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
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 Fisher 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 Fisher 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.