{"id":307361,"date":"2024-03-12T09:41:57","date_gmt":"2024-03-12T08:41:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=307361"},"modified":"2024-03-12T09:41:59","modified_gmt":"2024-03-12T08:41:59","slug":"one-million-dollars-or-maybe-not-steyn-files-appeal","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=307361","title":{"rendered":"ONE MILLION DOLLARS, (or maybe not) Steyn Files Appeal"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mark Steyn has begun the process of appealing the Mann v Steyn verdict.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From SteynOnline<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

~Following last month\u2019s verdict<\/a>, Mann vs Simberg and Steyn<\/em> moves on into its thirteenth year and the appellate phase \u2026oh, no, sorry, we\u2019ve still got some post-verdict maneuvring to attend to. On Friday, my counsel filed three motions at the District of Columbia Superior Court. If, as with baseball cards, you\u2019re anxious to collect the set, they are:

a) a Motion to Stay Execution \u2026wait, wuh? Nobody said anything about execution. Relax, it\u2019s merely a Motion to Stay Execution of the Judgment<\/a>;
b) a Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law<\/a>; and
c) a Motion for (gulp) a New Trial<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Steyn then goes on to lay out the case for appeal, starting with the likely unlawful punitive award.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

The $1,000,000 punitive damage award is unlawful for multiple reasons.<\/em>
Among other things, the verdict \u201cviolates both DC law and the First Amendment<\/a>\u201d (page three) and also \u201cviolates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment<\/a>\u201d (page seven). So yeah, I\u2019m waving that Constitution, and we\u2019ll see where that gets me:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cFreedom of speech and the press are most seriously implicated \u2026 in cases involving disfavored speech on important political or social issues.\u201d Mann, 140 S. Ct. at 347\u201348\u2026 The verdict in this case will have a horrible \u201cchilling effect\u201d on discussing controversial political issues like climate change. CEI, 150 A.3d at 1242\u2026 Our nation relies on \u201ca profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.\u201d N.Y. Times, 376 U.S. at 270. This verdict silences further debate\u2026 That result is repugnant to the First Amendment.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Steyn bemoans the absurdity of the duration of this case as well as the bias of DC courts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Even in the dank septic tank of American \u201cjustice\u201d, I am reasonably confident that I would win at the Supreme Court. However, I am less confident that I will live that long. So judgment as a matter of law \u2013 because the verdict is unlawful \u2013 would be appreciated.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

He then continues on with another foundation for his appeal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Did you read what passes for the mainstream media\u2019s coverage of this case? 

Forbes<\/a> magazine:
Mann said he hoped the verdict would send a message<\/strong> \u201cthat falsely attacking climate scientists is not protected speech.\u201d<\/em>
Michael E Mann himself and his lawyer, writing in The New York Times<\/a>:
We hope this sends a broader message<\/strong> that defamatory attacks on scientists go beyond the bounds of protected speech and have consequences.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Andrew Lewin, host of How to Protect the Ocean<\/a>:
Defamation and Climate Science: Did the Lawsuit Send a Message?<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Steyn points out.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

There\u2019s just one problem with that<\/a> (top of page five):

The Court of Appeals \u201chas stated repeatedly that an attorney must not ask a jury to \u2018send a message\u2019 to anyone.\u201d Bowman v. United States, 652 A.2d 64, 71 (D.C. 1994). This is the law for good reason: \u201cJuries are not in the message-sending business. Their sole duty is to return a verdict based on the facts before them.\u201d Id. See also Coreas v. United States, 565 A.2d 594, 604 (D.C. 1989) (\u201cArgument which encourages the jury to \u2018send a message\u2019 has been found improper by this court.\u201d); Powell v. United States, 455 A.2d 405, 410 (D.C. 1982) (\u201cThe function of the jury is to determine the facts based on evidence presented. The jurors are not empaneled to send messages on behalf of their community.\u201d).<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

And the parties here agreed and represented to the Court that \u201cPlaintiff will not present any argument or evidence related to any claim that the jury should \u2018send a message\u2019 through its verdict.\u201d Jt. Pretrial Statement at 8 (\u00a7 E-13).<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Telling the jury \u201cthese attacks on climate scientists have to stop\u201d was a forbidden send-a-message argument. See Scott, 928 A.2d at 685 n.7, 689\u2026 And Plaintiff\u2019s team dispelled any doubt that they had asked the jury to \u201csend a message\u201d about stopping attacks on climate scientists by issuing a press release after the verdict that quoted Mann as saying \u201cI hope this verdict sends a message that falsely attacking climate scientists is not protected speech.\u201d Michael E. Mann (@MichaelEMann), Twitter (Feb. 8, 2024, 5:11 PM)<\/em>
<\/strong>
Inviting jurors to send that message, Mann\u2019s counsel drew a comparison between \u201cclimate deniers\u201d (me, Simberg, Curry, McIntyre, McKitrick et al) and \u201celection deniers\u201d (Trump and the J6-ers). Footnote Five on page eight:<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Steyn then notes how the Plaintiffs worked the biases of the jury.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Counsel\u2019s comparison was especially egregious and prejudicial because the January 6 violence occurred in the District of Columbia and because, as counsel knew, one of the jurors, Juror 931, works for the U.S. Senate Sergeant-at-Arms to watch for security risks, \u201cincluding demonstrations that are affecting my agency.\u201d Tr. 92 (1\/17\/24 AM). Juror 931\u2019s office was at the center of the January 6 riot. See Michael Balsamo & Sophia Tulp, US Senate sergeant-at-arms during Capitol riot dies at 71, Associated Press (June 28, 2022), https:\/\/tinyurl.com\/4bu7kw7u<\/a>.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Juror 931 served as the foreman of the jury.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

