The Deep State wins
The Deep State wins
Washington DC Jury finds against Mark Stein
Shows what you can achieve with a corrupt jury in Washington DC
Michael Mann is Not a Victim
by Amy K. Mitchell
Mann vs Steyn Trial Day Fourteen
February 7, 2024
Michael Mann is not a victim.
That was the theme of Mark's closing today in court. The judge began the day by reading the jury instructions and the afternoon was devoted to closing arguments. First up was the Plaintiff's counsel. Then Victoria Weatherford on behalf of Rand Simberg. And then Mark. The Plaintiff then got 15 minutes to rebut the Defenses' closing before the jury began its deliberations.
By this point, any one of Mark's readers could write the Plaintiff's closing. Mann was severely wronged... his life was terrible... Mark and Rand are guilty of actual malice and knowingly spread false information — because the Plaintiff's counsel is also a mind reader and no one in their right mind could not possibly agree with the Plaintiff on everything because he's a famous climate scientist.
Which brings us to that final 15 minutes. As we have repeatedly reported over the past four weeks, this case for the Plaintiff has always been about "ruining" anyone who or anything that does not agree with him (again, his word not ours) — i.e., those on the right side of the political spectrum. And in today's final closing, his counsel was not even overt about it.
While instructing the jury to find for the Plaintiff and set an example to others (i.e., a large monetary penalty), he stated, "These attacks on climate scientists have to stop." The Defense immediately objected, which then led the Plaintiff's counsel to close with their last card: Election denial is the same as climate denial. Led by Donald Trump — a name to strike fear into a DC jury — this case is no different than the justice being sought in other courts and justice must be done to make it stop. We'll see tomorrow if the Plaintiff's last minute theatrics worked.
But back to Mark's closing. Mark focused on the Plaintiff's own words given during his testimony or those of his witnesses that showed as they say in the legal circles: No Case to Answer. That testimony, under penalty of perjury, demonstrates that Mann did not suffer from the "statements at issue" nor had anyone taken the "statements at issue" in the climatology world as anything more than metaphor.
Regarding the supposed decline in Mann's grant monies (emphasis added):
Question: In your June 2020 responses, you claim that the amount at issue for that grant was $9,713,924, is that correct?
Mann: Correct.
Question: Okay. Then in your March 2023 response you change that amount down to $112,000. Is that correct?
Mann: Yeah...
Question: So from your June 2020 answers ... to your March 2023 answers under penalty of perjury, the amount of that not funded grant after the blog post changed from about $9.7 million to $112,000, isn't that right.
Mann: Yes, it did.
Regarding Mann being a "pariah" to his peers (from Dr. Abraham, one of Mann's friends, emphasis added):
Question: Why did you bring him [Mann] in in 2020?
Abraham: Well, as I mentioned yesterday in testimony, he has special knowledge that is important to us, and I felt enough time had lapsed for this whole ClimateGate thing to die down that I could venture to include him on a paper with many of these international contributors.
On Mann's personal relationship with Graham Spanier, the former Penn State president who was found guilty of child endangerment for his role in the Sandusky scandal (emphasis added):
Question: It's 12 years since he [Spanier] was fired from Penn State for enabling Jerry Sandusky to feast on middle age schoolboys for years on end. Yet you're still thanking him in the acknowledgements even though he's now been jailed for child endangerment, correct?
Mann: As I said, I'm not deleting people who — because of things they've done.
And on Mann's personal finances and legal fees incurred over the past 12 years (emphasis added):
Mann: Thus far, I don't believe that I have made payments, but I'm not sure. I don't think I have.
Question: So, you don't think you've paid any money in 12 years for your lawyers in this case, is that right?
Mann: As of yet, not to my knowledge.
Question: And you don't have a financial debt to any of these lawyers or their law firms for legal fees that you will have to pay, win or lose, after this trial?
Mann: I'm not sure about that. I don't think I do.
We will let everyone know when we know if and when the jury reaches a verdict tomorrow. In the meantime, the past four weeks have been tough on Mark, so please say a prayer as we head into the 'morrow.
Closing Arguments
by Mark Steyn
McAleer and McElhinney at the Steyn Trial
February 8, 2024
On Wednesday, late in the day at 4pm Deep State Standard Time, Mann vs Simberg and Steyn finally went to the jury, and they retired to deliberate. So now we await their verdict - as, on this same day just a few blocks away, President Trump awaits the decision of a supposedly "conservative" Supreme Court on whether he can be permitted to appear on the ballot. I am exhausted by what passes for "justice" in America, and I expect he feels the same.
In my case, the last phase of the trial - closing arguments - began yesterday after lunch: closing arguments - first, lead counsel John Williams for plaintiff Michael E Mann; next, Victoria Weatherford for defendant Rand Simberg; and then Mark Steyn for Mark Steyn.
Oh, and after that Williams returned for his "rebuttal" - because, under the disgusting perversion of the norms of justice operated by DC and other US courts, it is not the accused who gets the last word but his accuser.
You might recall that exactly a week ago we linked to Kerry Wakefield's excellent primer on the trial from The Spectator Down Under. This was Miss Wakefield's final paragraph:
Given the vindictive USD$83 million damages found against Trump in his case against serial rape accuser E. Jean Carroll, one cannot be optimistic about any jury trial in deep blue Washington DC. But Steyn is going down fighting, and one cannot but admire his guts and brio, even if his bank balance has been cleaned out. Sadly Steyn, representing himself, is now in a wheelchair, having recently suffered three heart attacks. If ever there were a case deserving funding, it is his. The trial continues.
