I’ve received this email from Roger Tattersall’s attorney (known as a solicitor in England) with the request that I post it. I’m happy to do so. Please see in the letter where the legal fund is being setup. – Anthony
To:
All those who feel offended and/or threatened by the actions taken against innocent climate enthusiast Roger Tattersall aka ‘Tallbloke’ as a result of the unsought anonymous drop of data from the person or persons known as ‘FOIA’.
That data is clearly in the public interest by virtue of having relevance to the wisdom of certain global policy decisions relating to energy use, energy supply and possibly global rationing of energy sources and the direct or indirect taxation of every individual on the planet for the foreseeable future.
Roger has been publicly libelled and abused across the world to the detriment of his reputation and has suffered distress, inconvenience and damage to property. The worst such offender appears to have been a contributor at ‘Scienceblogs’.
His privacy has been invaded and he and his family have been intimidated.
It is possible that treatment of that nature could be meted out to any persons expressing sceptical views about the so called climate consensus.
A clear signal needs to be sent out that such treatment is an abuse of process and a negation of free speech and democratic freedoms.
It is proposed to investigate all options open to Roger for the obtaining of suitable redress within the law. In the event that legal actions are considered appropriate it will be necessary to appoint suitably experienced Counsel to represent his interests and in this matter Roger’s interests coincide with those of all of who find themselves unable to feebly acquiesce in the pressure that is being applied to prevent them from exercising their hard won freedoms.
To that end, an appeal fund is being launched in order to finance the necessary steps. Contributions can be made via Roger’s Paypal account as displayed on his site (http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/) and all funds received for that purpose are to be transferred to the Client Account of his solicitors Wilde & Company.
Any funds not eventually used for necessary legal expenses will be donated to a selection of climate sceptic organisations. Accounting procedures will be put in place in compliance with the requirements of the UK regulatory system governing the proper use of Client monies held by UK solicitors.
Stephen P R Wilde. LLB (Hons.), Solicitor.
Wilde & Co. Cheshire England
My £50 donation sent immediately. Hope it helps Rog…..
Stephen: Thanks for showing interest in Roger’s plight.
Enjoy your holidays.
A tenner to the fund
Could we use the words “climate Realist” instead of “Climate sceptic” with this action (possible action) we have a chance to imprint a new `title` on the MSM, and one that more accurately reflects our goals and aspirations rather than `climate sceptic` which is of course a misnomer (are we not actually “too fast a warming or warming on its own sceptics”)
left a tip with tallbloke to help
regards
A most excellent solicitor considering solicitor Wilde’s excellent understanding of the issues at hand.
posted to as many of my connections as poss. Hope it helps.
My pittance donated
I just donated 50 pounds too. I think I was the first to suggest a legal action funded via internet. But, what courses of legal action are possible? If you can post more info on that, it would be helpful.
Here’s my 50 GBP.
Tallbloke, may your shadow never grow shorter!
Donation made at your site! (Declaration – I grow my own veg but have no association with biofuels or big oil!)
Done.
Will X post this on PH if not already done Tallbloke
Will whizz £100 your way monday from the office.
Give them hell
Tallbloke,
Here’s something for the fund. Keep up the good fight for truth and I’m sorry to hear how you were harassed and libeled.
I’ll keep my fingers crossed, Roger! Good luck!
Just donated…
Sent £50 yesterday. Resisting with all my might making a few lawyer jokes. What’s the difference between a lawyer and a noisy turkey?
Regarding Greg Laden’s nasty article, I’ve noticed that he’s stopped taking comments now – seems he can’t take the heat!
I will be donating on Monday – it’ll be a small amount, but I’m being squeezed by my rising energy bills due to the UK govt’s insistence that everyone in the UK should subsidise wretched ‘renewables’ 🙁
What? Big Oil, Inc. isn’t going to pay all expenses?
/sarc
Tim Lambert?
Roger has been publicly libelled and abused across the world to the detriment of his reputation and has suffered distress, inconvenience and damage to property. The worst such offender appears to have been a contributor at ‘Scienceblogs’.
—————
There seems to be two issues that are being mixed up here.
1. Libel
2. Police investigation
This particular paragraph gives the impression that the libel gave rise to -suffered distress, inconvenience and damage to property-.
So what’s this damage to property arising from the libel? Or is it being accidentally or deliberately misleading?
Another 50 GBP from me.
Jono, I agree with your excellent idea that we should use the words “climate Realist” instead of “Climate sceptic”. By the same token, I’m going to stop using the phrase ‘global elite’ because every time we use it, we reinforce the idea of their superiority. Instead, from now on, it’s ‘the global delete’.
All this over a not unusual small rise in temperature “caused” by man’s trace rise of the trace gas co2?
Amazing!!!!
(lucrative climate funding, taxation powers, Monbiot’s crap books, exotic jaunts, wind farm investments (Lord Ox.), fame, blah, blah………..) Follow the money >>>>>>>>>>
Tallbloke: I am grateful to you, Anthony, Steve Mc., Ross, willis, Bob T., Roger P., the Bish and defenders of freedom everywhere (that includes Judge Napolitano). My $50 (US) is on its way.
“But, what courses of legal action are possible? If you can post more info on that, it would be helpful.”
i) Potential libel claims against Laden and Mann and any others who might be found to have stated, suggested or implied that there was criminality on the part of Tallbloke.
ii) Potential malfeasance by the persons responsible for the obtaining of the Warrant in the form deemed appropriate (but actually wholly inappropriate) and for the heavy handed treatment of Tallbloke who would always have been prepared to assist voluntarily.
iii) Various damages claims under UK law for distress, inconvenience, invasion of privacy and damage to property.
iv) Possible injunctive relief preventing examination, copying, cloning or any unauthorised use of Tallbloke’s private data.
v) Requests for immediate return of Tallbloke’s property and rectification of damage done during the process.
vi) Investigations into the sequence of events that led to this farrago and the identities of the person or persons responsible.
Other possibilities may come to mind in due course.
If that paypal account collects too much in donations, it will be frozen. Just be mindful of that. It has happened to many good causes before.
[Reply: Then Tallbloke had better empty it every day. ~dbs]
[Reply] Transfer arrangements are already being sorted out. Cheers -TB mod.
Stephen P R Wilde. LLB (Hons.), Solicitor. wrote:
“It is possible that treatment of that nature could be meted out to any persons expressing sceptical views about the so called climate consensus.
A clear signal needs to be sent out that such treatment is an abuse of process and a negation of free speech and democratic freedoms.”
These are heavy matters.
Let’s not forget that Michael Mann gaily repeated (retweeted) the libel. That also counts. How many thousands of Twitter followers does he have?
A clear signal needs to be sent out that such treatment is an abuse of process and a negation of free speech and democratic freedoms.
————-
I think this is the key.
Tallbloke wants to make a statement and be a hero.
The problem I see is that Tallbloke simultaneously wants a libel action against someone else exercising their freedom of speech while retaining unlimited freedom of speech for himself. If it was the case that libeling others was Tallbloke’s habit, then Tallbloke would have no moral standing, though it is quite likely not admissible in a court case.
Here is a bit of advice for Tallbloke. Don’t do this. You do not understand the consequences that follow from this.
Just read the Greg Laden post with horror, some of the comments on both sides of the camp are a little OTT.Enjoyed the term ‘denialati’, perhaps we could coin a few others. However Tallboke, you do have my full support and sympathy for your plight.
Guessing that he would need help, I donated before this was posted. But really, someone should step up and represent him pro bono.
£50 on the way.
FD
Donation sent from a Canuck
Freedoms are not protected when people do nothing. Freedoms, especially basic rights, must be fought for on a daily basis.
Donation forthcoming to fund the fight.
I’ll be donating tomorrow and I’ve spread the word on Jo Nova’s site and Pointman’s
Donation done. Give them hell.
Pointman
My share has been sent from Norway!
This is an important issue.
£50 sent.
I would like to see him take on the police,not the person writing drivel,if Tallbloke loses his job it will be because of the police taking his computer,thereby implying he has committed a crime.If Tallbloke gave the police permission to take his computer,then I imagine his hands are tied.It always amazes me when I watch reality police shows how the police can bluff people.They ask can we search your car or house,and the people say ok,knowing that they have something to hide.I’m not complaining,anything that helps the police,but doesn’t anybody know to ask can you do that without my permission?
I guess it springs from the misguided belief that police can do anything.
Anyway, I will donate,but I suspect it will come to nothing.Wonder if he signed a document giving them permission?
[Reply] No, I signed only to verify Q&A’s. – TB mod.
To clarify something, especially for “LazyTeenager”:
A libel occurs when anybody says or publishes something which can harm the character or good name of another.
Freedom of speech does not give you the freedom to libel. (In the USA things are a little different – some public figures can’t sue for libel because the legal tests are different.)
Under UK and Australian law, it seems the libel is considered to happen where the publication is VIEWED, not where written, nor where stored. The libel does not even have to be public, or have a wide audience. In many countries there is a complete misunderstanding, where it is commonly thought that there is freedom of speech – meaning you can say what you like. Thats actually not the case, even in the US.
What this means is that Mr Laden, in particular, is in the poo. By writing what he did and publishing it for a world audience, he allowed it to be viewed in the UK, and so a legal action in the UK is possible.
This would be a civil matter, and most likely decided not by a jury but most likely by a judge alone. (UK Lawyers may wish to correct me on this matter).
My speculation on a possible series of events: If Mr Laden is found to have libelled, damages (usually monetary) would be awarded by the court. Not being in the UK, getting Mr Laden to pay up may prove difficult (a UK citizen would have further legal consequences for non-payment). Essentially, should Mr Laden not pay up, the matter then becomes criminal – for example failure to follow a direction of the court is a contempt of court, not a place you want to go. A consequence of that is that should Mr Laden ever travel to the UK he could be arrested on entry to the country.
(Legal types may wish to clarify the above as well, but thats it as I see it).
It will be fun times.
He said he would sue yesterday. Outstanding. Glad to see a firm responded to his request. Stock up on the popcorn.
Although this is from Pennsylvania I am sure that the concept is embedded in the common law:
§ 3922. Theft by deception.
(a) Offense defined.–A person is guilty of theft if he
intentionally obtains or withholds property of another by
deception. A person deceives if he intentionally:
(1) creates or reinforces a false impression, including
false impressions as to law, value, intention or other state
of mind; but deception as to a person’s intention to perform
a promise shall not be inferred from the fact alone that he
did not subsequently perform the promise;
(2) prevents another from acquiring information which
would affect his judgment of a transaction; or
(3) fails to correct a false impression which the
deceiver previously created or reinforced, or which the
deceiver knows to be influencing another to whom he stands in
a fiduciary or confidential relationship.
(b) Exception.–The term “deceive” does not, however,
include falsity as to matters having no pecuniary significance,
or puffing by statements unlikely to deceive ordinary persons in
the group addressed.
My question is whether or not any tax paying citizen could bring suit asserting that monies have been taken by deception to fund research by those who know that they are using deception in order to gain such funds?
May I ask if this is a legitimate address FOR Roger Tattersall (aka tallbloke) and that the funds will indeed go to his defense? Just looking for assurance before sending funds.
Tallbloke,
Being a sceptic myself, I support you. However, I’m wondering whether seeking legal redress against Laden is an altogether wise thing to do – libel suits may have unintended consequences. On the other hand, seeking redress against the police is something I am more in favour of. But whatever happens, I wish you well.
albertalad –
My donation receipt as follows. I edited his email address to include the “.
“This email confirms that you have donated £20.00 GBP to Roger Tattersall (rog”@”tallbloke.net) using PayPal.”
Stephen Wilde, thanks for that and good luck to you both. 50 quid on the way.
LazyTeenager says:
December 17, 2011 at 4:20 pm
“Here is a bit of advice for Tallbloke. Don’t do this. You do not understand the consequences that follow from this.”
Go on, go on, while you’re at it, what ARE the consequences, LegalExpertTeenager?
I’m in for L50…
Donation sent. Good luck, Tallbloke.
pauline says:
December 17, 2011 at 4:33 pm
I’ve been supporting the
case of replacing the “sceptic/skeptic” term with “realist” for some time. “Realist” has a positive, moral-high-ground connotation, whereas “sceptic/skeptic” does not.
As such, I’m a proud member of the “realati” when it comes to climate and refute all this catastrophic heavy-handed mumbo-jumbo coming from people that don’t have anybody’s interest at heart except their own (although they’re so short-sighted it’s comical in a sad, sad way).
£750 from Climate Audit. .
LazyTeenager says
Someone is worried.
I see the consequences could be the light of TRUE inquiry by a court of law that shows who the real criminals are in climate “science.”
Danny V says: My donation receipt as follows. I edited his email address to include the “.
“This email confirms that you have donated £20.00 GBP to Roger Tattersall (rog”@”tallbloke.net) using PayPal.”
———–
Thanks Danny V my wife and I sent $50.00 Canadian or 30 pounds Brit. Apparently we had to do the pound thing before sending.
Donation from Oz sent
LazyTeenager;
Here is a bit of advice for Tallbloke. Don’t do this. You do not understand the consequences that follow from this>>>
Is that a threat?
Steve McIntyre says:
December 17, 2011 at 6:13 pm
£750 from Climate Audit. .
————–
WOW! Steve Mcintyre! THANK YOU on behalf of all of us here and especially tallboke and his family.
Great news!
LazyTeenager says
Here is a bit of advice for Tallbloke. Don’t do this. You do not understand the consequences that follow from this.”]
Pray tell………………………
Like they might do discovery on his laptops and router or something like that?
It took ages to donate, PayPal was crowded. How hard is it to get rid of your money? Glad I did it, anyway.
To:
All those who feel offended and/or threatened by the actions taken against innocent climate enthusiast Roger Tattersall aka ‘Tallbloke’ as a result of the unsought anonymous drop of data from the person or persons known as ‘FOIA’.
I’m one of them for sure.
Donation sent.
Here’s wishing you only the best in this situation, Tallbloke.
In his blog, Greg Laden has displayed the email addresses of some of the negative commenters, despite a disclaimer that they wouldn’t be used.
50 lb from the Alamo
Steve McIntyre says:
December 17, 2011 at 6:13 pm
£750 from Climate Audit. .’ ]
Thank you!!!
Thank you to all that donate / support Mr Bloke.
I’m a kid and I have been called just about everything…….kids can’t effectively sue. But if my web page / blog was left a link – it seems my computer could be taken.
Tallbloke, we’re behind you all the way here in Alice Springs, Central Australia!
30 Pounds Sterling sent.
All the very best luck in the world for your upcoming action.
(P.S. A special place is reserved in heaven for Steve McIntyre!)
Tallbloke,
Having been, as a Ph.D. scientist and corporate representative, in major litigation for 10 years, I understand the consequences of this, and they are that you will be able to ream him/them a new one if you take it to a conclusion. Their costs for defending this will not be insignificant. Plus, they will lose. This is probably a different understanding of the consequences than those of keyboard warrior LazyTeenager.
I’ll be happy to help pro bono, as I’m extremely versatile with legal papers and cutting through the BS of what I assume will be sub-mediocre adversaries (I think that’s a gimme).
I participated in probably 30 depositions (including 10 of my own) in at least 6 states, and testified on the stand at least 8 times, including a 2-day fun fest of testimony by me one time.
Oh yeah, the result was a $160 million win !!! ….. and the destruction of a family of fraudsters not too dissimilar to these A-holes.
I’ll e-mail you on Monday (and make a donation). There’s something else I want to tell you (as you know I’m a West Yorkshire dude originally).
I’m in — $50
I think LazyTeenager is showing his lack of maturity.
My $50 Cdn is in your pot
@Lazy Teenager,
it seems that you do not know the difference between “freedom of speech” and “libel”. It also seems that you are not aware of the recent US case involving a blogger who was found not to be covered as a journalist when it came to making false statements about an individual.
If I am not being clear about that particular case, then let me explain: the blogger who represented herself in the court system believed that she should be covered as a journalist, and that she could make false statements about an individual. She lost.
From what I have read about the present situation, Tallbloke has a very good case against those who sought to libel him with their claims of guilt by association due to the police action. Michael Mann retweeted those comments hence he became a party to the alleged libel.
Since I am not from the UK or the USA, I do not know if in the UK there is a discovery process. If there is, then it is going to be “fun”, because Michael Mann could be in a lot of hot water over this incident.
Roger also has the right to institute legal action against the Norfolk plods because they have not actually shown that they have reason to believe that Roger has committed a crime. Their heavy handed invasion of his property and the confiscating of his computer equipment seems a little bit over the top.
Great stuff, Tallbloke. Another 50 GBP coming your way from Downunder.
philincalifornia says: Having been, as a Ph.D. scientist and corporate representative, in major litigation for 10 years, I understand the consequences of this, and they are that you will be able to ream him/them a new one if you take it to a conclusion. Their costs for defending this will not be insignificant. Plus, they will lose ——– I’ll be happy to help pro bono, as I’m extremely versatile with legal papers and cutting through the BS of what I assume will be sub-mediocre adversaries (I think that’s a gimme).
