A Cockwomble Reaches for the Hockey Stick

by Mark Steyn
The War on Free Speech
February 14, 2019

https://www.steynonline.com/9196/a-cockwomble-reaches-for-hockey-stick

Cary Katz and Michael E Mann stack their respective chips

There was some modest activity yesterday in the Mann vs Steyn climate-change hockey-stick case, which will shortly be entering its eighth year. As that ludicrous fact testifies, it has been procedurally bollocksed by the District of Columbia courts, which is why it will almost certainly be headed to the Supreme Court. When it gets there, it will be the most consequential free-speech case since New York Times vs Sullivan fifty-five years ago.

Lest you doubt that, consider yesterday's request by the Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press and various other parties to file an amicus brief on the merits of the case - that's to say, on the danger Michael E Mann's victory would pose for the "right to freedom of speech and of the press". Those supporting our side in this battle include not only the chaps you might expect, such as Fox News, but an awful lot you might not - including NBC, The Washington Post and the ACLU. Because they all recognize the threat that Mann poses to a free society in demanding the courts adjudicate public-policy disputes.

That said, at a time when Dr Mann seems increasingly short of friends, he has got one new pal: Step forward Cary Katz, the student-loan billionaire and so-called rock-ribbed "conservative" behind CRTV (now "Blaze TV"). As readers know, Katz and CRTV broke my contract, sued me for ten million bucks, lost on every claim, and then promptly re-sued and re-re-sued me for a combined twenty-five million. The litigious cockwomble has now been reduced to taking Mann's side on free speech, and this week in US District Court called me a "an abuser of the First Amendment because he neither recognizes nor respects the limits that are attendant to the right of free speech in America" (the footnote on page eight here) and makes common cause with Mann and his hockey stick:

That is why this case and Competitive Enterprise Institute v. Mann, 150 A.3d 1213 (D.C. 2016) exist (this is another long-running defamation case against Steyn).

"Competitive Enterprise Institute v. Mann" is actually Mann vs Competitive Enterprise Institute. But Katz, a Vegas billionaire with unlimited resources who's sued me multiple times, likes to see himself as the victim so he understandably mixes up plaintiffs and defendants in other cases, too.

Still, it's heartening to see that even Katz's hometown paper - The Las Vegas Review Journal - recognizes the danger the Mann/Katz view of the First Amendment poses to a free society and is among the supporters of that proposed amicus brief mentioned above.

Three years ago, Mark Levin, Michelle Malkin and I made a profound mistake in getting mixed up with a thin-skinned billionaire seeking to use the cover of "constitutional conservatism" to advance some his personal interests. Two-thirds of those names are no longer with Katz's company. One day the third will come to see that a man who takes the Big Climate enforcers' view of the First Amendment is no friend of "constitutional conservatism".

I repeat my general view: Conservatism does itself no favors when it comes to depend on mercurial and unprincipled sugar-daddies.

PS I like Mark Steyn Club member Owen Morgan's point:

'..this is another long-running defamation case against Steyn.'

So, now, the never-endingness of a case becomes a factor in its favour, according to Katz? At least one Jarndyce must have wished he had dreamt that one up.

Indeed. If the protractedness of litigation is testament to its virtue, Katz is Mother Theresa. I think that's his lawyer's point.

~Programming note: Aside from his regular Thursday date with Tucker tonight at 8pm Eastern, Mark will also be joining Steve, Ainsley and Brian on the curvy couch live on "Fox & Friends" just after 8am Eastern/5am Pacific on Friday morning.

We hope to see a few Michael Mann fans in the crowd for Mark's upcoming show with the great Dennis Miller at the Kirby Center in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania on Saturday March 2nd. After all, Wilkes-Barre is a zippy 135-mile drive from Mann's redoubt at State College, Penn, so it would make a lovely Valentine gift for the climate alarmist of your dreams. Especially VIP tickets - with which you'll not only enjoy the best seats in the house, but get to meet Mark and Dennis after the show, have your picture snapped with them, and take home a special autographed gift. But don't leave it too late: the VIP tickets are almost gone!

As for the rest of the first ever Dennis Miller/Mark Steyn tour, it kicks off next week in Reading, Pennsylvania, and there are still a few tickets left. After Reading, Mark and Dennis will be in Syracuse, New York the following night (where, alas, VIP tickets have sold out), and after that headed for Rochester, which for our Ontario readers is a pleasant tootle down the QEW.

