“The record plainly shows the deliberate and knowing misconduct of Dr. Mann’s counsel in eliciting false testimony from Dr. Mann and misrepresenting his grant funding.”
https://www.steynonline.com/documents/15104.pdf
Ryan Maue writes more comprehensively on X
Update: bad faith. Here, the Court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that Dr. Mann, through Mr. Fontaine and Mr. Williams, acted in bad faith when they presented erroneous evidence and made false representations to the jury and the Court regarding damages stemming from loss of grant funding.
https://twitter.com/RyanMaue/status/1899863562333389272
Yikes!💀
The plaintiff and his lawyers knowingly mislead the court with erroneous information, and “Dr. Mann knowingly participated in the falsehood, endeavoring to make the strongest case possible even if it required using erroneous and misleading information.”
https://twitter.com/RyanMaue/status/1899864622129414348/photo/1
“Setting aside questions of credibility or even perjury …” ORDERED that Plaintiff Michael E. Mann, Ph.D., is SANCTIONED for bad-faith trial misconduct relating to his use of Exhibit 517A, Exhibit 116, and Exhibit 117, and his counsel’s misrepresentations concerning the same
https://x.com/RyanMaue/status/1899866725316788314
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
👍🤣😂
Sounds like Mann’s Lawyer(s) stood up to ask for “Redirect” but delivered “Misdirect”
I sure hope someone with more legal knowledge than I can simplify what all this means, beyond the fact that Michael Mann is a liar.
(oops, deleted)
His behavior in the court and outside is always the same.
Tigers can’t Change their stripes, any easier than their rantings can change the climate
“Dr. Mann knowingly participated in the falsehood”
Exactly, what’s new?
Unfortunately, it probably won’t be possible for the Judge to rule on the veracity of the fraudulent paper itself, but you never know.
Isn’t telling the court falsehoods a serious charge? Perjury?
I just wonder if Steyn will pursue this further? Maybe he’ll be more focused on collecting. That’s pretty challenging.
The court seems to agree with that. Skimmed thru the whole ruling posted at the link above, and in response to Mann’s defense against being sanctioned the court said; “Dr. Mann’s assertion that there was no falsehood or misrepresentation in his testimony or his counsel’s conduct borders on frivolity……,the record plainly shows the deliberate and knowing misconduct of Dr. Mann’s counsel in eliciting false testimony from Dr. Mann and misrepresenting his grant funding.”
I skimmed thru it all to find out what the penalty for this is to Mann and his lawyers and this is what I found;
“The Court determines that the appropriate sanction is to award each Defendant the approximate expenses they incurred in responding to Dr. Mann’s bad faith trial misconduct, starting with Mr. Fontaine’s redirect examination.”
He won’t pay it.
His backers would anyway but I believe he never paid Tim Ball.
Cool! Just because Mann says it is so doesn’t make it so. That applies to everything Mannian.
Indeed “Liars figure and figures lie.”
I am not an attorney (nor do I play one on TV). My understanding is that it is rare for a judge to issue sanctions.
One other more serious point. Mann was a serial liar throughout the trial demonstrating extremely low personal ethics. The question is why anyone would trust his professional work when his personal ethics are so pathetic?
It would appear that he couldn’t prosper as a geophysicist or mathematician and therefore decided to declare himself a climatologist, where the bar is lower.
A huge part of the claim of decreased funding rested on a very large grant in the earliest of the 4 years which was actually split among several researchers. Correcting for that distortion, mann actually had an increase in funding in the four years after Simberg’s/Steyn’s post.
The judge missed that distortion.
There’s a bar?
Climatologist, astrologist, metaphysicist, and palm reader. All seem to be on equal scientific standing.
If you graphed Mr. Mann’s dishonest responses as the trial progressed, it would look like a hockey stick!
I regret to inform you that joking about Michael Mann and hockey sticks is slander. You will be hearing from his lawyers soon! 🙂 (or perhaps not ……)
Pillage – If you graphed all mann’s dishonest statements as the trial progressed, the HS blade would be at the start and never trend down!
Yeah! How many years is Michael Mann and his lawyers going to get behind bars?
Are.
Mr. Raymond: Lying is wrong, here he and his lawyers lied to a court and jury during trial. That’s easy to claim, almost never proven, here it’s proven beyond dispute that they produced false exhibits to prove damages. Very rare to see sanctions like this.
I’m not a lawyer, but after reading the court ruling, here’s my understanding of what happened:
During pretrial proceedings, a spreadsheet listing Michael Mann’s grant proposals, both funded and denied, was introduced. This spreadsheet contained inaccuracies, which had been corrected in earlier pretrial proceedings.
During cross-examination, the defense introduced the original, uncorrected version of the spreadsheet into evidence. Mann’s lawyers then used this same uncorrected version to demonstrate that some of Mann’s grant proposals had been denied after Steyn’s remarks were published. They did not reference or correct the dollar amounts listed, as those figures were not relevant to their argument.
The defense acknowledged that the dollar amounts had been superseded but did not initially object to the spreadsheet’s use. Mann’s team later presented a blown-up section of the document to make it easier to read.
During cross-examination, the defense then challenged Mann on the inaccuracies in the uncorrected spreadsheet.
The defense later moved for sanctions, arguing that Mann and his lawyers knowingly presented a document with incorrect figures to the jury before the corrected version was shown and did not clarify the inaccuracies until the defense raised the issue during cross-examination.
There was significant, chaotic back-and-forth between both legal teams and the court over the issue during the trial.
“ here’s my understanding of what happened”
I think you will find that people on here won’t give a sh!t what your understanding is, and will go with the Judge’s understanding.
I think my understanding is aligned with the ruling, but please feel free to point out where you think it’s off base.
Sorry I seem to have run out of troll food. Looks like paul courtney had some left for you.
Mr. phil: I did! Cheaper than birdseed, and Mr. J has the brain for it.