—————————
Thank YOU so much, sir. God bless you and your family!
Tallbloke, I would bet there are at least 10 and probably 100
folk like philincalifornia who can REALLY help. That’s what good
folks do. You know the old saying “all it takes for evil to triumph is
for good men to do nothing”……. Isn’t gonna happen here. There’s
a lot of good folks out here that WILL do something 🙂
Fifty pounds on its way.
LazyTeenager says:
December 17, 2011 at 4:20 pm
“….Here is a bit of advice for Tallbloke. Don’t do this. You do not understand the consequences that follow from this.”
========================================================================
Inspired (sic) by the poster known as “LazyTeenager” (oh do lazy teenagers really annoy the h### out of me) I have made my donation to the Tallbloke legal fund in “honor” (sic) of Lazy Teenager!
I encourage others to consider doing the same…. or in honor of “The Team” et al.
I agree about using the term “climate realist” , for that is the truth, we don’t deny warming(and the cooling) that is shown from data. Just that CO2 is the cause.
Sorry I am unable to contribute to Rogers fund because I’m one of the energy/food poor, though I work a 40+ hr week at a fair wage, one of the working poor. I’m taxed to poverty from carbon taxes, green energy policy’s and politically involvement of enviro NGO’s/groups in all branches of local government, the idea everything in life or makes life enjoyable should be taxed or regulated.
Funny, I have always been a person(even as a kid) involved with studying science, a environmentalist and a democrat for all my life, but have now become a conservative because of the lies and insanity from the CAGW religion for so many years. It all started with the same bunch back in the 70’s when human CO2 was causing the next ice age and then the CFC scare .. all bogus.
I’ve lost faith/trust in ALL sciences, and so is the next generation coming up. This maybe a shame or an awakening to question even the most well established understandings in science. Especially junk science that will cost future generations dearly from our mistakes to cure a problem that never existed…
I’m here as always fighting, if i can spread the word to the world of the NWO/WB/UN/EU involvement in this eco/green/carbon FAKE bubble and their fascist actions that has infiltrated our society, but I`m just living day to day trying to pay the bills for now.
I have hope that soon this albatross around our necks that strangles the truth will be removed to show how much we have done to make this a better world and stop condemned the poor to starvation, sickness and poverty from the flat earth unscientific elite.
I hope roger, your fight accomplishes something, but I fear that this may not be enough and nothing short of revolution/revolt will be the next step.
Interesting times we live in.
Good luck
Lance
Greg Laden is back-peddling a bit. His blog post no longer directly calls Roger a thief.
The original opening sentence is quoted here:
“Thieves who broke into Unviersity of East Anglia computers in 2009, stealing thousands of private emails thus compromising years of expensive scientific research and causing a fabricated and unnecessary political doo-doo storm, as part of a much larger campaign of harassment, have had some of their computer equipment seized by UK authorities…”
The revised wording is:
“Thieves who broke into Unviersity of East Anglia computers in 2009, stealing thousands of private emails thus compromising years of expensive scientific research and causing a fabricated and unnecessary political doo-doo storm, as part of a much larger campaign of harassment, are being pursued by the authorities, through the seizure of computer equipment that appears to be linked to the storage and dissemination of the stolen documents, and which has been seized under search warrant.”
I do not doubt that Greg Laden deliberately libeled Roger, knowing that his accusation was false. That would be very much in character for Laden. He is very dishonest.
For another example of his dishonesty, consider this. I posted the following comment to his blog:
1. No evidence was found that anyone “broke into” any of the UEA computers. The climategate emails were most likely leaked by a secretive, disgruntled whistleblower.
2. Nothing was destroyed and no research was compromised.
3. The leaked emails exposed a pattern of widespread wrongdoing, which richly needed the sunshine of exposure. The exposure was neither fabricated nor unnecessary.
4. Roger Tattersall is not a thief, stole nothing, and has been told that he’s not a suspect.
5. Nobody was arrested.
6. Luke 16:10
Acting as “moderator,” Laden changed it to the following, and posted it over my name, as if I had written it:
1. Evidence was found that someone “broke into” any of the UEA computers. The climategate emails were not leaked by a secretive, disgruntled whistleblower.
2. The leaked emails exposed nothing of interest.
4. Roger Tattersall may as well be a thief, even if he stole nothing, and has been told that he’s not a suspect.
5. Nobody was arrested yet.
6. DEUTERONOMY 3:1-7
Posted by: Dave Burton | December 15, 2011 10:16 PM
That was no honest error. That was deliberate lying by Greg Laden about what I wrote.
I then posted the following, which he simply deleted:
Do you think that’s funny, Greg? Changing my words to say the opposite of what I wrote, and attributing them to me?
When the Tamino and the Yale Climate Forum simply delete skeptical material, to promote The Cause, it is a shame, and very telling about their (lack of) confidence in the strength of their positions, but they are within their rights. But Greg Laden is far worse. He deliberately lied about what I wrote, and I have no doubt at all that his libel of Roger was likewise deliberate.
£20 stuffed into the fighting fund from my “Christmas turkey” fund.
I’d better get used to bread and water by the way that I’ve been blogging.
20 lb to the cause.
The day before yesterday (I believe) James Delingpole wrote a blog piece about this story. The comment I left was that, “Over at WUWT Tallbloke is regarded as “family.”” Today, reading this comment thread, I nearly had tears in my eyes. We do, indeed, take care of our own.
What stuns me is the involvement of the US DoJ in this case. Why would Holder’s DoJ care one whit about hacked or leaked emails from a university in the UK? Unless maybe these cast some very important political/business folks in a very unfavorable light. Donation to Tallbloke forthcoming.
donation sent
Mr. Tattersall (Tallbloke) needs to engage representation from the Plaintiff’s Bar in these United States as well, inasmuch as Dr. Michael E. Mann has (and other warmistas on this side of the Atlantic have) uttered arguably actionable libelous statements which must be examined with an eye to the recovery of compensatory and punitive damages on Mr. Tattersall’s behalf.
When I got my first look at the communications of “Mike’s Hockey Team” on 18 November 2009, I predicted that Dr. Mann and the rest of these quacks would be dodging subpoenas duces tecum in civil actions for the rest of their lives.
Couldn’t happen to a more contemptible cadre of charlatans.
daveburton says:
December 17, 2011 at 8:19 pm
Dave, from what I see here, you have a real cause for liability against Greg Laden.
It seems this kind of conduct by the likes of him can get one to be investigated and even searched at home.
You should contact him with demand for public apology by him in his blog. If he refuses, then U should consider exactly what Tallbloke does.
Greg Laden himself seems to believe in swift legal redress. In comments on a (defamatory) post at Planetsave by Zachary Shahan, one Markus had posted: “Be very wary. The retribution that will be inflicted on those warminista, who have harmed the orderly progress of humankind and the poorest of the poor, will reverberate throughout academia, for generations.”
In response, Laden posted: “I think Markus is threatening you and you should sue him.”
Laden, seemingly, would consider even a polite warning as a threat.
Stranger: “Young boy, be more careful! You are running too closely to that cliff! If you slide on that slippery surface you could fall onto the rocks far below and suffer serious injuries or even death!
Foolish Boy: “Help, police! This stranger is issuing death threats!”
[emphasis added]
So, … are you clairvoyant then?
In response to the comment posted by daveburton at 8:19 PM on 17 December, and having not only been “raised Catholic” but educated in a Jesuit university, I went to the Douay-Rhiems version for my check on those bible verses.
Luke 16:10 (per the honest daveburton): “He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in that which is greater: and he that is unjust in that which is little is unjust also in that which is greater”
Deuteronomy 3:1-7 (in the substitution perpetrated by the lying warmista fascist dog-futterer, Greg Laden):
…which gives me to wonder whether in the course of legal action against this Laden schmuck, his counsel is going to try for a diminished capacity defense.
I’m not a pshrink, but insofar as my professional opinion goes (I’ve lost count of how many cases of decompensated schizophrenia I’ve evaluated in the Emergency Department over the decades), it’s a line of legal strategy worth pursuing.
Not enough for an acute “danger to himself and others” involuntary commitment but perhaps sufficient to convince a petit jury that Mr. Laden had been non compos mentis in his online utterances.
daveburton says:
December 17, 2011 at 8:19 pm
———————————————————-
Gosh, Dave, this guy sounds like there are a few connections upstairs that are well and truly shorted out. If he has any assets, he had better get rid of them soon, before the lawyers get to him.
Did you post under your own name? If so, looks like another libel suit could be winging its way to him – if you care to take it that far. (I’m assuming that you have verifiable records of what you actually posted and when).
Have also flung funds at Roger T.
A further note on the 8:19 PM (17 December) post by daveburton on the substitution perpetrated by Greg Laden in his snakepit of a Web log at 10:16 PM on 15 December, the removal of daveburton’s original line:
…with Laden’s
…is arguably an undertaking on Greg Laden’s part to render daveburton susceptible to charges of libel against Mr. Tattersall.
This is Greg Laden’s knowing attribution to another person of a statement calculated to cause material damages to that person, and is itself an actionable tort.
daveburton, please consider bringing both criminal charges and an action for compensatory and punitive damages against Greg Laden. I’m not an attorney, but I strongly suspect that you have grounds for such measures.
Donation Sent.
Good luck Roger.
Hope my bit helps!
It seems to me that a libel case against Mann would also help Dr Ball (is it?) who is being sued by Mann.
At 6:11 PM on 17 December Greg Laden closed comment postings on his belatedly modified “Computers Seized in Cyber-Theft Investigation” post.
Pity. I was going to post him a helpful reference to The Associated Press Stylebook and Briefing on Media Law (my personal copy is titled The Associated Press Stylebook and Libel Manual), which provides (per Wiki-bloody-pedia) “An overview of legal issues and ethical expectations for those working in the journalism industry.”
With the understanding that both Tallbloke and the egregious Mr. Laden, as Web loggers, each fall under the rubric of “journalist,” somebody ought to advise Mr. Laden of the ethical standards expected of him, and the liabilities to which he is subject.
If he hasn’t already sought competent counsel in this matter, he really ought to stir his stumps and do so, first thing Monday morning.
For those who do not wish to boost Greg Laden’s already impressive ego by looking at his blog, here are what seem to be his final words on the matter (for now).
The substance of his rant appears to be that Tallbloke is a Brit and Laden doesn’t like us Brits very much. I have summoned every sinew of my stiff upper lip, and am pleased to report that I have endured the great sadness of his poor opinion without too much trauma.
Contribution de 50£ versée de bon coeur pour la bonne Cause 😉
Bonne chance, Roger
Cdt e.r J.Cl Michel (Belgium)
Gettum Tallbloke.
And (as Daniel Hannan says) (emphasis mine): “F U Lazy Dumbass Teenager.”
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Donation made. Good luck Tallbloke
Another donation from me too. Good luck with the fight Roger – right is on your side!
£20 was just sent from Iceland
Regards, Ágúst
Donation forthcoming from Australia
On the topic of who actually leaked the information, … speculation of course !
NB: If you consider the normal security standards that most organisations of this size would deploy
To copy all the emails, you would need access to the actual file server where the mail archives are stored, or the backup server. This file server would usually only be accessible by the IT staff at administrator level, so you would need appropriate permissions. Further, to FTP the data off to an external server/PC via the net would not be possible since there would be firewall rules in place to prevent FTP, except to allowed internal destinations for backup purpose, etc. Also, to copy directly off via the net would require much time due to the physical size of the information (We are probably talking 100’s Gigabytes +). You would therefore risk being caught having a session open for many days and leave an easy trail for police.
What seems more logical would be that someone within the university with access copied the data to a tape or other backup medium and simply walked away.
Whilst this is my pure speculation, I cannot imagine how you could do this any other way and get away with it.
So why would they raid Tallbloke ?
Of course, they figured the real culprit possibly had direct contact with him, which means they have no IP address or other info from server logs, further implying an inside job.
So my point here is that if you have any common sense and think about the situation just a tad, then you know that Tallbloke is not likely the thief.
An eager and hateful man with a disorganized little mind this Greg Laden, isn’t he?
Contribution sent. Good luck, Roger.
LazyTeenager says at December 17, 2011 at 4:20 pm:
“Here is a bit of advice for Tallbloke. Don’t do this. You do not understand the consequences that follow from this.”
Well, here is a bit of advice for LazyTeenager. Get a brain.
Richard
If enough of us donate, and use the excess funds plus the pro bono work I think we should expand the Law suits to get to the real truth about climate/commies Government collusion. Maybe the publicity will get some attention about the climate fraud.
I don’t care what they call us. Sceptics is fine. I just want the power/money grab to be put down and honesty to prevail. Tossed my nickel in the drum. Best wishes for a happy outcome, Roger.
Laurie
So………… we have heard about an additional set of unreleased emails that have been encrypted and stored for possible future release.
Is this raid on Tallbloke and notice sent to others pending investigation of their activities and sites, a shot across the bows of climate realists as a warning not to get involved in the future reveal of the stored data?
What maybe so incriminating in that stored data which could possibly cause a large embarrassment or worse to those involved.
Already we are starting to be aware of ALLEGED possible collusion between state authorities and the “Team”.
I.M.H.O. Climate Realist is a term we should be using
To Latimer Alder:
Greg Laden clearly does not know the meaning of the words “goods” nor “stolen.”
After becoming aware that Greg Laden made a scurrilous libel against poor Mr Tattersall, Greg Laden has then repeated the offence – taking himself into the realms of malice and harrassment. Further, he has confessed his crime by saying “Harassment [and threats of physical violence] are not OK.”
Latimer
I don’t think I’ve ever read Greg’s blog before. Polemic and vituperative in tone, ultimately its very sad that someone who appears to be able to string two words together should want to resport to this sort of level.
tonyb
Well, I’ve sent my contribution. I hope you all do too.
Amazing generosity from Mr McIntyre. But then he’s got all that ‘Big Oil’ funding, right?
Good on ya Rog.
daveburton says: December 17, 2011 at 8:19 pm … …
et seqq… … …
I hope people have screenshots. Here is prime evidence of intent to slander.
I have donated but requested that any action be proportionate. I would actually prefer that the fund merely restored Tallbloke to his previous position and compensated him for the inconvenience he has suffered on our behalfs.. I am not sure taking a libel action out against people like Greg “Band of Thieves” Laden is a worthwhile proposition even if it is a slam-dunk.
DonB (at 5:27 pm above)
You may want to look into the applicability of the Federal RICO Act or maybe
the little RICO Acts of the various individual States from which the funding
request with the “fraudulent” representations were made.
You, as a Federal taxpayer have an legal interest in your tax money going to a
fraudulent plan or activity that impinges on interstate commerce. The folks
who have been found to have conspired, or assented in conspiring to commit
such fraud have liabilities under the RICO laws too.
Sorry, I can’t give you much specific RICO information that would cover
someone from Pennsylvania who might live, write, research, or teach for
a public or private employer who then makes grant requests for Federal or other
forms of grant support funding that might be considered to have been obtained
in a fraudulent manner.
Normally a fraudulent enterprise [or “Cause”], even if it’s only get so far as a
conspiracy to commit it, is rarely complicated by one of the conspirators who
then go on to participate in providing grounds for a libel case that’s international
in nature.
The conspirators, crooks and gangsters normally caught in RICO Act violations
are usually not that stupid.
Thanks to all for the support received so far which is truly inspiring.
Please keep it up, this will be a long haul.
I will provide an update as to progress and strategy after I have spoken to Roger later today.
Agreed that we are Climate Realists rather than Climate Sceptics and I will endeavour to use that term.
As it happens I was involved in the creation (on a purely voluntary and personal basis) of the previous ClimateSceptics site which was renamed ClimateRealists.com some years ago.
See here:
http://climaterealists.com/index.php
Therefore we have a prior claim to the term well before others sought to hijack it with the more recent recent ‘Climate Reality’ effort.
It is odd that since the term was taken up by AGW proponents the original ClimateRealists site seems to have been experiencing unfavourable treatment by the Google search system.
Please note that I have no interest in the wider political implications of all this. That is a matter for others. My concerns are twofold:
i) To ascertain the true mechanisms of climate change and to place the role of human CO2 emissions in a more proportionate and realistic context.
ii) To protect the civil rights of Roger in particular but also others who migfht find that they have in the past or do in the future suffer damage or loss simply as a consequence of standing up for and applying that which was once at the heart of human progress namely the scientific method.
What muppets Like Lazy teenager and this Vitriolic bile fueled Laden dont realise, is that Tallbloke is better known to many in the UK not for his Climate Position but for his Charitable work, he pretty much singlehandedly saved the Yorkshire Air Ambulance Service for the community, driving a campaign to that raised £250,000 in donations for its operations. He is Also respected on Car forums for getting Donations for For people injured in Automotive accidents, I dont doubt there is much more.
