Mann vs Steyn: That Judgment Was a Constitutional Disaster

By Rich Kozlovich

Last Thursday, February 8, 2024, a Washington, DC jury found Mark Steyn need to pay Michel E. Mann a million dollars, because of loses he didn't show, couldn't show, and didn't have.  Just like the Trump trials in New York, where he was prevented from defending himself, and was accused of fraud, found guilty of fraud, and there wasn't any accuser.  The corruption of the New York, and the DC jury pools, the prosecutors, and the judges is beyond description. 

The DC Superior Court entered the jury's verdict in final judgment, and Steyn shows what happens next:

What happens now? Well, in the next few weeks, there will be certain "renewed" motions from defendants that one is obliged to do, although they are highly unlikely to find favor with Judge Irving. After that, the case will be appealed by all parties - loser Steyn because he wants the decision overturned, and winner Mann because he wants the original corporate defendants, National Review and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, put back in the dock. (Irving, the "fifth trial judge", dismissed them from the case a couple of years back.)

The DC Court of Appeals, being the way it is, is likely to accede to Mann's wishes, but not Steyn's. How long that will take is hard to say, but, given the length of the last merely "interlocutory" appeal, it's unlikely to be quick. At that point, Mark will go to the US Supreme Court. A minimum of four out of nine judges is required to grant a writ of certiorari and hear the case. As Amy K Mitchell noted on Friday, one of them, Samuel Alito, grasped the implications of Mann vs Steyn half-a-decade back:

The petition in this case presents questions that go to the very heart of the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech and freedom of the press: the protection afforded to journalists and others who use harsh language in criticizing opposing advocacy on one of the most important public issues of the day. If the Court is serious about protecting freedom of expression, we should grant review.

Justice Alito also foresaw the DC Jury's verdict:

The controversial nature of the whole subject of climate change exacerbates the risk that the jurors' determination will be colored by their preconceptions on the matter. When allegedly defamatory speech concerns a political or social issue that arouses intense feelings, selecting an impartial jury presents special difficulties. And when, as is often the case, allegedly defamatory speech is disseminated nationally, a plaintiff may be able to bring suit in whichever jurisdiction seems likely to have the highest percentage of jurors who are sympathetic to the plaintiff 's point of view.

To emphasize just how dangerous this verdict was, Steyn goes onto quote others saying:

On that last point, Steve from Manhattan, a Steyn Clubber who attended the early part of the trial, notes:

The official court docket includes handwritten notes to the judge from the jury. I decided today to look at a few of them. Here is a note from one juror to the judge that was filed on January 18th:

'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 as a fox news host until opening statements.'

Needless to say, this person remained on the jury and voted for a $1 million punitive damages verdict—after recognizing Mark Steyn as a Fox News host.

The official court docket includes handwritten notes to the judge from the jury. I decided today to look at a few of them. Here is a note from one juror to the judge that was filed on January 18th:

'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 as a fox news host until opening statements.'

Needless to say, this person remained on the jury and voted for a $1 million punitive damages verdict—after recognizing Mark Steyn as a Fox News host.

 As Denyse O'Leary puts it in our comments section:

Many people don't understand how serious the problem of Steyn's defeat by the climate lobby is. Let me help:

It becomes risky to criticize climate change claims, no matter how questionable. At at time when governments contemplate destroying agriculture and confining people to within fifteen minutes of their homes in order to fight climate change, any number of whackjob theories will be promoted, always protected by fear of successful legal action against critics.

This at a time when I keep seeing articles whizzing through the science media about the growing problem of questionable or fraudulent research - that the Top People are always "going to" do something about...

Picture the Covid Crazy cubed. If we keep silent and do nothing at this point, we will *earn* a great deal of it. Better to fight the Crazy now.

This verdict is a massively dangerous precedent against the most important foundational level of American law.  The Constitutional rights under the First Amendment, freedom of speech.   

We really need to get that, and we really need to bring the federal judiciary under control with term limits and Congress needs to exercise their constitutional authority in determining the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary, with the exception of what's called original jurisdiction and defining that can get messy.