This was the juror who had earlier sent a note to the Court<\/a>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

It is well known for my family and friends that I am not a fan of fox news. I wanted to inform the judge [indecipherable] to the sensitivity of this case. I did not recognize the defendant [Steyn] as a fox news host until opening statements.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Then Steyn lays out another foundation for the unlawfulness of the punitive damage award.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

As to the one dollar in actual damages plus a million bucks in punitive damages<\/a> (page four):<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

\n

Plaintiff failed to present any non-speculative proof of damages; the jury awarded him $1 in nominal damages \u2026and under both the First Amendment and D.C. law that means Plaintiff may not collect punitive damages. The Supreme Court has explained that, because of the First Amendment, a \u201cdefamed party must establish that he has suffered some sort of compensable harm as a prerequisite to the recovery of additional punitive damages\u201d\u2026<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cUnder the law of the District of Columbia, one cannot receive punitive damages if only nominal damages are sought and awarded.\u201d Unidisco, Inc. v. Schattner, No. B-80-2617, 1986 WL 84363, at *13 (D. Md. Aug. 4, 1986)\u2026 In the District, \u201c\u2018a verdict assessing punitive damages can be returned only when there is also a verdict assessing compensatory or actual damages.’\u201d<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Steyn sums up.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

That would seem straightforward enough even for the District of Columbia. But it\u2019s American \u201cjustice\u201d, so the way to bet is that I\u2019ll have to spend another five million to prove that I don\u2019t have to pay the lousy one mil.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Let\u2019s all wish Mark Steyn well in his long and tortured journey, defending free speech and dealing with authoritarian lawfare.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Mark Steyn has begun the process of appealing the Mann v Steyn verdict. From SteynOnline ~Following last month\u2019s verdict, Mann vs Simberg and Steyn moves on into its thirteenth year and the appellate phase \u2026oh, no, sorry, we\u2019ve still got some post-verdict maneuvring to attend to. On Friday, my counsel filed three motions at the District of Columbia […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":121246920,"featured_media":307363,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_coblocks_attr":"","_coblocks_dimensions":"","_coblocks_responsive_height":"","_coblocks_accordion_ie_support":"","_crdt_document":"","advanced_seo_description":"","jetpack_seo_html_title":"","jetpack_seo_noindex":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[1],"tags":[691818056,691826465,691827557,691821918,691826907],"class_list":{"0":"post-307361","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","6":"hentry","7":"category-uncategorized","8":"tag-climate-change","9":"tag-district-of-columbia-superior-court","10":"tag-first-amendment","11":"tag-free-speech","12":"tag-michael-mann-v-mark-steyn","14":"fallback-thumbnail"},"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/01_7hYOker0sxOcK2yLL6T0oQ.jpg?fit=1200%2C658&ssl=1","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/paxLW1-1hXr","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":373736,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=373736","url_meta":{"origin":307361,"position":0},"title":"Mark Steyn and the Reversal of Fortune","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"04\/05\/2025","format":false,"excerpt":"A year ago, Michael Mann was riding high after winning his 12-year-old lawsuit against journalist\/pundit Mark Steyn and Rand Simberg over comments sharply critical of Mann\u2019s famed \u201chockey stick\u201d graph. That graph purported to demonstrate a sharp rise in global temperature following industrialization, supposedly caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions.\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI)\"","block_context":{"text":"Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI)","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=competitive-enterprise-institute-cei"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/2Ockham-copy-2-2048x1833-1.jpg?fit=1200%2C1074&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/2Ockham-copy-2-2048x1833-1.jpg?fit=1200%2C1074&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/2Ockham-copy-2-2048x1833-1.jpg?fit=1200%2C1074&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/2Ockham-copy-2-2048x1833-1.jpg?fit=1200%2C1074&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/2Ockham-copy-2-2048x1833-1.jpg?fit=1200%2C1074&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":368724,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=368724","url_meta":{"origin":307361,"position":1},"title":"Breaking: A Victory for Free Speech: Mark Steyn\u2019s $1 Million Judgment Slashed to $5,000 in Landmark Climate Case","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"03\/05\/2025","format":false,"excerpt":"Today, we raise a cheer for reason, justice, and the unyielding spirit of free expression! Today, the Superior Court of the District of Columbia delivered a resounding blow to overreach in the long-running defamation lawsuit brought by climate scientist Michael Mann against conservative commentator Mark Steyn.","rel":"","context":"In \"Censorship\"","block_context":{"text":"Censorship","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=censorship"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/0mannvsteyn.jpg?fit=1200%2C630&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/0mannvsteyn.jpg?fit=1200%2C630&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/0mannvsteyn.jpg?fit=1200%2C630&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/0mannvsteyn.jpg?fit=1200%2C630&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/0mannvsteyn.jpg?fit=1200%2C630&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":308516,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=308516","url_meta":{"origin":307361,"position":2},"title":"A