If one of the most caring, charitable, upstanding members of a community can be villified and attacked in this manner , then that speaks volumes about the state of this debate.
To those that have libelled him ” Good luck you might as well have called Mother Theresa a Hooker”
Tall bloke I hope you utterly destroy these meally mouthed cretins, I will make regular donations As I firmly believe you deserve no less and so do we.
Time to take out the trash!
Donation sent, keep up the fight Rog.
Cheers
Norman
quote unquote.
This amounts to a declaration of guilt. The fact that it has changed indicates he must have known it was libelous.
My quote disappeared ..
here it is:
The original opening sentence is quoted here:
“Thieves who broke into Unviersity of East Anglia computers in 2009, stealing thousands of private emails thus compromising years of expensive scientific research and causing a fabricated and unnecessary political doo-doo storm, as part of a much larger campaign of harassment, have had some of their computer equipment seized by UK authorities…”
The revised wording is:
“Thieves who broke into Unviersity of East Anglia computers in 2009, stealing thousands of private emails thus compromising years of expensive scientific research and causing a fabricated and unnecessary political doo-doo storm, as part of a much larger campaign of harassment, are being pursued by the authorities, through the seizure of computer equipment that appears to be linked to the storage and dissemination of the stolen documents, and which has been seized under search warrant.”
daveburton says:
December 17, 2011 at 8:19 pm
If you have the proof and the inclination, I would be tempted to have a go at Laden too! I’d at least ask for a public apology first – the guy needs to learn some humility – but if he doesn’t come clean, he needs to be exposed for the charlatan he is. He craps on about protecting the world for his kids, maybe the threat of being completely skint and denegrated through the legal system may make him reappraise his attitude.
Anent the tortfeasant (and arguably libelous) conduct of Greg Laden, at 2:31 AM on 18 December, Kev-in-UKI’d at least ask for a public apology first – the guy needs to learn some humility – but if he doesn’t come clean, he needs to be exposed for the charlatan he is.
Not one little bit. Let Laden try to apologize to the process servers.
Unleash the lawyers! Let the feeding frenzy begin!
Roger, glad to dip my hand in my pocket to help. Alas not a rich man but it all helps.
Like the term ‘climate realist’, will use it from now on.
It is a pleasure to read of so much support from all over the place to those standing up for the ordinary of the world. Very impressive. May I wish everyone a happy Christmas and a better New Year than the economic pundits are predicting.
I sent my donation too but my eyes are hanging out now, reading all the interesting comments, and leaving a few as well.
I shall have to go and rest up in a darkened room, happy in the knowledge that there are so many wonderful folk out there rallying to the call of justice.
Good luck Roger.
Donation made. I find these events very frightening – I thought we lived in lands of the free (UK and US) – or is it really like ‘comment is free’, Guardian style, where the only comments allowed are the ones agreeing with the party line!
All the best Tallbloke – I have put a small sum into the fighting fund.
I translated this article into French and I have posted on the French blog of Skyfall:
http://www.skyfall.fr/?p=763#comment-74614
It was also reported on the blog “Réchauffement Médiatique” of Yves Pelletier.
http://www.rechauffementmediatique.org/wordpress/2011/12/15/lempire-contre-attaque/comment-page-1/#comment-49879
Best regards
Cdt e.r. J.Cl Michel (Belgium)
Another tanner in the pot.
Hope for the best.
Vuk.
Denieralati ?
I think we are what some of the older Russians may have romantically called the ‘intellligensia’. Reading on Ladens website, he thinks all ‘deniers’ (интеллиге́нция) are criminals – without trial, evidence, etc. Just like good old days in the CCCP.
Go get him Tallbloke !!
“Comment 32
It is interesting to watch the thieves and liars and their allies and compatriots in the process of melting down. As it were.”
Posted by: Greg Laden | December 15, 2011 6:27 PM
Seems to compound the original sin!
Surely ScienceBlogs.com is as culpable as Laden, they provided the platform, they/editor should have rectified or forced Laden to rectify the article immediately, but they seemed inconsiderate to the harm it was doinf to Tattersall. It could be argued that they were party to encouraging the behavior that laden exhibited.
Remember the exodus of bloggers jumping ship. Meltdown at Scienceblogs.com – bloggers jumping ship http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/23/meltdown-at-scienceblogs-com-bloggers-jumping-ship/
It’s not surprising really that a blogger their went rogue.
Donation made. I hope this helps to expose the machinations of the green tyranny.
Hundreds of donations small and large have been pouring into our fighting fund overnight. I am humbled and grateful for all the help the community is giving to me.
I just want to reiterate Stephen Wilde’s statement and solemnly promise that all these donations will be transferred to my solicitor-attorney’s client account to be used to cover legal fees and related expenses such as travel to offices if necessary. Stephen is kindly providing legal advice to me pro bono, but where he has to get work done by other people in his firm and outside law firms such as libel lawyers fees will be paid.
We are already well on the way to being able to cover the costs of initiating the actions Stephen has outlined above. I am keeping the appeal open because ongoing costs add up quickly in the realm of legal actions. As Stephen has already said, any monies left over will go to a selection of organisations which work on behalf of the climate realist community.
Thank you all again. It has been exhausting but today the sun is shining and I’m going to take my lady for a walk over the hills to a nice country pub for a well deserved lunch. She has been through the wringer over this and I want to show her how much I love her.
At3:45 AM on 18 December, tallbloke writes a nice thank-you note and advises that funds are reaching the point at which proceedings can go forward in the U.K.
Again, I admonish him to take up action in these United States. There are hungry members of the Plaintiff’s Bar here who will listen readily to the magic words “contingency basis,” and will charge you precisely nothing to look into your case against the well-paid, real-estate-owning, pension-vested Dr. Michael E. Mann.
As for Mr. Laden…. There’s that line of Richard Pryor’s, in his stand-up while talking about his divorce, when the judge looked at him and said:
Stephen Wilde: “My concerns are twofold: i) To ascertain the true mechanisms of climate change and to place the role of human CO2 emissions in a more proportionate and realistic context, ii) To protect the civil rights of Roger in particular but also others who migfht find that they have in the past or do in the future suffer damage or loss simply as a consequence of standing up for and applying that which was once at the heart of human progress namely the scientific method.”
Does this not conflate two different issues, one scientific and one legal? They are both worthy, but could presumably tangle up a court case and just end up with massive legal expenses. I would have thaought it far better to stick to the legal case, even though I would love to see a forensic examination of the science.
Ah Americans interfering again with British politics and life. If you are so worried Watts how about giving the police the info they need to track down the hacking criminals?
Good luck Rog!
Fifty quid flung your way.
T’was the week before Christmas when the crap hit the fan, Tall bloke take no prisoners, the other series of events occurring are the forthcoming charges of fraud against many global warmist scientists, by the actions by the lord of Blenchley it would seem that the latest email releases give rise to some rather unfortunate corollations of collusion and corruption in the hockey team. With tall blokes prevail and the yanks having a go at some of their own via the DOJ it would appear that some at least are worried about their future because of their past.
Truth and justice is more important than these egotistical idiots, what ever their fate it is their own doing.
“I would have thaought it far better to stick to the legal case, even though I would love to see a forensic examination of the science.”
The legal case involving Roger will be uncontaminated by the scientific issues.
In setting out both areas of concern I was simply seeking to divert potential allegations of a wider political agenda.
Thank you Tallbloke & Stephen Wilde. My donnation will eb comming in a bit after christmas when the traffic slow abit though I hope it stays at a steady stream.
Those donating might consider 5 or 10 or even 1 lb a week after your initial donation. Give up the extra coffee, beer, soda (BUT NOT MY CHOCOLATE) and put the money aside to donate to Roger instead. As Stephen Wilde said this is going to be a long haul.
On 30 September 2006 the US Senate unanimously ratified the The US-UK Extradition Treaty 2003
The Ville says:
“Ah Americans interfering again with British politics and life. If you are so worried Watts how about giving the police the info they need to track down the hacking criminals?”
1. Tallbloke is a UK citizen, therefore that is not ‘interfering’ in British politics and life. It is WUWT reporting the news.
2. Climate alarmists appear to have a despearate need to label as “criminals” anyone who doesn’t agree with them. Even a fool could see that the Climategate 1 & 2 leaks were done by an insider; an employee with access.
Run along now. RealClimate is waiting for you to report back.
Pete H says:
December 18, 2011 at 3:33 am
“Comment 32
It is interesting to watch the thieves and liars and their allies and compatriots in the process of melting down. As it were.”
Posted by: Greg Laden | December 15, 2011 6:27 PM
Seems to compound the original sin!
_____________________________________
Actually I though it was more like watching a stupid little boy hit a hornets nest with a stick and then just stand there.
If this bloke has been verbally abused and his house or car attacked we assume
If he reported it to the police did he get the crime numbers and where are the police call logs
James Delingpole weighs in with support and reposts Stephen Wilde’s letter: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100124846/tallbloke-a-christmas-appeal/
“This blog urges all readers to think of the Spirit of Christmas and give generously.
Here are just some of things your money might buy:
50p buys a week’s supply of maggoty gruel to serve to the Lead Authors of the IPCC’s assessment reports, if and when they are eventually tried and imprisoned for crimes against science, economics and Western Civilisation.
£20 buys a set of handcuffs for one member of the Hockey Team
£25 buys the extra special set with spikes laced with marmite
£500 buys a course in Excel basics for Professor Phil Jones
£1000 buys a large island in Greece on which to imprison the Climategate 2500”
(however a Greek island is far too good – need somewhere that they can really feel a cooling climate)
At 4:35 AM on 18 December, Verity Jones abstracts from James Delingpole’s post on Tallbloke’s legal assistance fund:
…kvetching:
Well, hell. There’s always Alkatraz.
Though we’ve been intending it to receive the Obama Administration after 20 January 2013.
Oh, well. I guess the Gitmo Madrasah is probably the better choice for putting that latter bunch away until they finish composting.
The Ville says:
December 18, 2011 at 4:03 am
Ah Americans interfering again with British politics and life. If you are so worried Watts how about giving the police the info they need to track down the hacking criminals?
_____________________________________
Seems to me it is the BRITS or should I say the City of London, the London School of Economics, Rhodes Scholarships and the University of Oxford that has royal messed up the USA economically. And that goes back over a hundred years.
lazyteenager says Tallbloke wants to make a statement, and so do I, and I want it very clearly made, for “In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” (Orwell).
A couple of days ago I contributed (another identity) with a hundred for Tallbloke’s to get some hardware. I guess that’s been solved. My next contribution has to be in a month… and if Tallbloke drinks a beer from my money, that’s just as good.
I grow my own veg, can i send some rotten stuff to throw at the miscreants when theyre up before the beak? 🙂
The Ville says: December 18, 2011 at 4:03 am […] If you are so worried Watts how about giving the police the info they need to track down the hacking criminals?
1. Prove there was an hacking. The problem with you people is that you don’t know the idea of proof.
2. How are you that certain that Watts has something to give? Tell us the rest of your delusions.
Anyway, “don’t feed the trolls”.
Tallbloke, sure do wish I could donate too, six years ago I’d have £300 in there pronto, now I worry of having the $40 for bread, milk eggs and the basics, heat now. You and I both being recovering from disabilities I do feel for you in this screw-ball situation. But, one thing I do have is endless time if you and Stephen need any help along those lines, just ask through Anthony, he can email me. We’re all in there for you, hang tight.
I’m now more searching if international laws cover cases where and if illegal elements move into the UN itself, are there rico-like avenues at the international level that can enforce justice for us sorry simple folk around the world. Seems time to move to the next level. The interplay between UN delegates, NGOs, internation companies, scientists and governments makes it so clear what is going on, the money.
Any attorneys out there that might have some insight into this aspect?
Just read Tallbloke’s posting of thanks and about how his wife has also suffered and he is putting her first at this time!
Well if that don’t sum up a man who deserves support, I don’t know what does!
1st Donation on it’s way!
Further thoughts…
Throughout history there are many examples of dictators or dictatorial regimes getting the boot from their fed up citizenry.
Pressure applied at an ever increasing rate is absorbed until one fine day a single event, a spark, something that would otherwise be insignificant in the grand scheme becomes a focal point for the greivances of the many.
The straw that breaks the camels back if you will.
I feel that is what has just happened here with the invasion of Tallblokes privacy, the stomping of his rights and the unwarranted viscious comments by those with their own nasty little axes to grind.
I feel this may well be the Climate Realists “Arab spring”.
I certainly hope it gains momentum.
Figuratively speaking, its “Time to kick some warmist ar*e”.
Charles.U.Farley says: December 18, 2011 at 5:16 am
I think, Charles, it’s what became known as the Ceausescu moment. And also, a great time to be alive to witness.
£50.00 sent.
Re foregoing comments about use of the name ‘Climate Realists’. In the absence of funds nor web site, our Group in Oz decided some two years ago now that we needed a better identity to market ourselves and compete against the long established, well oiled Green/Enviro machine.
We chose the name “Climate Realists of Five Dock”. Jo Nova kindly promoted it on her web site and we have expanded from two members initially to some 40 strong and growing. We usually meet weekly in a social environment at a nearby Club for a few drinks and dinner.
The word ‘Five Dock’ is a suburb of Sydney, Australia. Thus the package can be readily adopted anywhere around the world by fellow skeptics ie “Climate Realists of xxxxxxxxxx”. We also have a logo (a microscope) followed by the these words in latin “De Omnibus Dubitandum – Question Everything!” which appears on both our letterheads and business cards.
We find this provides a more professional image and counter against the long established Green/Enviro groups. Two more Sydney based ‘Climate Realists of Bondi & Sutherland’ have now formed.
Happy to share more details among other ‘Climate Realists’ if interested?
Donation to the Alcatraz Fund forthcoming. Goodluck, Tallbloke.
Seems to me that a libel case is misplaced effort and could backfire. The real conflict is not between bloggers with different opinions. The real conflict is between honest science (outside the Establishment) and corrupt science (within the Establishment).
Prosecuting a libel among bloggers could lead to a barrage of countersuits in all directions. Worst of all, it could end up setting a precedent that would shut down all dissent outside the fraternity of paid “journalists”.
“Dr. Dave says:
December 17, 2011 at 9:15 pm
What stuns me is the involvement of the US DoJ in this case. Why would Holder’s DoJ care one whit about hacked or leaked emails from a university in the UK? Unless maybe these cast some very important political/business folks in a very unfavorable light.”
I don’t doubt that part of it is to cover up collusion and fraud by our own government/politicians, but don’t forget that the head of DoJ, our Attorney General Eric Holder, is currently being grilled in Congressional hearings on the “Fast and Furious” gunrunning operation.
Apparently DoJ and ATF (Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms) had the “brilliant” idea of forcing gun dealers in southern border states to allow a variety of weapons (including assault rifles) to be sold willy nilly and cross the border, on the idea that it would allow them to track WHICH criminals ended up with them. (and it all comes with the added bonus of using any crime thus committed to further regulate guns for the law-abiding)
It appears the White House knew.
Mexico did not, and some 2000 weapons crossed the border to kill many many Mexcian citizens, and a few walked back across to hunt and kill a US Border Patrol agent.
Holder is stonewalling, squirming, sweating, and a variety of senior officials have demanded he step down.
There is a large house of cards on many fronts, all of which could come crashing down.
I’m glad Tallbloke is suing, as he should, and I hope it HURTS HURTS HURTS those who have acted with such dishonor and impunity toward so many.
Will try to send something, even if just a pittance.
All the best, tallbloke et al.
At 6:25 AM on 18 December, Barbara Munsey had commented on the as-yet-unindicted Eric Holder, the U.S. Attorney General with “drop dead” responsibility for Operation Fast & Furious and the whole glorious federal “Gunrunner” campaign to violate international law and advance the cause of victim disarmament in these United States. Ms. Munsey had written:
Oh, to hell with having Holder merely “step down.” There’s a bunch more to “Project Gunrunner” than just what our Mombasa Messiah’s BATFE had been doing in the Southwest. In Florida, for example, there’s been Operation Castaway running arms to criminal gangs in Honduras
If there were ever any purpose for which the International Criminal Court in the Hague had been created, kids, this is it.
Had sent a small donation a couple of days ago. Of course Roger is free to use it however he sees fit.
Donation made.
This is a very important case – for the civil liberties aspect too.
All the best, Tallbloke.
Scratch the surface of any loud-mouthed Warmenista such as Laden, and inevitably you find serial tendencies to lie and threaten those who disagree with them with physical harm, e.g.
“So, apparently it is OK for Tattersall and this band of thieves to unilaterally play vigilante and break into your computer or mine, but when authorities investigating a crime, with proper search warrant, show up to investigate his misdeeds, suddenly he’s an “Englishman” in his “Castle.” I don’t know whether to laugh of to go medieval on him.”