Well the linked PDF said
And that suggests it was a chart, not a spreadsheet, that was used in evidence by Mann’s team, not Steyn’s team and therefore was not a simple version error started by Steyn.
I’m yet to read the detail but perhaps you could quote something from the document to support your understanding.
I’m calling it a spreadsheet – I don’t know what the format of the exhibit was, it was a listing of grants Mann had received or not received, with dollar amounts. The first mention in the document is (bolding mine):
This is when defense’s counsel brought the exhibit out. Mann’s counsel then brought this exhibit back out several days later as part of their cross examination:
Stating, “I’m showing you Exhibit 517, which Ms. Weatherford placed into evidence last week.”
The defense counsel initially objected because it wasn’t the redacted version they had presented last week, but the judge overruled the objection, and defense counsel said, “the discovery responses in 517 have been superseded, so they are not, in fact, the plaintiff’s discovery responses in this case—current responses.” But this was not raised as an objection: “You know what? Your Honor, your point is well taken on this. If they want to go ahead and show the old responses, we’ll deal with it. ”
It’s all very convoluted and hard to follow.
Exhibit 517 was created from Exhibits 102 and 103
So the revised (redacted) document missed the “Dave Verardo’s funding” and didn’t correct the other funding quantity issues. This is from the court document
Here we have the court dialog between Mann and Steyn’s lawyer
There was more of this. It was a shambles for Mann.
In your understanding, did Mann lie to court and jury? Yes or no.
I think Mann went along with his legal counsel not disclosing the inaccuracies in the exhibit to the jury. Whether that is because he didn’t understand what the issue was or because he knew and thought not mentioning it would help his case isn’t evident.
His legal counsel insisted that they weren’t intending to present misleading evidence, but the judge viewed it as a “should have known better” kind of scenario.
So …. he lied.
He didn’t lie, he truthfully answered questions about the exhibit, and acknowledged that the numbers had been revised when asked. The judge alleges a lie by omission, but doesn’t actually demonstrate a knowing omission that can’t be explained by simple misunderstanding.
You’re just making all that up.
Mann’ original document, Exhibit 517 included hugely inflated damages. Mann testified to those damages in 2020.
Mann’s revised document, Exhibit 1048A reduced the damages figure from nearly $10M to just over $100K and he testified to that in 2023
Steyn’s lawyers took Mann to town on the perjury and the judge agreed.
You dont get to make up massive damages and then later change your story when it becomes obvious they’re not real.
Except the basis of this ruling was not perjury. If it was, the judge would have referred the case for criminal investigation, which did not happen here. The basis of the ruling was litigation misconduct and violations of professional ethics by Mann’s legal team.
Mann’s original revision of the written deposition was not found to be perjury because there was zero evidence that the original incorrect figures were submitted with the intent to deceive. The federal and state rules of civil procedure allow for corrections via supplemental disclosures, which is what happened here. And in fact if a witness realizes they made a mistake they are expected to correct it, which is what happened in 2023.
The defense was not alleging perjury in this request for sanctions, and the judge did not find that it had been committed.
It would be pretty much impossible to prove intentional perjury but its easy to make the case for misconduct. To change the damages claim from $10M to $100K is beyond simple error.
I agree. My criticism is that the judge’s insinuation of intention misconduct seem excessive given that it was not proven that the misconduct was intentional. But that is just my opinion – the judge can feel his personal feelings as long as the ruling is fair, which it was.
It seems that we both agree that intent was not established.
This wasn’t a point at issue in the ruling.
Ok here’s my interpretation.
Mann submitted the inflated figures to trial and they were accepted.
Later for some reason Mann attempted to submit defensible figures but Steyn’s team objected. Then Steyn’s team grilled Mann on his inflated figures.
There is no mention of “Pre trial” anywhere there.
So the important difference between what I understand to have happened and what you believe to have happened is that Mann did intentionally try to mislead the court and Steyn roasted him for it.
That isn’t how it played out based on my reading. During discovery (what I mean when I say pretrial – I’m not a lawyer and don’t know the vernacular), Mann provided a list (compiled, he said, by his lawyers), of grants that he either received or was denied, before and after Steyn’s column. This list was later revised.
During the trial, the defense lawyer’s brought out the original, uncorrected list (for reasons I don’t quite follow) during a cross examination of Mann, with some items redacted (because they were deemed inadmissible). This exhibit was received into evidence as exhibit 517A.
In the following days, Mann’s lawyers brought out the original exhibit (the unredacted version of 517A) during cross examination of Mann, to ask about the list of grants (without referencing the dollar amounts). The defense initially objected to use of the unredacted version (which the court denied), but did not object to the use of the uncorrected figures (but noted that they would address them later).
Mann’s lawyers then presented a zoomed-in version of 517A, and this was admitted into evidence as exhibit 117.
Then the defense lawyers brought out 517A and 117 and grilled Mann on them. In a sense Mann’s lawyers are right that it was a trap, and they fell for it, but it would have been easy to avoid had they just deferred in presenting 517A.
It wasn’t a “trap”, they submitted incorrect, indefensible information about the most important aspect of the case from Mann’s point of view. ie the damages.
This statement from the court document summarises Mann, I think.
They submitted it, then submitted a correction. The defense team drew out the uncorrected information, unprompted, and admitted it into evidence. Mann’s legal team then referred to this uncorrected version of the information during a cross examination.
It’s hard to imagine that Steyn’s legal team didn’t see the opportunity there.
From my reading they…
It was accepted by the court and they testified against it
And then testified against that. It wasn’t a trap or an error, it was a massively inflated claim of damages in the first instance. And the judge could see through the argument it was in error to the fact it was submitted to deceive.
The corrected version had already been submitted, as I understand, and it isn’t clear to me why the defense brought the uncorrected version out during the cross examination.
I’m not at all saying the defense acted inappropriately. If anything they took advantage of a good strategic opportunity.
you mean in your reading, right?
