By Chris Horner, ATI
Michael Mann made his way back to the Commonwealth of Virginia yesterday to watch his U.S. lawyer reprise the dark conspiracy theories previously weaved throughout his Canadian lawsuit against Tim Ball for repeating the old joke about “belong[ing] in the State Pen, not Penn State”.
The forum was a hearing in the American Tradition Institute’s Freedom of Information Act (VA) case against the University of Virginia (UVa) for certain records sent to or from Mann accounts while he was at UVa. That period is when the chatter about deleting records to circumvent FOI laws and other wagon-circling took place among the self-appointed “Hockey Team”.
That sort of paranoia sounded even worse in the spoken word that it reads in a brief. The judge gave an almost imperceptible shake of his head when my colleague David Schnare wondered aloud, when his turn came, about responding to all of the ad hominem. Enough already, this gesture seemed to say.
The Court allowed Mann to enter as an intervenor in this dispute, from the bench and without explanation. So there’s little we can offer there except that, when all is considered, this does provide the Court with the path of fewest problems (though hardly none, if Mann’s record in pleadings and argument is any basis to judge by; possibly some allies will try and delay matters yet again when we next proceed).
Given Mann’s argument was almost entirely limited to a vast right-wing conspiracy if one involving some names I’d never even heard of and in an apparently studious avoidance of the applicable law, we can only surmise the rationale for this move was grounded in equities found elsewhere than that curious display.
ATI opposed Mann’s motion to intervene simply because he offered no principled basis to intervene. We will appeal therefore with an eye toward settling the question as to what rights, or other considerations, justify a faculty member’s intervention in a FOIA case. For now we welcome Mann to this case to defend the content of his emails in a public forum. Presumably, just more conspiracy theorizing won’t suffice anymore.
We then proceeded to UVa’s effort to reopen the Protective Order, seeking to substitute themselves for us as the party reviewing and selecting exemplar emails from the cache they now admit to possessing. That it would be reopened was pro forma after Mann was deemed to have interests at stake, if what these interests are was left unstated.
The Court noted the distrust between the parties, particularly ours of UVa after all of what they have done, and so did not allow UVA to assume that role. This was despite that in advance they and Mann had agreed to jointly stipulate to this (his lawyer’s rather odd, earlier argument notwithstanding, see below).
But, as we argued, UVa’s utterly terrible record on this matter does not inspire confidence that a fair review and representative sample is to be had from them. Their ill-fit for the newly adopted pose of independent arbiter is somewhat betrayed by their legal bills fighting the AG’s Civil Investigative Demand now heading toward a million dollars. Then there is the enormous pressure from their faculty and pressure groups — which they finally copped to, after arguing previously in pleadings that this was all in our heads. Speaking of its track record.
And, finally, UVa has essentially the same interest as Mann at stake and is no more a suitable arbiter than Mann himself (per Mann, that’s “embarrassment”). To say UVa is aggressively focused on limiting the damage of what occurred in its program, with still not a finger toward self-policing lifted to date, is also something of an understatement.
So we have until a scheduled December 20 hearing to agree to a third party reviewer, cost and methodology. If we cannot agree the court will impose a process.
Toward that end, Mann’s attorney informed the Court that, well, Mann is the only person on the planet capable of understanding the content and meaning of emails he sent and received, thereby not only raising questions about his correspondents but making his future objections as to reviewers something less than entirely relevant or credible.
Cost is to be split at worst three ways, one presumes. Mann is surely going to be raising money for this. So, we won’t be shy, either. We can’t match the cool million the University of Virginia is pouring into their effort to make the embarrassment the revelations in ClimateGate emails to and from Mann’s UVa accounts has caused them go away. But every little bit helps.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
davidmhoffer says:
November 2, 2011 at 6:25 pm
David is right. In this whole mess I’m trying to figure which is worse–Mann or the UVa, the UVa or Mann.
I haven’t been able to decide which! It simply boggles the mind–does the UVa wonder why their alumni aren’t too proud of that once-great institution? They probably don’t know and they don’t care, having cast their lot in with Mann (hence no difference in the two). And Mann’s only defense is that nobody can, should or will understand him.
Wow! (Replace Josh’s recent cartoon of Muller beaten up yet smiling with Mann and replace Curry with the judge. The UVa is in Mann’s hind pocket.)
John Majikthise says:
November 2, 2011 at 8:38 pm
It all went out the window as UVa spent $1,000,000 in taxpayer money to thwart the legal process. That’s what happened.
Besides, it wouldn’t be out of line to “be concerned” (that’s the quote–he didn’t state they had), but I’m in league with Jeff–I’m very concerned, too! And so should everybody based on UVa’s past behavior (do you think the university regents will look kindly on $1,000,000 spent tilting at windmills when they could have just obeyed the law?)
