DC justice: Why Bother With a Trial ?

 

Hockey Stick perpetrator Michael Mann won a preposterous lawsuit because in summation his lawyer improperly told the DC jury that the defendants were climate deniers and MAGA types.  In that courthouse, the judges, the jury pool and prosecutors are so deeply in the tank for partisan warfare against you and anybody who thinks like you that the pretense of a trial is an insult to western jurisprudence. Might as well skip it for the sake of candor.

Trump will also be convicted.

The continuing abuse of imprisoned J6 defendants is a bit of Havana or Pyongyang on the Potomac. Compare and contrast that with the treatment of illegal alien thugs in NY who beat the hell out of cops and simply walked out of the courthouse there. They actually did injure cops. (Thank God they were not parading or disrupting pro forma government actions.)

And the preposterous finding that Joe Biden cannot be tried or even accused because he is mentally defective…!?

The American  bi-partisan constitutional and cultural investment in the rule of law is dying. And people need to be made to pay for that. It is a betrayal of the highest order.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 37 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Red Herring Coolidge
    Red Herring
    @EHerring

    We are two incompatible countries. One of them is corrupt. Do not go inside the beltway. 

    • #1
  2. Richard Easton Coolidge
    Richard Easton
    @RichardEaston

    Red Herring (View Comment):

    We are two incompatible countries. One of them is corrupt. Do not go inside the beltway.

    The problem is that plaintiffs can venue shop.

    • #2
  3. CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill Coolidge
    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill
    @CarolJoy

    Here is a pertinent Heartland video of what the Simberg-Steyn matter is about.

    https://rumble.com/v483272-climate-trial-of-the-century-mann-vs-steyn.html

    So horrid to realize how these two men have been in the crosshairs of an on going legal battle for over 12 years. And these two  have fought this battle because they’ re speaking the truth.

    Meanwhile the press routinely smears and lies about everything and everyone who  presents any opposition to the Deep State, from Julian Assange, to Trump, to Mike Lindell, to J6’ers now rotting in prison.

    And tomorrow there is another SCOTUS case involving Trump, with the issue to be considered with regards to  some  legal matter pertinent to  Jan 6th.

    • #3
  4. Red Herring Coolidge
    Red Herring
    @EHerring

    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill (View Comment):

    Here is a pertinent Heartland video of what the Simberg-Steyn matter is about.

    https://rumble.com/v483272-climate-trial-of-the-century-mann-vs-steyn.html

    So horrid to realize how these two men have been in the crosshairs of an on going legal battle for over 12 years. And these two have fought this battle because they’ re speaking the truth.

    Meanwhile the press routinely smears and lies about everything and everyone who presents any opposition to the Deep State, from Julian Assange, to Trump, to Mike Lindell, to J6’ers now rotting in prison.

    And tomorrow there is another SCOTUS case involving Trump, with the issue to be considered with regards to some legal matter pertinent to Jan 6th.

    At some point, red states are going to have to cut out the cancer infecting the body.

    • #4
  5. DonG (CAGW is a Scam) Coolidge
    DonG (CAGW is a Scam)
    @DonG

    Red Herring (View Comment):
    At some point, red states are going to have to cut out the cancer infecting the body.

    Are you talking about Sen. Lankford?

    • #5
  6. Red Herring Coolidge
    Red Herring
    @EHerring

    DonG (CAGW is a Scam) (View Comment):

    Red Herring (View Comment):
    At some point, red states are going to have to cut out the cancer infecting the body.

    Are you talking about Sen. Lankford?

    I’m talking about the left’s agenda, even if you have to shed blue states to do it. It is probably too late already and you would be wasting your time. Fasten your seatbelts. It will only get worse. Wait until the sleeper cells activate.  

    • #6
  7. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    Red Herring (View Comment):

    DonG (CAGW is a Scam) (View Comment):

    Red Herring (View Comment):
    At some point, red states are going to have to cut out the cancer infecting the body.

