiffs, or the courts did not have standing.

Drake
Reply to  Duker
March 20, 2021 12:41 pm

Until the subpoenas can be issued, the FACTS cannot de forced to be provided. Muller persecuted TRUMP! for over 2 years with grand jury and subpoena power and got NO facts for collusion, a non-crime. Never any proof provided before starting that charade.

Am Arizona judge is allowing a case to go forward allowing the investigation of Phoenix area voting. It will be interesting to see what they find once they are allowed to search. See how many democrat poll operatives can eventually be prosecuted.

In Nevada, the Clark County election operatives THREW AWAY all of the signature verification envelopes so no one can even check if there were fraudulently completed absentee ballots received.

Duker
Reply to  Drake
March 20, 2021 3:15 pm

Whole swag of people close to Trump were indicted and convicted… Russian operatives were indicted.
Hell even Trumps National security advisor was fired by Trump within weeks for his lies about collusion with Russia.
Trump was a russian asset himself

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Duker
March 20, 2021 6:31 pm

Whole swag of people close to Trump were indicted and convicted… Russian operatives were indicted.

Nonsense. You’re just making hasty generalizations (typical Leftist logical fallacy)

Trump was a russian [sic] asset himself

More nonsense. A three year, multi million dollar investigation by an entire US government department using every manner of surveillance, teams of lawyers and investigators came up with NOTHING.

You’re utterly deluded like all Democrats.

Adam Gallon
Reply to  Rory Forbes
March 20, 2021 1:10 am

Trump lost, fair & square. Get over it.
The claims of electoral fraud were examined & dismissed as baseless.
The only people believing them, were the sub-100 IQ bunch who believed the Q-Anon rubbish, dress up in fancy dress & face paints.

Derg
Reply to  Adam Gallon
March 20, 2021 2:02 am

Ahh the name calling. Russia colluuuusion am I right 😉

fred250
Reply to  Adam Gallon
March 20, 2021 2:16 am

Except that they were not examined, were they, half-pint !!

Just swept under the carpet.

Duker
Reply to  fred250
March 20, 2021 3:21 pm

The dude in Erie PA who claimed to overhear the postmaster and a supervisor discussing how to backdate late postal ballots, when interviewed by Postal Inspectors and FBI changed his story to say he didnt hear anywords but just guessed they were talking about election fraud …but he raised a big sum of money online.
This sort of thing is repeated everywhere, fictious claims by people who wanted to feel important or put some meaning in their empty lives

philincalifornia
Reply to  Adam Gallon
March 20, 2021 3:16 am

You shouldn’t be dissing sub-100 IQ people when your post represents someone with the brain capacity of a parrot.

The fact that Trump’s attorneys, especially Giuliani, took baseless evidence to 80 Judges does not negate the fact that they did it. I have no idea why they didn’t take real evidence – New York bullies, I guess. At the Perdue Ossoff Senate vote count, where anyone who knew how they were actually doing it could watch them committing election fraud live on TV.

Last edited 21 days ago by philincalifornia
whiten
Reply to  Adam Gallon
March 20, 2021 4:31 am

Trump lost not.
In the other hand, The People lost… the Constitution and the Republic.
Big difference there.

You can not serve two masters in the same House,
either The People or The Elite Ruling Caste.

Free will free choice in the end of the day, but still confined by the means of reality though.

one is bound to see it and call it for what it is.

cheers

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  whiten
March 20, 2021 7:02 am

The ZhouBots care nothing for the Constitution.

MarkW
Reply to  whiten
March 20, 2021 11:32 am

Adam won. His supply of free stuff is no longer threatened.
And that after all, is all that matters.

Duker
Reply to  whiten
March 20, 2021 3:23 pm

The people won , nationwide it was 7 mill MORE votes for Biden

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Adam Gallon
March 20, 2021 7:02 am

Two new ZhouBots in the same thread, who would have thought this possible?

Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  Adam Gallon
March 20, 2021 7:16 am

It sounds to me like you are the one with the sub-100 IQ. There were many claims that were dismissed without any “examination” or explanation.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Trying to Play Nice
March 20, 2021 10:00 am

There are a few pending lawsuits that might shine some light on the 2020 presidential election.

There is no doubt there was blatant election fraud in the battleground States. For example, it is claimed that 15,000 illegal aliens voted in the Arizona election. Trump lost Arizona by 10,000 votes.

Now we don’t know if that was what swung the vote to Biden, but we don’t know it wasn’t, either.

I look forward to the lawsuits about hijacking the votes. I don’t know which way it will play out, but at least we might get a little closer to the truth.

