"You know, you're trying to relitigate something that has passed, gone, finished."
Judge Eileen Bransten to Blaze TV counsel Jeffrey Mitchell of Browne George Ross
New York Supreme Court, September 13th 2018
UPDATE! On June 7th 2019 Blaze TV lost on every single one of almost a hundred claims in their second ten-million-dollar suit against me. Less than a month later, July 2nd, the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court ordered Blaze to pay me over one million dollars in legal fees.
In February 2017, Cary Katz and CRTV fired me, canceled my TV show, and sued me for $10 million. They lost, comprehensively - that's to say, on every single one of their claims. Nonetheless, they staggered on into a second and then third year of litigation, because a vengeful and unprincipled billionaire refused to accept his defeat. Since that first suit, Katz's CRTV network has ceased to exist. They've now "merged" with Glenn Beck's The Blaze to become part of Blaze TV. So far Katz's second largest shareholder seems to be enjoying it about as well as you might expect, and about as much as the audience. Three of Mark Levin's CRTV colleagues have instantly departed. CRTV, LLC is likewise defunct.
So two-and-a-half years after CRTV sued me for ten million dollars and eighteen months after they lost, totally, we're still here and they're not - as I foresaw ("I promise we shall be here long after CRTV is gone"). Don't know what I ever did to Glenn Beck that made him want to sign on to Katz and Levin's loser suits. We'd always had very cordial relations, and he helped make America Alone and "A Marshmallow World" bestsellers. But times change...
Immediately after their initial loss, Katz decided to double-down on his wrongdoing and mendacity and told us he would never pay the judge's award of damages. Within days of CRTV's defeat going public ("Conservative Pundit Wins $4M From Network That Fired Him"), he and his corporate sock-puppet then re-sued me, this time for a combined $25 million. My old boss Conrad Black, whom Katz named as Grievance 75B in his floppo "statements at issue", wrote a characteristically sharp summary in The National Post of the poker-playing billionaire's tedious and unavailing cases. But, for the benefit of the many lawyers among our readership who purport to be interested in this kind of thing, we provide a more detailed guide to Katz's unsuccessful suits as follows:
1) CRTV vs STEYN: THE VERDICT
Here's Judge Gordon's original award in the very first CRTV vs Steyn suit. In this case, I'm the petitioner, in that I had to go to the New York Supreme Court to get the deadbeats CRTV to pay up what Judge Gordon said they owed me.2) BLAZE TV/CRTV vs STEYN: THE SECOND VERDICT
Here's CRTV/Blaze's return to the American Arbitration Association to sue me second time around for breach of contract, for another $10 million. In this case, I'm the respondent. Yet again Blaze TV lost - on every single one of almost a hundred claims.3) KATZ vs CRTV: THE SELF-SUING STUNT
Here's Cary Katz's self-suing bollocks in the Clark County Court, Nevada, where Katz's left buttock is suing Katz's right buttock to drive his own company into pseudo-insolvency and therefore be too broke to pay me what it owes. Here, because he's suing himself and is therefore both plaintiff and defendant, I'm the plaintiff-in-intervention.4) KATZ vs STEYN: THE FEDERAL FLOP
Finally, here's Katz's personal defamation suit in federal court for $15 million. I'm the defendant. This suit was dismissed and the case closed by Judge Jennifer Dorsey on August 16th 2019.
So I've been the petitioner, the defendant, the respondent, and the plaintiff-in-intervention. That's not quite a full set: I've yet to be a counter-claimant-appellant-in-intervention, but give it another week or two...
In addition, Katz and his latest sock-puppet entity "Galaxy Media" (which operates out of the same offices as CRTV and shares the same tireless "sole manager", Elizabeth Wood) have filed multiple fraudulent UCC claims against CRTV in jurisdictions from Virginia to California (see page 14 here).
Now a little more detail:
1) Re the original award, in September 2018 CRTV attempted to do an end-run round Judge Gordon's decision with a last-minute request for an "amended" judgment that Cary Katz had beat the rap. In the New York Supreme Court Judge Bransten called their maneuver "ridiculous" (page 12). Under the sclerotic processes of the Empire State's courts, it took nine months between filing the petition and entry of judgment. But here, very belatedly, is the actual judgment - which then went to appeal before the Supreme Court's Appellate Division. On July 2nd 2019, the First Department of the Appellate Division ordered Blaze/CRTV to pay me over one million dollars in legal fees. So, after passing before seven judges at various levels of the process, every penny of the award to me and Mark Steyn Enterprises has been upheld.
2) Re Katz and CRTV's return to AAA to sue me second time around for $10 million, in this case the pathetic cockwomble was reduced to complaining that by selecting "Oh, Happy Day" and "We Are the Champions" as Songs of the Week I was somehow getting at him. So, as you'll have deduced, this case, like all his cases, went nowhere. After a week-long trial of Blaze/CRTV's revised "statements at issue"), in June 2019 a Final Award was issued, ruling that Blaze/CRTV had lost on every single one of those remaining "statements". There were a remarkable number of devastating findings of fact - including that Katz's company hires convicted criminals who intimidate women - and a few more amusing ones, such as the judicial determination that Blaze TV's Chief Content Officer Chris Crane is in fact "potty-mouthed".