In reality, the defense picked up on the false testimony, like TimTheToolMan explained to you right now, here is it one more time..
“””It was accepted by the court and they testified against it
And then testified against that.”””
“they” and “them” being Mann and his lawyers, all the defense did, was exposing a wrongful testimony and the court now finds this was done by “them” in bad faith.
Also relevant in this context is, that the deflated numbers seem to directly contradict one “their” core claim, grant damages due to the defendants behavior.
Steyn’s lawyers brought out both versions.
Its very clear and I’ve posted an excerpt above. Basically in 2020 Mann testified against the “uncorrected” version. Then they submitted a corrected version in 2023 and Mann testified against that one. Mann straight out perjured himself.
And here’s the link to the comment if you’re not sure which post I’m referring to (and Laws of Nature saw too)
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/03/12/breaking-judge-sanctions-michael-e-mann-for-bad-faith-trial-misconduct-in-mann-v-free-speech/#comment-4048349
You aren’t accurately characterizing the proceedings. The defense brought out the original, uncorrected version. Mann had already submitted the corrected version a year earlier, in 2023, and had acknowledged the inaccuracies that had been corrected at that time. This was not new information being presented to the court. The defense for some reason chose to pull out the older incorrect version and admit it into evidence (the ruling gives sparse details as to why). Mann’s lawyers used the version that had been admitted into evidence instead of bringing out the corrected version (again the ruling gives sparse details as to why).
The defence brought out the version of the document Mann had testified to in 2020. They also brought out the “corrected” document Mann testified to in 2023.
Where did Mann acknowledge inaccuracies according to the court documents or are you making that up?
What Mann did was lie under oath in 2020 using incorrect damages that made his case look stronger. That’s what the judge determined.
AlanJ, why are you right and the judge wrong?
This isn’t about right or wrong, it is simply about imputing intent. The judge is convinced that it couldn’t have been a simple error, I am not. Unless there were some documentary evidence establishing intent (maybe a text message or email saying, “let’s trick the jury”), the judge’s feelings are as valid as mine – he is essentially making an argument from incredulity.
I also think the judge is missing or deliberately ignoring his own role in the events – pretrial management and evidentiary disputes are the court’s responsibility, and the evidentiary issues around presenting the exhibit should have been clarified beforehand, not in the middle of testimony.
But this has little bearing on whether the ruling on sanctions was valid, because that hinges simply on whether Mann’s lawyers failed their obligation to prevent misleading information from reaching the jury, which they objectively did.
AlanJ if it was Mann’s lawyers fault the judge would have slapped the lawyers (he has several options) he clearly didn’t think it was the lawyers fault the client was involved willingly because he slapped Mike Mann as well.
The extension to this is Mike Mann now has a legal finding of dishonest behaviour. Someone familiar with this states law can probably tell us is Steyn et al can ask the DPP to pursue perjury charges or is the having to pay the court costs the end of the matter.
Once you plead ignorance of law, “I’m not a lawyer, ” then have your derriere handed to you following Mannian style misdirection, you continue to double down on “my understanding ” when it is clearly demonstrated that you have “no understanding”.
Am I clear enough?
The discussion so far has rather served to reaffirm my understanding. The events took place as I outlined in my initial comment. Perhaps you will benefit from going back and reading more carefully before trying to jump in again.
I guess you didn’t read the relevant section of the document I quoted above then. How can you read that and come to your conclusion?
Because my understanding is based on not just that section of the document, but the entire thing, and that section is completely consistent with my understanding and what I’ve said in this thread.
You missed the vital part where Mann testified under oath to the figures in the original list. They weren’t submitted and quickly corrected. The correction came years later and it looks like blog posts were involved where people noticed the figures were inflated.
You can argue Mann didn’t know the figures were inflated and its impossible to prove otherwise. But we all know that’s a lie. He knew what he was doing when he submitted the $10M figure because he will have intimately known his part of the budget was $100K
Right, so claiming that he did is baseless. You have to concede that you’re engaging in conjecture, based on prejudice you hold personally against Mann.
Mann’s defense is that his legal team prepared the original document based on public information and that he corrected the errors when they were found. Nothing presented during the trial or during this hearing contradicts that. And, vitally, the original submission of these incorrect figures was not at issue in this ruling. The issue was that Mann’s legal team displayed the incorrect figures before the jury without notifying the jury that the dollar amounts had been superseded.
Just because something is impossible to prove doesn’t make it possibly false.
Mann certainly had a part in the deceit because he specifically testified to the figures and he certainly knew the difference between the $10M total and his $100K. He will have supplied them too.
There was more than one error made too.
Please quote the document to support this. The document explicitly mentions two events. One in 2020 where the original inflated figures were used and a second event in 2023 where the revised figures were introduced and used.
You need to go re-read my earlier summaries, I’ve already addressed the sequence of events, with references to the document. You are fixated on the original submission of the deposition with errors when that submission was not at issue in this hearing. What happened is as follows:
2020: Mann submits written discovery detailing grants funded and denied.
2023: Mann amends his responses to update incorrect dollar amounts associated with some of the grants listed.
2024: during cross-examination at trial, the defense for Steyn and Simberg introduce Exhibit 517A (a redacted version of Mann’s 2020 discovery responses).
Mann’s legal team then brought back exhibit 517A on redirect, to “refresh his memory” about the list of grants. The defense notes that the exhibit contains dollars amounts that have been superseded, but make no objection at the time. Mann’s lawyers zoom into a portion of the exhibit, and this is admitted to evidence as Exhibit 117.
On recross-examination, the defense brings back Exhibit 517A, and directs Mann to acknowledge the errors in the dollar amounts. The defense then introduces the corrected version from 2023 into evidence, walking through each error line by line. They then use a red marker to highlight the errors on Exhibit 117, and accuse Mann’s lawyers of knowingly showing incorrect dollar amounts to the jury.
