Michael Mann forced into a "do-over" in Mann -vs- CEI & Steyn

Mann-Steyn-OrderWhat a great Christmas present for Mike. It is back to square one for him with his lawsuit over what he views as libel by Mark Steyn and CEI.

For background, see this WUWT story:

Mann has filed suit against NRO (now the laughing begins)

Since the previous ruling this summer that said the lawsuit could go ahead was nothing less than a bad legal joke:

Mann-Steyn lawsuit judge inverts the defendants actions, botches ruling

…that ruling has now been nullified by a higher appeals court ruling, Mann’s case will now have to start over.

This new ruling seems pretty blunt. They basically accepted the ACLU amicus brief as fact, saying:

ORDERED, sua sponte, that the Clerk shall file the ACLU’s lodged amicus curiae response as its response.

The appeal was granted with no caveats or exceptions, suggesting that the appeals court views the decision by that wacky judge Natalia M. Combs Greene (now retired) this summer as being very badly flawed, much like the hockey stick itself.

FURTHER ORDERED, these dismissals are without prejudice to appellants filing new notices of appeals from orders denying a special motion to dismiss. Signed by Per Curiam

Here is the ruling:

Order_20131223144647 (PDF)

The order is a matter of public record as seen on the DC Courts website:

Mann_DCcourts_record

In related news, popcorn futures continue their unprecedented climb:

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

Can we avoid a…Green(e) judge this time around?

UK Sceptic

Greene by name, green by persuasion?

Love the Popcorn graph…

Darren Potter

Merry Christmas from the Man to the Mann!

ED, Mr. Jones

I really miss English. I think that Gibberish is just part of the Elitists’ weaponry to keep the Working Stiff consuming his Mushrooms in darkness.

HIlarious – maybe he should mann up and drop the libel case, rather than wasting more taxpayer’s money…

Dang! I could have made my fortune on popcorn futures, but I got in too late!

I guess my donation to the legal fund did the trick. I urge more people to do the same.

chorach

One more go around? Whole thing should just be thrown out.

Reblogged this on Power To The People and commented:
Another go around? Why not just throw the whole thing out.

Love the Popcorn graph…….it seems……familiar……

charles nelson

Well as long as some lawyers got to make some money…I’m happy.
[snip – let’s not go there -mod]

MattN

Well, “without prejudice” indicates to me we’ll be hearing more about this at a later date. Unless Mann finally comes to his senses and just drops it.

Peter Miller

The only way I know of libelling Mann is by describing him as a scientist.
Is that what this is all about?

Doug UK

@ Peter Miller – Oh yes! – your comment sums it up for me!!

Krebs v Carnot

Dismissed “without prejudice”, huh?
The contrast with how Mann et al. “treated” their data (prejudiced) could not be more ironic, could it?

commieBob

Usually judges write reasons for their decisions. Does anyone know if those will be forthcoming?

Mr Green Genes

Can I just be grateful that sometimes, even judges do the right and sensible thing.
Also, since it has just turned Christmas Eve in (very windy and wet) Wiltshire, England, may I please wish everyone here (host, mods (special thanks to you guys for your constant but very relaxed vigilance) and contributors) a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

Lolz…

ttfn

Maybe this next attempt he’ll be an oscar winner

Alan Robertson

The popcorn graph is a great Christmas gift.

Lady in Red

I’m confused. ….an Oscar Weiner….? What is the status of the lawsuit? *I* don’t want it to stop…. *I* want the little twerp to supply some information in disclosure.
Is this, essentially, over, now? ….Lady in Red

Bruce Cobb

What an idiotic, petty lawsuit. There was no comparison with Sandusky; it was just a rhetorical device.

DrMorbius

Lady in Red:
If this were a game of Sorry!, Mann would have just got kicked back to Square 1. Essentially, the Appeals Court said that the previous judge had her head up her you-know-what and kicked the case all the way back to, as I said, Square 1.
It is now up to Mann to decide if he A) Wants to start all over again, from the very beginning, or B) Pack it in and admit defeat and drop the lawsuit.
Couldn’t happen to a nicer guy, IMO; Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, Mr Hockey Stick…

North of 43 and south of 44

Lady in Red,
It isn’t over just sent back to the starting line.

ttfn

@Lady In Red: Anthony Winner, actually. My guess is Mann gets another shot to get past SLAPP. A SLAPP shot if you will.

Lady in Red

Thanks, guys. I suspect the twerp will declare victory and not pursue it. Sad.
….Lady in Red

Peter Crawford

Damn, I wanted to see Mann crash and burn. I wanted to see his corpulent little form incandescent and screaming, running like a rat pursued by Japanese soldiers with biological weapons and sticks.