Last edited 21 days ago by Tom Abbott
Duker
Reply to  Tom Abbott
March 20, 2021 3:27 pm

Nope . All done and gone. Nothing is pending.
The usual no evidence claims
Name one active suit and the court its filed in

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Duker
March 21, 2021 3:54 pm

I was referring to the lawsuits filed by Dominion, the voting machine people, against Sydney Powell, Rudi Juliani, the My Pillow Guy, and others.

We’ll either see the evidence the Trump team claimed they had, or we will see that they don’t have what they claimed they have.

Duker
Reply to  Trying to Play Nice
March 20, 2021 3:26 pm

Name 2
Back then Trumpanzees were claiming they would wait till the Supreme Court hearing to reveal ‘the evidence’
Of course ……they had zero , zip all along

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Adam Gallon
March 20, 2021 10:28 am

There was nothing fair or square about that election. The fact that Republican poll watchers were denied close proximity to the handling of the ballots should have disqualified the election. The fact that hundreds of observers signed affidavits witnessing massive irregularities should have been examined in court. The amount and number of irregularities was overwhelming.

Q-anon had nothing to do with it. You clearly got your information from CNN or their like. You’re uninformed or just dim witted.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Rory Forbes
March 20, 2021 11:13 am

Plus Republican watchers were all volunteers, while Dem watchers were trained operatives paid by private cash from Zuckerberg through his slush fund PAC, CTCL.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
March 20, 2021 2:30 pm

while Dem watchers were trained operatives paid by private cash from Zuckerberg through his slush fund PAC, CTCL.

Thanks for the new information. I’d not heard about that. Here in Canada, it the scrutineers (poll watchers) receive any kind of remuneration that poll is considered compromised and there must be a recount and investigation.

Duker
Reply to  Rory Forbes
March 20, 2021 3:32 pm

He just made it up…
Recounts were held in a number of states …. and confirmed the original final result with the minor changes a recount always finds

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Duker
March 20, 2021 6:37 pm

Oh go away … you’ve already proven that you pull everything you’ve said straight out of your fundamental orifice.

You’re a paid idiot!

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Duker
March 20, 2021 9:06 pm

Liar.

Graemethecat
Reply to  Duker
March 21, 2021 7:10 am

So had Trump won in the same style with thousands of reports of “irregularities”, dead people voting, unexplained jumps in tallies, etc, etc, you would have accepted the result without demur?

Of course you wouldn’t.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Rory Forbes
March 20, 2021 9:05 pm

It is in a new class-action lawsuit against Dominion:

https://dominionclassaction.com/

Should be illegal in the US also.

Duker
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
March 20, 2021 3:29 pm

Ohh the anti semitic angle now … dont you mean Soros or the Rothschilds, the go to names for your conspiracys since 1920

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Duker
March 20, 2021 6:11 pm

Free clue—don’t post while high, makes you look stoopid.

philincalifornia
Reply to  Rory Forbes
March 20, 2021 3:17 pm

They’re not mutually exclusive.

MarkW
Reply to  Adam Gallon
March 20, 2021 11:31 am

Once again, the data was never examined. The courts ruled that they didn’t have standing to hear the cases.
That is not the same thing, though those who are desperate to make sure the election is not properly examined will continue to lie about it.

Duker
Reply to  MarkW
March 20, 2021 3:34 pm

And when it was taken to the ‘right court’ to hear there was no evidence presented . Even Guiliani said to the judge in Federal Court in Pennsyvania ‘we dont claim fraud ‘.
Outside the courtroom he said differently and blamed a law firm for putting words in his mouth

paul courtney
Reply to  RelPerm
March 20, 2021 9:18 am

Mr. Perm: I can blame the judges, who failed for eight years to see that Mann’s case against NR is (and was) a non-starter, missing a key element.

Duker
Reply to  paul courtney
March 20, 2021 3:36 pm

That was a late addition to the NR case. The case was dragged through many appeals and counter appeals over years on issues separate to the defamation by Mann desperate to avoid a loss in court.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Duker
March 20, 2021 11:39 pm

The case was dragged through many appeals and counter appeals

Nonsense! You have no clue what you’re talking about. There must first be a decision on the primary cause of action with sufficient grounds for appeal. No such thing ever occurred.

MarkW
Reply to  RelPerm
March 20, 2021 11:23 am

You can blame the courts for allowing lawyers to draw these cases out so long.
The courts have tools that they could use, but they don’t, because of the incestous relationship between courts and lawyers.