    Are you talking about Sen. Lankford?

    I’m talking about the left’s agenda, even if you have to shed blue states to do it. It is probably too late already and you would be wasting your time. Fasten your seatbelts. It will only get worse. Wait until the sleeper cells activate.

    If at first you don’t secede, try try again . . .

    • #7
  8. She Member
    She
    @She

    A grave miscarriage of justice.  As I understand it from the Powerline post covering the matter, Mann was awarded only $1 in damages on the jury’s finding that he’d been defamed by Steyn and Simberg but had suffered no actual damages as a consequence.  This tracks with all the reporting I’ve seen and what I’ve heard about the trial; namely, that Mann couldn’t show any damages, and that his story kept changing (subtext: he was lying) over those which he did assert.

    The punitive damages ($1K from Simberg and $1M from Steyn) were awarded on the basis that the defendants acted with actual malice, because the jury found that they (S&S) didn’t themselves believe the things they were saying about Mann were actually true.

    Anyone who knows anything about Mark Steyn (I don’t know much about Simberg) knows that this is a farcical claim.

    Old Bathos: Hockey Stick perpetrator Michael Mann won a preposterous lawsuit because in summation his lawyer improperly told the DC jury that the defendants were climate deniers and MAGA types.

    I think this is it.  John Hinderaker put it this way:

    In John Williams’ closing argument on behalf of Mann, he said that the jury should award punitive damages so that in the future, no one will dare engage in “climate denialism”–whatever that is–just as Donald Trump’s “election denialism” needs to be suppressed. In 41 years of trying cases to juries, I never heard such an outrageously improper appeal

    I doubt we have heard the last of this, which–for the sake of Mark Steyn’s health, if nothing else–is a shame.

    • #8
  9. Red Herring Coolidge
    Red Herring
    @EHerring

    Stad (View Comment):

    Red Herring (View Comment):

    DonG (CAGW is a Scam) (View Comment):

    Red Herring (View Comment):
    At some point, red states are going to have to cut out the cancer infecting the body.

    Are you talking about Sen. Lankford?

    I’m talking about the left’s agenda, even if you have to shed blue states to do it. It is probably too late already and you would be wasting your time. Fasten your seatbelts. It will only get worse. Wait until the sleeper cells activate.

    If at first you don’t secede, try try again . . .

    Looks in crystal ball. Texas says to S.C., hold my beer. 

    • #9
  10. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Advocating Civil War is, to my mind, giving up.

    • #10
  11. Old Bathos Member
    Old Bathos
    @OldBathos

    She (View Comment):

    The punitive damages ($1K from Simberg and $1M from Steyn) were awarded on the basis that the defendants acted with actual malice, because the jury found that they (S&S) didn’t themselves believe the things they were saying about Mann were actually true.

    Anyone who knows anything about Mark Steyn (I don’t know much about Simberg) knows that this is a farcical claim.

    The $1 award is an admission that the suit was a joke but they knew they had to award damages to be able to impose punitive damages which were a statement that the jurors are on the ride side of the issues and that mean conservatives who make fun of leftists cannot be allowed to get away with that.  Mann is a lying, weasly thin-skinned narcissist who continually demands that his co-alarmists inflict maximum career damage on heretics in general and his critics in particular.  He has said horrible, false misogynistic things about a distinguished female scientist and he also tried to insert false evidence in this while while refusing to comply with discovery orders.  In making the Hockey Stick, he clearly goosed and massaged data and methods to generate the desired result.  Not just the details of this work (about which he fiercely refused to reveal data and methods) but the nature of his attempts to create an improved model (less reliant on tree rings)  makes it clear that this is a less than robust project. 

    BUT the guys on the other side are probably Trump voters and are definitely disrespectful climate deniers so in the end that is all that matters.

    I followed the M&M dissection of the Hockey Stick for years and corresponded with people regarding Climategate.  That a bad judge and panel of kneejerk Democratic voters have allowed Mann to get this result is vomitous.

    • #11
  12. Richard O'Shea Coolidge
    Richard O'Shea
    @RichardOShea

    It probably wouldn’t have made any difference, but in retrospect, was representing himself a bad idea?

    • #12
  13. Old Bathos Member
    Old Bathos
    @OldBathos

    Richard O'Shea (View Comment):

    It probably wouldn’t have made any difference, but in retrospect, was representing himself a bad idea?

    Dunno.  Part of the strategy by those funding Mann was to bleed the defendants with legal costs.  It was likely a matter of economic necessity.  It is why National Review surrendered and settled early on.

     

    • #13
  14. Red Herring Coolidge
    Red Herring
    @EHerring

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Advocating Civil War is, to my mind, giving up.

    One would hope it doesn’t come to that. 

    • #14
  15. Red Herring Coolidge
    Red Herring
    @EHerring

    Old Bathos (View Comment):

    She (View Comment):

    The punitive damages ($1K from Simberg and $1M from Steyn) were awarded on the basis that the defendants acted with actual malice, because the jury found that they (S&S) didn’t themselves believe the things they were saying about Mann were actually true.

    Anyone who knows anything about Mark Steyn (I don’t know much about Simberg) knows that this is a farcical claim.

    The $1 award is an admission that the suit was a joke but they knew they had to award damages to be able to impose punitive damages which were a statement that the jurors are on the ride side of the issues and that mean conservatives who make fun of leftists cannot be allowed to get away with that. Mann is a lying, weasly thin-skinned narcissist who continually demands that his co-alarmists inflict maximum career damage on heretics in general and his critics in particular. He has said horrible, false misogynistic things about a distinguished female scientist and he also tried to insert false evidence in this while while refusing to comply with discovery orders. In making the Hockey Stick, he clearly goosed and massaged data and methods to generate the desired result. Not just the details of this work (about which he fiercely refused to reveal data and methods) but the nature of his attempts to create an improved model (less reliant on tree rings) makes it clear that this is a less than robust project.

    BUT the guys on the other side are probably Trump voters and are definitely disrespectful climate deniers so in the end that is all that matters.

    I followed the M&M dissection of the Hockey Stick for years and corresponded with people regarding Climategate. That a bad judge and panel of kneejerk Democratic voters have allowed Mann to get this result is vomitous.

    Steyn already did a great service outing the fraud. People need to quote the proceedings of the trial. I can’t see Mann being able to sue people quoting legal testimony. 

    • #15
  16. Red Herring Coolidge
    Red Herring
    @EHerring

    Richard O'Shea (View Comment):

    It probably wouldn’t have made any difference, but in retrospect, was representing himself a bad idea?

    What difference does it make in DC.

    • #16
  17. iWe Coolidge
    iWe
    @iWe

    Richard O'Shea (View Comment):

    It probably wouldn’t have made any difference, but in retrospect, was representing himself a bad idea?

    I listened to much of the trial. Steyn was magnificent. The fact that Simberg’s lawyer was really, really good filled in the bits Steyn missed for lack of legal training. 

    This was a travesty, and must be overturned on appeal. Not a single piece of the needed evidence to show defamation was offered by the prosecution.

    • #17
  18. She Member
    She
    @She

    Old Bathos (View Comment):

    She (View Comment):

    The punitive damages ($1K from Simberg and $1M from Steyn) were awarded on the basis that the defendants acted with actual malice, because the jury found that they (S&S) didn’t themselves believe the things they were saying about Mann were actually true.

    Anyone who knows anything about Mark Steyn (I don’t know much about Simberg) knows that this is a farcical claim.