From the Urban Dictionary: The phrase “to go medieval on” means to become savagely violent without restraint, similar to how we imagine those in the savage, unrestrained medieval times would respond to someone who had done them wrong.”
So, in addition to an unprovoked, and libelous attack we also have an implied threat of violence on Laden’s part. Perhaps it is time for Laden himself to experience a knock on his door by police. That would indeed be at least the beginnings of justice.
Polistra
I am inclined to agree with you, blogging tends to bring out the best and worst in people and I think if we are all looking over our shoulders all the time it will hamper our ability to pass comment not hedged around with legal caveats. A contribition to ensuring Tall Bloke has access to even better equipment to help him to his work is one thing, unlockimg a pandoras box is another.
It would be interesting to know the precise details of any likely lawsuit however, as only Tall Bloke can know just how badly defamed/libelled etc he was and legal action might turn out to be the only way he can react..
tonyb
FYI to those without a “£” sign on their keyboard, the shortcut for inserting it is : Hold “Alt” and enter “0163”. ALT + 0163. Or at least type GBP as opposed to lb. 🙂
Made a small donation too. Goodluck Tallbloke!
Have just read the comments upthread by Stephen Wilde and Tallbloke and will make a contribution. It would be good to know the precise nature of any action as I still have reservations along the lines expressed by Polistra and don’t want to open a pandoras boc that will impact on those bloggers who sometimes say more than they intend to in a heated moment.
tonyb
£20 from me.
Happy Christmas, sue his ass!
I think this assault on Tallbloke will prove to be a very poorly considered action, once the dust settles. It may very well have awakened the “sleeping giant” that is public discontent with climate-alarmism. My financial contribution(s) to the action will soon be forthcoming.
“And Caesar’s spirit, raging for revenge,
With Ate by his side come hot from hell,
Shall in these confines with a monarch’s voice
Cry “Havoc!” and let slip the dogs of war,
That this foul deed shall smell above the earth
With carrion men, groaning for burial.”
Godspeed Mr Tattersall!
Donation made!
My modest donation is on its way.
Whilst swiflly scanning this so impressive list of supportes I did not notice anyone speculating about a possible relationship between this Greg creature and the late unlamented Bin.
As there have be no reports of police raids carried out on other premises/individuals that obtained the same information one has to assume that they were asked and helped voluntarily, why was not tallbloke given the same opportunity?
PS the BBC had info on these e-mails one month before anyone else back in early October 2009 (Paul Hudson)
to Polistra and Tonyb – you are of course, quite correct in such reservations. However, my comment would be that we do have to stand up for ourselves against such clearly unnecessary ‘force’ and moreover, as a community, we need to show those that are doing the ‘oppressing’ that we will not tolerate it.
Stephen Wilde confirms that the science issues are not to be introduced and it is the defamatory nature of Ladens attack that requires the ‘action’..
As regards ‘blogger’ v ‘blogger’ type suits and countersuits – I don’t see there is a likely knock on effect, unless people try and see it as a get rich scheme (?) – which of course it isn’t – except for the lawyers!
I don’t see Ladens comments as simple ‘comment’ but more of a nasty, vile ‘pushing’ of propaganda and obvious falsehoods (i.e. libel). His comments are in a completely different boat to one blogger simply name-calling another….Personally, in the context of the police raid – it would probably be far more accurate to report it as a politically correct attempt to gain further information about FOIA as it was simply Roger’s blog that the file drop was made on (indeed, one could argue Roger has provided vital ‘evidence’, without apparent restriction or other withholding and should be commended! – the fact his place was ‘raided’ is likely an exaggeration, but in the absence of the authorities having asked him for voluntary submission of his gear, using the term raid is also an insinuation of some kind of wrongdoing) – any other assumption would be without good reason – and any public promulgation of theivery or other assumptions must be considered libelous.
Very recently, my next door neighbour had the police banging on her door to speak to her teenage son at 3am in the morning. …outsiders would perhaps infer some wrongdoing – but in fact, they were searching for a missing girl and were simply desperate to speak all her friends!! In other words, the kid was providing Help and was completely innocent……surely, all here can see the parallels with Tallblokes situation? just sayin……..
Verity Jones says: (December 18, 2011 at 4:35 am)
The US has Guantanamo; the Brits have Bleaker … on the Falklands.
Luxury accommodation would be a tin shed, half-buried in the ground. Monotony broken by daytrips to Seal Bay to clean up the penguin droppings. TLD for the Falklands is .fk, describing how cold it gets. 🙂
“LazyTeenager;
Here is a bit of advice for Tallbloke. Don’t do this. You do not understand the consequences that follow from this
Is that a threat? ”
——–
No, I don’t think it is a threat David, just good advice.
In this very polarised climate ‘debate’, we surely don’t want a situation where people are sued for expressing different, even heated, opinions. Appealing for money to defend yourself against such action is one thing, raising it to sue someone else is another.
“Roger has been publicly libelled and abused across the world to the detriment of his reputation and has suffered distress, inconvenience and damage to property”
Well, whatever was written on Scienceblogs came AFTER the police raid and certainly did not contribute to the damage to his property. On the ‘scienceblogs’ site most of the comments are supportive of Tallbloke, it seems that free speech is permitted there (unlike at Tamino) and to me free speech is paramount. I don’t find anything on the scienceblog site that would be ‘actionable’; except perhaps from one of the commentators.
My contribution on its way, Tallbloke, (Paypal working well here in the UK). Just wish it could be more, a lot more, but all the very best wishes to you and your lady and thanks for having the courage to fight for truth and justice.
polistra says:
December 18, 2011 at 6:16 am
Seems to me that a libel case is misplaced effort and could backfire. The real conflict is not between bloggers with different opinions. The real conflict is between honest science (outside the Establishment) and corrupt science (within the Establishment).
Prosecuting a libel among bloggers could lead to a barrage of countersuits in all directions. Worst of all, it could end up setting a precedent that would shut down all dissent outside the fraternity of paid “journalists”.”
[and climatereason’s speciaous followup too]
Nonsense. This is precisely what is needed. Being a blogger doesn’t give you carte blanche to run your mouth in a public forum in a way that slanders or libels anybody, freedom of speech notwithstanding. Blogging, no different than publicly offered media, is accountable for the content and consequences of their postings. The courts have already weighed in on the difference between “conversation” and reportage in blogs, and while certainly not settled law, the desire of bloggers to be treated with the same degree of “respectibility” as established media (I know, I know…) demands that they share the legal accountibility – something every blogger needs to consider before they write. This is not a first amendment issue (for Yanks). Truth is always a defence, but for it to be one, truth must be at the heart of the post. The “other side” has become well versed in lawfare; so must the right side. As disagreeable as it is, every skeptic needs to understand that they are not dealing with an ideology that has <i.any moral footing, despite the rhetoric. The end goal is total capitulation, at any cost, including the cost of life. The fight is that serious.
Even though Larden changed the original opening paragraph to only imply TallBloke; he kept this part in
(emp mine) It seems that he is literally calling TB a criminal
ii) Potential malfeasance by the persons responsible for the obtaining of the Warrant in the form deemed appropriate (but actually wholly inappropriate) and for the heavy handed treatment of Tallbloke who would always have been prepared to assist voluntarily.
Not being a lawyer I will immediately proffer my opinion 🙂 I think this means that the police must have told a judge he is a suspect, or how else could they have obtained a warrant?
Isn’t the fact that Laden edited his posting, an admission he recognizes he was wrong in the original posting? If a person made an off-the-cuff comment in a verbal conversation, one could be excused for a lapse of judgment for that moment in time. Sometimes my mouth runneth-over. Just ask my wife, she keeps track of that…
But, with Laden, examining his pedigree, I would presume he can be held to a higher standard.
College educated with multiple advanced degrees, he is use to putting his thoughts onto paper (computer files now a-days). He has to think his argument thru and review his work. Also, he is experienced in the blogging world, where (supposedly) people of differing opinions banter back and forth for all to see. He had time to review his comment prior to posting it on the web, he had the opportunity to edit it prior to clicking on POST COMMENT
Now, one could possibly excuse a commenter like LazyTeenager for his/her sophomoric comments on this blog. By his/her own admission in his/her self chosen name, lazyTeenager, suggests a person of immaturity. Not knowing the caliber of the person called LazyTeenager, I can choose what level of respect I give to the comment at hand. But with Laden, he has an academic record, he has respect with his peers. His opinions carry the weight of his mature life experience and the diplomas he has on his wall. I believe he can be held to a higher standard than would a passing commenter on a blog. His words can damage another persons’ reputation, as opposed to someone like LazyTeenager.
-IMHO-
@Dave Burton
I´d never heard of this Laden guy before, but he lost his credibility with ´thieves’. Theft is taking property with the intent to permanently depriving the owner of it. Publishing copies of emails could be a breach of confidence, a breach of copyright, or a breach of the ´Misuse of computers’ legislation, but it can’t be theft.
Anyone who abuses the concept of theft in this way thereby forfeits credibility.
Do you have even the foggiest idea what was said?
TB December 14, 2011:
“An Englishman’s home is his castle they say. Not when six detectives from the Metropolitan Police, the Norfolk Constabulary and the Computer Crime division arrive on your doorstep with a warrant to search it though.”
Kev-in-UK says:
December 18, 2011 at 7:19 am
…”surely, all here can see the parallels with Tallblokes situation? just sayin……..”
Not really Kev – in the situation you describe there could well have been an element of urgency. If the police wanted a cooperative discussion with TB there are other ways than to turn up unannounced, mob handed and to search the premises. I second comments elsewhere about not trusting the police (and the system they are part of) one inch.
I also second the comments that TB and his legal team tread carefully. I note TB’s comment over taking his lady to lunch today. IMO TB should keep that in mind and be very wary of getting caught up in something that may develop in ways he didn’t anticipate. After a visit of the law in the manner described, IMO, his first priority should be self protection for him and his family.
slow to follow says:
December 18, 2011 at 8:09 am
my bad writing – the parallel I meant was with the ‘guilt’ assumed by any observers (and TB’s case journalistic ‘accounts’!), nothing else.
Calling someone a thief/criminal is not simply expressing an opinion. Recall that Tim Ball is being sued by Mann for making the old “State pen instead of Penn State” statement (as a joke no less), and Mann is suing him.
Nobody said it did. “Damage” need not be physical.
You haven’t been paying attention. There are many that are getting cut and some being reposted with edits that change their meaning (which is in and of itself an actionable offense in some countries).
Because you don’t understand what libel is. In the UK, the threshold is lower than the US, for sure, but even here calling out someone as a thief on a public forum without sufficient evidence would be actionable.
Mark
Kev – Thanks for clarifying.
It is, at the very least, an admission that he realized he may have libelled Tallbloke He may still not view this as “wrong,” however.
Mark
That, and he’s posting using his real name.
Mark
Bomber_the_Cat says:
December 18, 2011 at 7:39 am
not actionable? – perhaps you are reading the ‘edited’ version!!
Re: TB treading carefully, (comment by LT) – yes, I read it as advice, not a threat – but only LT can confirm that. For my money, (No pun intended) I’d be happy for TB and his team to simply get a public apology and retraction, and, if the likes of Laden and his legal advisors have any sense that’ll be issued promptly and be widespread through the blogosphere. Thereafter, a simple out of court offer of nominal ‘redress’ should be sensibly taken by TB……. otherwise, as I said earlier, all that happens is that the legal system gets paid a lot of money…
My limited experience (in expert witness type scenarios, and the negotiations therein) shows that people who argue over ‘points of principle’ are usually the worst at throwing good money after bad in these situations – and hence the only advice I would proffer to TB is to take time and consider. If I put the boot on the other foot – I’d be saying the opposite to Laden – namely, settle up now, or face a long potential legal and expensive battle……..both have choices, and decisions to make.
Robert of Ottawa says:
December 18, 2011 at 7:57 am
An interesting point – I’m not sure of the legal aspect (would have to ask my mum – county court clerk) but in the UK we often have journos reporting that people are ‘helping the police with their inquiry’ – which is clearly more ambiguous and far less incriminating!!
50 euros sent
Thanks for bringing that up. Laden’s claim was much more specific than Ball’s. Ball’s statement was pretty obviously snark – clearly not to be taken literally. The claim that Laden made, tweeted, and Mann retweeted was completely serious, and specific.
Robbo says:
Theft is taking property with the intent to permanently depriving the owner of it. …Publishing copies of emails could be a breach of confidence, a breach of copyright
Copyrighted material is Intellectual Property. If someone steals another ones IP, then the thief is depriving the author of the income from the royalties associated with the material. Even though the material may be an information file that the thief copied and the author has the original. If the thief publishes the material fist, then the author is damaged.
BUT….
That scenario only would hold true if the author used their own time and funds in collecting the Intellectual Property. In following the news on this subject, what seems to be occurring is that the authors of the information regard themselves as the owners of the IP. So by depriving them of the IP, they are being deprived of the AGW gravy train of future publicly funded research. When it comes out that their research may be suspect, those funds go away, along with reputations.
But since the information was acquired while these scientists were being funded, in both their salary and in the facilities used to gather this information, by public funds thru taxpayer dollars (or pounds, for my friends across the pond), thus the information is owned by the public and not the private individual, as is being alleged. For example, I work for a high-tech company, if I design a new product, the company owns the patent (IP) but I am on the paperwork as the originator of the design or idea. The company gets all of the $$ because I designed it on their dime, I get a pat on the back for a good job. And possibly another year of employment…..
What I foresee is that the researchers at these institutions may start to correspond thru private e-mail with their opinions and information, this can not be directly tracked.. But one day, someone will publish some information that was delivered thru private e-mail and they will have to account for how they acquired that info from the other researcher. If it is proven that they are using private e-mails for public funded work, I wonder if that would open up Pandora’s box and allow review of their private accounts?
Jut Wondering…..
I’ve sent monies from the home town of IPCC where some 25.000 UN-bureaucrats and thousands of additional NGO staff are beavering away to control the climate….i.e. control the world.
I suggest you call “Voodoo-Science”- Multi-Dr. R.K. Pachauri as an expert witness. He just uttered the following about Climate Realists in a California warming fest: “Launch them into space!”…on Sir Branson’s private space craft. More here:
http://www.grist.org/climate-skeptics/2011-12-16-new-approach-to-climate-deniers-launch-them-into-space
Sad, but true.
In the US, an attempt to avoid FOIA thusly is a crime by itself.
Mark
Mark T says on December 18, 2011 at 8:24 am
It is, at the very least, an admission that he realized he may have libelled Tallbloke He may still not view this as “wrong,” however.
I agree
Latimer Alder. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/17/tallbloke-to-take-to-torts/#comment-835208
Bloody HELL! Someone should tell Greg about the 1st law of holes!
DaveE.
Mark T says on December 18, 2011 at 9:01 am
In the US, an attempt to avoid FOIA thusly is a crime by itself.
Ooo.. I’d hate to b on the end of the investigation by the government if it were alleged I was swindling funds from that government. The government likes it’s (my) money.
I’m not a lawyer, but I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express. So for the edification of the legally ignorant, let’s recap a few things.
1. The right to free speech is guaranteed by the US constitution, but defamation is NOT protected. The SCOTUS has ruled that different standards exist for “public persons” and ordinary people. Roger is an ordinary person. Laden is probably an ordinary person. Mann’s status is unclear. He’s famous enough (due to his own doing) that one could argue that he’s a “public person”. In the US, truth is a complete defense against defamation.
2. In the UK, it’s a lot easier to win a defamation suit. In fact, it’s so easy that truth isn’t a complete defense. You can be found guilty of defamation even if what you say is completely true. Roger almost certainly would prevail if the case is filed in the UK.
3. I don’t know anything about Canada, but I imagine that it’s somewhere between the US and UK extremes.
4. The internet is the nexus that would allow jurisdiction in the UK, if Roger files suit there.
5. If Roger prevails in the UK, Laden and/or Mann would not be able to travel there without being forced to pay.
6. Getting a judgement in the US is facilitated by international agreements, but is complicated by recent statutes in several states and pending federal legislation that limits such judgments. The standard in the legislation is generally that the award will be allowed if the petitioner would have prevailed in the US. As far as I can tell, the only way to prove this is to file the case in the US. This means that Roger might as well file the case in the US. More here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding_Evil#Subsequent_legislative_activity
Any real lawyers out there, please correct anything that I got wrong.
Of course, you always try to settle before going to court. Roger may want to be thinking about what he wants out of a settlement, in addition to money.
MikeH says:
December 18, 2011 at 8:46 am
What I foresee is that the researchers at these institutions may start to correspond thru private e-mail with their opinions and information, this can not be directly tracked.. But one day, someone will publish some information that was delivered thru private e-mail and they will have to account for how they acquired that info from the other researcher. If it is proven that they are using private e-mails for public funded work, I wonder if that would open up Pandora’s box and allow review of their private accounts?