Duker
Reply to  MarkW
March 20, 2021 3:37 pm

An appeal stops a lower court from doing that , Mann filed many appeals on the procedural parts of the case

Duker
Reply to  Duker
March 20, 2021 3:43 pm

Mann even tried an appeal to SCOTUS, having failed in to get a hearing for his appeals to the Appeal courts of DC

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-1451_dc8f.pdf

Reply to  Duker
March 20, 2021 11:42 pm

That was an appeal by the defendants to the Supreme Court (which declined to hear it; Alito in the dissent you quote was not supporting Mann). Mann has not, AFAIK, filed any procedural appeals. They have all come from the defence.

Drake
Reply to  RelPerm
March 20, 2021 12:33 pm

The court ARE the lawyers. The are ALL feeding at the trough of excessive legal action. Not as much in the UK where the looser pays. US needs LOOSER PAYS.

High Treason
March 20, 2021 1:03 am

In all fairness, NR MUST take Mann to court not only to recover costs, but also to compensate all those that lived with unnecessary stress for 8 years. It will serve as a lesson to others that try to silence free speech. Perhaps a case against Mann, making him sweat it out for years would take him out of action until retirement age.

Rod Evans
March 20, 2021 1:20 am

“One more fail for Mann, one giant win for Mankind”

Roger Knights
March 20, 2021 2:10 am

Here’s an amusing commentary on our legal system: “A real lawyer” watches “My Cousin Vinny”

Joseph Zorzin
March 20, 2021 3:41 am

I suggest Steyn and CEI should have asked help from the ACLU- yes, that lefty organization because their mission primarily is defending freedom of speech- which they consider fundamental to our freedoms. Here in Massachusetts, the most politically correct place on the planet, some years ago- I dared publicly challenged the state’s forestry policies. The forester licensing board didn’t like it. So one day I got 3, yes 3 certified letters from the board saying they were INVESTIGATING me. I almost had a heart attack. The purpose of that board is determine who is qualified to get a forester’s license- they have no right to question anyone’s “freedom of speech”. They only have a right to investigate unprofessonal behavior. They decided that challenging the state’s policies is unprofessional behavior! So a lawyer friend who lives too far from me and couldn’t help said to talk to the ACLU office in Boston. I did and they had a lawyer write a ferocious letter to the license board suggesting it would go after them if they didn’t get off my back. The board then threw out the investigation.

ozspeaksup
March 20, 2021 6:00 am

meritless Mann;-)

March 20, 2021 8:18 am

Bravo! “A ‘Mann’s’ Got To Know His Limitations.” 😀
Reginald

Gordon A. Dressler
March 20, 2021 8:36 am

Dr. Michael Mann, making both the National Academy of Sciences and Penn State University, so proud of their “own” yet again.

JSMill
March 20, 2021 8:45 am

There once was a Mann from Penn State
Who thought funds for Alarm would be great
He used statistical “tricks”
To make fake Hockey Sticks
And thus sealed as Fraudster his fate

Kenji
March 20, 2021 10:10 am

Now … NR needs to prove they aren’t squishy RINO’s and sue Mann for every dime of his highly paid University gig.

Dave Cowdell
March 21, 2021 3:18 am

Rich Lowry, the NR editor in chief, said: “It’s completely ridiculous that it took us more than eight years to get relief from the courts from this utterly meritless suit.”

Looks like a typo on “suit”

Captain Climate
March 22, 2021 3:51 am

Mann is a spoiled little narcissist. I stay following him on Twitter just to see the BS he spills, and don’t call him on it, because he blocks anyone who speaks facts.

Reply to  Captain Climate
March 27, 2021 3:25 pm

If you want to read one of his tweets, but he has blocked you, then right-click the link, and “open incognito,” or “open private,” or similar.

Caligula Jones
March 22, 2021 8:29 am

8+ years and millions of dollars…as Steyn says, the process is the punishment.

March 27, 2021 3:14 pm

Michael Mann’s relationship with reality is not intimate. He’s a guy who thinks that the AMO and PDO cycles seen in a wide variety of climate-related patterns, such as temperatures, AMOC, ice, sea-level, and even fisheries, must not really exist, because garbage GCMs can’t reproduce them:

“…if the Atlantic Multidecadal or Pacific Decadal oscillations existed, there would be evidence for their existence across the suite of current state-of-the-art climate model simulations.”

That sounds like a joke, doesn’t it?
 comment image

Feynman must be spinning in his grave.

Last edited 13 days ago by Dave Burton
%d bloggers like this: