https://www.steynonline.com/14902/a-small-victory
by Melissa Howes
 |
“A Disgrace To The Profession”
The World’s Scientists, In Their Own Words, On Michael E Mann, His Hockey Stick And Their Damage To Science
Volume I
Compiled and edited by Mark Steyn, with illustrations by Josh
Well, finally, after thirteen long years Michael E. Mann has been made to put some personal skin in the game.
Followers of last year’s trial in the District of Columbia will recall that Mann testified that he had not contributed anything to his legal action against Mark and his co-defendants National Review and CEI. Nothing. Nada. Zilch.
Where did the funding come from to pay his several lawyers for twelve plus years of his lawfare? He was not required to reveal it under examination. And, we can only speculate…
Longtime followers of the case will recall that when the case was filed, Mark and his fellow co-defendants filed an Anti-SLAPP motion. (In short, “anti-slapp” is supposed to stop lawfare that is intended to silence speech related to public policy/ participation.)
That motion was denied by the first trial judge – Natalia Combs-Greene – who was mainly expert in managing landlord and tenant cases. It was all too much paper for her to handle (gave her a “headache”) so a second judge was assigned to the case who simply rubber-stamped her decision.
At that point, Mark did not wish to waste any more time or resources. He wanted to get on with it, have his day in court and clear his name. To that end, Mark filed a response to Mann’s claims with counterclaims and asked the judge to separate him from his co-defendants who wanted to bring an interlocutory appeal. Mann – whose goal is to punish through process – did not wish to go to trial with Mark alone and objected. So, the judge stayed the case while our co-defendants appealed all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court.
In the course of this several years-long appeal period, Mark collected, edited and published a collection citing over one hundred scientists on their thoughts re Michael E. Mann and his “Hockey Stick”. (Signed copies of which are available at the Steyn Store.)
Meanwhile, National Review was able to have two charges against them specifically dismissed at the appeals court and the remainder dismissed after discovery. After having raised a significant amount of money from loyal National Review readers to stand by Mark – in the end, they said their “Happy Warrior”, their keynote speaker at numerous conferences and fundraisers, had essentially busted into the cockpit and took control of the plane without their knowledge. (or, words to that effect…). So they, and CEI (using the same argument re their writer Rand Simberg), were able to get themselves out of the case.
Mark and Rand then went it alone last January. And, after the trial concluded, National Review filed a motion to force Mann to pay them certain legal fees under the anti-slapp provision. At the same time, Mann filed a motion against Mark attempting to collect fees related to an earlier counterclaim that was dismissed along the way – using the same anti-slapp provision as his argument.
Under the American Rule, litigants pay their owns costs of litigation unless under a special provision such as anti-slapp or in arbitration, and the like.
Between last night and today, the current DC Superior Court judge has made two orders:
The first, denied Mann’s motion seeking attorney fees from Mark.
The second, ordered Mann to pay $530,820.21 in attorney fees and costs to National Review! As mentioned at the top, this will be the first time that Mann will be asked to contribute to the cost of his unending lawfare to silence criticism of his statistical model commonly referred to as a “hockey stick” due to its design.
There are still several outstanding post-trial motions that await a decision from the judge including Mark’s motion to reduce the unconstitutional punitive jury award of 1 million, a motion for a new trial based on Mann’s presentation of false data to the jury, and a motion for sanctions related to that false evidence.
We will keep you apprised of any decisions on those matters as they come in.