© 2019 Mark Steyn Enterprises (US) Inc. All rights reserved.
No part of this website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied, modified or adapted, without the prior written consent of Mark Steyn Enterprises.

If you're a member of The Mark Steyn Club and you take issue with this article, then have at it in our comments section.

receive the latest by email: subscribe to steynonline's free weekly mailing list

Comment on this item

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

43 Reader Comments

Allison Coates • Feb 15, 2019 at 19:46

Can we stop calling it conservatism at all? I mean, you spent a whole lot of time explaining the house (i.e.the USA) was on fire. That was conservative of you--nacj when there was a house to save.

But the house burned down. Trump is gonna bollardize the border, we haven't kept the legal protections of our country or its borders or its demographics or its uncorrput institutions.

So there's nothing to conserve. We have to start again fighting for principles enshrined in Magna Carta, as well as the right to speak on uncomfortable topics like how aan isn't a woman, not to mention the right of a speedy trial. (Hey, have you thought of suing the DC courts for violating the sixth amendment?)

We need a new name. And frankly we need to have on our side everyone who fights for free speech. Too many 'conservatives" won't just as "liberals" won't.

David Watson • Feb 14, 2019 at 23:39

Those who are curious how Mann and his posse of uninformed supporters (did anyone see Prof Indiana Jones wailing about the terrors of warming recently?) can persist in light of the ample evidence in Mark's books might be interested in "Betrayers of the Truth - Fraud and Deceit in the Halls of Science." Academics have been cockwombling the naive for a long time, even those who ought to know better.

Kate Smyth

David Watson • Feb 15, 2019 at 08:13

Thanks for the book recommendation, David.

As you suggest, it's not only a landmark free-speech case, but a landmark academic misconduct case.

David Watson • Feb 14, 2019 at 23:30

The case can't last more than 12 more years, because a congress child from NY says the hockey stick will annihilate the planet by then.

John Frey • Feb 14, 2019 at 23:27

At least, if the nutcases who want to outlaw cattle because of their flatulence win, there will be fewer manure chips for your tormentors to pass back and forth. They actually think they are taking the high ground by stacking up these stinking chips and climbing to the top of the pile.

Robert Coli, MD • Feb 14, 2019 at 21:38

The American Media: "Noble, Courageous and Commendable" in 1971; Blatantly Partisan and Corrupt in 2019

Dear Mark,

Another consequential First Amendment SCOTUS case was New York Times vs United States in 1971. I think it could be used to contrast the duplicitous partisan activities of the media since Trump launched his Presidential campaign in 2015, to the "noble, courageous and commendable" behavior of the press in the Pentagon Papers case.

In 1971, the newspapers did exercise the essential role of the free press by exposing government deception and serving the interests of the governed, not those of the governors. In 2019, the media is ignoring their essential role in our democracy by hiding the partisan misconduct of multiple members of the FBI and Department of Justice and slavishly serving the interests of the governors inside the Obama administration and Democrat party.

Is it unrealistic to think that the unethical media's repudiation of its First Amendment responsibilities could be leveraged by ethical media sources and the White House to help expose this dangerous threat to the public's trust in the FBI and DOJ, as well as the Constitution, its Bill of Rights, and the rule of law itself?

Here is Justice Hugo Black's concurring opinion on the New York Times v. United States case:

New York Times Co. v. United States (June 30, 1971):

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/403/713

"In the First Amendment, the Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy. The press was to serve the governed, not the governors.
The Government's power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the Government. The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people. Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell.
In my view, far from deserving condemnation for their courageous reporting, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and other newspapers should be commended for serving the purpose that the Founding Fathers saw so clearly. In revealing the workings of government that led to the Vietnam war, the newspapers nobly did precisely that which the Founders hoped and trusted they would do." (Justice Hugo Black, Concurring Opinion)

I would very much appreciate any feedback on the potential value of explaining to the public that especiaally since 2015, the contemporary media has been doing exactly the opposite of what the Founders hoped and trusted they would do.

Sincerely,
Bob Coli, MD
Plainfield, N.H.

BallBounces in Phoenix • Feb 14, 2019 at 18:23

Mark -- you have suffered more than many/most could bear. Please consider setting up a legal defense fund when you win.

Paul Courtney

BallBounces in Phoenix • Feb 14, 2019 at 18:47

Ball: He decided against that because the IRS.... Well, because the IRS. Probably a wise choice, Katz only has billions, and Mann only has other peoples money.