The judge expresses shock at the incorrect figures being shown to the jury, and demands a briefing from each side overnight to determine whether the evidence has to be excluded.
The defense responds with a motion for sanctions for bad faith misconduct. Exhibit 117 is struck from evidence but 517A remains in the jury’s materials.
2025: The judged rules in favor of the motion for sanctions.
If there are factual errors in the outline here, please point them out.
The issue, then, was not Mann’s original submission of written discovery with incorrect dollar amounts, it was that the jury was exposed to the incorrect dollar amounts by Mann’s legal team without being informed that the dollar amounts had been superseded.
Why Mann’s legal team pulled out Exhibit 517A instead of introducing the version with correct figures into evidence is not clear. They might have thought they needed to respond to the exhibit that was already before the jury rather than introducing a separate corrected version, or they might have mistakenly assumed they could not use the corrected version on redirect because it wasn’t formally in evidence. They might, as the judge insists, have maliciously been trying to expose the jury to the wrong numbers, but there is no evidence of this intent.
Mann testifies that the figures reflect the damages he’s sustained.
People pointed out that Mann’s figures were inflated. He didn’t get away with it. Mann again testifies the revised figures reflect the damages he’s sustained.
Steyn’s lawyers highlight the fact that Mann inflated his damage figures and the judge agreed it was likely a willful action on Mann’s part. The judge goes on to decide the actions were worthy of punishment.
This isn’t simple error or mistaken process. This is out and out deceit. The judge knows it. We know it. And Mann knows it.
Then explain why Mann testified to the $10M being reflective of his damages.
Right
The facts are right – errors were pointed out and Mann revised the figures. The rest is your own conjecture based on personal prejudice.
Nope. The judge thought that Mann’s attorneys displaying the original figures without informing the jury that the dollar amounts had been superseded was worthy of sanction.
I’m trying to believe that you’re arguing in good faith, but it is increasingly difficult to reconcile with your words.
“I’m trying to believe that you’re arguing in good faith, but it is increasingly difficult to reconcile with your words.”
I will assume due to your prejudice in defending Mann that you were looking in a morroe when you said this.
That’s because somehow you have a belief that this isn’t about Mann’s original testimony claiming $10M damages. Its all about his (unprovable) perjury and it happened in 2020 before there even existed superseded figures.
It has nothing to do with “Mann’s attorneys displaying the original figures without informing the jury that the dollar amounts had been superseded”
I quoted the court transcript and you said it was something “more” than that but you haven’t provided any quote from the court proceedings to support your belief.
Maybe to make this clearer, here is the court transcript opening statement from page 2
And its clear from that its about the claim of exaggerated damages from Mann, not Mann’s lawyers using outdated figures later on.
Not at all, because the jury had not seen the incorrect figures until they were introduced during the trial by the defense. That is when they were admitted into evidence. You purposefully omitted “and exhibits” from your bolded text.
The judge was solely concerned with the fact that Mann’s legal team had presented the jury with those incorrect figures and did not inform the jury of this during redirect when they brought the figures back out again. The judge was not alleging perjury, he was alleging procedural misconduct.
And what year do you think that was?
In 2024, at trial. Mann’s responses in 2020 and 2023 were provided during discovery. The jury did not see this material until it was introduced as evidence during the trial. The defense entered his original responses from 2020 as evidence during cross examination. This was the first time the jury had seen this material. Mann’s lawyers pulled it back out again during their redirect. It was this second presentation of the figures, during testimony, that was at issue.
And I need to respond to this
Because it didn’t happen that way. I gave you the court dialog. Its very clear. Both sets of figures were being discussed. Both sets of figures were brought on display.
Here it is again
Followed by
You say
But this is patently untrue. They saw the incorrect figures in 2020 when they were introduced (and testified to) by Mann.
.
The jury was convened for the trial, which began in 2024. They did not see materials gathered during discovery or pretrial motions. The transcript you cite is the third instance of Mann’s 2020 responses being brought out during testimony. The defense brought out Mann’s 2020 responses and then entered his 2023 revisions as a new exhibit. It was at this time that the judge became concerned that the jury had been seeing the incorrect 2020 figures without having been informed of this by Mann’s legal team.
But that is the argument made by Steyn’s lawyers. The issue isn’t that the argument was made, the issue is that the argument could be made because Mann perjured himself.
Again, you dont get to inflate the damages when they’re central to the libel claim.
Steyn’s lawyers did not allege perjury, and the court made no move to introduce criminal charges. But such arguments are not germane to this hearing, which centered squarely on whether Mann’s legal team had engaged in procedural misconduct.
According to Mann, he corrected the error as soon as it was identified. Imputing intentional deceit is baseless conjecture.
They explicitly did and It’s in my quote.
Here’s how I see it
Hypothetically if Mann had claimed damages under oath of $120K and they were actually $110K because a line item wasn’t actually part of the funded budget and had been included…then that’s one thing and would have been an error.
But Mann claimed damages under oath of $9.7M when they were actually $112K because Mann thought his importance was so great that the entire funded budget relied on him even though his part was only about 1% of that total. That’s not an error, that’s deceit.
Apparently the judge thought something similar too.
” based on prejudice you hold personally against Mann.”
Wow, you assume prejudice and ignore common sense.
LOL, good god give it up you are making a complete fool of yourself here as you keep disputing real court testimony that doesn’t support your climate god and your denials of it.
Eco-Nazis are immune to facts contrary to their belief system.
Just as all the contrary evidence in the world will never change your “understanding” of “climate change.”
Mann is a dishonest POS and you’ll never acknowledge that truth because it tarnishes your “climate” hero. We get it.
Your mind is settled. No information to the contrary will change it. Just like the self-styled “climate scientists.”
You are “defending the indefensible” like a lawyer yourself. It is really quite difficult to witness such a montage of weasel words. Perhaps you should defend that wome track athelete who wacked her fellow compeditor in the head and then said she stumbled.
