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
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.