If the citizen auditors will prevail, the essence of science will not be scientific progress
anymore, but the control instincts of the general public with motivations that are. let’s face
it political. I think similar systems have been tried in the Soviet Union and East Germany. with disastrous results for the science. Think twice.
Stephen Wilde: …ii) To protect the civil rights of Roger in particular but also others who migfht find that they have in the past or do in the future suffer damage or loss simply as a consequence of standing up for and applying that which was once at the heart of human progress namely the scientific method.
Thank you Stephen. I think this point is essential.
I don’t want to see a court case that just wins against Laden and even P.C.Norfolk Plod, in a situation where “The Team” close ranks and simply cut these offenders adrift. We need the leverage that a wisely-developed court case can give, to open the door precisely to public awareness that Scientific Method has been compromised dangerously, at untold expense, for personal gain or with malice aforethought, and that this has been deliberately hidden from the public. A usurping of power.
IMHO this needs collaboration with the best masters of strategy you can find. That and prayer.
As the late Rene Anselmo said:
Thruth and Technology will Triumph over bullshit and burocracy.
Donation in its way.
The wife and I sent money – but what is really important to ME – I used those Climategate 1.0 and 2.0 emails virtually everyday. Perhaps even MORE importantly Congressman Rohrabacher’s speech on climate issues WUWT story used some of those very emails right there in the US House in HIS speech. There in the House directly under the eyes and ears of the US Justice Department is like a huge slap upside the head to the very people targeting Tallbloke. It just doesn’t get any sweeter that that.
Moreover, the UK police and UK Justice are sharp enough to now know the world skeptical family is NOT idly sitting by and cowering under the gaze of the US Justice Department nor the UK justice – in fact the world skeptical family have come alive and shown both UK and US authorities WE are a very powerful force none understood nor bargained for the scrutiny that his now turned on THEM. The AGW community never understood the dedication and commitment of us skeptics or our ability to turn the table directly back on them – and for the very first time our community as a whole has struck back with so powerful a blow it is now the AGW community ducking for cover. Looking to erase their tracks. Looking to escape the spotlight.
Believe me – newspapers editor and TV executives are taking notice – NO MORE free ride. Mike Mann NOW understand HE is in for a real fight. Whether tallbloke wins this thing or not is irrelevant in the larger picture – what IS important is that he fight back. By fighting back tallbloke puts everyone on notice – and at the end of the day this IS a huge win for the skeptical community. WE have stood our ground and served notice – we’re a real force to be reckoned with from here on out!
I’m in this for the long haul – come next payday tallboke still needs more fund then I’m in this to the end helping out! This concern everyone one of us.
Robert in Ottowa (nice place by the way)
“ii) Potential malfeasance by the persons responsible for the obtaining of the Warrant in the form deemed appropriate (but actually wholly inappropriate) and for the heavy handed treatment of Tallbloke who would always have been prepared to assist voluntarily.
Not being a lawyer I will immediately proffer my opinion 🙂 I think this means that the police must have told a judge he is a suspect, or how else could they have obtained a warrant?”
It could be that, although they thought the person innocent, that said person had within their possession evidence important to a case they were investigating.
My guess is that they didn’t think TallBloke had committed any offence, but, rightly, wanted to get access to his computers without warning in case there was something on them that could be deleted if he was warned.
If you’re reading this Norfolk police, I’m in Suffolk and I understand that our two police “services” are about to be merged. Please don’t give us the toss pots who are carrying out this investigation, send them to Lincolnshire!
Dead birds and bats from around Danish windmill sold to a local pizza store = 50£ donated
..the cat will prolly p*** in my slippers but I can live with that
I’m glad to help. Donation sent.
Please, before this goes nuclear, can we give the Norfolk police the opportunity – WITHIN DAYS – to return Tallbloke’s property to him, thank him for his cooperation, and apologise for any inconvenience caused.
I am not at all sure that this is the place for the final battle of the climate wars, and that a good, honest and decent man may suffer from it.
(Note to any police reading this – the key is “within days”)
This is an interesting development. I’m in – and willing to increase the donation if necessary, as I’m sure a lot of others are too.
I just added to my original small donation. One forgets that the pound is no longer equal to around two dollars. Good luck, Tallbloke!
Mikael Pihlström says on December 18, 2011 at 9:29 am
If the citizen auditors will prevail, the essence of science will not be scientific progress anymore, but the control instincts of the general public with motivations that are. let’s face it political. I think similar systems have been tried in the Soviet Union and East Germany. with disastrous results for the science. Think twice.
The AGW faction has already made this political. The Climate Realists are trying to take the politics out of the science. Whenever a new weather satellite goes up or a atmospheric satellite is launched, NASA says ‘in the pursuit of understanding climate change’. Paid for by our taxpayer dollars. Dr. Hansen, getting paid to lecture on AGW, petitioning our government (which pays his salary) to create laws to control the public in the use of energy.
I don’t mind the climate science, I don’t want the government instructing scientists on what to or not to research. I just mind the politics that the AGW ‘Team’ has ‘Tag-Teamed’ into this fight..
“MikeH says:
December 18, 2011 at 8:46 am
What I foresee is that the researchers at these institutions may start to correspond thru private e-mail with their opinions and information, this can not be directly tracked.. But one day, someone will publish some information that was delivered thru private e-mail and they will have to account for how they acquired that info from the other researcher. If it is proven that they are using private e-mails for public funded work, I wonder if that would open up Pandora’s box and allow review of their private accounts?”
In Virginia, where I live, any public official or member of a public body subject to FOIA does not gain anything by attempting to use private accounts to hide public business. If the individuals are so careless, foolish or duplicitous as to use their private accounts in that manner, it does not accomplish any concealment, as the emails containing any discussion of public business are subject to FOIA, no matter what account they may be in. Private discussion in the same emails may be redacted, but the public business is subject no matter where one writes it. It has already occurred in our county, and emails from private accounts were entered in court, with the private portions redacted.
It appears that we have a number of people here dropping comments that indicate that they don’t even understand the topic of this thread. This is about Laden and Mann’s libel. Period. It’s not about the police, it’s not about the seizure of any equipment, it’s not about politics in science, it’s about a specific libel. K?
In Canada, it is not necessary to prove injury, to prove defamation through libel or slander (the very common “what a reasonable person would infer or derive…” argument). Further, through the practice of lawfare, suits seeking damages under $50,000 do not require discovery. Hence, a lawfare technique is make multiple actions agains groups of bloggers with the aim of bankrupting them or forcinf ideologic compliance through threat of financial ruin.
This is why it is so critically important for the blogosphere to fill the warchests of bloggers who have been unreasonably targeted. Big money is at stake for Big Green and Big Totalitarianism, so it takes a persistent, diligent effort to push the darkness back.
£75 From the Air Vent.
More is available if needed.
A very good point ChE – is this solely about libel, or police action, or both?
Perhaps Stephen Wilde could clarify?
It is about a very specific libel AND about collating the information required to ascertain whether the Police acted incorrectly in any way.
It is not about the science or about a wider political agenda but there may be some incidental relevance in those areas.
NO! This has carry over ramifications – as any other story in any other sector of society does – this may well be about libel. However, the libel happened because tallbloke was raided by police at the request of US Justice. Without this raid in and of itself – would the said libel have occurred? Therefore the story has grown larger than the incident itself and has now spread to various news sources exacerbating others such as Mike Mann also getting in on the act with similar comments – we’re commenting directly because of the police raid ourselves. And everything that happed spread from the raid itself.
LazyTeenager says:
December 17, 2011 at 4:02 pm
“There seems to be two issues that are being mixed up here.
1. Libel
2. Police investigation
This particular paragraph gives the impression that the libel gave rise to -suffered distress, inconvenience and damage to property-.
So what’s this damage to property arising from the libel? Or is it being accidentally or deliberately misleading?”
LazyTeennager,
Why don’t you ask the good Solicitor yourself? Perhaps you would learn something of real value…
Then Tim Ball is in the clear. No “reasonable person” would take his snark as anything but a joke. Only a thin-skinned joker can’t see that.
A small donation made.
Those who say that this is no reflection on the science are quite wrong. The science on CAGW is not based upon direct evidence, but on circumstantial evidence. That is by statistical measures. The projected public image is that there are an elite group who know the truth, and a huge jury of very clever people who have studied the evidence and agree with them 100%. We have a second tier blogger who has jumped to conclusions, and when told by others he is in the wrong, or OTT has dogmatically stuck to his position. It appears that a leading scientist has accepted the alleged libel, and gleefully broadcast it further.
The consensus is based upon credibility. The expert scientists know the unambiguous truth from their careful research. They have drawn their conclusions from the evidence of the real world, without exaggeration. They state that none of the essential truths that make up this corpus of knowledge has been undermined. Like with the Climategate emails, this further shows that such “scientists” jump to conclusions, then doggedly defend them. Their claimed infallibility is just a dogma with no substance in fact.
Donation sent with best wishes for the holiday season from a frozen Canuck.
I agree with those who say that the science and politics is relevant but that is not part of my brief. Others can pursue such aspects seperately.
Compensation for libel is based on the principle that a reputation is valuable and many people automatically assume ‘no smoke without fire’.
Thus the absence of a direct financial consequence of a libel is not important. Loss is assumed automatically and it just needs to be quantified. It is not good for people worldwide to be aware of one’s name and to be associating it with criminality.
“Ultimately, this has real implications about shutting you up too.”
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2011/12/18/its-not-just-tallbloke-whos-in-the-firing-line-you-are-too/
Pointman
Good luck Roger, and Mr Wilde. Fifty quid in the pot.
Added a token amount, wish it was more!
Re: “Thieves who broke into Unviersity of East Anglia computers in 2009, stealing thousands of private emails….”
Is it actually possible to steal emails in any legal sense?
My understanding of theft is that it is the removal of property without permission of the lawful owner, with the intent to permanently deprive the said lawful owner of it. Copying electronic data (or paper documents) does not fulfil that definition to my mind. Breach of copyright might be the closest to any real crime, but no one has made any such complaint that I am aware of.
Any UK legal types care to give a definitive answer?
You all need to clarify your thoughts here.
TB was raided by the police following an investigation they believe to be computer hacking. This raid has NOTHING to do with CRU they are simply the victims of the crime the police are investigating.
The veracity of the climate data is not under investigation and forms no part of the TB affair.
In the UK TB has to show no financial loss for being libeled but recent cases pronounced void have likened blog slanging matches to slander. which is different (more like a heated discussion in a bar).
http://www.simkins.co.uk/ebulletins/lerSlandernotLibel.aspx
After the sensational award issued to Max Mosley in his privacy claim against the News Of The World, the hearts of individual “bloggers” on the online financial discussion forum ADVFN may have been pounding as Eady J handed down judgment on whether a subsisting stay of proceedings should be lifted opening the door to a full scale libel suit against them. The stay was maintained, and the bloggers avoided payment of damages to the subject of what was found to be “mere vulgar abuse”. And, Eady J added, while not wishing to encourage “vulgar abuse”, it was not necessarily appropriate for it to be taking up the scarce resources of the civil courts.
Background
The High Court case was brought by Nigel Smith, also known by his online avatar “Anomalus”. Acting as the coordinator of an action group to recover shareholders investments from the alleged Langbar fraud, Smith had himself lambasted an individual known as “Wiganer” as a fraudster, and alleged that various others were falsely claiming compensation for the Langbar losses. These allegations prompted comments from other shareholders and contributors to the discussion board in support of those who had been “threatened and bullied” by Smith. Smith obtained Norwich Pharmacal orders that required ADVFN to disclose the IP addresses of those concerned. News of the legal proceedings spread across the ADVFN board triggering more (alleged) defamatory comment against Smith who – unemployed and thus unfettered by the requirement to pay court issue fees – issued 37 sets of proceedings!
The stuff of libel proceedings?
The Judge took a dim view of Smith throughout, at one point commenting that “many would be surprised to see any of this made the stuff of libel proceedings – the object of which is to restore reputation”.
For legal observers more interesting perhaps than whether Smith had a reputation to protect, was the Judge’s ruling on the nature of discussion boards. Of comments made on a discussion board, Eady J observed that they were read by relatively few people, who share an interest in the subject matter; like contributions to a casual conversation (the analogy sometimes being drawn with people chatting in a bar); and were often uninhibited, casual and ill thought-out.
The Judge also noted that the participants often used pseudonyms or “avatars”, and that this was likely to be a “disinhibiting factor”. The register of these kinds of forums was characterised by witty retort and as such the Judge acknowledged that “give and take” was expected of participants.
Thus the Judge considered that in the context of defamation law, postings and communications of this kind are more “akin to slanders”. The distinction between the two causes of action is important because slander is only actionable if the claimant can prove special (monetary) damage caused by the imputation – however injurious to reputation, however malicious the motive of the defendant.
In any event, in the context of this case, the comments if not vulgar abuse – (“My wipers scraped better things from my car windscreen”, for instance); were arguably protected by defences of qualified privilege as the contributors were mainly shareholders in Langbar and therefore had legitimate interest in the subject matter of the discussion board. One of the defendants, a litigant in person, defended his remark that Smith was a “destructive twerp” as fair comment. On that basis the Judge came to the conclusion that to lift the stays would be “totally without merit”.
Conclusions
Eady J was careful to confine his ruling to the facts, saying that he would not suggest for a moment that “’blogging’ cannot ever form the basis of a legitimate libel claim”. Despite this, the effect of his ruling is that defamation committed on an internet bulletin board is more likely to amount to slander, a cause of action more difficult to prove than libel.
Case citation: Smith v ADVFN & Others [2008] All ER (D) 335 (Jul)
At one point Smith was represented by one of the foremost defamation barristers Aiden Eardley whilst the defendants defended themselves without representation – and still he lost!
Aiming your funds at the police is similarly difficult. Do you really think the police would raid a citizen without the correct paperwork in place. Do you think that a District Judge would risk giving the paperwork to go-ahead with a raid without sufficient evidence?
Remember the internet is a strange place that people call others frauds (a legal term) and others criminals(a legal term) and no cases are brought.
AND to cap it all a number of posters have re-posted on this very blog the comment that Laden made, that caused all the ruckus. Hence the case now has to be brought against Watts (he vets ALL posts) and the posters themselves!!!!!!
Now sort all that out!!!!
Can anyone direct me to a copy of the original of the post in question just to back up my fundraising post. I read the original but would like a copy to exhibit.
MikeH, December 18, 2011 at 8:46 am wonders:
“ If it is proven that they are using private e-mails for public funded work, I wonder if that would open up Pandora’s box and allow review of their private accounts? “
This article may help:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16189461
“ It doesn’t matter whether your words are scribbled on removable sticky notes or chiselled into tablets of stone; it’s equally irrelevant whether your thoughts are conveyed by text message or carrier pigeon. “
Since no proof of any hacking into the uea’s system been disclosed by the plod, we can only presume that the info was leaked by someone with access or was left in some vulnerable area to be swept up by Doris the cleaning lady et al.
No theft, just a leak. Like it even matters.
Thats a fact given what we know and warmers hate facts…it tends to disrupt their belief system.
Facts are to warmers as Kryptonite is to sooperman. 🙂
jjthoms says:
December 18, 2011 at 12:31 pm
“AND to cap it all a number of posters have re-posted on this very blog the comment that Laden made, that caused all the ruckus. Hence the case now has to be brought against Watts (he vets ALL posts) and the posters themselves!!!!!!”
==========
Utter nonsense.
Yet, the attempt to intimidate has been noted.
@ Pointman
Thanks for the link to your article. This is, indeed, about far more than just libel.
Posts that criticise a libelous post do not themselves give rise to a cause of action.
In fact, the more the initial libel is disseminated the bigger the potential value of the claim.
It is not akin to heated discussion between bloggers on the same site. In this case an independent site where he does not participate mounted an attack on Tallbloke which appears to have been either intended to harm or was careless as to whether harm would be caused.
It is about as open and shut as I have ever seen.
The Police get paperwork wrong all the time. The other problem the Police have is that as yet I see no evidence that the grounds for the issue of the warrant could ever have been reasonable.
All comments I might make here are in general terms only and should not be taken as a complete or accurate indication of the lines of approach that would be taken if this matter reaches trial.
My donation is contingent upon including Michael Mann in the action! (Not really! but please do.) Go get them. We cannot let the bastards win.
Please. Spray your half-chewed cookies in a different direction.
“The other problem the Police have is that as yet I see no evidence that the grounds for the issue of the warrant could ever have been reasonable.”
Surely, this is not a problem for the police, who were only doing their duty; rather a question of the motives and integrity of the parties who applied for a warrant, and the judge who signed it?
Tallbloke to take to torts
I would be happy to share the content on my (non-english) fb-site, but few would read it. The English used is too complicated. The ones who would read it are the ones who already know what it is all about.
Take to torts? Tallbloke?
Greg laden i presume?