I find it very difficult to believe that a reasonable person would not find it very questionable to believe that Mann and UVA don’t have something very dark to hide considering the expense of monies and credibility being spent to keep results of publicly funded research from the public. It all needs to be made public now. UVA is throwing itself under its own bus. UVA’s decision makers need to wake up. Something is very wrong here.
“JEM says: November 2, 2011 at 3:36 pm
“FredT – let’s wind back all the legalities here – why on Earth would you believe that the work product of a government employee is somehow exempt from FOIA?”
Well, it seems the ATI case may itself be the work product of a government employee. From UVA’s court submission:
“It is clear from the letter sent by the EPA’s Senior Counsel for Ethics, see Aff. Exhibit 26 (EPA letter), that Dr. Schnare was a full-time attorney at the EPA throughout the course of this litigation until September 30, 2011, thet he was required to obtain written authorization for any outside legal activities, and that he failed to obtain such authorization. The EPA letter suggests Dr. Schnare may even have fabricated the memorandum attached to its letter.”
This has been pointed out before, but not one armchair critic at WUWT or anywhere else is remotely interested in asking ATI to post this material online, which ATI is absolutely free to do. They’ve had it for months. (And no, this is not the embargoed documents – they really are free to disseminate the 3000+ pages of Mannian documents they received from UVA a few months ago)
This isn’t about transparency, FOI or whatever. All they want is to slay a dragon. There’s no principles involved, and it’s nauseating that they lean on principle to pursue their rabid desire.
For the record, I’ve contacted ATI twice to release the documents they have and are permitted to make public.
John Majikthise says:
November 2, 2011 at 8:38 pm
Jeff Alberts says:November 2, 2011 at 7:42 pm
…I would be concerned that persons unknown at UVA might be quietly culling the archive of the most incriminating stuff, if such things exist.
In this one statement you accuse without evidence UVa employees of illegal acts, and, without trial or evidence, manage to state that “someone” is a criminal!
Well done!
Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?
Hundreds of thousands of men and women have been proven guilty in thousands of criminal courts under what is termed “circumstantial evidence.”
Method.
Means.
Motive.
Opportunity.
Add to those above
(A lack of) Morals.
Madness. (Extreme prejudice towards doing the action, and extreme hatred of those who will be harmed by the action.)
Money.
Morale.
(How many worldwide TV audiences would it take to elevate YOUR self-esteem and YOUR sense of accomplishment and glory and self-worth? Would YOU lie or exaggerate to get in front of a fawning international TV and movie press at numerous world-renowned climate gatherings? People who have come from across the world to hear YOUR favored theories of a dawning future YOU can change if YOU given control?
Would YOU lie or hide your errors if YOU were going to proved a lying fraud who fakes data and exaggerates the knowledge everybody is now applauding you for?
(How many tens of billions does it take to influence a “climate scientist” and his Department Head into hiding their errors and getting more grant money? Mann claims a paltry $250,000.00 twenty years ago will pollute every skeptics’ arguments against his dogma of CAGW. Clearly then, 79 billion will be able to corrupt the Mann-made CAGW theists! )
A very brave whistleblower released the email gathered in one directory (prior to deliberate deletion?) to fight innocent, well-meaning FOIA (English-version) requests at CRU in Nov 2009. We have seen through their own words in their own emails that all of the above have been committed by “the Team” – strongly pal-revered” cabal of like-minded amoral individuals who recommended to each other that they delete emails, remove evidence, hide evidence, and write cross-stories to thwart FOIA inquiries.
Do you need more evidence of their willingness to apply those (VERY PROFITABLE!) illegal methods again?
Great victory for an individual’s right to privacy.
Why an individual should not be involved in the disposition of his correspondence I do not know. Nor why a group supposedly devoted to liberty shoud try to prevent it.
The agenda of ATI is well undersood – find portions of e-mails that can be discreetly and selectively leaked to attack Professor Mann’s character. Legalised e-mail hacking , in fact. Sound familiar?
barry;
This has been pointed out before, but not one armchair critic at WUWT or anywhere else is remotely interested in asking ATI to post this material online, which ATI is absolutely free to do. They’ve had it for months. (And no, this is not the embargoed documents – they really are free to disseminate the 3000+ pages of Mannian documents they received from UVA a few months ago)
For the record, I’ve contacted ATI twice to release the documents they have and are permitted to make public.>>>
WHICH THEY HAVE POSTED ON THEIR SITE AND YOU WILL FIND A LINK TO SAME UPTHREAD.
Toby;
Why an individual should not be involved in the disposition of his correspondence I do not know>>>
Because it isn’t his. He was paid to work, and his work is property of his empoloyer.
