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
Bomber_the_Cat says:
December 18, 2011 at 7:39 am
In this very polarised climate ‘debate’, we surely don’t want a situation where people are sued for expressing different, even heated, opinions. Appealing for money to defend yourself against such action is one thing, raising it to sue someone else is another.
I have no problem with people getting passionate about their science. I do have a problem with people making wild accusations which affect my future employment prospects.
I am hoping to successfully defend my good reputation as an honest and trustworthy computer professional, and as a reasonable and responsible science blogger. Such action unfortunately costs money beyond my personal means. Fortunately I have the support of many good people who know the thin end of the wedge when they see it.
I am eternally grateful for their assistance.
Just sent what I could. Remember, this could happen to any of us!
Stephen Wilde, you probably know this but just in case you don’t, the commenter JJThoms is an AGW climate drone and sycophant of the ‘Team’. He/she/it once suggested that Anthony give up his own emails vis-à-vis FOIA laws in a crude attempt to associate private with public FOIA-requested taxpayer-funded information. His alleged court case described above notwithstanding, it is highly probable he is not here to help. Quite on the contrary, since the raid, I expect some trolls are probably planning to sabotage Tallbloke’s suit by trying to get someone to say something to prejudice the case here in public.
My non-lawyer suggestion (with all due respect of course as I am thrilled that you are involved) is for all y’all to say nothing in ‘comments’ anymore. Stay off the grid except for news and press releases.
Yep, I don’t trust them (the AGW cabal), not one bit.
P.S. I hope Roger is keeping a diary of everything that happens. It will make a wonderful outline for a book about being sucked into the ClimateGate tornado. If he were to mention publicly that he is definitely documenting this event, it would buy him some extra respect from people such as his employers, the Police and even harassers. Being on notice that the details will go public in a best-seller can force people to be on their best behavior whether they like it or not. Just sayin.
jjthoms~ just a quick question for you, if I may:
Who’s side do you stand on in this situation? Tallbloke, or laden?
Please, a Direct answer. Which name do you stand by? I neither ask nor need anything else in this regard.
steven mosher says: (December 18, 2011 at 9:57 pm)
But not very profitable unless you’re on the Team.
Quite so Tallbloke, you are but the first “Victim” of this idiocy, there is a much bigger principle at stake than just you. Those on here and elsewhere who refuse to grasp this are operating to an “Agenda” in the main imho.
The others are being obtuse in many cases.
Keep the faith, as you rightly say many many people “get this” a line has been drawn in the sand and its time to stand up and be counted before shooting the messenger becomes de rigeur!
ForStephan Wilde,
Good job. But I suggest you keep the residue of the donations in a safe investment for use in defending FOIA when the authorities eventually charge him (or her). I wonder if the warmists are all that eager to deal with possible disclosure demands related to that trial.
From The BBC website:
Libel is defamation in a permanent form – something that is published, broadcast or recorded.
Slander is a defamatory statement in a transient form, usually spoken.
As a general rule, actual damage suffered has to be proved in a slander action but is presumed in one for libel.
{Check out J. Eady pronouncement on BB posting being “more akin to slander”}
You risk defaming someone if you repeat defamatory comments previously published by others – e.g. in newspapers – either by quoting them or using them in an interview or soundbite.
TB will more thasn likely have to show loss.
Otter says: December 19, 2011 at 3:02 am
Who’s side do you stand on in this situation? Tallbloke, or laden?
Laden is wrong – probably didn’t think of defamation before posting – who does (I do!).
TB is wrong to have allowed defamatory comments on his blog.
TB will find difficulty in winning unless he can show loss.IF TB actually publishes Laden’s comment he will effectively destroy his case.
And NO yo cannot say Mann republishing is worse than Watts.
Looking around the blogosphere, it’s interesting to see how many of the trolls have been mobilised in a rather unsubtle group effort to persuade someone not to sue someone else. They’re really running scared on this one …
Pointman
tallbloke says:
December 19, 2011 at 2:20 am
Roger, you have all my sympathy. But as you know, suing the police in this country is very difficult and almost certainly futile.
As for Greg Laden, his comments are indeed wild and, in the comments section, verging on mentally unbalanced in my opinion – although I doubt he will plead insanity.
That is one of the problems maybe. Did anyone take his remarks seriously? Could such ranting change the mind of a reasonable person? Entering into legal action is not to be taken lightly. It is costly and easier to start than to stop. You know my advice but the best of luck to you whatever you decide.
Dave Burton’s account of what Laden did to him (December 17, 8:19PM)is absolutely unforgivable and so I withdraw my remarks about ‘free speech’.
Let me make it clear that I am on Tallbloke’s side and wish him every success. I find the erossion of civil liberties, and the over zealous and unnecessary use of heavy handed policing to be very worrying. I lament of what has become of the Uk these past 20 or so years.