Allison Coates

BallBounces in Phoenix • Feb 15, 2019 at 19:47

Yes because the IRS has already been weaponized to attack those who would defend him. So a list of said defenders would allow empower the evil.

Robert Bresca • Feb 14, 2019 at 18:05

As you have pointed out many times "the process is the punishment." Now Katz has joined Mann in a double team from the sewer type scenario. It is like something out of wresting, or do you think this would make a good musical with you as the hero Mark? If so, what would your preference for the opening number be? If you are going for wrestling though, may I advise you to give em the chair!

Needless to say, you have my support all the way. I really don't know how you can stand this, it would have worn me down to nothing by now.

Robert Fox

Robert Bresca • Feb 15, 2019 at 12:41

An opening number for the musical? As I recall, Shari Lewis used to sing this obnoxious tune on her old Lambchop kids program called "This Is The Song That Never Ends". I'm sure it can be morphed into something like "This Is The Case That Never Ends".

AB43 • Feb 14, 2019 at 17:25

I would not be surprised that it will be found out that Soros via one of his funds finances both litigant. It is well known that he supports the religion of anthropogenic global warming and he supports the EU. He just issued in UK Guardian 2 days ago a warning that EU is sleepwalking into oblivion and risk of collapsing like the Soviet Union if it does not wake up to the growth of the populist "Right wing " parties. He also stated that one of the problems is " the lack of legal tools for disciplining member states that violate the principles on which the EU was founded. The EU can impose its laws on applicant countries, but it lacks sufficient capacity to enforce member states' compliance. " This is directed squarely at Hungary that blocks Moslem migrants and kicked out Soros agents from Hungary for interfering in Hungary elections. The cost of supporting Katz and Dr. Mann for Soros is no more than small change and worth every penny if it muzzles Mark Steyn. Let's not underestimate it, it is a battle of David against a Goliath. Anna Porter is a Hungarian author that I met in a connection with a book she wrote about the Hungarian holocaust. She also wrote a book titled "Buying a Better World: George Soros and Billionaire Philanthropy" Published February 21, 2015 four years ago. The preview describes Soros as a philanthropist who has spent billions in order to promote democracy around the world. Assuming that it took about 3 years to write it and prepare for publication it covers the period following inauguration of Obama and the big flood of Muslim "refugees" into Europe. I did not read it, but the title and the preview tell all. For Soros as for any other leftist Democracy means democracy that goes his way. The better world turned in chaos and nightmare for the citizens of EU and as to North America it is going also in the same direction. As far as I am concerned, he is not an angel of better world but a devil incarnate of terror and chaos.

Paul Courtney

AB43 • Feb 14, 2019 at 18:53

Yes indeed, I think Mann silenced NR all too effectively. Fox News website has become very prone to carry the silliest AGW nonsense as well, not sure if they're scared or if the new execs are worried about invitations to the best soirees not coming. What they don't get is, imo, Mark S. is made of sterner stuff. Wish I could be a sugar daddy just this once.

Raymond Swenson • Feb 14, 2019 at 17:15

I have been reading a scientific biography of physicists Richard Feynman and John Wheeler, who were involved in many of the developments of physics in the 20th Century, including the Manhattan Project. Wheeler revived in interest in General Relativity, and inspired one of his graduate students, Kip Thorne, to initiate a massive cooperative project between MIT and CalTech to create a pair of massive mechanisms in Louisiana and Washington State to detect gravitational waves. After decades of engineering and fine tuning, in February 2016 the Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatories (LIGOs) announced that they had detected the collision and merging of two super massive black holes a billion light years away, proving for the first time that (1) Einstein's prediction of gravitational waves, made a century earlier, was correct, (2) that those waves could be detected with an unprecedented instrument, and (3) that black holes could be directly observed even though they cannot emit light or radio waves. Thorne and his collaborators won the Nobel Prize for physics.

Thus, a rigorous scientific theory was vindicated by reality. Sadly for Dr. Mann, he cannot point to his the pi ry matching reality, in either the past or the future. Real scientists like Einstein, Feynman, Wheeler, and Thorne do not sue people for criticizing their theories. They offer them for critique and challenge and testing against their predictions. But Dr. Mann does not believe in the scientific process. His theory cannot stand and defend itself against the withering glare of criticism by scientists, the public, and Mother Nature herself.

Shaun hazell

Raymond Swenson • Feb 15, 2019 at 01:32

Be interesting to know what Richard Feynman would think of all this global warming religion if he was still alive today.

Allison Coates

Shaun hazell • Feb 15, 2019 at 19:51

Actually we know.