All that Mann has done in his legal crap is try to silence any all opposition to his bogus “Hockey Stick”… the courts. He can’t defend it with data. That’s why he’s “settled” or dropped the case before he has to reveal his data and methods.
Mark Styne countersued. Mann couldn’t just drop it at the last minute.
He refused to pay Tim Ball what the court ruled. He’s refusing to pay the following legal cost he owes.
The amounts he owes and refuses to pay are his only genuine “hockey stick”.
What a parasite!
Mr. J: The significant, chaotic back-and-forth caused entirely by Mann and his lawyers? Caused by the intentional submission of a false exhibit to the jury?
Your watered-down version doesn’t answer Mr. Raymond’s question, because the answer must include the intentional deception found. Your attempt to make it sound like a mistake by the attorney is noted, but the judge found it was on purpose.
Partly caused by Mann’s lawyers (partly inadvertently), partly caused by the defense, and partly caused by the judge (who seemed to not be running the courtroom well to begin with).
Again, I invite you to read the ruling and point out where I’m off base. The judge found that Mann’s lawyers knowingly presented inaccurate information to the jury, recognizing that the errors in the spreadsheet could make Mann’s case appear stronger. That’s the basis for the finding of intentional deception.
Mann’s legal team’s counterargument is that they didn’t introduce the chart, the defense did, and that the defense didn’t object to its use during cross-examination. However, the judge rejected this reasoning, holding that Mann’s lawyers had an obligation to clarify the inaccuracies for the jury regardless.
I’m sure the Judge knows far more about the case than you pretend to.
And he ordered that Mann be SANCTIONED for for bad faith trial misconduct.
I never said I disagreed with the ruling. You are all attacking me because you have personal prejudices precluding you from objectively evaluating my comments.
You are just making up nonsense, based on things you obviously don’t comprehend.
Mann got SANCTIONED for for bad faith trial misconduct.
Feeble attempts to downplay this, are just that.. feeble.
Me, biased?. look in the mirror, if you can. !
I’ve not downplayed it, you’ve just assumed so without actually addressing anything I’ve said or raising a substantive objection.
“I never said I disagreed with the ruling.”
So Mann lied and you agree that he lied?
No he knowing lied in a trial … that is why he has been slapped by the judge.
….because you have personal prejudices precluding you from objectively evaluating my comments.
Not unusual in this echo chamber. However, I do suspect a bit of foul play by Mann and his counsel in all of this
I think it was incompetence on the part of Mann’s legal team. But the trial overall seems to have been poorly managed and had excessive confusion, hostility, and reactive decision-making from the bench.
I agree with you about the judge. He should have never allowed Oreskes to testify.
That’s been done above with direct quotes. I invite you to point out why you made your interpretation.
Judge ordered that Mann be SANCTIONED for bad faith trial misconduct.
Get over it. !!
Bottom line seems to be that the judge has ruled that both Mann and his attorneys deliberately lied to court and jury, and he has accordingly imposed financial sanctions to compensate Steyn.
Do you agree or disagree with this?
That is the ruling, yes. That is not the whole context behind the ruling, which I am attempting to articulate.
…… and failing.
Here you go, but you have to jump through another hoop for it:
Phil, you are littering the threat with pointless faff and attempting to instigate inflammatory exchanges, degrading the quality of discourse for everyone on the site. There is a troll here, but it is not me. You can choose to be better than this.
Naaaah, I am who I am. That ain’t gonna change.
That’s a poor attitude, it’s never too late to better yourself.
Your pearl-clutching is most amusing.
“That is the ruling, yes. That is not the whole context behind the ruling, which I am attempting to articulate.”
That is the ruling, yes. That is not the whole context behind the ruling, which I am attempting to obfuscate.
I’ve invited all to correct me where I’ve gone off base. Only timthetoolman has tried to actually engage with anything I wrote. I don’t even think half of you actually read it.
Stop self-aggrandizing troll. Up to 50% ?? I doubt that 10% of people on here read your sh!!te. I just do it for sport.
you are littering the threat with pointless faff and attempting to instigate inflammatory exchanges
Mr. J: I corrected you (many others too). Specifically, I said you left out the parts of the court’s decision that utterly debunk the “mistake” notion you are desperate to revive, because you can’t handle that your hero Mann lied (intentional false statement). You try to defend your silly notion by obscuring the actual court findings with “my understanding” and “giving context.” You are in fact trying to remove context by reading the decision and quoting parts while ignoring other parts. And you strain your mental assets to defend (obscure) Mann’s misconduct IN A CASE HE FILED! TO “VINDICATE” HIS REPUTATION!!
I note you are alone, commenters here have figured you out and get tired of your trolling. I never get tired of flushing out your posts, and then watch as you pretend you have not been taken down.
Paul, it is unquestionably possible that Mann’s legal team made a simple error. It does not make the error excusable, but there is no indication otherwise. The judge seems personally to be quite convinced that they acted knowingly, but fails to actually show this in evidence, and the judgement doesn’t depend on whether the actions were made knowingly or not.
Fascinatingly, being the only person in the thread who has read the entire document puts me at a distinct disadvantage, because the other commentors who are ignorant of its contents are free to make up whatever they like. Sort of a Schrödinger’s cat if you will.
Mr. J: Not fascinating is your idea that, since you read the whole decision, you know better than the judge who was there. Fascinating is how you know no other commenter read the decision.
Nowhere did I say I know better than the judge. The outcome was reasonable, but the judge’s tone and assumptions about intent were excessive. The ruling assumed intent when incompetence or negligence was a more plausible explanation.
TimTheToolman is the only commentor who has offered substantive replies based on the content of the document, and has noted that he only has had time to skim it. So there is no evidence that anyone else has bothered to become informed before diving in.
