We have filed our motion to reverse the verdict.
[Update Thursday morning]
National Review has filed a motion for reimbursement of legal expenses of a million dollars.
There is an article at the Journal about the case, but it’s behind a paywall, so I haven’t read it yet.
[Afternoon update]
Here‘s the Journal article. The reporter is a science reporter, not a legal reporter, so the tone isn’t surprising.
Color me jaded, but I’d probably have paid the $1,000 bucks just to have this behind me.
Now if I were Mark Steyn on the other hand….
Nary a sixpence in tribute then!
Now if I were Mark Steyn on the other hand…
I would hope you would know better than to be your own defense attorney. That was not very bright.
Mark’s experience with “real” attorneys has not always been stellar. It has always been expensive.
Millions for defense!
He could have used the one Rand had. I don’t know her rates but I’m guessing the verdict would have been more palatable.
His case was different than mine, and he had…creative differences…with his counsel, and the same would have been likely with mine. For instance, he wanted to go to trial immediately, whereas we and National Review wanted to avoid trial and get it dismissed under Anti-SLAPP. That’s why he separated from National Review.
Good to see. Good luck.
Best wishes and hoping for true Justice
Hope it happens, but I don’t expect it to get much traction. Mann’s ‘vindication’ was much better for the Narrative(tm)
From the un-paywalled byline:
Michael Mann, the climatologist behind the infamous ‘hockey-stick graph,’ prevailed in a defamation case and says science is on a roll
Yeah, over a cliff.
Sentences like these make me worry about “narrative”.
From the aforementioned WSJ article.
They are only journalists because they needed something with no math.