Here's a great speech he gave about the failure of scientists to practice science.
http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm

Unfortunately we now have not just cargo cult science but cargo cult education, cargo cult legislation, cargo cult news organizations, cargo cult transportation planning, cargo cult policing, cargo cult green energy production, etc.

Todd Lewis • Feb 14, 2019 at 16:36

I thought we had a constitutional right to a speedy trial? I think it was reinforced by Congress with something called the "Speedy Trial Act". But I guess you then get into all kinds of legal parsing as to whether the trial is for a criminal act or a tort or some other qualifier. The right to a speedy trial, regardless of technicalities, should be a bedrock principle of justice. But then, what is the meaning of "speedy" or of "right" or of "justice" or of "is". Nothing can be justly adjudicated in a world where the meaning of language has been subverted to the point of pure arbitrariness. This subversion of meaning is no different than a lie. I think it is not too much to say that this case is about to what degree are we willing to descend into the chaos of the arbitrary and the meaningless.

Joseph W.

Todd Lewis • Feb 15, 2019 at 11:02

The Sixth Amendment says that, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial," and the Speedy Trial Act applies to criminal cases. The behavior of the D.C. Court of Appeals is absurd, but the remedy doesn't lie there.

Todd Lewis

Joseph W. • Feb 15, 2019 at 14:24

Something has to be done about this "process is the punishment" aspect of our legal system. This is a monstrous and unconscionable corruption of justice. There was no legislation or jurisprudence in the past that saw this coming? Hard to believe. I hope President Trump is able to address this at some point in his administration and make it a serious issue of reform.

Joseph W.

Todd Lewis • Feb 15, 2019 at 16:24

This is a monstrous and unconscionable corruption of justice.

Agreed.

There was no legislation or jurisprudence in the past that saw this coming?

To some extent, there was. New York Times v. Sullivan -- Mark sometimes references that case, as makes sense -- set a very high bar for "public figure" plaintiffs who want to bring libel suits, making it easier for courts to dismiss them without any discovery "process." SLAPP statutes (and D.C. has one) increase the requirements for suits like that, allow for early appeals, and also allow the plaintiff to be slapped with attorney fees if he loses. These things are designed precisely to prevent "process-as-punishment" in this area...you can beat a bad case (and Mann's really is bad) without having to get into discovery.

The problem is, even the best laws have to be administered by human beings. All the defendants moved to dismiss, and the D.C. trial judges flagrantly ignored the reasoning of Sullivan to deny the motion -- the second judge, Weisberg, rather heavy-handedly hinted that he thought the case should settle. (Saying something like, "This case will be only as expensive as the parties want it to be.") Everyone except Mark appealed, and the smaller appellate panel (1) agreed that the appeal could be done early, but (2) agreed with the trial judges that the complaint was good enough to survive dismissal. The appellants moved for a rehearing by the complete court...and that court has just sat on it for years.

(The same problem occurs if it ever gets to trial. The laws in this area are good and friendly towards free speech...but at trial, they are "administered" by the jury...and D.C. is not a town friendly to conservative voices....)

I hope President Trump is able to address this at some point in his administration and make it a serious issue of reform.

Most litigation takes place at the state level (the Mann case is in the District of Columbia's equivalent of a "state" court), so there's a limited amount that the federal government can do. Though they've certainly taken their powers pretty far already (the Federal Arbitration Act, for example, pretty well forces state courts to accept the results of arbitration at least most of the time).

Settlement is a major consideration in any change of laws. Most lawsuits do settle and probably should -- our current system strongly encourages that. The fee-shifting section in SLAPP statutes recognizes that defendants in certain kinds of defamation suit should not be encouraged to settle....because that's the same as encouraging most of us to shut up. (John Derbyshire's "Race on Wall Street," easily found at his website, discusses other suits that probably shouldn't've settled, but always did, at least where he was working.) But if you discourage settlement -- e.g. by making the loser pay in every kind of suit -- you encourage more litigation, and more protracted litigation, in a country that has way too much of it already. It's a toughie.

Designing a better alternative...one that fits in with our own social realities...is very hard, and it's going to get harder if we continue to lose social cohesion. Institutions like trial by jury and evidence given by witnesses are built on a basic, unspoken assumption that most people are at least reasonably truthful and willing to follow the law...if we get full-blown tribalism, where "truth is what is good for the tribe, ditto justice," we'll be stuck with some kind of collective justice or feud. That's a future I hope we can avoid. I fear without a healthier trend in the culture, we've got a problem that can't be solved with the best laws in the world.

