Late yesterday the State Attorney General of Virginia posted this legal brief which had been filed with the courts, and also served to the University of Virginia (UVA).
This legal brief document is about discovery, not about a lawsuit. It is a prelude, and it is possible that no lawsuit may be filed if there is insufficient evidence to back up speculations that have been raised over the Climategate affair.
The current issue is over UVA refusing releasing emails from Dr. Michael Mann related to his work on the MBH98 and MBH99 papers, which later generated the famous “hockey stick” graph used by the IPCC:
Via the Charlottesville Daily Progress (thankfully unrelated to Climate Progress) Attorney General Ken Cuccinnelli wrote this in the brief:
“ … It is clear that there is ample reason to believe that Mann may have committed a violation of FATA while he was at the university,” the filing says. “There is no debate that the university is in possession of documents relevant to determining if such a violation did occur. Accordingly, and for the reasons that follow, the court should deny the university’s petition.”
UVA has been stonewalling, and the State Attorney General has made it clear that their line of defense has limited traction and a very limited shelf life, setting deadlines. Here are a couple of excerpts from the document. FATA is the Fraud Against Taxpayers Act. A link to the legal document follows.
From page 1:
From page 2:
The entire legal document is available here from the State of Virginia Attorney General website:
http://www.vaag.com/PRESS_RELEASES/Cuccinell/Brief%20in%20Opp%207-13-10.pdf
h/t to Chris Horner, Competitive Enterprise Institute
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
neill says: “Loose the hounds!”
Release the Krakenelli!
Yes, I’ve changed my mind after reading the brief in full – Cucinelli may indeed have a case (obviously depends on what he finds in his investigation).
You mispelled Cuccinnelli, it should be Cuccinelli. D’oh!
Is Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli a Birther?
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/03/15/is-virginia-attorney-general-ken-cuchinelli-a-birther/
Because he is using the same argument as the Birthers have tried to use in obtaining Obama’s “real” birth certificate, without showing any factual evidence of tampering or wrongdoing.
So, obviously, this will be eventually thrown out of court, at some level, for a complete lack of fact based evidence. Just like the Birther suits have all been thrown out of court. Yes HI has a record, yes UVA has emails, no there was no fact based claims for the Birthers, no there are no fact based claims for Birther CucciNelli.
REPLY: This is discovery, not a lawsuit. Do a self diagnostic. -A
UVA above should be Penn State. My bad.
“University of Virginia C.I.D.
In May 2010, Cuccinelli served a civil investigative demand on the University of Virginia seeking a broad range of documents related to Michael E. Mann, a climate researcher now at Penn State who was an assistant professor at UVA from 1999 to 2005.[34][35] Cuccinelli is investigating Mann’s putative violation of the 2002 Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act, although no evidence of wrongdoing was given to explain the invocation of the law.[36] While climate change skeptics have challenged Mann’s work, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and a Penn State investigation cleared Mann of charges that he falsified or suppressed data[37] The Washington Post quotes Rachel Levinson, senior counsel with the American Association of University Professors as saying Cuccinelli’s request had “echoes of McCarthyism.”[38] Among the groups urging the University of Virginia to resist producing the data are: a letter published in Science magazine signed by 255 members of the United States National Academy of Sciences, the American Civil Liberties Union and the AAUP.[35] Also in May 2010, the University of Virginia Faculty Senate Executive Council wrote a letter strongly rebuking Cuccinelli for his civil investigative demand of the Mann records, stating that “[Cuccinelli’s] action and the potential threat of legal prosecution of scientific endeavor that has satisfied peer-review standards send a chilling message to scientists engaged in basic research involving Earth’s climate and indeed to scholars in any discipline.”[39]
On May 27, 2010, the University of Virginia began legal proceedings by filing a petition to resist Cuccinelli’s investigative demand. In addition to challenging the investigative demands on academic freedom grounds, the petition claims that Virginia’s “Fraud Against Taxpayers Act” (FATA) cited by Cuccinelli is not applicable in this case, as 4 of the 5 grants were Federal, and that the fifth was an internal University of Virginia grant originally awarded in 2001. The FATA was enacted in 2003, and it is not retroactive.[40][41]”
____________________________________________________________
So it would aooear for all intents and purposes that this litigation has less than a slim or none chance of going forward.
Case dismissed.
REPLY: see, that’s the problem with you warmists, you dismiss things before you even get any evidence in hand -A
What I found really impressive is Mann’s CV. He must be very small and working nearly around the clock to publish so many papers in top scientific journals while an assistant and then an associate professor. He also taught many classes, gave many invited and contributed papers at meetings etc. Not sure how he acclomplished so much with a moderate level of grant support. Mann’s CV is toward the end of the PDF of the DA’s brief.
Moderator: please change “very small” to “very smart” in the above posting.
Dr. Schnare says:
July 14, 2010 at 9:51 am
Thank you for showing the fraud that was committed.
Joe
REPLY: see, that’s the problem with you warmists, you dismiss things before you even get any evidence in hand -A
_________________________________________________________
Unfortunately for you, none of the facts are on your side.
Frivilous lawsuit to follow meritless discovery phase.
Go figure.
Case Closed.
REPLY: Nooooo, as much as you wish it, the case is still very much open. Go shout at the clouds -A
The AGW community will have a slightly more difficult time if Mann did commit fraud. But I expect Mann’s “penalty”, if convicted, will be a minimal.
Remember when climatologist Mark Schoeberl, chief of Goddard Space Flight Center’s Earth Sciences Division and the head of the Aura Project, got caught and plead guilty to federal felony charges for using his position to steer $190,777 in non-bid contracts to Animated Earth (a company owned by his wife)?
His conviction only lead to a $10,000 fine and 50 hours of community service – as reported by the Washington Examiner on December 2, 2009.
As a federal employee, I would be seeing years in prison; but, it seems there is a different standard for federal offenses committed in the name of AGW. $180,777 is a pretty good profit for blatant embezzlement of federal funds.
Looks like AGW is a pretty profitable racket…even when you get caught violating federal law.
Kforestcat
As an indication of the view preferred by the elite press in this country is a New York Times feature article entitled “A Climate Change Corrective” with a lead-off sentence “Perhaps now we can put the manufactured controversy known as Climategate behind us and turn to the task of actually doing something about global warming. “ It appears that this article is being highly praised and declared long overdue in some circles. ‘Yes Virginia, it’s OK to be afraid of Global Warming again.’
They seem to be trying to manufacture a new science-is-settled consensus on the rebound from these pro forma Climategate investigations. You can put a tailor-made dress suit on a dog, but it’s still a dog.
EFS_Junior July 14, 2010 at 4:28 pm (quoting elsewhere): The FATA was enacted in 2003, and it is not retroactive.
An interesting concept, don’t you think? It effectively claims an application for a grant with a misleading statement of intent prior to 2003 was not legally fraudulent by definition even if such an act is now considered so. I seriously doubt that the act was written thusly and I seriously doubt that it actually limited the powers of the State AG to investigate. I haven’t read the act so I may be wrong.
I can see the AG rebutting that the fraud is on-going (he made a reference to Mann’s silence about misleading interpretations of his work). I can also see a rebuttal under contract common law but why second guess? It will be interesting to see how the courts address the claim.