Don't know why he would want that on his record, but that's what you risk when you're a wanker who goes to court with no legitimate grievance - that the court upon examination of all these ridiculous non-grievances finds against you, which Philip O'Neill's adjudication does, on a near industrial scale, culminating in a ruling (Statement 92 here) that all but finds Katz is indeed a cockwomble, or at any rate is exhibiting cockwomble-esque behavior: a first in American jurisprudence.
The decision concludes (page 45) with a note on Blaze TV's hypocrisy that should embarrass Levin, Beck and the other purported "constitutional conservatives" among its hosts:
'The bedrock guarantee of our society is that people should be able to speak and write freely in public. US Const Amend I; NY Const, art I, § 8. CRTV purports to stand for that principle as its 'primary value'. See Tr. at p.1202 II. 9-15 (Alena Charles, Senior VP MP Marketing Blaze Media, Tr. p.1160 11020-23.) Yet, when push came to shove, CRTV sought to constrain that guarantee in a dispute with one of its former talents.'
I will find it hard ever again to take seriously Levin and Beck on the US Constitution.
3) Re Cary Katz's self-suing bollocks, here's my motion to intervene. Mysteriously, Katz "settled" with CRTV the day after our intervention (if only all their suits were so easily disposed of), so there was nothing to intervene in. However, Judge Johnson was under no illusion about these phonies:
'In so concluding, this Court appreciates the position taken by MR. STEYN, MARK STEYN ENTERPRISES (US), INC. and OAK HILL MEDIA, INC. the lawsuit filed by MR. KATZ against CRTV LLC, a limited liability compañy of which he owns the majority of units, is a sham and, in essence, results in a fraudulent conveyance.'
Understandably they'd like to keep much of this bogus self-suing stunt sealed from public view, but Judge Johnson was having none of it, and ruled that merely avoiding a litigant's "embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation" is no reason to conceal evidence. Preach it, sister.
4) Re Katz's personal defamation suit for $15 million, it was originally in Nevada District Court but was removed to federal court. In this case, here's my reply to Katz, written in the rather tedious call-and-response format. Nonetheless, connoisseurs may enjoy certain paragraphs along the way, including 21-23. Bottom line:
'Defendants admit that they have made true, non-defamatory statements that correctly describe Plaintiff Katz as "deadbeat," "scofflaw," "dishonorable," "criminal"...'
So stipulated.
In January 2019, the same loser lawyer from the first case, Eric M George (second from the left here), "deposed" me on Katz's behalf. Sample quote:
STEYN: This didn't work for you at the last trial. I thought you might have some new shtick today.
GEORGE: Let's move forward. Let's look at Exhibit --
STEYN: Have you won anything since I last saw you, by the way?
A few days later, Eric M George filed a motion in Las Vegas whining that Defendant Steyn is saying big meanie things about him. Whatever he's won lately, it wasn't this one. As usual, these wanker delaying tactics, irrelevant to the merits of the case, availed him naught. On August 16th 2019 Katz's complaint was dismissed with prejudice and Judge Jennifer Dorsey closed the case.
Any further suits by frivolous abusive malicious harassing litigant Katz and/or his various sock-puppet entities will be posted here. But for the moment, and for the first time in two-and-a-half years, all CRTV/Blaze TV's crappy cases are dead, done and dismissed, following defeat on every single one of this worthless fake-conservative faux-network's stupid claims.
As for Katz's personal defamation suit, on the day that case was dismissed with prejudice I barely noticed because I was basking in my success as America's ratings king. So Katz and his cockwombling associates failed in their broader objective, too. I do hope they won't make the mistake of suing me again.
Comment on this item (members only)
Submission of reader comments is restricted to Mark Steyn Club members only. If you are not yet a member, please click here to join. If you are already a member, please log in here:
Member Login
20 Member Comments
"worthless fake-conservative faux-network"
Hurrah!
Aping the Left in boilerplate snark under the nom, 'conservative' is just role-playing Thesis-Antithesis, the Hegelian dialectic. Once sensitized to this cynical manipulative game and how it rules the media, it's then very informative to see who gets lucrative contracts and who doesn't. Just an opinion, just sayin'.
And 'media' isn't a synonym for 'free press.'
Lots of good guys at Blaze TV. I would hope that all of them do well. They are needed.
With all due respect, they haven't breathed a word about this foundational free speech issue. Sherlock Holmes noticed that the dog isn't barking. Did the ol' pooch know the perp already or did it get paid off for the night to be silently busy with a nice steak?
7. I don't think Katz is about conservative or liberal. It's about money or just winning.
8. Katz is a Poker player so it is likely he is trying to buy the pot.
9. Katz screwing with the AAA is going to go badly for him.
10. The other travelers with Katz will regret their involvement.
I hope the dominos begin to fall soon.