Jury Found Climate Skeptic Liable For Defamation \u2014 Legal Experts Say He Has A Chance To Win On Appeal","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"03\/15\/2024","format":false,"excerpt":"A right-of-center pundit is appealing a February ruling that found him liable for defaming a prominent climate scientist, and legal experts told the Daily Caller News Foundation that he may have a good chance at a successful appeal.","rel":"","context":"In \"Climate change\"","block_context":{"text":"Climate change","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=climate-change"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/0190809150019-amanpour-michael-mann-ipcc-climate-crisis-00000000-super-tease.jpg?fit=1100%2C619&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/0190809150019-amanpour-michael-mann-ipcc-climate-crisis-00000000-super-tease.jpg?fit=1100%2C619&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/0190809150019-amanpour-michael-mann-ipcc-climate-crisis-00000000-super-tease.jpg?fit=1100%2C619&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/0190809150019-amanpour-michael-mann-ipcc-climate-crisis-00000000-super-tease.jpg?fit=1100%2C619&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/0190809150019-amanpour-michael-mann-ipcc-climate-crisis-00000000-super-tease.jpg?fit=1100%2C619&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":297844,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=297844","url_meta":{"origin":307361,"position":3},"title":"Men at War \u2013 Mark Steyn Must Win (Part 1)","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"01\/22\/2024","format":false,"excerpt":"I had been scrolling through Michael Mann\u2019s Twitter account, until Friday when I discovered I was blocked. Blocked even though I was yet to retweet or comment on anything to do with the defamation trial that he has brought against Mark Steyn and Rand Simberg \u2013 yet to comment on\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"Climategate emails\"","block_context":{"text":"Climategate emails","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=climategate-emails"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/0Feature-Blocked-Screenshot-2024-01-20-at-12.16.17%E2%80%AFpm.png?fit=1200%2C750&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/0Feature-Blocked-Screenshot-2024-01-20-at-12.16.17%E2%80%AFpm.png?fit=1200%2C750&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/0Feature-Blocked-Screenshot-2024-01-20-at-12.16.17%E2%80%AFpm.png?fit=1200%2C750&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/0Feature-Blocked-Screenshot-2024-01-20-at-12.16.17%E2%80%AFpm.png?fit=1200%2C750&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/0Feature-Blocked-Screenshot-2024-01-20-at-12.16.17%E2%80%AFpm.png?fit=1200%2C750&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":301372,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=301372","url_meta":{"origin":307361,"position":4},"title":"The Travesty of Mark Steyn\u2019s $1m Libel Loss to \u2018Hockey Stick\u2019 Climate Chart Creator Michael Mann","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"02\/12\/2024","format":false,"excerpt":"Mark Steyn loses in Washington D.C. in the defamation trial surrounding Michael E. Mann\u2019s unbelievable temperature \u2018hockey stick\u2019, while President Biden cannot be criminally charged for taking home state secret papers on the grounds that he is gaga. Only in Democrat America.","rel":"","context":"In \"Bias\"","block_context":{"text":"Bias","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=bias"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/0HockeyStickOverview_html_6623cbd6.png?fit=1049%2C673&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/0HockeyStickOverview_html_6623cbd6.png?fit=1049%2C673&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/0HockeyStickOverview_html_6623cbd6.png?fit=1049%2C673&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/0HockeyStickOverview_html_6623cbd6.png?fit=1049%2C673&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":423548,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=423548","url_meta":{"origin":307361,"position":5},"title":"Mann v. Steyn: Finally Ready for Appeal?","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"01\/28\/2026","format":false,"excerpt":"Way back in 2012, climate \u201cscientist\u201d Michael Mann, then at Penn State University, sued four defendants for defamation. The four were commentators Mark Steyn and Rand Simberg, who had written blog posts about Mann, and National Review and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, entities which had respectively hosted the Steyn and\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"\u201cClimateGate\u201d emails\"","block_context":{"text":"\u201cClimateGate\u201d emails","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=climategate-emails-2"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/0Michael-Mann.jpg?fit=1200%2C600&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/0Michael-Mann.jpg?fit=1200%2C600&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/0Michael-Mann.jpg?fit=1200%2C600&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/0Michael-Mann.jpg?fit=1200%2C600&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/0Michael-Mann.jpg?fit=1200%2C600&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/307361","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/121246920"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=307361"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/307361\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":307364,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/307361\/revisions\/307364"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/307363"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=307361"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=307361"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=307361"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}