Stephen Wilde says: December 18, 2011 at 1:35 pm
Posts that criticise a libelous post do not themselves give rise to a cause of action.
In fact, the more the initial libel is disseminated the bigger the potential value of the claim.
Read this and weep then
daveburton says: December 17, 2011 at 8:19 pm
This is not a criticism it is republishing.
So you are also saying that TB can get more money by spreading the potential defamation. Wow! that sounds so illegal (and unlikely)!!!
u.k.(us) says: December 18, 2011 at 1:01 pm
Utter nonsense.
Yet, the attempt to intimidate has been noted.
On the main thread:
ChE says: December 15, 2011 at 12:52 pm
That’s libel. And Mann retweeted it. That makes Mann guilty, too.
which is it – repeating the alleged defamation makes one guilty
or repeating the alleged defamation is fine?
Is this solicitor giving *his* services for free, or are the donations going to go to him as fees? Sorry to be cynical, but in my experience Solicitors will create more and more work in order to charge any amount that they can get away with. I have seen it time, and time, and time, again. A letter here, a phone call there, a “consultation” with a barrister here, a meeting there… if you tell them you have X pounds to spend on fighting a case, you can sure bet they will accumulate fees of at least X.
“Surely, this is not a problem for the police, who were only doing their duty”
That depends on whether it was the Police who applied for it. There is much yet to be ascertained.
$33 from Québec, Canada. Good luck.
Somebody doesn’t know the difference between a quote and a repetition.
If you tell them you have X pounds to spend on fighting a case, you can sure bet they will accumulate fees of at least X.”
In the real world I have usually found myself limiting the fee to X despite having had to do everything necessary which amounted to a lot more. The solicitor is rarely in control of the total amount of work that has to be done.
I am in the process of discussing the fees issue with Roger since I cannot afford to carry out the entire set of potential actions on a pro bono basis. Everything so far has been pro bono but I have to decide on the proper way forward given the practicalities.
Stephen Wilde says: December 18, 2011 at 2:47 pm
“Surely, this is not a problem for the police, who were only doing their duty”
That depends on whether it was the Police who applied for it. There is much yet to be ascertained.
What planet are you on. The police do not raid people on the say-so of CRU. (or any individual/group). Are you really accusing the police of corruption?
Mr. Wilde, thank you for engaging this discussion. Let me ask this: If the request was originated at the US DOJ, would the same requirements for a warrent still apply or would it be given as part of intergovernmental agreements?
Stephen Wilde says: December 18, 2011 at 3:19 pm
I am in the process of discussing the fees issue with Roger since I cannot afford to carry out the entire set of potential actions on a pro bono basis.
At last I have found a use for OMG
Please read up on defamation cases before posting you need to tell your compatriots not to post rubbish:
“ChE says:December 18, 2011 at 3:16 pm
Somebody doesn’t know the difference between a quote and a repetition.”
Read the case of demon vs godfrey
Demon settles net libel case
The case will have implications for all ISPs
A UK internet service provider has settled a libel case in a move which could have wide-ranging implications for online publishers.
Laurence Godfrey will be paid £15,000 plus legal costs – which could top £200,000 – by Demon Internet after allegedly defamatory postings about him appeared in newsgroups.
…
Dr Godfrey alleged that the company failed to remove defamatory material from a newsgroup it hosted, in the first case of its kind to go before the English courts.
I.e. they simply allowed defamatory material to be published, they made no comment Did not remove the material.
Wordpress watchout!
polistra says:
December 18, 2011 at 6:16 am
……Prosecuting a libel among bloggers could lead to a barrage of countersuits in all directions. Worst of all, it could end up setting a precedent that would shut down all dissent outside the fraternity of paid “journalists”.
_______________________________
Mike Mann already broke the ice on that one by suing Dr. Ball so now we are kicking the “Ball” back into their court.
Mann retweeted the nasty remarks BTW so his head is also in the noose.
To those that are suggesting that lazy teenager talk to the solicitor you are assuming that he is capable of truly learning these things, if he was able to learn these things he would have long ago stopped spouting the things he spouts and we would not be annoyed by the lack of understanding he displays with every post.
climatereason says:
December 18, 2011 at 6:45 am
…don’t want to open a pandoras boc that will impact on those bloggers who sometimes say more than they intend to in a heated moment.
______________________________________
It was not just ONE comment but several over a course of a few days with no apology. And the comments were not the ordinary blowing of steam type but vicious. If it was Pres. Obama instead of Tallbloke you would have the FBI knocking on the door ~ that type of comments.
Robert of Ottawa says:
December 18, 2011 at 7:57 am
ii) Potential malfeasance by the persons responsible for the obtaining of the Warrant in the form deemed appropriate (but actually wholly inappropriate) and for the heavy handed treatment of Tallbloke who would always have been prepared to assist voluntarily.
Not being a lawyer I will immediately proffer my opinion 🙂 I think this means that the police must have told a judge he is a suspect, or how else could they have obtained a warrant?
________________________________
No all they had to say to a Judge was that Tallbloke was the first to RECEIVE communication from FOIA (person) and they want to access his equipment for possible evidence. The fact they only took the two lap tops he uses instead of ALL his equipment makes that pretty clear.
jjthoms says:
“Are you really accusing the police of corruption?”
Wait… gimme a minute… Is that a trick question?
Here are some cartoons related to the Tallbloke situation.
http://fenbeagleblog.wordpress.com/2011/12/17/211/
jjthoms says:
December 18, 2011 at 2:45 pm
===========
Still waiting for a reasoned reply.
Any estimate of its arrival ?
u.k.(us) says: December 18, 2011 at 4:15 pm
Still waiting for a reasoned reply.
Any estimate of its arrival ?
============
Sorry, what is the question it does not seem to have made it to the thread.
“In the US, an attempt to avoid FOIA thusly is a crime by itself.”
I think it was brilliant that the hacker/whistle blower chose the name “FOIA”. It is an explicit reminder that the emails/documents would have been made available to the tax paying public, had the CRU and UEA not arrogantly stonewalled the requests and decided that laws don’t apply to them.
I can think of few situations in which civil disobedience is more correctly employed than this: Those in power refuse to respect and abide by the laws protecting those who give them their power. The theft/leaking of those files was exactly the right remedy!
Kev-in-UK says:
December 18, 2011 at 8:35 am
Robert of Ottawa says:
December 18, 2011 at 7:57 am
An interesting point – I’m not sure of the legal aspect (would have to ask my mum – county court clerk) but in the UK we often have journos reporting that people are ‘helping the police with their inquiry’ – which is clearly more ambiguous and far less incriminating!!
______________________
In the USA journalist make darn sure they use the word “Alleged” untill AFTER the trial and the person is found guilty.
AS an OT ~ Science and the Law goes bad… AGAIN local story I just read:
So science in North Carolina takes another massive blow to the head. This comes only months after a local Medical Lab was found to have falsified years worth of new drug FDA clinical trial documents. http://www.clinicalresearchsociety.org/2011/07/28/fda-says-cro-cetero-faked-trial-data-pharmas-may-need-to-redo-tests/
the name of Science is certainly getting dragged through the mud these days and rants from a well educated person like Greg laden, who has a PhD from Harvard, is doing nothing to help.
£50 sent.
@jjthoms… you seem to be able to search cases but don’t actually understand anything about the law. Money makes the law work. Money pays for lawyers, lawyers drag people into courts where it is a lottery as to what happens. Nobody can say who will win. But that is the point, fear and dread. How would you feel if you were being sued for something you did. How would you feel if you had put your house on the line because you couldn’t keep you mouth shut. How would you feel if you had to explain it to your kids…. pretty bad I expect. There are two aspects to this case, one is to redress the libel that was made against Tallbloke and the other is to punish the perpetrator namely Greg Laden. The alternative is that Greg Laden can go and libel anybody he chooses without any redress.
As for your assertion that Anthony Watts would be exposed to litigation because he reprinted the libel I say this…. Tallbloke would have to take action against Mr Watts. Not going to happen! Use your common sense please. Anyway after reading your rubbish it comes down to this ……£100 from me. Good Luck Tallbloke.
“the entire set of potential actions…” Has a nice sound. I’ll donate to that!
Johan E says:
December 18, 2011 at 2:37 pm
Tallbloke to take to torts
I would be happy to share the content on my (non-english) fb-site, but few would read it. The English used is too complicated. The ones who would read it are the ones who already know what it is all about.
Take to torts? Tallbloke?
_____________________________________
The Story in simple terms.
Roger Tattersall aka ‘Tallbloke’ had a wartant served and the police took his lap tops in evidence. Based on the police knocking on on Roger Tattersall’s door Greg Laden called Roger a thief and also made possible threats of violence against him and all other Climate Realists. This damages Roger Tattersall’s good name {and ours}. Roger Tattersall has hired a lawyer Stephen WIlde and is going to take Laden to court (sue him)
Greg Laden’s words were repeated by Dr. Mann and broadcast worldwide via Twitter.
Those of us who do not like being called thieves and worse are contributing to a fund to take Laden (and possibly Mann) to court.
Dale Thompson says:
December 18, 2011 at 2:47 pm
Is this solicitor giving *his* services for free, or are the donations going to go to him as fees?
___________
Pro Bono means he is doing it for free but the funds are for the rest of the team of expert lawyers that are needed. Remember the other side such as Mike Mann have very good lawyers available free, funded by the likes of Al Gore, George Soros and the lord knows who else.
This is truly a David vs Goliath issue. That is why they have no problem suggesting we be dealt with violently etc.
I just authorized my PayPal account for 20 pounds. Now, how do I make my keyboard type in the right symbols?
Stephen,
Good to see you on the case.
Its my understand that the DOJ would have entered the case at the request of the UK police.
That implies the police knew that whatever comments were made on tallblokes blog were in the possesion of WordPress and held on their servers. That is, they knew were to go to get
the information they thought they needed and they took the first step down that path
Wordpress followed the freeze order to maintain the records, however, it would appear that
no warrant to search WP records was issued. A waarant to search the records would require a judge. The freeze order does not. Perhaps the DOJ couldnt get a warrant. Perhaps the police were informed of this. That would leave them with just one option: a fishing expedition at tallblokes.
Any way, good to see you on the job.
The smell of spinning trolls. Smells like … fear.
If Steve McIntyre/Climate Audit contributes, that’s reason enough for me to help out.
best, Chuck Ellington
Harpo says:
December 18, 2011 at 4:44 pm
——————————————
Enjoyed the post. Loved the second last sentence. I look forward to this story moving forward.
jjthoms says:
December 18, 2011 at 4:25 pm
u.k.(us) says: December 18, 2011 at 4:15 pm
Still waiting for a reasoned reply.
Any estimate of its arrival ?
============
Sorry, what is the question it does not seem to have made it to the thread.
—————————–
The answers drive the questions.
Just a thought…. If your family is anything like mine there are some “well intentioned” climate alarmists in it. They don’t want material things, they just want a safer and more just planet. So if you are wondering what to get them for a gift this Christmas you could instead make a donation to Tallbloke on their behalf. Just get your PayPal receipt and a little card and write them a message… like…. “Instead of buying you some materialistic gift I have made a donation on your behalf to a fund to fight for truth, honesty and respect for people who value the role of science in preserving the planet. Merry Christmas and justice for all”….
daveburton says: December 17, 2011 at 8:19 pm
Dave, you also have a case for libel in that he attributed words and a point of view you do not hold. The man should be in parliment.
Bob says: December 18, 2011 at 5:37 pm
Character Map in Accessories
Stephen
@Stephen Wilde says:
December 17, 2011 at 4:05 pm
“…
iv) Possible injunctive relief preventing examination, copying, cloning or any unauthorised use of Tallbloke’s private data.
….
Other possibilities may come to mind in due course/”
I have not seen the search and seizure warrant and therefore do not know the scope of its provisions. I envisage that the scope of its provisions are set too wide, and that Tallbloke could have made an emergency application to have the width of the provisions reviewed and if the Ciurt was so persuaded then the scope of the provisions would be suitably reduced/limited. Rallbloke might also have been able to persuade the Court that the xomputers should not be inspected by the police without an observer representing Tallbloke being present during the inspection.
Of course, the matter is not quite so straight forward since we are not looking at a civil warrant. Further, whilst an application to review the terms of the search and seizure warrant is still no doubt possible, the applcication may now prove too late if the police have already cloned a complete copy of all the data held on the computers seized. The ‘victory; brought about by any such review may be no more than symbolic or of course, the Court may decide not to get involved if matters are in effect already redundant.
As you observe, you need to consider very carefully what avenues are open and this will no doubt vary in accordance with the international jurisdictional issues raised.
Some quatloos from Tasmania coming when my repaired main PC is returned this evening.
[All comments I might make here are in general terms only and should not be taken as a complete or accurate indication of my sanity.]
jjthoms says:
December 18, 2011 at 5:56 pm
If what you are saying is that Tallbloke is going to have a hard time winning damages I tend to agree. But my point is that there are a lot of people upset by Mr Laden’s behaviour and they are going to cause him some trouble. He is going to have to defend himself and in doing so he is going to have to do some work and expend some cash. Maybe he can raise a sum of money from his readership. Good luck to him, but he is still going to be seen as raising money to defend himself for something that most reasonable people would say he shouldn’t have done. And maybe… just maybe… the next time he thinks (or doesn’t think) about writing something similar to what he wrote about Tallbloke he may pause and consider the consequences. These are lesson our parents taught us… but sometimes adults have to be reminded. I for one am glad to contribute . Merry Christmas or happy holidays jjthoms. I wish you and your family best wishes for the festive season in which it would be well for all of us to remember the Kennedy’s words… “For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children’s future. And we are all mortal.”
Mosher’s theory actually makes a lot of sense. Somebody in UK prods the cops to DO SOMETHING NOW. The cops use channels to the US DoJ to go after WP. They assign some junior flunky to the case. Junior flunky tries to get a court order and can’t. Junior flunky then sends a letter with a hush “request” that WP ignores. Jeff gets a copy of the letter. Cat’s out of the bag. Can’t do anything in the US or Canada. Tallbloke is the only one of the three in the UK, so he gets the visit.
It all fits.
here’s one to read:
http://www.urban75.org/info/libel.html
Anyone who repeats allegations can also be sued. This is important. Seeing something written somewhere else doesn’t mean it is true. Repeating allegations without making sure they are true is a very good way to get yourself knee deep in litigation.
Anyone who has had any dealings with the Law knows only to well that legal costs have been allowed to get out of all control and something needs to be done to rein these in. The problem is that there is a lack of will to address this issue no doubt probably due to self interest.
Today there was an article reported in the Daily Mail about legal costs and a decsion made by Lord Justice Rix (who is something of a rising star of the English Judiciary). See
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2075814/Judges-fury-225-000-legal-simple-dispute-private-schools-leaky-water-pipe.html
I was once involved in a case which did not involve a large sum of money and which before trial attempts were made to settle, and the difference between the parties of what one party offered and the amount that the other party was willing to accepr was about $20,000 damages plus £20,000 costs (the actual figures were higher, this is only the difference between the parties) but the case did not settle and went all the way to the House of Lords (the highest Court in England and Wales) by which time the combined costs of the parties was in the region of £4,000,000 (may even have been slighly more).
Obviously complex legal issues were involved since the House of Lords only hears cases of public importance and the case was not similar to that discussed in The Daily Mail but the case does give an illustrarion how legal costs can escalate out of all proportion to the sums involved.
Any action in Tallbloke is likely to be costly. Usually the Claimants’ costs are higher but a Claimant has to bear in mind that whilst he can control his own costs, he cannot control the Defendants’ costs, Readers of this blog will know that in the University of Virginia matter the University has spent in excess of $1,000,000 seeking to resist the disclosure application. This gives an indication of the muscle behind Mann and whilst the Twitter by Mann looks a particularly interesting target, Tallbloke and Stephen Wilde need to bear in these factors..
Richard, courts do two things. First they find fact. Then they find law. Cases get ugly when either or both get messy. In this case, the facts are on the internet, preserved in caches and on people’s hard drives, and all that needs to be done to find fact is verify that these things did in fact go out over the internet. That’s pretty straightforward.
The finding of law is a little messier, Roger’s attorney will have to persuade the court that the action rises to the definition. But as things go, this is pretty straightforward, too. Even the thing with Mann isn’t that complicated. The evidence is discoverable at Twitter. Now any issues with police procedure may be another matter. But I trust that Mr. Wilde will assess the seaworthiness of that ship before sailing it.
@Stephen Wilde says:
December 18, 2011 at 1:35 pm
“….It is about as open and shut as I have ever seen….”
Good to see a high level of confidence, but such an unqualified statement is a dangerous statement to make (and can sometimes be a hostage to fortune). That said, if this matter were ever to go to Court, one would envisage that the Defendants would review the blogoshere to see what the Claimant and those representing the Claimant have said. Whilst such comments may be nothing more than mere prejudice, Tallbloke and Stephen have to be very careful what they say and of course must not say anything that may undermine the case. Readers should therefore bear that in mind and accordingly, one can expect to see bullish comments of this nature being made by the potential Claimant.