    The $1 award is an admission that the suit was a joke but they knew they had to award damages to be able to impose punitive damages which were a statement that the jurors are on the ride side of the issues and that mean conservatives who make fun of leftists cannot be allowed to get away with that. Mann is a lying, weasly thin-skinned narcissist who continually demands that his co-alarmists inflict maximum career damage on heretics in general and his critics in particular. He has said horrible, false misogynistic things about a distinguished female scientist and he also tried to insert false evidence in this while while refusing to comply with discovery orders. In making the Hockey Stick, he clearly goosed and massaged data and methods to generate the desired result. Not just the details of this work (about which he fiercely refused to reveal data and methods) but the nature of his attempts to create an improved model (less reliant on tree rings) makes it clear that this is a less than robust project.

    BUT the guys on the other side are probably Trump voters and are definitely disrespectful climate deniers so in the end that is all that matters.

    I followed the M&M dissection of the Hockey Stick for years and corresponded with people regarding Climategate. That a bad judge and panel of kneejerk Democratic voters have allowed Mann to get this result is vomitous.

    Simply. Awesome (and accurate). Rant. Worthy of repeating.

    Although, come to think of it, I’m not sure Mark Steyn can vote (legally) in a Presidential election.

    • #18
  19. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patriot) Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patriot)
    @ArizonaPatriot

    Does anyone know what the allegedly defamatory statements were?  What did Steyn say, or write, that was defamatory?  What about his co-defendant, who is named Simberg?

    I found one article saying that Steyn wrote that Mann’s research was “fraudulent.”  There were quotes from Simberg comparing Mann to Jerry Sandusky, a Penn State coach convicted of child molestation.

    I’m not particularly interested in the case against Simberg.  If Steyn made the statement reported about Mann’s research being “fraudulent,” this strikes me as a factual assertion that could be false.  In other words, maybe Mann’s research was fraudulent, maybe not.  The jury evidently decided that it was not, so Steyn’s accusation of fraud was false.

    There are due process limitations on the extent of a punitive damages award.  While it’s not an absolute rule, a 10-times multiplier is generally considered the upper limit.  Here, we have a 1,000,000-times multiplier, as to Steyn, which is tough to defend on appeal.

    • #19
  20. Lunchbox Gerald Coolidge
    Lunchbox Gerald
    @Jose

    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill (View Comment):

    Here is a pertinent Heartland video of what the Simberg-Steyn matter is about.

    https://rumble.com/v483272-climate-trial-of-the-century-mann-vs-steyn.html

    This won’t play for me, but the same video is on YT:

    • #20
  21. Red Herring Coolidge
    Red Herring
    @EHerring

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Does anyone know what the allegedly defamatory statements were? What did Steyn say, or write, that was defamatory? What about his co-defendant, who is named Simberg?

    I found one article saying that Steyn wrote that Mann’s research was “fraudulent.” There were quotes from Simberg comparing Mann to Jerry Sandusky, a Penn State coach convicted of child molestation.

    I’m not particularly interested in the case against Simberg. If Steyn made the statement reported about Mann’s research being “fraudulent,” this strikes me as a factual assertion that could be false. In other words, maybe Mann’s research was fraudulent, maybe not. The jury evidently decided that it was not, so Steyn’s accusation of fraud was false.

    There are due process limitations on the extent of a punitive damages award. While it’s not an absolute rule, a 10-times multiplier is generally considered the upper limit. Here, we have a 1,000,000-times multiplier, as to Steyn, which is tough to defend on appeal.

    Go to Steyn’s website. 

    • #21
  22. She Member
    She
    @She

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Does anyone know what the allegedly defamatory statements were? What did Steyn say, or write, that was defamatory? What about his co-defendant, who is named Simberg?

    LOL, pretty much everyone knows, at least WRT Steyn.  I’m sure a bit of research on the web will bring you up to speed.  As far as Simberg goes (I don’t know much about him either) you could start with his LinkedIn entry.

    Rand Simberg is a recovering aerospace engineer with over four decades of experience in the space industry, with multiple engineering degrees from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor and West Coast University in Los Angeles. Since 1993, after over a decade in engineering and management at the Aerospace Corporation in El Segundo, California and with Rockwell International in Downey, California, he has been an entrepreneur and consultant in space technology, business development, regulatory, and market issues relating to commercial and personal spaceflight.

