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:

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
114 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
jorgekafkazar
December 24, 2013 1:59 pm

Alexander Feht says: “Jazz is music for tin ears.”
The father of a friend of mine always referred to it as, “Dummergedudele.”

EPUnum
December 24, 2013 3:40 pm

Lest you miss the most delicious aspect of this court ruling, the rationale behind Mann’s “Amended Complaint”, from a recent Steyn post over at “The Corner”…
“1. Dr Michael Mann’s lawyer, John Williams, filed a fraudulent complaint falsely representing his client as a Nobel Laureate, and accusing us of the hitherto unknown crime of defaming a Nobel Laureate.
2.After Charles C W Cooke and others exposed Dr Mann’s serial misrepresentation of himself as a Nobel Prize winner, Mann’s counsel decided to file an amended complaint with the Nobel falsehood removed.”
Now, you do the math.

December 24, 2013 5:31 pm

Alexander Feht says: “Jazz is music for tin ears.”
Off topic, but speaking as one, jazz is the music of musicians.

December 24, 2013 7:22 pm

Hot off the presses this afternoon (the 24th), Mark Steyn’s own update on this issue:
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Mumbo-Jumbo for Beginners
By Mark Steyn, December 24, 2013 5:35 PM
A propos the big campaign here to fight off Michael Mann’s assault on free speech, several readers have asked me directly and also inquired in comments on NR’s fundraising post below what the appeals court judges’ ruling actually means in English. I agree that it’s helpful, when one is soliciting donations for a legal campaign, to provide an update on how the battle’s going, so I don’t know why one of NR’s editorial staff could not have posted the court order with an accompanying explanation. But what it means is this:

1. Dr Michael Mann’s lawyer, John Williams, filed a fraudulent complaint falsely representing his client as a Nobel Laureate, and accusing us of the hitherto unknown crime of defaming a Nobel Laureate.
2. After Charles C W Cooke and others exposed Dr Mann’s serial misrepresentation of himself as a Nobel Prize winner, Mann’s counsel decided to file an amended complaint with the Nobel falsehood removed.
3. Among her many staggering incompetences, DC Superior Court judge Natalia Combs-Greene then denied NR’s motion to dismiss the fraudulent complaint while simultaneously permitting Mann’s lawyers to file an amended complaint.
4. The appellate judges have now tossed out anything relating to Mann’s original fraudulent complaint, including Judge Combs-Greene’s unbelievably careless ruling in which the obtuse jurist managed to confuse the defendants, and her subsequent ruling in which she chose to double-down on her own stupidity. Anything with Combs-Greene’s name on it has now been flushed down the toilet of history.
5. So everyone is starting afresh with a new judge, a new complaint from the plaintiff, and new motions to dismiss from the defendants. That’s the good news.
6. The bad news is that Mann’s misrepresentation of himself as a Nobel Laureate and Combs-Greene’s inept management of her case means that all parties have racked up significant six-figure sums just to get back to square one. In a real courthouse – in London, Toronto, Dublin, Singapore, Sydney – Dr Mann would be on the hook for what he has cost all the parties through his fraudulent complaint. But, this being quite the most insane “justice system” I have ever found myself in, instead the costs of the plaintiff’s vanity, his lawyer’s laziness and the judge’s incompetence must apparently be borne by everyone.

Readers will recall that I often say about free-speech cases and similar thought-crime suits that “the process is the punishment” – not any eventual verdict. The above bollocks on stilts (as they say in Britain) is a textbook example.
And, on that cheery note, Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good night.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
!! Merry Christmas everyone, and to everyone a good night. !!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
[Reply: A hotlink to the article would be helpful — mod.]
.

December 24, 2013 8:28 pm

_Jim says December 24, 2013 at 7:22 pm

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
[Reply: A hotlink to the article would be helpful — m o d.]
– – – – – –
Ha ha .. was thinking I should have done just that *after* I pressed the Post button!

December 24, 2013 9:14 pm

Rick Spung says December 24, 2013 at 11:07 am
Does anyone have a link to Mann’s amended filing? I wonder what’s changed in his complaint.

This is the original ‘complaint’:
http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/michael-mann-complaint.pdf
I tried looking through this collection of documents, but, cannot find an “amended filing” by Mann et al per se:
http://cei.org/publication-types/108
.

Patrick
December 25, 2013 3:47 am

“_Jim says:
December 24, 2013 at 9:14 pm”
As we say in Aus, *MATE*, I don’t know where you get the time to do it but you sure do post some really useful/informative links.

Mickey Reno
December 25, 2013 9:22 am

Headline: ‘Sticking it to the Mann’
;-D

Brian H
December 25, 2013 1:42 pm

charles the moderator says:
December 23, 2013 at 3:51 pm
I guess my donation to the legal fund did the trick. I urge more people to do the same.

Done a while ago. My pension doesn’t allow for many donations, but this one definitely floats above the crowd of appeals for my pittances.

Jimbo
December 25, 2013 2:48 pm

Peter Miller says:
December 23, 2013 at 4:05 pm
The only way I know of libelling Mann is by describing him as a scientist.

Michael Mann is a scientist.
Michael Mann is also:
A Climastrologist
A woodpecker
A bristle cone head
An angry flea
A has-been looking for another 15 minutes of infamy
A researcher of rain not temperature.

Roguewave
December 26, 2013 7:19 pm

Steyn called Piltdown a “Twerp” today when he guest hosted on Rush. Will that occasion another paragraph in the refiled complaint? Of course truth is still a defense.

Jim Sweet
December 27, 2013 6:08 am

Get aboard the Mann-Steyn Steamroller….

MattS
December 27, 2013 7:48 am

The article above leaves out the most important part of the decision. This is not quite the victory for Steyn as the article implies. The appeal was dismissed as moot.

1 3 4 5