ChE says December 18, 2011 at 7:22 pm
… In this case, the facts are on the internet, preserved in caches and on people’s hard drives, and all that needs to be done to find fact is verify that these things did in fact go out over the internet. That’s pretty straightforward.
No its’s not!
You need to be able to show how many people saw the original post. I’m not sure how this site linking to the text counts (probably negatively).
TB needs to show financial loss. Very difficult if he has not lost his job.
Reposting the same text here and on twitter re-publishes the alledged defamation – I don’t think you can chose whom you want to accuse – accuse Mann and you must accuse Watts by default.
Unfortunately TB has allowed the used of Fraud on his site so this could be looked upon as tit-for-tat!
The first action in Defamation is called pre-action protocol and has to be done before esculation to courts. Check it out
http://www.justice.gov.uk/guidance/courts-and-tribunals/courts/procedure-rules/civil/contents/protocols/prot_def.htm.
“The parties should consider whether some form of alternative dispute resolution procedure would be more suitable than litigation, and if so, endeavour to agree which form to adopt. Both the Claimant and Defendant may be required by the Court to provide evidence that alternative means of resolving their dispute were considered. The Courts take the view that litigation should be a last resort, and that claims should not be issued prematurely when a settlement is still actively being explored. Parties are warned that if the protocol is not followed (including this paragraph) then the Court must have regard to such conduct when determining costs.”
The law in uk is odd here in that the defendant MUST prove his innocence or else he is guilty. Consequently and with potentially 6 figure costs on both sides the law does not like frivolous actions. To win with a fine of 1 penny must be humiliating. and possibly no costs allocated to the defendant.
😆
ChE says:
December 18, 2011 at 7:22 pm
//////////
The Court of First Instance will find the facts, and will interupt and apply the law to the facts so found. Thereafer, courts of appeal will only look at the law unless one can argue that the Court of First Instance made an error of law in the finding of a particular fact.
The Twitter posts (for example) are a matter of fact. However, the meaning to be ascribed to the Tweet is a matter of interpretation. Accordingly whilst facts may be facts, the meaning to be ascribed to those facts may be less clear. It is only once that meaning has been ascertained that one can go the nexr step and enquire whether a breach of the law has been commissioned.
I fully concur with your last observation. Indeed, this applies to all the various avenuues of recourse which may be available. The first step is to carry out a thorough investigation of all the relevant background facts. It is only once these facts is fully known that one can begin to judge what if any legal implications are involved. The latter may involve advice from foreign lawyers given the international nature of the blogosphere.
Whilst the law pertaining to libel and defamation is quite clear, the status of Twitter Tweets may give rise to new a particular issues. There may be arguments to suggest that a Tweet should not be regarded in the same light as a comment set out in printed material (such as a newspaper or magazine article) since the public perception of Tweets may be that they are little more than light hearted banter and should be taken with a pinch of salt. I am not saying that that is indeed the case or justified but I can envisage that public policy issues may be raised especially since it is all but impossible to police the blogosphere and Twitter. If so, whilst in theory this would be an objective test, by its very nature it tends to be a subjective matter. I am merelu observing that whilst libel laws are old and well kmown, some of the examples raised of this touch on a new and devoping area of the law. I have not been following this but I am aware that Judges have made comments which touch upon this when Tweeters have ‘breached’ gagging orders/privacy injunctions. No doubt Stephen will be looking at those cases to see whether anything of relevance has been raised in them.
There’s a difference between repeating an allegation as Mann has done by tweeting with the intent to further harm TB’s character vs. showing proof that such words were written then changed by Laden, who presumably realized his words were indeed libelous. It’s all about motive and context. Nobody here posted Laden’s comment with the motive to harm TB but rather to give evidence (or proof if you will) that Laden indeed accused TB of being a criminal then changed his words to cover over his own wrongdoing. If you can’t differentiate the context then all of your cutting and pasting of links just underscores your ineptitude.
Just remember, everybody, that Pounds Sterling are fine, the Australian Dollar is doing very well on international currency markets, the Canadian Loonie is in excellent condition, but with all that squealing among the PIIGS, for Gresham’s sake, don’t send any Euros!
Che
Desmog blog posts a scathing article on the police nov 26. citing no work on the case since feb 2011.
Congressman Markey calls for a round up on Nov22
Mann calls for investigation
DOJ swings to action Dec 9. They have 90 days to get the warrant.
Wordpress alerts TB . weird.
if the DOJ failed at getting a warrant, more makes sense
speculation is fun.
For those who seem to want keep repeating the rather dubious notion that this is an ongoing “criminal” investigation I would ask you to consider this quote from Delingpole’s initial column on this matter, which nicely encapsulates what has always been my own view
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100124397/climategate-obamas-boot-boys-strike-back/
“That last paragraph of Horner’s addresses a conundrum which has been puzzling quite a few of us, viz: why are all these public resources being wasted on the pursuit of somebody who, even if the police catch him, has no case whatsoever to answer. If a whistleblower leaks information in the public interest – as Climategate and Climategate 2.0 clearly are – then he is pretty much immune from prosecution. (Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998)”
Mr. Tattersall has been the subject of adverse police attention and the accompanying attempted character assassination in pursuit of a suspect who, in the unlikely chance he is ever identified, will in all probability never be charged with anything.
I would point out that, since Britain acted to outlaw virtually all private gun ownership, the crime rate there has been doing a very nice imitation of one of Mr. Mann’s hockey sticks. The police there complain regularly that they lack the resources to keep up with it. i recall reading a report that they would no longer be sending constables out to investigate reports of “minor” crimes in person. I can’t recall all of the things on the list of “minor” crimes, but I remember having a distinct impression that if many of those things happened to me i would be very unhappy if the local authorities chose to ignore me when I reported them. I recall another report from a year or so ago that, in terms of crime stats, London had moved ahead of Detroit as a dangerous place to live. Given all that, devoting over two years of valuable and scarce investigative resources to the pursuit of a suspect who it will be almost impossible to charge with a crime if he’s ever found seems to me to be the very definition of criminal malfeasance by the police.
jjthoms says:
December 18, 2011 at 8:04 pm
ChE says December 18, 2011 at 7:22 pm
… In this case, the facts are on the internet, preserved in caches and on people’s hard drives, and all that needs to be done to find fact is verify that these things did in fact go out over the internet. That’s pretty straightforward.
No its’s not!
You need to be able to show how many people saw the original post. I’m not sure how this site linking to the text counts (probably negatively).
TB needs to show financial loss. Very difficult if he has not lost his job.
Reposting the same text here and on twitter re-publishes the alledged defamation – I don’t think you can chose whom you want to accuse – accuse Mann and you must accuse Watts by default.
————————————————————————
Oh jjthoms, please, please be Laden and Mann’s lawyer! Tallbloke will romp home.
The existence of defamation does not depend on how many people saw it, although it might affect the damages awarded (if any). You can defame a person simply by badmouthing them to their boss, for example.
In the UK and Australia, you do not have to show financial loss, either, for defamation to occur. The form of words is something along the lines of loss of reputation, and/or exposing the plaintiff to hatred and contempt (depending on the jurisdiction).
For the umpteenth time, the only way that Anthony would be exposed to litigation because of this thread is if Tallbloke sued him. Since Tallbloke has been posting appreciatively in the thread, that ain’t going to happen.
Go back to the basement and play with your Lego.
Bomber_the_Cat says:
December 18, 2011 at 7:39 am
In this very polarised climate ‘debate’, we surely don’t want a situation where people are sued for expressing different, even heated, opinions. Appealing for money to defend yourself against such action is one thing, raising it to sue someone else is another.
I have no problem with people getting passionate about their science. I do have a problem with people making wild accusations which affect my future employment prospects.
I am hoping to successfully defend my good reputation as an honest and trustworthy computer professional, and as a reasonable and responsible science blogger. Such action unfortunately costs money beyond my personal means. Fortunately I have the support of many good people who know the thin end of the wedge when they see it.
I am eternally grateful for their assistance.
Just sent what I could. Remember, this could happen to any of us!
Stephen Wilde, you probably know this but just in case you don’t, the commenter JJThoms is an AGW climate drone and sycophant of the ‘Team’. He/she/it once suggested that Anthony give up his own emails vis-à-vis FOIA laws in a crude attempt to associate private with public FOIA-requested taxpayer-funded information. His alleged court case described above notwithstanding, it is highly probable he is not here to help. Quite on the contrary, since the raid, I expect some trolls are probably planning to sabotage Tallbloke’s suit by trying to get someone to say something to prejudice the case here in public.
My non-lawyer suggestion (with all due respect of course as I am thrilled that you are involved) is for all y’all to say nothing in ‘comments’ anymore. Stay off the grid except for news and press releases.
Yep, I don’t trust them (the AGW cabal), not one bit.
P.S. I hope Roger is keeping a diary of everything that happens. It will make a wonderful outline for a book about being sucked into the ClimateGate tornado. If he were to mention publicly that he is definitely documenting this event, it would buy him some extra respect from people such as his employers, the Police and even harassers. Being on notice that the details will go public in a best-seller can force people to be on their best behavior whether they like it or not. Just sayin.
jjthoms~ just a quick question for you, if I may:
Who’s side do you stand on in this situation? Tallbloke, or laden?
Please, a Direct answer. Which name do you stand by? I neither ask nor need anything else in this regard.
steven mosher says: (December 18, 2011 at 9:57 pm)
But not very profitable unless you’re on the Team.
Quite so Tallbloke, you are but the first “Victim” of this idiocy, there is a much bigger principle at stake than just you. Those on here and elsewhere who refuse to grasp this are operating to an “Agenda” in the main imho.
The others are being obtuse in many cases.
Keep the faith, as you rightly say many many people “get this” a line has been drawn in the sand and its time to stand up and be counted before shooting the messenger becomes de rigeur!
ForStephan Wilde,
Good job. But I suggest you keep the residue of the donations in a safe investment for use in defending FOIA when the authorities eventually charge him (or her). I wonder if the warmists are all that eager to deal with possible disclosure demands related to that trial.
From The BBC website:
Libel is defamation in a permanent form – something that is published, broadcast or recorded.
Slander is a defamatory statement in a transient form, usually spoken.
As a general rule, actual damage suffered has to be proved in a slander action but is presumed in one for libel.
{Check out J. Eady pronouncement on BB posting being “more akin to slander”}
You risk defaming someone if you repeat defamatory comments previously published by others – e.g. in newspapers – either by quoting them or using them in an interview or soundbite.
TB will more thasn likely have to show loss.
Otter says: December 19, 2011 at 3:02 am
Who’s side do you stand on in this situation? Tallbloke, or laden?
Laden is wrong – probably didn’t think of defamation before posting – who does (I do!).
TB is wrong to have allowed defamatory comments on his blog.
TB will find difficulty in winning unless he can show loss.IF TB actually publishes Laden’s comment he will effectively destroy his case.
And NO yo cannot say Mann republishing is worse than Watts.
Looking around the blogosphere, it’s interesting to see how many of the trolls have been mobilised in a rather unsubtle group effort to persuade someone not to sue someone else. They’re really running scared on this one …
Pointman
tallbloke says:
December 19, 2011 at 2:20 am
Roger, you have all my sympathy. But as you know, suing the police in this country is very difficult and almost certainly futile.
As for Greg Laden, his comments are indeed wild and, in the comments section, verging on mentally unbalanced in my opinion – although I doubt he will plead insanity.
That is one of the problems maybe. Did anyone take his remarks seriously? Could such ranting change the mind of a reasonable person? Entering into legal action is not to be taken lightly. It is costly and easier to start than to stop. You know my advice but the best of luck to you whatever you decide.
Dave Burton’s account of what Laden did to him (December 17, 8:19PM)is absolutely unforgivable and so I withdraw my remarks about ‘free speech’.
Let me make it clear that I am on Tallbloke’s side and wish him every success. I find the erossion of civil liberties, and the over zealous and unnecessary use of heavy handed policing to be very worrying. I lament of what has become of the Uk these past 20 or so years.
The trouble with litigation is that it often proves to be a fool’s game, to be engaged in only by those who have deep pockets. Regretably principles are a costly commodity and it is rarely sensible to conduct litigation purely (or for that matter mainly) on the basis that it is a matter of principle.
One has to be cold, dispassionate and above all else objective. On this blog, we often discuss confirmation bias creeping into data sets. The same applies to the assessment of risk in litigation. It is all too easy to get carried away with the merits of one’s own case and thereby lose objectivity.
I have already commented upon the requirement at the outset to ascertain the facts. One should also at the outset answer what is the purpose of the intended litihation? what do I hope to acjieve by it? what are the prospects that my goals will be achieved in whole and/or in part? what is the likely outcome of the litigation? what can go wrong with the litigation? can any award/judgment obtained be effectively enforced and if so by what means and at what cost? what will be the outcome if matters go wrong and/or do not turn out as expected? An intrinsic part of litigation is risk management and accordingly one needs to be aware of how one can become unstuck and what the disaster scenario is.
One problem with libel is that often the issue of an apology is all that is required, especially when there is no evidence of financial loss. It could be expensive to pursue a libel action only to find that someway down the line the Defendant issues an apology (this may well be a first for Michael Mann, I do not know his character well enough to know how he might respond) and then it may be difficult to take matters forward and/or recover the costs incurred before the apology was made.
Whilst I can see prospects of success, I can also see that the matter is thwart with difficulties. it is nice to see fellow commentators issue words of encouragement, but Tallbloke and Stephen Wilde need to be realistic and take a long cold, dispassionate and objective look at what is involved in all of this and how matters may pan out. .
Richard Verney: Thank you for what you have written. My limited experience of litigation completely backs it up. As far as the PR war is concerned, the crucial paragraph of Stephen Wilde’s for me is:
A very important consequent goal would be:
I’d love to see the first point clearly established by a UK court and the identities of those directing the outrageous and ridiculous police operation since 17th November 2009 disclosed. But will that happen through a libel action giving the most chance of success (and in saying that I’m not necessarily assuming receipt of money) for Tallbloke against Laden and Mann? I’m far from clear about that.
It’s wonderful that so many have given to Tallbloke’s fighting fund. But one of the most positive outcomes of this incident cost no money – this excellent summary from Roger of the Climategate inquiries carried by the Independent newspaper on Friday:
How often have we seen something that clear on this subject in the Indie? Cold comfort it may seem to Tallbloke and his many supporters right now. But the risk analysis Richard Verney calls for is essential, as is a cost-benefit analysis taking in account wider PR goals (by which I mean simply dissemination of the truth as we understand it to counter the pervasive and deceptive propaganda of the climate establishment). Some such good has already come.
Richard and Bomber
Thanks for the sage words. Stephen is level headed and realistic thinker and he has already been explaining to me the potential pitfalls. We will proceed with all due caution and with well inspected and firm groundwork. His intention is to get the most we can from the situation by making small advances at each step. That way, if we hit a wall at some point, we will already have had some successes in front of which we can ‘draw a line in the sand’.
Richard Verney – you are right, but I see no signs of mad vindictiveness from either TB or his solicitor. They are not trying to win a war, just to defend TB’s reputation as an honest and ethical person, and to protect him from reprisals in his employment.
Bomber_the_Cat says:
December 19, 2011 at 7:37 am
tallbloke says:
December 19, 2011 at 2:20 am
Roger, you have all my sympathy. But as you know, suing the police in this country is very difficult and almost certainly futile.
As for Greg Laden, his comments are indeed wild and, in the comments section, verging on mentally unbalanced in my opinion – although I doubt he will plead insanity.
That is one of the problems maybe. Did anyone take his remarks seriously? Could such ranting change the mind of a reasonable person? Entering into legal action is not to be taken lightly. It is costly and easier to start than to stop. You know my advice but the best of luck to you whatever you decide.
Dave Burton’s account of what Laden did to him (December 17, 8:19PM)is absolutely unforgivable and so I withdraw my remarks about ‘free speech’.
—————————————————————–
Re Laden, there is a point where people’s statements are so crazy that nobody would believe them – like posting a statement that POTUS is a transvestite that was planted by aliens. But in this case, there is no reason to believe that someone who did not know the facts would regard the statement as crazy. The author is an apparently lucid PhD from Harvard, not a moonshine-crazed fundamentalist from (fill in your preferred State).
I am sure that TB and his counsel are well aware of the ‘tar baby’ effect of litigation, and will seek to limit it accordingly. TB’s solicitor is apparently a friend, not an ambulance chaser.
As for Dave Burton, hungry lawyers prepared to take on the case on a no-win, no fee basis must be queuing around the block.
At 9:24 AM on 19 December, johanna had written:
Well, is should think not! It’s widely known that she’s a transvestite, and an illegal alien in the bargain. Why d’you think that nobody attending or instructing at Columbia University can remember ever having encountered “him”?