Mr. J: “but the judge’s tone and assumptions about intent were excessive.” So right here, you know better than the judge. You are plainly out of your depth when you try to use words.
You also don’t grasp the words “substantive replies”. I explained it to you, bounced right off your head (sounded like a coconut hit by lead pipe, I bet).
Your comment that the judge made “assumptions” about the intent found (in spades, as you note) just shows your ignorance. Let’s turn the table for a moment, above you say you “nowhere” said you know better than the judge. Please quote where this judge said he made an assumption, or used the word “assume” or any derivative to describe the basis of the intent finding. Bet you can search it, I won’t bother. Perfect opportunity for you to really burn me here! Go ahead………. It’s gonna be “nowhere”, a word you grasp.
The judge nowhere acknowledged that he was inferring intent without documentary evidence. This is a testament to his own potential blind spot, not an error in my assessment. I can express my view that the judge was being excessive in his insistence on intentional malice without believing that I understand the law better than he does.
Mr. J: Just as you “nowhere” say you know better than the judge, even as you express it in other words. “Documentary evidence” of intent??!! “Intent” is never documented unless there’s a signed confession. There’s often no direct evidence of intent, it can only be inferred from the words and actions of (here) Mann and his lawyers. That’s what the judge did, and you don’t grasp it. You have no clue how this works, and you show it over and over, yet you continue to comment, continue to demonstrate your ignorance. The judge “insisted” on finding an element of misconduct, IT WAS THE ISSUE TO DECIDE!! Your comments demonstrate that you are not even wrong, yet you go on.
You’re agreeing with me, just in a very testy and contentious tone. Reframe your mindset from needing to attack me incessantly and focus on what I’m actually saying. It’ll do wonders for your blood pressure.
Mr. J: When I say “you have no clue”, I’m agreeing with you?? When I say “you are not even wrong”, I’m agreeing with you?? And you say I’m not focusing on what YOU say??!! No comments here penetrate your iron dome, all I do is repeat your own comments to take down what you say. Blood pressure not an issue because you make it so easy. The fact that you will rinse/repeat your broken arguments in 3..2…1 does not push my button.
My contention: there is no documentary evidence of deliberate intent to deceive. The judge is inferring intent.
Your counterargument: there is no documentary evidence of deliberate intent to deceive. The judge is inferring intent.
The fact that you are adding bald statements of objection alongside your agreement does not mean you are actually saying anything at odds with what I’m saying. If you were here to have a discussion in good faith instead of flatly contradicting every single thing I say, we wouldn’t actually be having a contentious debate right now.
Mr. J: You now attempt to enter a contention about documentary evidence for the first time in your long, long, long comment thread. Your actual contention, which draws so much deserved ridicule, is that the judge made assumptions and inferences with no evidence, demonstrating your profound ignorance on the subject. After hoisting your own petard, you now try to gaslight me with “Oh, you agree with me….” Nice try, but your “good faith discussion” trolling is exposed after your ignorance. I tried to warn you how out of your depth this is, but you insist. Now you have bored the whole audience. Again.
“the judge’s tone and assumptions about intent were excessive.” I think you mean foundationrional.
You agree with the ruling means you accept intentional misleading false presentation of damages, and want to twist that to “whoops, my attorneys did it.”
Mr. A: Nicely boiled down. Bounced off him.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
You have been corrected many many times your responses are to duck and weave promoting a stupid narrative that is a lie, read it again:
OK, we now agree that the judge ruled that both Mann personally, and his attorneys, deliberately lied to the court.
Do you think the judge was right or wrong to have ruled this? Do you accept that both Mann and his attorneys lied to the court?
I think the ruling itself was fair, I also think the judge was dipping into making a lot of unfounded accusations about intent which weren’t in evidence. The actual wrongdoing appears to be a screwup by Mann’s lawyers.
If it was a screw-up by Mann’s lawyers, why did Mann not correct his deposition before submitting it a second time?
Mann did correct his deposition before submitting it a second time. That is why he submitted it a second time.
But only after the discrepancy was pointed out.
Wishful thinking from AnalJ.
So what is your point? Mann and his legal team were found to preformed bad faith misconduct. Your rehashing has not changed that fact.
Mr. Oscar: His desperate attempt to obscure the result failed, the funniest part is when he insists we don’t “engage”.
What I find interesting is how much effort AlanJ puts into defending Mann. I do wonder if AlanJ actually felt this strongly about Mann why does he not say so in his own voice instead of the anonymous voice of AlanJ. But then again who the heck would tie their integrity to Michael Mann?
I’m not certain why AlanJ is being downvoted for simply reporting on what happened.
Because he is trying to justify dishonest conduct by Mann.
He is reporting on his own prejudicial view while calling reasonable perspectives backed by the judge, “prejudice”
Hardest cope I’ve seen in 2025.
I’m not a lawyer, but I do enjoy listening to trial coverage from time to time and have a cursory familiarity with some of the issues being discussed here.
The Rule3.3(a)(1) violations may have significant consequences for the lawyers. Rule3.3 is a section of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct of lawyers in the United States.
For a lawyer to knowingly (The knowing misrepresentation is important, it implies a mens rea, a guilty mind, in regards to the false information provided and is essential in any disciplinary action. If the lawyer did not personally know that the information was false, they could not have formed the intent to deceive) present false information to a court is a major ethical breach, not only could they face sanctions in the case in question, they could also be hauled before their State Bar association and face punishments up to (temporary or permanent) disbarment.
The verbiage of this ruling is very strong, as far as judicial rulings go. Judges are usually hesitant to make such conclusory statements regarding such ethical violations and potential perjury.
Even though it has been clearly shown that Michael Mann and his lawyers deliberately lied to the court, the likelihood of any perjury charges against him is extremely small. Perjury is almost never acted on, unless there is some political motive to prosecute someone.
Does the finding that Mann and lawyers lied to both the court and the jury have any impact on the verdict reached by the jury?
Reducing or even reversing it?