    A former adjunct scholar with the Competitive Enterprise Institute, he has written many pieces for Popular Mechanics, Fox News, America Online, PJMedia, National Review, Reason magazine, The Weekly Standard, the Washington Times, TCSDaily, and others, and extensive essays on space policy and technology for the quarterly journal The New Atlantis.

    A member of the International Institute of Space Law, he is the author of the highly acclaimed book Safe Is Not An Option: Overcoming The Futile Obsession With Getting Everyone Back Alive That is Killing Our Expansion Into Space.

    And go on from there.

    I found one article saying that Steyn wrote that Mann’s research was “fraudulent.” There were quotes from Simberg comparing Mann to Jerry Sandusky, a Penn State coach convicted of child molestation.

    This is a gross misreading of both men’s positions, which compared Penn State’s whitewash of the Jerry Sandusky situation with what they believed to be its whitewash of Mann’s dodgy climate science and clear misconduct in his communications with his peers.  (See “climategate controversy.”  You can look that up, too.)

    I’m not particularly interested in the case against Simberg. If Steyn made the statement reported about Mann’s research being “fraudulent,” this strikes me as a factual assertion that could be false. In other words, maybe Mann’s research was fraudulent, maybe not. The jury evidently decided that it was not,

    I think you are wrong here.  The jury (none of whom are climate experts) was not empaneled to decide on the merits of Mann’s hockey stick graph; it was empaneled to evaluate Steyn and Simberg’s comments, whether they were defamatory, and whether or not Mann had suffered damages because of them.

    so Steyn’s accusation of fraud was false.

    While, God love you Jerry, you may believe this, I believe the jury isn’t interested in what you believe.  I believe the jury found that it (the jury) thought that Steyn himself did not believe the statements that he made about Mann.  And therefore, they found Steyn guilty of actual malice in his comments.  As I said above–if you know anything about Steyn–this is a farcical conclusion.  I expect the same is true of Simberg.

    There are due process limitations on the extent of a punitive damages award. While it’s not an absolute rule, a 10-times multiplier is generally considered the upper limit. Here, we have a 1,000,000-times multiplier, as to Steyn, which is tough to defend on appeal.

    I hope that, at least, is true.

    • #22
  23. Red Herring Coolidge
    Red Herring
    @EHerring

    Simberg is important because Steyn quoted him. Mann couldn’t prove he was harmed. Steyn proved the basis of his corrupt comment was true. 

    • #23
  24. EDISONPARKS Member
    EDISONPARKS
    @user_54742

    Now that the Mann defamation trial is over the these same credible DC jurors can turn their sights toward finding the real murderer of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman.

    • #24
  25. DaveSchmidt Coolidge
    DaveSchmidt
    @DaveSchmidt

    Red Herring (View Comment):

    DonG (CAGW is a Scam) (View Comment):

    Red Herring (View Comment):
    At some point, red states are going to have to cut out the cancer infecting the body.

    Are you talking about Sen. Lankford?

    I’m talking about the left’s agenda, even if you have to shed blue states to do it. It is probably too late already and you would be wasting your time. Fasten your seatbelts. It will only get worse. Wait until the sleeper cells activate.

    Jihadi sleeper cells often talk in their “sleep.”  They will tell you what they think, often without asking.  Those paying attention will not be surprised.  

    • #25
  26. Quintus Sertorius Coolidge
    Quintus Sertorius
    @BillGollier

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Does anyone know what the allegedly defamatory statements were? What did Steyn say, or write, that was defamatory? What about his co-defendant, who is named Simberg?

    I found one article saying that Steyn wrote that Mann’s research was “fraudulent.” There were quotes from Simberg comparing Mann to Jerry Sandusky, a Penn State coach convicted of child molestation.

