By Prince George's County Ex-Pat
saturday, march 15, 2025 at 01:13:24 p.m. edt
"earlier this month, the same judge threw out the $1 million penalty owed by one of the writers, Mark Steyn. the verdict against Steyn had been 'grossly excessive,' said Irving, who reduced the damages to $5,000."
"a famous climate scientist won a $1m verdict. then his case took a turn.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/a-famous-climate-scientist-won-a-1m-verdict-then-his-case-took-a-turn/ar-AA1AVmqQ
the art of propaganda.
Alarmist rhetoric backed by "facts" and "figures" and pushed by a state-controlled press.
N.S.: I hope the shock of his good fortune doesn't kill Steyn.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
msn reprinted the story from the wapo - Steyn tears into it this morning:
The Washington Post did report on the latest developments. They assigned the same chap as last year, Dino Grandoni. If I recall correctly, he said hello to me when he showed up halfway through the trial. I declined an opportunity to be interview by Mr Grandoni because he's the paper's eco-correspondent - and a real newspaper would have assigned a trial reporter to cover a trial rather than an enviro-activist. Because it's about legal questions rather than whether you like polar bears.
So last week Grandoni returned to the scene of his original journalistic crime. The headline tells you how he sees the story:
A famous climate scientist won a $1M verdict. Then his case took a turn.
But the real wankery came in the headline's strap:
A judge vastly reduced climate researcher Michael Mann's award, accused him of false evidence and ordered him to pay $530,000.
This is surely too incompetent even for America's unreadable monodailes. "Accused him of false evidence"? Who is this Alfred S Irving guy? The plaintiff? The District Attorney? No, he's the judge - or, to borrow a George W Bush coinage, "the decider". So, speaking as the sixth trial judge, he found that Michael E Mann had indeed given "false evidence" and imposed sanctions on him. Dino Grandstandi could try reading the judge's "decision". In pertinent part:
It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff Michael E. Mann, Ph.D., is SANCTIONED for bad-faith trial misconduct.
"Accused him of false evidence" turned out to be too bollockingly stupid even for The Washington Post. So, at a certain point, the sub-editors amended "accused him of false evidence" to "sanctioned his lawyers for presenting false evidence".
But that isn't correct either, is it? As Judge Irving states explicitly, it was not just Mann's lawyers but also Mann himself who gave "false evidence":
First, Dr. Mann's assertion that there was no falsehood or misrepresentation in his testimony or his counsel's conduct borders on frivolity.
At one point, the Court writes:
Dr. Mann made three changes to his claimed post-publication funded grants. Setting aside questions of credibility or even perjury...
Mann's lawyers cannot commit perjury. Because they are not under oath in the witness box. Only Mann can perjure himself.
In other words, it is John Williams, Peter Fontaine and Michael E Mann who have been sanctioned for "bad-faith trial misconduct". Or to put it another way: Mann sued me for calling him a fraud and then, in court, committed fraud.
Oh, well. The Washington Post is only some podunk hicksville small-town birdcage-liner of no importance, right?
These papers can't die fast enough.
Headline: "Fani Willis ordered to pay $54,000 for 'intentional' violations in Trump case".
Doctor Fraudpants (as Steyn calls him) of the Tree Ring Circus (as Steyn tagged his research methodology): "Hold my beer."
Post a Comment