It seems the process to get supporting evidence from University of Virginia has overcome a roadblock. From the Virginia Court System: h/t to WUWT reader Laws of Nature
Appeals Granted
Case
KENNETH T. CUCCINELLI, II, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA v. RECTOR AND VISITORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
(Record Number 102359)
From
The Circuit Court of Albemarle County; P.M. Peatross, Jr., Judge.
Counsel
Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, Wesley G. Russell, Jr., E. Duncan Getchell, Jr., Charles E. James, Jr., and Stephen R. McCullough (Office of the Attorney General) for appellant.
Chuck Rosenberg, Jessica Ellsworth, N Thomas Connally, Jon M. Talotta, Stephanie J. Gold, and Catherine E. Stetson (Hogan Lovells US LLP) for appellee.
Assignment of Error
- The circuit court erred in setting aside the CIDs based on the ground that the Attorney General lacked a “reason to believe” that UVa. may be in possession, custody, or control of any documentary material or information relevant to a FATA investigation because it is contrary to the statute and without support in the record.
- The circuit court erred in setting aside the CIDs based on the ground that the Attorney General’s “reason to believe” had to be stated on the face of the CIDs because it is contrary to the statute.
- The circuit court erred in setting aside the CIDs based on the ground that the CIDs failed to sufficiently state the “nature of the conduct” being investigated because that is contrary to the face of the CIDs.
- The circuit court erred in setting aside the CIDs based on the ground that FATA does not cover requests for payments made on the Commonwealth when the Commonwealth has been a recipient of a federal grant because that is an incorrect construction of FATA and ignores that money is fungible.
- The circuit court erred by limiting the remaining right of inquiry based upon the errors assigned above.
Assignment of Cross-Error
- Whether the circuit court erred in holding the University is a “person” subject to FATA’s CID provision, where the General Assembly specifically defined the term “person” in FATA not to include Commonwealth entities.
Date Granted
3-4-2011
It speaks volumes that to the question “what “underlying data” do you believe climate scientists have hidden that would change the basic premises of AGW theory?”, noone here had a good answer.
You’re asking the wrong questions.
The question isn’t whether the AG can refute AGW. The question is whether the results that Mann provided were fabricated or not. If so, there’s a case for fraud.
Another question is whether there was a concerted effort to cover up and twart access to information when people started asking questions. If so, there’s a case for criminal behavior, and if it was a result of many people who then perhaps conspiracy.
The AG is engaging in “DISCOVERY”, after which he can decide whether it’s worth bringing charges or not. It happens every day in every city as detectives and lawyers attempt to discern whether they have a case or not.
Let’s put this in terms the lefties might understand:
What part of his findings and research related to the thesis of a heliocentric universe would Galileo have withheld?
citizenschallenge says:
March 10, 2011 at 2:51 pm
It’s this whole turning scientist’s into enemies that really awful.
Then nothing awful has been done. To turn a scientist into an enemy, you first have to find a scientist.
§ 1-200. The common law.
The common law of England, insofar as it is not repugnant to the principles of the Bill of Rights and Constitution of this Commonwealth, shall continue in full force within the same, and be the rule of decision, except as altered by the General Assembly. (Code 1919, § 2, § 1-10; 2005, c. 839.)
“INSOFAR as it is NOT REPUGNANT to the Principles of the Bill of Rights and Constitution”
§ 1-230. Person.
“Person” includes any individual, corporation, partnership, association, cooperative, limited liability company, trust, joint venture, government, political subdivision, or any other legal or commercial entity and any successor, representative, agent, agency, or instrumentality thereof. (Code 1919, § 5; Code 1950, § 1-13; 1950, p. 22, § 1-13.19; 1988, c. 36; 2005, c. 839.)
“person” includes “any”…. corporation, partnership, …”commercial entity” AND…”any” representatitve, agent, agency or INSTRUMENTALITY thereof.