Anthony Watts of WUWT is full of blunders today. First some science-related blunders now a legal blunder. As readers know from previously, US law is not something I'm familiar with but it reads to me as if poor old Anthony has got it wrong again. (Confirmed!)
Anthony wrote gleefully, popcorn in the popper (archived here):
What 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.
Poor old Anthony is going to be dreadfully disappointed. He thinks that the appeals court overturned the previous court ruling. But it didn't. Anthony wrote:
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.
Anthony's wrong. The appeals court didn't overturn anything let alone "with no caveats or exceptions". No appeal was granted. On the contrary, some appeals were dismissed. Nor did it accept any amicus curiae as fact. It only ordered that various amici curiae be filed.
From the The Court of Appeals Order - it "considered" various bits and pieces relating to Michael Manns lawsuit against Mark Steyn and various parties. It ruled that:
- The ACLU's amicus curiae be filed
- The amicus curiae submitted by Reporters for Freedom of the Press (whoever they may be - they are supporting the appellant, Mark Steyn) and umpteen others, and the supplement to it be filed
- Michael Mann's opposition to the appeal and Mark Steyn's response to the opposition be filed
- The appeals by Mark Steyn etc be dismissed because Michael Mann amended his complaint, so the appeals are moot. They've subsequently lodged new appeals which remain pending.
- The dismissal of the appeals doesn't prevent the appellants from lodging new appeals.
 |
| Anthony Watts is acting like a goose again! |