Williams played the Trump card in the final minutes of the trial, linking "election deniers" with "science deniers" and asking the jury to send a strong message to stop attacks on all the other scientists out there:
MR. WILLIAMS: And as you've been instructed, if you find punitive damages are appropriate for outrageous behavior, you can set an amount not just to punish, but to serve as an example to prevent others from acting in the same — in a same or similar way.
These attacks on Climate Scientists have to stop, and you now have the opportunity—
MS. WEATHERFORD: Objection.
MR. STEYN: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. WILLIAMS: Sustained? I am saying this heated...
MR. STEYN: My Lord, he's continuing to talk.
THE COURT: You received an admonition, really from the Court of Appeals. Climate Science discussions, discourse are not part of this case.
MR. WILLIAMS: I understand.
THE COURT: And so you're raising this, and the jury will think that Climate Science is the subject of this case. This is a defamation case.
MR. WILLIAMS: All right.
THE COURT: And I'm going to let you know once again, all right?
MR. STEYN: Judge Anderson specifically told the Plaintiff that he does not represent Science... That's not what this case is about. It's him [POINTS TO MANN], and me, and Simberg. And to try to expand it to the massed ranks of Science...
MR. WILLIAMS: I will clarify.
MR. STEYN: No, no, no. Let's have the Judge clarify...
THE COURT: The objection is sustained. Members of the Jury, this case is a defamation case...
But Counsellor Flim-Flam figures they got the message: Go Rudy or go home. So, you never know, by the time you read this I may be a hundred-and-fifty million dollars lighter.
My old chum Barbara Kay has a column about this case's "important implications for freedom of speech". That's true. Way back when, in the first half-decade of Mann's suit, The Washington Post and a bunch of other "mainstream" news outlets all filed amici briefs on the defence's side against the threat posed by Mann to the First Amendment. Alas, in the years since, freedom of expression has degenerated into a mere alt-right fetish - and, by the time the Post got around to running a story on the case, it was left to the "climate reporter" to cover it: He showed up in court on Day Eleven. In the old days, newspapers used to have court reporters to report on the courts. But they seem to have gone the way of the buggy whip.
Here is how the "mainstream" press, none of whom had a legal correspondent in court, are covering this case. The Associated Press:
CLIMATE
Jury to decide on climate scientist Michael Mann's defamation suit over comparison to molester
After waiting 12 years, this famed climate scientist fights his critics in court
Climatologist Michael Mann is suing two bloggers, part of a mounting campaign to defend scientists against attacks from right-wing critics
It's been 12 years since a pair of conservative writers compared a prominent climate scientist to a convicted child molester for his depiction of global warming...
In a D.C. courtroom, a trial is wrapping up this week with big stakes for climate science. One of the world's most prominent climate scientists is suing a right-wing author and a policy analyst for defamation.
The case comes at a time when attacks on scientists are proliferating, says Peter Hotez, professor of Pediatrics and Molecular Virology at Baylor College of Medicine. Even as misinformation about scientists and their work keeps growing...
Whatever happens in the days ahead, whatever time that remains to me, I shall never read an American newspaper again.
In the absence of any NPR or ABC reporter in court, it fell to everyone's favourite Irish chancers, Ann McElhinney and Phelim McAleer, to do the job the wanker American media won't do. Click below for their dramatisation of the closing arguments:
All that remains now is the verdict.
Here are the previous 2 days
Ep. 12 | Mann at War
Climate Change on Trial
As this case progressed, we believed Michael Mann’s case was getting weaker and weaker. But we never thought the judge would agree.
It’s a devastating development for Michael Mann and his lawyers. Hear Judge Irving describe their case as “disjointed,” and wondered aloud just what the purpose of two of their witnesses was.
It kept getting worse for Mann. Listen to Dr. Judith Curry describe how his private and public smearing of her reputation devastated her professional life. We’ll also hear convincing evidence that the Penn State investigation into Mann’s scientific misconduct was indeed a whitewash, and from researcher Steve McIntyre, who’s behind some of the most enduring criticism of the hockey stick graph.
You won’t want to miss this explosive testimony.
Ep. 13 | Mann and God
Climate Change on Trial
You’ve heard of Climategate, but now we bring you: Stalkergate.
It was a day of high drama, both inside and outside the courthouse.
This trial of the century is rapidly coming to its close. In today’s episode, you’ll hear from five separate witnesses for Mark Steyn and Rand Simberg. There is a theme running through all the testimony: Witness after witness spoke about how Mann was the driver of the bullying and vindictive tone of the climate debate both before and after the Climategate scandal.
We also got to hear some of the science behind the criticism of the hockey stick, and how the investigation into Mann’s scientific misconduct was secretly guided by former Penn State president Graham Spanier.
The day ended with Mann’s lawyers making a false statement to law enforcement and almost getting a certain journalist assaulted. We ask, does Michael Mann have the lawyers he deserves?
Bombshell today.
Steyn shows video of Berkeley PhD Richard #Muller exposing Mann's "#hockeystick" deceit.
"Now I can show you the original data.
What they did was, and there's a quote from an email,
"let's use Mike's trick to HIDE-THE-DECLINE."
"That's the raw data as any Berkeley scientist would have published it" -- NO HOCKEY STICK, temperatures decreased. "What they did was they looked at the data after 1960 and they erased it."
"What they did would NOT have passed any peer review in any journal I would have published in."
"What is the result in my find, frankly, as a scientist, I now have a list of people whose papers I won't read anymore. You're not allowed to do this in science."