4. Plaintiff's claims are barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of laches.
5. Plaintiffs claims are barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of estoppel.
6. Plaintiffs claims are barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of unclean hands.
Unclean hands??
"Clean hands, sometimes called the clean hands doctrine or the dirty hands doctrine, is an equitable defense in which the defendant argues that the plaintiff is not entitled to obtain an equitable remedy because the plaintiff is acting unethically or has acted in bad faith with respect to the subject of the complaint—that is, with "unclean hands" -- Wikipedia
Crazy. There's a Steyn vs. Katz board game in here somewhere...
My comment made the Freinberg expert report in Katz v. Steyn? Immortality is mine!
Though I doubt they got the reference...
...and see that the expert deceptively cut my last two sentences, but such are the perils of immortality.
Mark replies:
Indeed, Joseph. The "expert" is a joke.
Good and great news. I wish I could trust it will work out all the way it should. But happy you keep fighting.
I heard you 7-8 years ago arguing we should fight every bike path and roundabout and every other idiotic thing the Left shoves at us. Now we've lost so comprehensively that it's our turn to fight for the right to stand on the Lincoln memorial while wearing a hat.
But you haven't quit. It gives us hope!
Mark replies:
Thank you, Allison. Much appreciated.
I wish you well in the tedious strange case.
I hope that more mainstream (conservative ideas are actually "mainstream") communicators and entertainers will reject the ghettoizing of conservative ideas, and seek venues more easily accessible to all.
I hope that any rifts with others embroiled in the CRTV debacle can be mended.
We either hang together or hang separately.
Let the lefties eat their own. They have more practice.
What's with the association with Glenn Beck?? SO glad you are finally getting some satisfaction!!!
Whenever I view Mark Steyn videos on YouTube, the ad that plays before the video is inevitably for CRTV. I hover over the space for the "Skip Ad" button and click as soon as it comes up. It seems very peculiar to me that CRTV is advertising on Steyn videos. Katz has an obsession, methinks.
I have been distressed that new conservative talent has joined the ship you abandoned at CRTV. One would think they would see the the writing on the stall.
Heh. They sound no deeper than cramming from the study guide for the 'conservative' exam.
What has four legs and chases Katz?
Steyn and his lawyer.
Your picture of Katz in a pink pussy hat accurately portrayed his probable alignment with the left.
This mess has sabotaged my two favorite voices on the right. If it was a conspiracy, it has succeeded perfectly.
You both now abhor each other (you justifiably) and have both been slammed financially.
My other favorite radio host though shrewd and aggressive, is not worldly wise. I never thought an internet TV show was a good idea for him. Even Rush mused about how the TV medium didn't work for him and wouldn't work for others. The radio host has sounded regretful at times, mentioning he is tied up with contracts and yesterday saying he may escape to podcasting.
I wish you could forgive him, as together we are stronger, but I think he is jealous of you and ashamed he was duped by a cad like Katz. But maybe I don't know the whole story, I do like him less because of this sad incident.
Robert J.
"both been slammed financially"? Levin has taken a $financial hit, he's opening his checkbook and assisting Katz in his attempt to DESTROY Mark Steyn, I don't think so. Levin should have told Katz, I'll not be part of this and threatened to use all his "superior" knowledge of the legal system to start a "two front" war against KATZ. Street slogan, "Put your money where your mouth is" Mark Levin is a "pussy" without the pink hat.
I hope your removal to federal court helps to ensure that the defamation case moves faster than a certain other defamation case I could mention...I know places where the federal courts have a reputation for (1) moving the civil cases faster, and (2) taking motion practice--such as dismissal and summary judgment--more seriously, instead of leaving cases on the shelf and hoping they will settle....but I don't know if Nevada is like that.
Mark, it seems as though the deadbeat dishonorable scofflaw criminal Katz has taken a page out of the Mann-ual: To delay until the plaintiffs, defendants, respondents, plaintiffs-in-interventions, counter-claimants-in-interventions, judges, jurists, expert emeritus witnesses, and any outside observer with any remaining interest is either dead or non-compos mentis.
Old Mr. Steyn, he had troubles of his own,
He had a captious Katz, wouldn't leave the guy alone
He tried at a trial to put that Katz away,
Hoped he'd have to sell his Las Vegas chalet
But the Katz came back, the very next day.
The Katz came back, They knew he was a grifter.
But the Katz came back,
He was just going to sue away!
Arkell v. Pressdram comes to mind, good luck with all this, thank God you are brave and tenacious.
Mark replies:
For non-Britons, that's a reference to Mr Arkell's solicitors, who concluded their letter to the satirical magazine Private Eye thus: "His attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of your reply."
Private Eye responded that they would "be grateful if you would inform us what his attitude to damages would be were he to learn that the nature of our reply is as follows: f**k off."
My comment was in hono(u)r of the appearance of 'bollocks' in this piece. I am old enough to remember when 'Private Eye ' was funny (a grateful nation starts paying me £25/day tomorrow). Peter Cook's brilliant version of the summing up at the Thorpe trial might be worth repeating here one day. 'A loathsome spotted reptile' seems appropriate for a start.