His motion for reconsideration was denied. It’s up to the appellate court now, if he wants to elevate it.
12 thoughts on “Latest On The Mann Suit”
Comments are closed.
His motion for reconsideration was denied. It’s up to the appellate court now, if he wants to elevate it.
Comments are closed.
Denied and must pay in 30 days. Congratulations Rand.
Glad to see some parts of our judiciary still works.
Well denied for now. It’s all up to how far his Sugar Daddies want to take it. I suspect given the political climate change they’ll rebel against financial extinction and pay.
Just got wind of this on X. To the extent that this can be made a final judgment, Rand, congratulations.
Mann is defaming himself with his dishonesty, poetic justice.
That’s how I see it too. I read Rand’s comments the day of and never thought much more of it (good turn of phrase, but nothing that I didn’t believe about Mann) until the suit. Now, Mann’s lying is recognized by several courts. Anyone can call Mann a perjurer that manipulates the truth, and the courts agree. In addition, Mann admitted on a stand that he backs the former Penn President that shielded a pedophile. That’s worse behavior than Rand suggested.
2026 may well be remembered in future as the year so many scumbags got what they deserved.
I asked on Behind the Black if his lies to the court were perjury. By which I mean criminal charges.
Good point. But, hey, we know that Brennan lied to Congress about the Steele dossier (just one example of many), and nothing will ever happen to him. Being a Leftist provides you the shield of Leftist judges ruling according to ideology, not law.
This keeps coming back sounds like a Hollywood slasher film.
Instead of Michael Myers, we have Michael Mann… Very good analogy.
I’ve seen the toll this has taken on you and Mark Steyn, and the damages the judge awarded you both seem more like a deliberate slap at you than any kind of justice. I really admire your equanimity through all of this. I would not have been so even-tempered, to the point where I might have gotten in some real trouble.
the Court simply cannot condone such bad faith litigation tactics, particularly in a case that had been zealously litigated across several years and a case involving complicated facts. Thus, the Court’s ruling must stand. It is the Court’s duty to punish and deter bad faith litigation tactics.
This statement bothers me. It reads like, we would like to give relief, but the degree of Mann’s deception is just too significant. It implies that had the lie not been as exaggerated, it would be ok. My biggest problem is the whole case law is that one person lied about the other being a liar. Here, the court discovered that the liar was indeed a liar and was still lying.
I understand the court may see the incidents as separate. What the defendants said was about a lie the court could not establish was, but this plaintiff’s lie in court can be established. I just think if someone else did this, perhaps Trump, we would see the court being harsher in its language of the plaintiff bringing a case of defamation and then lying to the court.
The plaintiff waisted everyone’s time with their deception. It deserves more than, we wish could provide relief but.