She was attending in her genuine persona, a demure young woman of modest means, socializing with few outside her sorority and applying herself diligently to her studies. She didn’t assume male drag until after she’d graduated.
Michelle, of course, is a guy. Estrogen shots notwithstanding, that mustache is a dead giveaway.
“ChE says:
December 18, 2011 at 6:44 pm
Mosher’s theory actually makes a lot of sense. Somebody in UK prods the cops to DO SOMETHING NOW. The cops use channels to the US DoJ to go after WP. They assign some junior flunky to the case. Junior flunky tries to get a court order and can’t. Junior flunky then sends a letter with a hush “request” that WP ignores. Jeff gets a copy of the letter. Cat’s out of the bag. Can’t do anything in the US or Canada. Tallbloke is the only one of the three in the UK, so he gets the visit.”
Umm, no. The “junior flunky” (mistake number 1 – I’ll comment later) doesn’t try to get a court order. She serves notice under the Title that the respondent has an statutory duty of care, which may be exercised upon within 90 days (with further extensions possible) by the issuance of the requisite orders or warrants. Since all three named blogs/bloggers have the same base data (presumed), the UK constabulary takes the path of least resistance and secures, TB’s copy of the data dump process, since the crime is alleged in the UK.
Since both US and Canada have a higher bar against search and seizure than WordPress as a corp, the repository for most of the data and email exchange is secured for further examination, rather than going after foreign nationals. The latter is eminently doable, but the effort is tedious.
The “junior flunky”, is sufficiently credentialed to take this all the way that it needs to go, having both credentials in computer science AND law, and young enough to have sufficient fire to care and the stamina to do the case law with the weight of the DOJ behind her. Take her on at your peril.
As far as i can see, Stephen Wilde has been a lawyer for 37 years, so I think it is reasonable to assume he is aware of the pitfalls. From posts he has made here and on Tallbloke’s blog he is also aware of the need to seek specialised advice as appropriate. I am sure we all have reservations but I for one have given my modest donation without strings and I hope we can leave Stephen and Tallbloke to get on with it. Updates on progress as they feel appropriate would obviously be welcome so long as they don’t prejudice the case or take the eye off the ball.
Yes.
The only thing to consider is that Tallbloke left a comment (at CA?) saying that this originated on his side of the pond. My first guess was that this originated in the US, but you’d think DoJ would have thrown some serious resources at it if that were the case. That letter to WP was pretty weak.
Read the referenced statute. It requires a court order. By itself that letter has all the legal authority of “get off my lawn”. It definitely doesn’t require WP to keep mum, and they didn’t. That’s why the attorney who sent it used the word “request”.
Just made my contribution.
Good luck.
“ChE says:
December 19, 2011 at 9:50 am
Paul Coppin says:
December 19, 2011 at 9:24 am
Read the referenced statute. It requires a court order. By itself that letter has all the legal authority of “get off my lawn”. It definitely doesn’t require WP to keep mum, and they didn’t. That’s why the attorney who sent it used the word “request”.”
The one with the reading comprehension issue here is you, not me. She made a request to preserve evidence “pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 2703(f)”
Which states:
(f) Requirement To Preserve Evidence.—
(1) In general.— A provider of wire or electronic communication services or a remote computing service, upon the request of a governmental entity, shall take all necessary steps to preserve records and other evidence in its possession pending the issuance of a court order or other process.
(2) Period of retention.— Records referred to in paragraph (1) shall be retained for a period of 90 days, which shall be extended for an additional 90-day period upon a renewed request by the governmental entity.
For disclosure of the preserved evidence, an order is required under sections (a), (b), (c) and (d) is not in question. She further requested that they not advise the customer, but there is no obligation to sequester the request, nor is there an obligation for the dept to notify the customer they have issued the preservation order. The preservation order serves notice that there is, or may be, an intention to serve the respondent with an order or subpoena. Having been served with the notice to preserve under 2703 (f) (which uses the words “shall”), the respondent ithen holds a liability before the court if they have not complied with the presevervation order, the remedy for which will be at the discretion of the court, upon hearing the evidence of failure to preserve. She used the word “request”, because that’s what the statute outlines. Don’t seek to represent yourself in court, you won’t likely fair well.
My troll meter is starting to beep.
F.O.I.A
Unleash your final exocet. Let go the code. Now is the time.
First ‘win’ for Roger. Email message just in from Zachary Shahan, Director of Planetsave who seems a nice guy but was taken in by the initial defamatory reporting.
“Hello Guys,
Given the actual request of the DOJ order and the changes in some of the Guardian text I quoted, it’s more worth my time (and everyone else’s probably) to just remove the story — there wasn’t much of interest in the story anyway (except that the police are trying to find out who the hacker was — but that’s nothing new), but I’m curious to hear what you find as to why they seized your equipment. That’s still completely unclear, right?
On the misinformation bit: there’s no intention on my part to make you (Roger) look like you have nefarious motives. I think you are genuine in your thought that the science is not settled (while, obviously, I am confident that it is — certain key parts of it, of course). As I think I mentioned before, I have one or two good friends in your boat. I don’t consider them nefarious and don’t think they or you intend to misinform people. I think there are nefarious people in the fossil fuel industry or working for them that originate much of this misinformation, but I have never assumed you are such a person (and I don’t assume most people who ascribe to your beliefs are). And I think it’s a shame people get carried away in that type of thinking!”
Perhaps some good can come of all this ?
Stephen Wilde: brilliant, well done.
Definitely. A mega-good would be for people like Shahan to realise that the old boogy-men “nefarious people in the fossil fuel industry or working for them” are very small in number and very short of cash, compared to:
1. the net renevue of the mega-corporates they work for
2. how much said corporations give to the ‘other side’
and most of all
3. how much governments, very high net worth individuals like Soros or Grantham and everyone else give to the other side.
What is the simplest way to establish this?
You’re the lawyer 🙂
An unnecessary and resource wasteful diversion.
Oh Harbinger, it’s beginning to worry you isn’t it, what with real progress achieved already, at minimal expense. It’s gonna be a tough Christmas and New Year if you keep that attitude – but I wish you good ones anyway, as the truth dawns on you and many others.
Poor Greg. That ominous flushing sound you get when people bale on you …
Pointman
There is a huge difference between reporting and repeating defamation. WUWT has reported the defamation & therefore cannot be prosecuted for it.
On the other hand, Michael Mann repeated the defamation!
DaveE.
planetsave are backing off? Just check their website:
http://planetsave.com/
From the front page:
‘by WWF Whilst efforts to reach a global consensus on combating climate change continue, the need for effective action at the regional and national level escalates. Such action can no longer wait for global agreement. If people, economic growth, and nature are to coexist in harmony, we must act fast to ensure ecological resilience’
and
The Protester — Person of the Year
December 19, 2011 By 350.org Leave a Comment
white house protests shot
by May Boeve You know that activism has struck a chord with the public when TIME magazine picks it up. The TIME year-end feature story is always a strong conversation piece, and what a delight to learn that Bill McKibben has been named on the list of “People who mattered” in 2011, and that “the […]
Share
APP is Clearing Tropical Forests Designated as Tiger Sanctuaries, Despite What It Says
December 19, 2011 By Zachary Shahan Leave a Comment
A recent report exposed that Asia Pulp & Paper (APP) was greenwashing its clear cutting of tropical forests that act as tiger sanctuaries. It denied that was the case, but more evidence has popped up. “A document released today by WWF and partners confirms that a supplier to paper giant Asia Pulp and Paper […]
Share
Climate Change May Cause Large Ecosystem Changes, NASA Reports
December 19, 2011 By Zachary Shahan 2 Comments
“By 2100, global climate change will modify plant communities covering almost half of Earth’s land surface and will drive the conversion of nearly 40 percent of land-based ecosystems from one major ecological community type – such as forest, grassland or tundra – toward another, according to a new NASA and university computer modeling study,” […]
Share
Department of Energy Helps 600,000 Homes Get Weatherized, 3 Months Early
December 19, 2011 By Zachary Shahan Leave a Comment
home weatherization
Here’s a good news story — the Department of Energy (DOE) announced last week that it had reached a national target of getting 600,000 U.S. homes weatherized (including over 125,000 multi-family homes, like apartment buildings)… and the target was reached 3 months early! “The Department reached this major milestone as part of its efforts […]
Share
Cost of Electronics Going Up Due to Extreme Weather
December 19, 2011 By Zachary Shahan Leave a Comment
“If a new PC or hard drive is on your holiday wish list, you may be in for a rude surprise: supplies are running low and prices have skyrocketed, all because of an extreme weather event that took place halfway around the world,” Andrew Freedman of Climate Central notes. “
—————————————————————–
So, he seems like a nice guy. His interpersonal skills notwithstanding, he is in charge of a load of superstitious nonsense and has suddenly felt the cold draught of reality up the back of his spine. His website highlights every variant of the mendacious, fearmongering, boondoggling, hypocritical, irrelevant and scientifically illiterate aspect of the AGW scam.
Now he comes holding out a (no doubt ‘organic’) olive branch, while noting that ‘there wasn’t much interest in the story anyway’, but he’s had a Road to Damascus thing. None of the many exposures of shonky data or attempts to stifle dissent made a difference, but now that legal action is in the offing, mea culpa (but not mea maxima culpa)!
Interesting. Your stone may have started the avalanche, TB. Expect more apologies from people whose legal advisers have told them that it is a wise pre-emptive tactic.
I don’t accept Zach’s beliefs but it was no part of my brief to challenge them.
He has done the right thing by Roger.
It’s highly likely that Mr Laden’s remarks are libellous. In addition, although he has been seen to modify his wording of the first paragraph as noted by many above, the second equally grave section remains at this moment unchanged and therefore it would appear that Mr Laden stands by them to equal damage to Roger Tattersall’s reputation (“So, apparently it is OK for Tattersall and this band of thieves to unilaterally play vigilante and break into your computer or mine, or accuse climate scientists of absurd conspiracies, to be dishonest in their discussion of well established data with the intent of misleading the public, or to bully anyone who disagrees with them, but when authorities investigating a crime, with proper search warrant, show up to investigate misdeeds, suddenly he’s an “Englishman” in his “Castle.” I don’t know whether to laugh of to go medieval on him”.)
It is important to be clear about what is written, and not to conflate them. The writer specifies two targets: “Tattersall” and “this band of thieves”. The text does not accuse him of being a thief; it accuses him of being alongside, in cohorts with or equivalent to thieves in all of the actions listed.
OK; so Mr Laden does not actually accuse Mr Tattersall of being a thief. However, many (but not all) of the actions listed are crimes (breaking into someone’s computer is a crime but accusing them of an absurd conspiracy is ‘only’ a tort) and to accuse somebody of a crime is definitely libellous without reasonable grounds for doing so. Reasonable grounds could be that, let’s say I were on CCTV committing an obvious crime and that were broadcast on national news and somebody then accused me of being a criminal, I would have no grounds to sue for libel. That abstract case is totally different from Mr Tattersall’s though.
The question is, of course, as discussed above, whether or not to pursue this. I would say yes, for the following reasons.
There’s probably not much to be gained by going after Laden financially, as he may not have much in the way of wealth anyway, and the UK does not have the same concept of “punitive damages” as in the US.
However, if Laden, faced with the potential of losing a civil case, is left with no option but to carry an apology as a banner headline on his site for, let’s say, a year, that could be enough, perhaps, I’d suggest, to right the wrong and to deter others from behaving in such a cavalier fashion.
Ultimately, if there can be no financial redress because the libelous party has insufficient resources (and it would be mighty hard to say that Tattersall had suffered material losses as a result of this incident: in fact, Laden’s lawyers could probably try to claim the reverse), then the best that could be hoped for from an action as being discussed here would be to right the wrong and to deter others from behaving in such a cavalier fashion.
Stephen: fair enough. Let me have a go. A key belief of Zachary Shahan’s that I’d like to dissect and eliminate, for the sake of everybody that holds it, often wholly uncritically, is:
What this needs is forensic questioning along the lines of:
1. What is the sum total of the misinformation believed, according to Shahan, by sceptics?
2. Which parts originate from nefarious people in the fossil fuel industry or those working for them?
3. Can he prove this origination and fossil fuel funding in each case?
4. What’s the final proportion of our beliefs that can reasonably be characterised this way?
I think this area is behind much of the talk of criminality so I don’t think it’s irrelevant to the psychology of the situation and it may yet crop up in the legalities.
“he may not have much in the way of wealth anyway, and the UK does not have the same concept of “punitive damages” as in the US.”
The ScienceBlog site is also at risk as the publisher and has plenty of resources. Currently the US jurisdiction is being favoured.
Hopefully it can be resolved amicably.
A Christmas present from me. I used to work for Halliburton: I guess that this is as close to funding by Big Oil as any sceptic blogger is going to get.
There are, and the evidence is abundant, that nefarious people exist in schools, churches, corporations, governments, law firms, NGOs, and on and on. Despite this evidence I find most people in these listed groups that I have met personally to be darned good folks. Absent any evidence however, Shahan sees nefarious goings-on among those who work in industries he personally disapproves of, or among people who disagree with him in matters of politics–it is a pervasive viewpoint of all people who are hyperactive in politics.
I added my $50 USD. I hope your Japanese supporters send more than 50 Yen. 🙂
A small contribution from Bay Colony as well 🙂
John Billings says:
December 19, 2011 at 3:32 pm
I think we are on the same page here. But I think Laden has done more than you suggest. Laden wrote:
“So, apparently it is OK for Tattersall and this band of thieves to unilaterally play vigilante and break into your computer or mine,” He has made no distinction between Tattersal or the band of thieves breaking into computers. He claims a criminal act by a band of conspirators which includes Tattersall. Also the general tone of the article must be taken into account. The article is about about the “stolen” (his words not mine) CRU emails. There is no doubt in my mind that Tattersall has been libelled and I think a reasonable person would conclude that Laden has tried to link him to the “theft” (again his concept not mine). I think a reasonable person would conclude that Laden has called Tattersall “the thief” not just “a thief”.
jjthoms~ Fair enough.
But mann is Far worse for other reasons 😀
Job done.
*http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBksHaTQCbU
Pointman
Wow. Are you sure you want blog hosts to be responsible for potentially libelous statements from commentators? As though half the comments on WUWT aren’t libelous, every day? And what is with all these posts from a “lawyer,” who acknowledges that he’s not pro-bono but wants to be paid, soliciting for work? Eww…
REPLY: Well, no matter what you think, Greg Laden has caved. Looks like we’ve passed “peak whining” – Anthony
petergleick says: December 20, 2011 at 2:43 pm
Jeez, do you ALWAYS comment without reading first?
Paul Coppin: The preservation order serves notice that there is, or may be, an intention to serve the respondent with an order or subpoena. Having been served with the notice to preserve under 2703 (f) (which uses the words “shall”), the respondent then holds a liability before the court if they have not complied with the presevervation order, the remedy for which will be at the discretion of the court, upon hearing the evidence of failure to preserve. She used the word “request”, because that’s what the statute outlines. Don’t seek to represent yourself in court, you won’t likely fair well.
Though you may be correct, I’m skeptical. On what do you base the claim that “the remedy for which will be at the discretion of the court, upon hearing the evidence of failure to preserve”? That would be true if it were a court order, but it isn’t. As far as I can determine, section 2703(f) provides no criminal penalties or administrative fines for disobedience. I think it’s more likely that someone receiving the request must comply in order to avoid possibly facing obstruction of justice charges should a warrant or subpoena later be issued for the material.
I’m totally broke – in fact, it’s going to be a very thin Christmas at my house. I, too, am disabled, Tallbloke, so I understand the lack of freedom that imposes. The only way I can contribute is to post a note on my weblog (Old Patriot’s Pen) where my dozen or so loyal readers can access it. I hope you succeed. I’m personally tired of being treated as someone with dementia for questioning sloppy science, sloppy reporting, and the overweening arrogance of the “climate science” crowd.
$25 forthcoming immediately.
Another $25 (or more) coming when I see the pieces on the board moving.
Might I ask that the remainder of the donations, if there are any afterwards, be given to a trustworthy and reliable keeper as a permanent legal fund to fight these in the future? Would be nice to say “Okay, we already have $25,000 left over from the last libel case to put toward the next one.”
We could probably find good attorneys all over the world willing to assist pro bono, and a $10,000 ‘bonus’ from the climate realist legal fund might coax more attorneys out of their shell.
I know this Tallbloke one is first here, I’m just thinking its a great idea to have a legal fund behind us and how we can make it a permanent fixture.
Jono said “Could we use the words “climate Realist” instead of “Climate sceptic” with this action (possible action) we have a chance to imprint a new `title` on the MSM”
Nice thought but there is no way the lame stream media will do anything that doesn’t help the climate scammers. They are almost exclusively in the tank for “The Cause” and (truth be damned) will never miss an opportunity paint opposition in the worst possible light.