Following a three-day trial in Washington, D.C. last year, Michael Mann was revealed as the arrogant fraud that many suspected him to be but few dared to say openly. Despite the overwhelming proof of Mann’s wrongdoing, a jury ruled in Michael Mann’s favor anyway.

The jury awards were ultimately nominal compensatory damages but substantial punitive awards that were later reduced. It was a devastating setback, and naturally, Mann was thrilled. He probably intended to apply the massive payout toward settling the roughly $530,000 judgment he owed from the lost lawsuit against National Review Online.

However, Judge Alfred S. Irving, Jr obviously wasn’t impressed by the jury’s verdict nor the behavior of Michael Mann and his attorneys. Consequently, the judge took it upon himself to review the plaintiff’s claims and the results weren’t pretty. Now, Mann is in trouble with the court yet again.

Michael Mann was penalized by Judge Irving for more than $28,000 for introducing deceptive financial information. In the case, he alleged that commentator Mark Steyn and analyst Rand Simberg had wrongly claimed he falsified data to produce the Hockey Stick graph.

Although Mann recently sought an appeal, Judge Irving doubled down rejecting his request to revisit the penalties. Irving describing Mann’s behavior as bad-faith misconduct during the trial and mandating payment to the opposing side within 30 days.

The fines arose from an uncorrected exhibit displayed by Mann’s legal team to the jury, which exaggerated his alleged lost research grants from $112,000 to $9,713,924—a discrepancy that had been rectified in pretrial discovery but withheld from the jury.

Judge Irving rejected Mann’s justifications, emphasizing that both he and his lawyers were fully aware of the critical implications in a lawsuit hinged on Mann’s assertion of unassailable honesty.

As a result, Michael Mann is obligated to compensate Rand Simberg with $16,762.82 and Mark Steyn with $11,404.80 (Steyn’s sum was reduced resulting from his self-representation). Ultimately, Michael Mann prevailed in a defamation case stemming from claims of data manipulation, and now he was deemed to have manipulated data himself in order to win.

Oh the irony of it all!