Mike • Feb 14, 2019 at 16:35

Am I the only one to wonder who is paying Mr. Mann's legal fees? Interminable litigation generally is not something that one can pursue on a college professor's salary. In a similar vein, Mark, you should solicit the amici parties to help finance your defense, as well as filing their own brief(s).

Jeanne Patterson

Mike • Feb 17, 2019 at 22:40

I am. Probably.

I'm a PA resident and Mr. Mann is employed by the "crown jewel" /s of the Pennsylvania state university system. I made a decision in the distant past NOT to attend Penn State and Michael Mann and Joe Paterno stand as eternal symbols of my acumen and brilliance. As a PA taxpayer, all I can say to Mark is, "Bring it!". Use you pimp cane to bring down this corrupt suckah and his school.

Josh Passell • Feb 14, 2019 at 16:34

Not to boast, but I saw this move coming in the penultimate episode of last season. So predictable! When does Carry Cats jump his Yamaha over the shark tank? As I wrote in another comment, he's pushing all his chips to the center of the table. If he's going to lose, he's going to lose big.
Call me a cockeyed optimist (just don't call me a cockwomble, or you'll see me in court), but I have to believe that a broad spectrum of justices, from the Wise Latina to the beer-binging boofer, would cock a snook at such language as "he neither recognizes nor respects the limits that are attendant to the right of free speech in America". Beg pardon? The framers of the Constitution wrote what they meant and meant what they wrote; if they wanted to qualify a fundamental right, they knew how, as they demonstrated in the very next amendment: "A well-regulated militia...". There are very, very, very few limits "attendant" on the right of free speech. There is no prohibition of shouting "deadbeat", "scofflaw", or "cockwomble" in a crowded Internet. Even the invertebrate Chief Justice would have to agree.

Laura Rosen Cohen • Feb 14, 2019 at 16:25

The list of Amici Curiae in that document is very impressive indeed and is a hopeful sign.

John Frey

Laura Rosen Cohen • Feb 14, 2019 at 23:29

Would you be willing to direct me to that list? I've seen parts of it, but it sounds very much like the list has grown.

Laura Rosen Cohen

John Frey • Feb 15, 2019 at 11:40

It's linked as a PDF (p.4) in the body of Mark's post in the para that starts "Lest you doubt that..."

Macedonian Content Farmer • Feb 14, 2019 at 15:46

Given the protracted nature of the Mann v Steyn cases, I can understand your interest in the return of dueling to settle these sorts of matters. If it comes to that, I suggest the method used by Jean-Pierre Cassall and Gerte Froebe in Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines: Balloons and Blunderbusses.

P. Gao • Feb 14, 2019 at 15:27

Been waiting for a year for the amoeba to start showing signs of reassembling its blobs.
Great caption!
It has been very noticeable the whole time from the start of the hockey stick campaign the complete lack of rallying, solidarity for free speech by the 'in-crowd' of greater Big Con. Just one drama queen act after another churned out for useless other topics. Like watching a soap opera - a full week goes by of gasp gasp and lurking music but absolutely nothing happened to move the plot forward -- which after thinking about it, one has no idea what the plot is.

P. Gao

P. Gao • Feb 14, 2019 at 16:21

Just to add, the appreciation - of the opinion that Michelle Malkin's work has always been value-added - she does her research. Thought that her start-ups were innovative and interesting. After she sold them, the names rode on but the products noticeably shifted to Big Con productions (from info to 'meh' in less than month, and never bothered with again). Haven't seen any of her work since she signed on the Big Contract, years now. Judging by not talk but by fruit, that media model did seem to wildly succeed in making real talent/news/informed commentary promptly disappear from the public square.

Roy A Crocker • Feb 14, 2019 at 15:22

Michael Mann has already won and dragging this out for years was pretty much the point. Weaponizing our judicial system to destroy personal or political enemies is nothing new. Back in the day Liberace, whom was very litigious, used his great wealth to silence anyone bold enough to question his 'love life'. A very litigious Lance Armstrong also silenced those who knew first hand about his cheating. Not that it matters much today but Liberace was indeed gay - not that there's anything wrong with that - and of course Armstrong's critics were correct in every detail. Love the Trumpster but he's dead wrong in wanting to expand libel laws. In an offhand comment some time ago he sided with Mann. Nobody's perfect.

