Saturday, June 07, 2014

Frankly Eli Is Bored

After a while the popcorn gets stale and it's summer, and the bunnies want to go out an play.  Popehat has the latest in Mann vs. Steyn, except this is Doe vs. Burke which may or may not have implications for Mann vs. Steyn.  Yes it is that boring.  Doe is a dear, a Wikepedia author, Burke is a lawyer who does human rights litigation and does not like Blackwater muchly.   Anyhow Doe wrote something on the Wiki about Burke and Burke wants to know who Doe is and Doe does not want her to know.  Doe's attempt to quash an order to the Wikipedia was quashed, and Doe (who may be a she Doe) appealed.  The issue being whether an immediate appeal is allowed, somewhat like in Mann vs. Steyn and the court hearing the appeal said yes,  but, in footnote 6 (footnote 6 being the third reviewer in all cases, the court leaves itself wiggle room)

6.  We do not address the related but separate question of whether an order denying a special motion to dismiss under the Anti-SLAPP Act is immediately appealable. We note that this was an issue in a different case before this court, Mann v. Nat’l Review, Inc., et al., 13-CV-1043, but the appeal in that case was dismissed before an opinion was issued. Two days before oral argument for this case, the District of Columbia delivered to the court the amicus brief it filed in Mann. It is not clear what the District, which is not a party to this case, sought to accomplish, procedurally or substantively, with this submission. While the District is not required to ask permission to be amicus in this court, see D.C. App. R. 29(a), it still must follow other rules pertaining to amicus filings, see, e.g.,D.C. App. R.29(c)-e). Moreover, if it meant to participate in this case as amicus by resubmitting its Mann amicus brief, that brief provides little guidance regarding the issue before us. In a footnote, the District in Mann took the position that whether the denial of a special motion to dismiss is immediately appealable is “related, but quite distinct” from whether the denial of a special motion to quash is appealable, and it never said whether the appealability of these distinct motions should be resolved similarly or differently. We see no reason to address the appealability of the special motion to dismiss in this case.
Mostly the court appears to be leaving the issue of immediate appealability in cases like MvS hanging out there for later, see footnote 12. 


willard said...

> Anyhow Doe wrote something on the Wiki about Burke and Burke wants to know who Doe is and Doe does not want her to know.

You might also be bored by:

which I reread this morning because of Judy's Litmus test:

> [T]here’s a third category of skeptics – scientists (like me) doing their job to provide critical scrutiny to consensus scientific claims. Here is a litmus test for SkS skepticism: can you find any critical statements on SkS about Michael Mann’s research?

If bunnies could find any critical statements on Judy's about Tony's "research," that would be nice.

David Appell said...

Why would SkS have critical statements about Mann's research? It's been confirmed many times by now, including using different mathematical methods. The only noise about it the denialsphere trying hard (still) to drum up some controversy, when there is none.

Magma said...

Though not as high profile as Mann v. Steyn, CEI, NRO & Simberg, the long-delayed libel trial of Andrew Weaver v. National Post, Corcoran, Foster, Libin & Fisher finally started hearing testimony in court several days ago, four years after Weaver filed suit.

The Old Man is back said...

Eli, if you're bored, this little gems from the Guardian comments I'm trundling though (Nucitelli vs Tol)may amuse and entertain (verbatim):

If you know of better place to follow the scientific discussion of climate science than WUWT what would that be?
There is no better place that comes even close to providing the content, depth or open and frank discussion of every aspect of AGW.
The collective totality of contributors and data pales in comparison all others.
As for climate organizations openly discussing their science?
Are you nuts?
Go here and enjoy.

Anonymous said...

"Why would SkS have critical statements about Mann's research? It's been confirmed many times by now..."

Kinda makes you wonder why the IPCC dumped it, then, doesn't it?


Anonymous said...

"Kinda makes you wonder why the IPCC dumped it, then, doesn't it?"

Dumped what? You mean the IPCC didn't include Mann's first (15-year-old) paleoreconstruction in its assessment of the *current* state of climate research and instead cited his more recent work?

BTW, the IPCC WG1 report cites something like 20 publications that Michael Mann authored or co-authored.


Brian said...

Finally got to read Doe v. Burke:

1. I don't see why a motion to quash will be immediately appealable but a motion to dismiss will not. I think the court's just giving a subsequent court the right to say the same thing.

2. Popehat sez Steyn sez he won't appeal altho everyone else will. Steyn claims to want to do discovery on Mann, not realizing perhaps that it goes both ways. I'd guess that disco will be stayed pending the appeal by other Defendants. If not, then they could still be embarassed by whatever Steyn's got.

3. The Doe case is actually pretty interesting compared to some yawners that I've read.