John F. Hultquist

Mark Steyn has bigger fools to practice his “pen is mightier than …” against and Michael Mann and others should allow him the time to do so. There is too much suing and other attempts to stifle speech. Mostly insults and related comments should just be allowed to flow by. Get on with work and life.
It’s not like the climate thing is settled science. Mann might still contribute something! Okay, maybe not.
~~~
I loaded up on popcorn on Oct. 28, 2012. Must have been something going on then but I’ve forgotten. Maybe it was similar to Johnny Carson (1973) and the TP thing.

Kevin Schurig

To MattN,
Are you a comedian, because I am still laughing at the idea that Mann would come to his senses. Merry Christmas all.

Maelstrom

The hockey stick is an artifact of the output program. There is nothing indicating that in any graph from the calculations themselves.
The climate model exposing that little tidbit comes from the CRU/Hadley hack…the part that WASN’T emails.

P.Hager

commieBob;
The reason is…
“FURTHERED ORDERED that these appeals are hereby dismissed as moot because the trial court granted appellee’s motion to file his lodged amended complaint and and appellants then filed new special motions to dismiss, which remain pending…”
Appellee= Michael E. Mann
Appellants= Mark Steyn and CEI et all.
Sounds like Mann filed an amended complaint which mooted the previous order.
Are there any lawyers or paralegals that can confirm this is the situation by pulling the court docs?

Richard D

Mark Steyn’s hilarious parody of Michael Mann was constitutional….
And if the university was capable of covering up child rape it would not be beyond the pale that it would cover up scientific misconduct.

Richard D

Damn, I wanted to see Mann crash and burn.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
After hundreds of thousands of dollars in leagal fees, this is Michael Mann crashing and burning in court after being gloriously roasted by Mark Steyn.
‘I don’t bluff’……….Michael Mann’s lawyer says National Review must retract and apologize
Get Lost My response to Michael Mann. By Rich Lowry http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/314680/get-lost-rich-lowry
Stick It Where the Global Warming Don’t Shine…. by Mark Steyn • Aug 22, 2012 at 6:48 pm
http://www.steynonline.com/5118/stick-it-where-the-global-warming-dont-shine

Mann cloaks himself in a self-created juvenile myth where he fantasizes being a scientific hero. He is absurd.
He needs to hire a professional Hollywood script writer for his self-serving mythology instead of his childish attempts at creating his own mythology.
John

With respect, I don’t think the court of appeals’ order means what you say it means. The ACLU and others won the right to file briefs, but the defendants’ appeals were “dismissed as moot” because the court below had already granted Mann’s request to file an amended complaint, and the defendants’ had already moved to dismiss the amended complaint. The dismissal is without prejudice to the defendants’ right to file new notices of appeal in case the trial court denies their motions to dismiss the amended complaint.
So, unless I’m missing something, the only substantive effect of this order is that the ACLU and others get to file briefs. The matter is again before the trial court, which is now deciding whether to dismiss Mann’s amended complaint.
(Obligatory disclaimer: I am a lawyer but I am not YOUR lawyer, so do not rely on my posts for legal guidance.)

Gary Pietila

Wonderful news!
And a heartfelt Merry Christmas plus a huge Thank You to Anthony and all his helpers, contributors & others who make this website such a great resource for saving mankind from making a colossal, deadly mistake.
Looking forward to even more great science information in the future. Keep up the great work.

Brad R

I really don’t speak legalese well, but I don’t think this means what you think it means. Looking at the rest of the ruling, I believe “the Clerk shall file the ACLU’s lodged amicus curiae response as its response” means filing it as the ACLU’s response, not as the court’s response. You see identical language with respect to the other amicus responses. Also, Stein and CEI were appealing the decision of the lower court, and their appeals were dismissed, not upheld. Granted, the reason they were dismissed was because they were ruled moot, because (I gather) Mann amended his complaint, and these appeals were in reference to the pre-amended complaint, and Stein and CEI have other motions (to dismiss) in the works against the amended complaint. Basically it sounds like the court is cleaning up the paperwork on this particular dead end. It’s neither good nor bad news.

PeterS

Why can’t it work the other way? There are many people and many reasons to sue Mann. What’s more is it would be for legitimate reasons.

Steyn vindicated! Well…sort of.

Richard D

It’s neither good nor bad news.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You’re joking, right?
ORDERED, sua sponte, that the Clerk shall file the ACLU’s lodged amicus curiae response as its response.

The attempt by the pusillanimous, pudibundous promoters of awarmist propaganda to pass themselves off as prize-winners persist elsewhere; a recent example can be seen in the latest Alumni News from the University of Tasmania:

Scientific storyteller is lead IPCC author.
By Miranda Harman.