John Francis

Roy A Crocker • Feb 14, 2019 at 21:16

I think not. Ticking off Mark Steyn for 8 years has resulted in many articles and a book ridiculing the pompous poseur, Mann.
Taking on the SteynMeister is very unwise

Glenda • Feb 14, 2019 at 15:22

This is EXACTLY why i became a member...to in some small way participate in fighting this good and honorable fight. Mr. Steyn you are one in a million and i am humbled by your voice and your fortitude, and that of your family as well.

Joe Patterson

Glenda • Feb 14, 2019 at 16:05

You have eloquently expressed my sentiments as well. Couldn't have said it any better. Mr. Steyn is a great voice for freedom.

David Coats • Feb 14, 2019 at 15:15

Katz cashed in his poker chips for a McScrooge-sized warehouse full of buffalo chips. And he's found his soul-mate, Michael Mann, whose game also requires a lot of buffalo chips. May they spend the rest of their lives together locked in their warehouse passing their chips back and forth with Mann's hockey stick.

Holly Birtwistle

David Coats • Feb 14, 2019 at 18:20

Best comment of the day David:))

Rich • Feb 14, 2019 at 14:34

Mark, thank you for linking to the plaintiff's reply. I'll never be mistaken for a lawyer but what I was able to understand was quite enlightening! For instance, I didn't realize that by you being the defendant in multiple multi-million dollar lawsuits brought by the same plaintiff was because you were harassing him and not the other way around!

In all seriousness, it is distressing to think that a joke or a comparison made about an obvious fraud can derail your life for a decade. Easy to say from the comfort of my desk, but you've got this one! Thank you for fighting this one against the bullies. Go, Mark, Go!

Owen Morgan • Feb 14, 2019 at 13:57

"..this is another long-running defamation case against Steyn."

So, now, the never-endingness of a case becomes a factor in its favour, according to Katz? At least one Jarndyce must have wished he had dreamt that one up.

John Shuba

Owen Morgan • Feb 14, 2019 at 16:34

Kudos!

John Shuba

Owen Morgan • Feb 14, 2019 at 16:42

Hank in there Mark!

As the great Tom Lehar once said - "Life is like a sewer - The biggest chunks generally rise to the top." In the case of this despicable due of Katz and Mann you have a couple of chunks that could cover the surface of any cesspool that you care to name. For some reason loathsome people tend to find each other and when they want to make legal mischief they find an equally loathsome federal district in which to bring their reeking briefs. I practice law in Ohio and any and all of the judges in the federal District for Northern Ohio would have either forced the Mann litigation to a conclusion ages ago, dismissed it or at least taken an acre of skin off of the squirming hide of plaintiff's counsel. But D.C., is much like the past, is "Another country - They do things differently there."

Paul Harmon • Feb 14, 2019 at 13:30

Arbitrary and capricious tyranny comes in both government and private forms.

The billionaire tyrants, who care only for their personal power and wealth, send the masses into the embrace of big government for protection... and wind up in slavery.

A free, numerous, Christian and self-confident bourgeoisie family strata, moving and interacting up and down in society, has been the only successful counter to tyrants of all types. That strata is just the group that the leftists are trying to eliminate.

Joseph W. • Feb 14, 2019 at 13:18

The litigious cockwomble has now been reduced to taking Mann's side on free speech, and this week in US District Court called me a "an abuser of the First Amendment because he neither recognizes nor respects the limits that are attendant to the right of free speech in America"

Translation: He doesn't get intimidated and shut up when people sue him.

Paraphrasing Lincoln: We need this man. He fights.

The New York Times had an article out last year, "How Conservatives Weaponized the First Amendment" -- about law professors who were coming to think this free speech thing wasn't such a hot idea anymore, not when the wrong people were using it. I hope the judge isn't of their mindset, but I can't think why Katz's lawyers would put that into a pleading unless they hope so.

Paul Courtney

Joseph W. • Feb 14, 2019 at 19:00

Joe W: Excellent use of Lincoln's words.

Paul Courtney

Joseph W. • Feb 14, 2019 at 19:09

Dear Mark Steyn: Katz may have tipped his hand here. It's hard to imagine why Katz would draw you into CRTV only to try to destroy you, and implode a conservative media outlet in one stroke. I know it costs, but your attorney in Katz cases should be able to go after discovery there to find if he's connected to Mann or his funders (follow the money they say). Mann is protected from discovery by the lethargic DC Court, but Katz is not. If there is any chance you could use my help or your counsel, I'd be happy (thrilled, actually) to be contacted.