That is the bit I was interested in but need someone familiar with the state law it varies depending on state.
I wonder whether MM ever feels “used”.
eg, Somebody needed his chart. If he didn’t know what he was doing when he made it, he must by now. Yet he has no choice but to defend it or lose economic value.
(cue Rolling Stones song? Sympathy…)
Mann needed it… all.
Despite your dislikes, I’m fairly sure that could have been what happened. Wasn’t he a grad student when he did it? Happy to be corrected on that last point.
Thanks phil. I take the -1s to mean “No, no sympathy!”
Probably yes. When I was a Grad student, like most, I wasn’t so great at record-keeping. I had a half-way decent notebook, and by chance I made a really great discovery, which ended up in all kinds of patents and peer-reviewed papers. It shaped my career, but if anyone asked me to show my raw data and I was to be honest, I would say I possess none of that stuff, because I don’t.
In summary, I think your post is likely to be correct. He made a lot of money out of his whatever you want to call it. Now it’s time to pay the piper.
PS Just looked it up. He was a Post-Doc. Same thing applies – I have no idea where my Post-doc notebooks are. Everything just got published in major Journals – my advisor at UC San Francisco was an absolute monster scientist, grant-getter, paper-publisher. One of my heroes.
But Mann made that paper with at least two other scientists, Bradley and Hughes. Incompetence on the part of Mann doesn’t cut it. It was a very calculated paper, did exactly what was intended.
You’re probably right. Maybe he’ll be truthful about what actually happened one day, but I’m not holding my breath.
“If he didn’t know what he was doing when he made it”
He absolutely knew. It was very calculated.
the deliberate and knowing misconduct of Dr. Mann
I’ve just completed Mike’s [Mann] Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) – Climategate
“I received an astonishing email from a major researcher in the area of climate change. He said, ‘We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period! … In 1999, Michael Mann and his colleagues published a reconstruction of past temperatures in which the MWP simply vanished … ” —Dr. David Deming, testimony before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Dec. 6, 2006
He knows, alright.
To quote the late Gilda Radner on SNL: “Well, isn’t that special.”
In a roundabout way, nothing new or special about The Mann here, it’s just him continuing a pattern of putting out false assertions in bad faith. I covered an angle of that three years back on one of the provably false political accusations he wrote in his “The New Climate War” book. Frank Lutz there might’ve had grounds to sue The Mann for defamation.
Rud, I believe that was Dana Carvey as “The Church Lady”.
Maybe Rud was thinking of Jane Curtain (Substitute MM for Jane…), “Jane, you ignorant slut”
Yeah, it was the Church Lady.
Also “NEVER MIND!” and didn’t they do “LAND SHARKS?”
“Candygram…”
The hits keep on coming.
Would such behavior constitute grounds for an appeal of the Mann v Steyn decision?
That’s interesting, as I was involved in a very long court case saga as the corporate representative, and in the only jury case, the initial verdict went against us. The Judge (a highly prominent Judge who has been shortlisted for the SCOTUS) knocked the whole jury verdict over, just based on the bogus damages claims.
Well, Since Steyn won the case as the jury only awarded $1 damages and then the punitive damages was reduced to $5,000 it would seem there is no reason to appeal. And now the new payments Mann will have to pay will most likely be greater than $5,000.
Steyn may be in the black for damages, but he “lost” the case and Mann can still claim he was defamed.
It is likely not worth the effort to get the case overturned, but there is a reason to do so.
What is the reason? I only ask so I, too, can know.
I dont know exactly what Charles had in mind but from my point of view, the decision as it stands sets an important legal precedent which shouldn’t be allowed to remain in law.
That precedent is that you can win a libel case without evidence of damages and that impacts free speech.
That is how it plays in many legal systems the punitive part would be quashed because the payout was based on a falsehood. The $1 penalty stands because that was for the defamation. However that may not be the case in this states law.
EXACTLY. The original verdict was a travesty and should be overturned.
Plus, it would have a gigantic bonus – wiping that smug look off of that asshole’s face. 😁
To clear his name completely? If he and his lawyers can collect the damages money (which will be a million $$ at least), they might be inclined to do that. I don’t know how the collection will go though.
None of this changes the defamation ruling and the $1 penalty.
The $1 penalty is a contemptuous award – like what the jury awarded to Wladislaw Deming against Leon Uris in London in 1964.
Yes, I know that. What I was suggesting was that the Steyn team might be more inclined to make a renewed attempt against that ruling now that they’re crushing the Mann team financially.
Your comment reminds me of the defamation lawsuit brought by Wladislaw Dering against Leon Uris (Dering v Uris).
(Source: Wikipedia)
Uris subsequently wrote QB VII, which was loosely based on the case. And for the record, NOBODY considered that Uris had “lost” the case.
Judges are almost always also good lawyers. For a judge to call out an attorney for bad faith and lying is rare beyond hens teeth. It’s a club.
It is my hope that this latest bombshell draws the attention of DOGE.
DOGE can only look at the Executive Branch.
Research grants come from the Executive Branch.
Dr Mann knowingly participated in the falsehood. We can therefore call him a cheat and a liar. And given that he demonstrably lied in court, why should we assume he did not lie in other activities? All his writings should carry a ‘caveat emptor’, that they are written by someone known to be economical with truth.
“Dr Mann knowingly participated in the falsehood. We can therefore call him a cheat and a liar. And given that he demonstrably lied in court, why should we assume he did not lie in other activities?”
Yeah, like lies about a Hockey Stick chart temperature trend line.
Mann has no credibility, and this particular verdicts just demonstrates it once again.
Mann is a convicted liar.
He’s a Disgrace to the Profession.
His lies are very damaging to the future of Western nations (the other nations of the world are not stupid enough to believe him, and are not destroying themselves after listening to Michael Mann lies about CO2 and the Earth’s climate and weather).