Nathan Bindoff’s framed Nobel Prize sits at the back of his office bookshelves. Among sundry academic books and plaques it’s dusty.

How humble is the professor to allow such an important document to gather dust! So humble one might wonder how anyone learns of that dusty facsimile.

Professor Bindoff, coordinating lead author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is keen to point out that the facsimile says he ‘contributed’ to the Nobel Prize, which was awarded jointly to the IPCC and Al Gore in 2007, the Nobel Prize for Peace. “It’s not for Science, but for the policy relevance of the work,” he says. […]
As well as the Nobel Prize from his IPCC work, Prof. Bindoff counts the continued monitoring of the Mertz Glacier region in Antarctica as a career highlight.

“Storyteller” seems about right.

It is difficult to translate the legalese, as always, but I found the ACLU amicus brief (finally!) and it made what was being decided here a bit easier to decipher, since the Court adopted the ACLU brief as its own opinion in this matter. (and it was a very well written and well reasoned brief, I must say) Very good news for Stein, but I don’t think anyone in these comments has yet done much of a job of explaining what was actually decided here:
Taking it from the top: Mann sued Stein because Mann didn’t like his published opinions. Mann filed the kind of lawsuit against Stein that is known as a SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation), a type of suit intended primarily to make a critic shut up.
Many states and the District of Columbia have passed Anti-SLAPP statutes, on the basis that it should be against public policy to allow a litigious person with deep pockets to chill public speech. These statutes generally allow the defendant in such an action to file an immediate appeal for dismissal, without going to trial. They must simply show that the lawsuit falls under a SLAPP definition, and this is the type of appeal Stein filed.
Judge Greene dismissed Stein’s appeal, allowing Mann’s lawsuit to go forward, but she botched the ruling in an incredibly incompetent fashion. What the Appeals Court has done here is to throw out Judge Greene’s incomprehensible ruling. There is no prejudice to Appellant, which is Mark Stein, and therefore Stein is now allowed to refile his appeal, asking the Trial Court to immediately dismiss Mann’s lawsuit under the D. C. anti-SLAPP statute.
So, the legal maneuvering isn’t ended, and we’re not really back at square one, but it still is a major victory for Stein – especially since it required an unbelievable amount of both partisanship and incompetence for Judge Greene to have refused to dismiss the suit immediately.

Eric Worrall says:
December 23, 2013 at 3:45 pm
HIlarious – maybe he should mann up and drop the libel case, rather than wasting more taxpayer’s money…

You might as well ask for water not to be wet. That request will be more likely to succeed.

Reed Coray

Michael Mann–the only person alive who believes he is being insulted when people don’t say anything about him.

Steyn
omnologos says:
December 23, 2013 at 3:36 pm
Can we avoid a…Green(e) judge this time around?
UK Sceptic says:
December 23, 2013 at 3:37 pm
Greene by name, green by persuasion?
__________________________________________________________________________
Let’s not paint all Greenes with the same brush. Some of us have enough problems being associated with the green movement. 🙂

I believe wws says: December 23, 2013 at 5:50 pm, pretty well nailed the meaning of the action. Not quite back to square one.
Meaning;
Manniacal doesn’t get to remake his Olympic grand entrance and Nobel glory speeches, again.
Mark Steyn and NRO can resubmit their appeals courtesy of the ‘without prejudice’ statement.
The decision is ‘per curiam’ adj. Latin for “by the court,” defining a decision of an appeals court as a whole in which no judge is identified as the specific author or dissenting judge.

Martin C

hhmmm . . Judge Greene retired now . . .and she was ‘near the bottom’ of judges rated in D.C.
AND, if I recall corrrectly, there are a number of judges in the D.C. area that Obummer wants to appoint . .
. . . , AHH, YES, and now he can with little resistance because of Reid and the Senate’s recent actions on the ‘nuclear option’ , which now allows ‘simple majority’ for executive appointments AND FEDERAL JUDICIAL nominees , rather than the 60+ . . ..
I SEE NOW WHY THE SENATE DID THIS. LET”S HOPE WE ALL REMEMBER THIS NEXT NOVEMBER ! ! ! ( . . *!@&#!*! dammorats . . . not that the Repugnants are sometimes better, but the dammorats sinking this low – just beyond belief . . )
THROW ALL OF THEM OUT ! ! ! I support the ‘Tea Party’ principles more and more . .. !

Richard D

especially since it required an unbelievable amount of both partisanship and incompetence for Judge Greene to have refused to dismiss the suit immediately.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Yep, and it was Mann’s high dollar Tobacco Lawyer and cherry picked venue and they got spanked on the law….laughable as Mann’s hokey stick and claim to be a Nobel Recipient.

Paul Westhaver

Dang!
I was counting on that liar’s lawsuit to force him into discovery.
That coward P.O.S. likely is counting his blessings that the suit was stopped by a third party and won’t file again.
Also the popcorn graph was crazy wacky there Anthony. I bet it is a crazy place there at the Watts’ on Christmas morning.