    I’m not particularly interested in the case against Simberg. If Steyn made the statement reported about Mann’s research being “fraudulent,” this strikes me as a factual assertion that could be false. In other words, maybe Mann’s research was fraudulent, maybe not. The jury evidently decided that it was not, so Steyn’s accusation of fraud was false.

    There are due process limitations on the extent of a punitive damages award. While it’s not an absolute rule, a 10-times multiplier is generally considered the upper limit. Here, we have a 1,000,000-times multiplier, as to Steyn, which is tough to defend on appeal.

    Several studies have came out 6 years before the fraudulent claim showing that Mann’s work was indeed fraudulent and he never accounted for it. See several hundred posts on What’s Up With That including one today….

    And the Penn Sate comment was not a comparison about child molestation but about how Penn State covered up both cases….there is ample evidence out there about how Penn State covered for Mann’s study…i.e. not giving over the data when asked by FOI etc…

    Mann’s lawyers also at the end of their closing said Steyn and Simberg were Climate Deniers just like Trump and MAGA were election deniers….end case right there with a DC jury….

    I hope Judith Curry now sues Michael Mann for deformation of character because he drove her from the climate field with innuendo and false accusations.

    • #26
  27. Red Herring Coolidge
    Red Herring
    @EHerring

    Quintus Sertorius (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Does anyone know what the allegedly defamatory statements were? What did Steyn say, or write, that was defamatory? What about his co-defendant, who is named Simberg?

    I found one article saying that Steyn wrote that Mann’s research was “fraudulent.” There were quotes from Simberg comparing Mann to Jerry Sandusky, a Penn State coach convicted of child molestation.

    I’m not particularly interested in the case against Simberg. If Steyn made the statement reported about Mann’s research being “fraudulent,” this strikes me as a factual assertion that could be false. In other words, maybe Mann’s research was fraudulent, maybe not. The jury evidently decided that it was not, so Steyn’s accusation of fraud was false.

    There are due process limitations on the extent of a punitive damages award. While it’s not an absolute rule, a 10-times multiplier is generally considered the upper limit. Here, we have a 1,000,000-times multiplier, as to Steyn, which is tough to defend on appeal.

    Several studies have came out 6 years before the fraudulent claim showing that Mann’s work was indeed fraudulent and he never accounted for it. See several hundred posts on What’s Up With That including one today….

    And the Penn Sate comment was not a comparison about child molestation but about how Penn State covered up both cases….there is ample evidence out there about how Penn State covered for Mann’s study…i.e. not giving over the data when asked by FOI etc…

    Mann’s lawyers also at the end of their closing said Steyn and Simberg were Climate Deniers just like Trump and MAGA were election deniers….end case right there with a DC jury….

    I hope Judith Curry now sues Michael Mann for defamation of character because he drove her from the climate field with innuendo and false accusations.

    Use their tactics against them. 

    • #27
  28. Basil Fawlty Member
    Basil Fawlty
    @BasilFawlty

    Steyn’s case was lost when the DC jury was told he had been a substitute host for Rush Limbaugh.

    • #28
  29. Sisyphus Member
    Sisyphus
    @Sisyphus

    Richard O’Shea (View Comment):

    It probably wouldn’t have made any difference, but in retrospect, was representing himself a bad idea?

    It was a DC jury and a DC verdict. Clarence Darrow would not have gotten them a different result. Maybe a Dershowitz, spinning his arguments to dovetail with local biases. Maybe someone as guileful as Johnny Cochran and his gloves of acquittal. But I can’t imagine Steyn hiring that type.

    • #29
  30. Basil Fawlty Member
    Basil Fawlty
    @BasilFawlty

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):
    There are due process limitations on the extent of a punitive damages award.  While it’s not an absolute rule, a 10-times multiplier is generally considered the upper limit.  Here, we have a 1,000,000-times multiplier, as to Steyn, which is tough to defend on appeal.

    But expensive to appeal. And not too tough to defend if you have unlimited funds to do so from undisclosed sources. The process is the punishment.

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.