Michael Mann ought to be sued for damages. He has caused TRILLIONS of dollars to be wasted by lying to people and making them believe his bogus Hockey Stick chart represented reality.
He’s one of the principal perps. One of the first Climate Change Liars. And look how far his lies have taken us. Almost over the cliff, in some cases.
I wonder if the Secretary of State can deport him. Maybe Gitmo would be better. Put him in with the terrorists.
Isn’t perjury a felony?
I smell a *LEGITIMATE* ‘convicted felon’ label in the making…
Unfortunately, the legal realm looks after its own. Here is a case from Wikipedia, where a cop lied on the stand, the defendant was convicted, yet the defendant has no say in charging the cop with perjury. It is entirely up to the government. I don’t know the legal bearing of this on Michael Mann, since he is not a cop (no pun!) and this was a civil suit. But perjury is presumably a criminal charge.
Yes that is the case in many states you would need to petition the DPP to pursue perjury and yes it is a bit of a club the lawyers protect there own.
Year 1983. It was like that then.
Hoist on his own … I can’t think a “Hockey Stick” rhyme for “petard”.
s/p/r/
Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus.
With this ruling, Mann’s scientific credibility is in shreds.
For those outside the climate science cabal, Mann never had any credibility.
Those inside the climate science cabal also knew that Mann had no credibility, they just never cared.
Unfortunately, as a result of the MSM’s sanctification of Mann, many ordinary people, or at least the readership of papers like the NYT and the Guardian, take his pronouncements as gospel.
Probably because they too have no credibility…
Bad faith and misrepresentation run deep with Mann and climate “research” and climate “communications” in general.
What, Mann a thoroughly unpleasant perjuring little shyte ? Who knew !!
What I really don’t understand is with this ruling why the trial judge didn’t enter a Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict and rule completely in favor of Steyn instead of awarding Mann $1 in general damages and $5K in punitive damages.
A Judge is never going to pick through spreadsheets him or her self. It’s always going to be up to the defense attorneys/defendant to find it.
“Erroneous and misleading information” seems to be a characteristic of Mann
Will this be published in the MSM? Of course not.
Googled the trial to check. I got “Right-wing bloggers set to appeal $1 million verdict in ….”
I use Google to test everything because it is so convenient, but the slant is always obvious when politics is in the neighborhood.
When I checked Google News for last 24 hours I got 2 hits from Tampa Free Press and the Independent Journal Review. Neither of those outlets would be MSM.
How ironic, in a lawsuit brought by Mann to vindicate his reputation against claims he deceived!
“Liars figure, and figures lie”
Lying is not okay.
this is ridiculous, a simple peer-reviewed Tiljander transformation would have clearly shown Mann’s claims to be true
this sort of judicial activism is a threat to the rule of physical law
You definitely needed the sarc tag here
Mann determined to keep the “hockey stick” alive. Why is he still employed? Promoting bad, misleading and deceptive science ought to reflect badly on the education institution he represents.
It ought to reflect badly on people who believe Michael Mann.
How stupid are they? Answer: Pretty damn stupid.
Mann’s “Hockey Stick” was a useful level the the whole (constantly morphing) CAGW meme.
That’s why all his lawsuits had financial backing.
(Maybe DOGE will dry up some of funds the NGOs used to pay Mann’s bills?)
As Mark Steyn pointed out the moral integrity of his supervisors leaves a lot to be desired.
Who would have guessed that a guy who falsified data to show “global” warming that his own data didn’t show would also lie about other stuff? It turns out that moral failings show up in many other ways. Steyn nailed Mann’s character in his editorials. On July 12, 2012, after Penn State football (assistant) coach Jerry Sandusky was found guilty of molestation just 3 weeks earlier, Steyn quoted Rand Simberg’s observation in his famous National Review editorial for which Mann sued him:
But now that we know how bad it was, perhaps it’s time that we revisit the Michael Mann affair, particularly given how much we’ve also learned about his and others’ hockey-stick deceptions since. Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet.
And added his own:
Not sure I’d have extended that metaphor all the way into the locker-room showers with quite the zeal Mr Simberg does, but he has a point. Michael Mann was the man behind the fraudulent climate-change “hockey-stick” graph, the very ringmaster of the tree-ring circus. And, when the East Anglia emails came out, Penn State felt obliged to “investigate” Professor Mann. Graham Spanier, the Penn State president forced to resign over Sandusky, was the same cove who investigated Mann. And, as with Sandusky and Paterno, the college declined to find one of its star names guilty of any wrongdoing.
Whether or not he’s “the Jerry Sandusky of climate change”, he remains the Michael Mann of climate change, in part because his “investigation” by a deeply corrupt administration was a joke.
Mann created a fraud and defended his fraud because he is, well, fill in your own adjective.
….. are nouns allowed ??
Only if you get their pro-nouns correct.
Excellent news.
Mann is a liar. Every word he writes is a lie including “and” and “the”. told by The whole climate change scam is a bunch of lies by lying liars. Mann just got called out for one of his lies.
Schadenfreude!
No one should be surprised by this. This is exactly how Mann et al have conducted themselves as ‘scientists.’ Lie to present the strongest case possible. Fudge the data! Fudge the statistics! Nothing gets in the way of our fantasy! Someone should look at Mann’s PhD thesis to see if any of it was plagarized. Liars willing to lie on an industrial scale usually have a long long history of lying.
One other point.
Mann did not pay for this trial, he had a white-knight pay for it all.
Who was that white-knight?
Ralph
What’s next? Even if he gets purged all the way, what of it? This does not have to be anything but his problem. You get to have your well-earned cup of hot Schadenfreude, of course, but… that’s about it. Too many snouts impatiently wait behind him for their turn at the trough, and after all he became odious long ago. The strongest and the sneakiest ones will win the best places, the contenders will be chased out, and for the rest, promotions along the queue. They won’t be discouraged at all as long as the trough itself exists and is full of chow.