This is, of course, all displacement activity, as you know perfectly well that what you call the ‘hockey stick’ is an accurate representation of the state of the climate, well corroborated by other independent lines of research.
Otherwise, you’d be out there analysing the data and reporting your results. Wouldn’t you?
BTW, I’m surprised a lawyer uses the word ‘salacious’ without knowing what it means.
I tried to donate to the ATI fund but as a UK citizen the Zip code is alphanumeric whereas the donation page only allows numeric only and you can’t not enter a zip code, so I’ll have to hang on to my £15 for now
D. W. Schnare — November 2, 2011 at 6:26 pm
“The non-exempt UVA emails released by the university are on the ATI website at:..”
David Schnare — November 2, 2011 at 1:41 pm
“Much like I did in court, I simply won’t respond to the baseless ad hominem attacks. I did so in an affidavit and that was good enough for the judge. Funny the UCS didn’t link to that. I’m not going to either. It is just silly noise.”
Ah, go to great lengths to read someone else’s correspondence, criticise another party for not showing your response to their criticism, but cry off with feeble excuses when you could simply set the record straight. Very bad form.
So pleased that the money I sent to Scott Mandia has done some good. So pleased that I sent some more yesterday.
John McManus
Toby funny how the ‘individual’s right to privacy’ was of no interest when it was Greenpeace that came knocking at UVa for another person e-mails , guess that was ‘different ‘
Meanwhile all this messing around is merely making things worse for UVa’s rep , who now would believe they don’t have something to hide even if they release the e-mails .
schumpeter what ever your day job is don’t give it up becasue you no chance of making any money in comedy .
John McManus,
A fool and his money are soon parted. Keep sending your $$$ to Clown Mandia. Everyone will be happy, including me.
davidmhoffer says:
November 3, 2011 at 2:02 am
…WHICH THEY HAVE POSTED ON THEIR SITE AND YOU WILL FIND A LINK TO SAME UPTHREAD.
Wouldn’t it have been the decent thing to remove peoples private email addresses and phone numbers from the published documents.
Even the stolen CRU emails were sanitised in that way.
This seems a gross breach of ethics to me. Despicable (or incompetent).
JJT
KnR says: November 3, 2011 at 4:55 am
“Toby funny how the ‘individual’s right to privacy’ was of no interest when it was Greenpeace that came knocking at UVa for another person e-mails , guess that was ‘different ‘”
As I recall Greenpeace failed to get ANY information. were do you get you warped information?
http://www.virginia.edu/foia/climatechange/
Q: Did U.Va. give Michaels’ emails to Greenpeace?
A. No. After a series of emails and narrowing of the group’s request to reduce its costs, and a letter confirming what the amount of those costs would be, U.Va. heard nothing more from Greenpeace.
JJT
Dear Chris and your team,
I make a great independent third party, and I’ll be glad to go through the stash of emails for y’all!! I work cheap–all I need is a month’s supply of beer and popcorn, and I’ll have those non-exempt messages winging the judge’s way.
JJThoms says: November 3, 2011 at 5:46 am
As I recall Greenpeace failed to get ANY information. were do you get you warped information?
Nice try, JJ, but why is it warmist trolls like yourself feel the need to twist and spin everything? Greenpeace didn’t get the Michaels e-mails because they dropped the request immediatiately after Cuccinelli demanded the Mann e-mails. The university was prepared to hand over Dr. Michaels e-mails as soon as Greenpeace had paid a very modest processing fee.
Mann has introduced in court the claim that only he can understand the meaning of his emails or the emails he received. For those who are supporting Mann, I have one question: What if he is serious? My answer to that question is that he believes that words mean only what he makes them mean and nothing else. Need I say more?
@Theo Goodwin – Ah! The Bill Clinton defense!
“John Majikthise says:
November 2, 2011 at 8:38 pm
“Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?”
That concept only holds in court, not outside court. Outside court, people have the right (and sometimes responsibility) to make whatever decision regarding guilt or innocence they choose. Or, another way of looking at it, they have been “proven guilty” in that person’s mind. That doesn’t mean the “verdict” is correct or is even based on fact.
Although I agree with your distaste for hurling accusations and coming to premature conclusions, in the real world (outside of court), people don’t require a court to decide everything for them. I am reminded of a recent article (wish I could find it) where someone was essentially arguing that a person shouldn’t be allowed to shoot someone trying to rape them because they hadn’t yet been found guilty of attempted rape. There is, and needs to be, a middle ground.
What will $1,000,000 buy these days? Only a shrunken, crusty glove that doesn’t fit… It seems. GK
I tried to access the emails as sugested above but no luck. Sometimes a buch of code came up, once I got one rather banal email read and then my screen went back to gibberish and sometimes it just works away until my computer gives up and locks up.
Is anyboby else having this problem. If not I suspect my computer .
John McManus