The trouble with litigation is that it often proves to be a fool’s game, to be engaged in only by those who have deep pockets. Regretably principles are a costly commodity and it is rarely sensible to conduct litigation purely (or for that matter mainly) on the basis that it is a matter of principle.
One has to be cold, dispassionate and above all else objective. On this blog, we often discuss confirmation bias creeping into data sets. The same applies to the assessment of risk in litigation. It is all too easy to get carried away with the merits of one’s own case and thereby lose objectivity.
I have already commented upon the requirement at the outset to ascertain the facts. One should also at the outset answer what is the purpose of the intended litihation? what do I hope to acjieve by it? what are the prospects that my goals will be achieved in whole and/or in part? what is the likely outcome of the litigation? what can go wrong with the litigation? can any award/judgment obtained be effectively enforced and if so by what means and at what cost? what will be the outcome if matters go wrong and/or do not turn out as expected? An intrinsic part of litigation is risk management and accordingly one needs to be aware of how one can become unstuck and what the disaster scenario is.
One problem with libel is that often the issue of an apology is all that is required, especially when there is no evidence of financial loss. It could be expensive to pursue a libel action only to find that someway down the line the Defendant issues an apology (this may well be a first for Michael Mann, I do not know his character well enough to know how he might respond) and then it may be difficult to take matters forward and/or recover the costs incurred before the apology was made.
Whilst I can see prospects of success, I can also see that the matter is thwart with difficulties. it is nice to see fellow commentators issue words of encouragement, but Tallbloke and Stephen Wilde need to be realistic and take a long cold, dispassionate and objective look at what is involved in all of this and how matters may pan out. .
Richard Verney: Thank you for what you have written. My limited experience of litigation completely backs it up. As far as the PR war is concerned, the crucial paragraph of Stephen Wilde’s for me is:
A very important consequent goal would be:
I’d love to see the first point clearly established by a UK court and the identities of those directing the outrageous and ridiculous police operation since 17th November 2009 disclosed. But will that happen through a libel action giving the most chance of success (and in saying that I’m not necessarily assuming receipt of money) for Tallbloke against Laden and Mann? I’m far from clear about that.
It’s wonderful that so many have given to Tallbloke’s fighting fund. But one of the most positive outcomes of this incident cost no money – this excellent summary from Roger of the Climategate inquiries carried by the Independent newspaper on Friday:
How often have we seen something that clear on this subject in the Indie? Cold comfort it may seem to Tallbloke and his many supporters right now. But the risk analysis Richard Verney calls for is essential, as is a cost-benefit analysis taking in account wider PR goals (by which I mean simply dissemination of the truth as we understand it to counter the pervasive and deceptive propaganda of the climate establishment). Some such good has already come.
Richard and Bomber
Thanks for the sage words. Stephen is level headed and realistic thinker and he has already been explaining to me the potential pitfalls. We will proceed with all due caution and with well inspected and firm groundwork. His intention is to get the most we can from the situation by making small advances at each step. That way, if we hit a wall at some point, we will already have had some successes in front of which we can ‘draw a line in the sand’.
Richard Verney – you are right, but I see no signs of mad vindictiveness from either TB or his solicitor. They are not trying to win a war, just to defend TB’s reputation as an honest and ethical person, and to protect him from reprisals in his employment.
Bomber_the_Cat says:
December 19, 2011 at 7:37 am
tallbloke says:
December 19, 2011 at 2:20 am
Roger, you have all my sympathy. But as you know, suing the police in this country is very difficult and almost certainly futile.
As for Greg Laden, his comments are indeed wild and, in the comments section, verging on mentally unbalanced in my opinion – although I doubt he will plead insanity.
That is one of the problems maybe. Did anyone take his remarks seriously? Could such ranting change the mind of a reasonable person? Entering into legal action is not to be taken lightly. It is costly and easier to start than to stop. You know my advice but the best of luck to you whatever you decide.
Dave Burton’s account of what Laden did to him (December 17, 8:19PM)is absolutely unforgivable and so I withdraw my remarks about ‘free speech’.
—————————————————————–
Re Laden, there is a point where people’s statements are so crazy that nobody would believe them – like posting a statement that POTUS is a transvestite that was planted by aliens. But in this case, there is no reason to believe that someone who did not know the facts would regard the statement as crazy. The author is an apparently lucid PhD from Harvard, not a moonshine-crazed fundamentalist from (fill in your preferred State).
I am sure that TB and his counsel are well aware of the ‘tar baby’ effect of litigation, and will seek to limit it accordingly. TB’s solicitor is apparently a friend, not an ambulance chaser.
As for Dave Burton, hungry lawyers prepared to take on the case on a no-win, no fee basis must be queuing around the block.
At 9:24 AM on 19 December, johanna had written:
Well, is should think not! It’s widely known that she’s a transvestite, and an illegal alien in the bargain. Why d’you think that nobody attending or instructing at Columbia University can remember ever having encountered “him”?
She was attending in her genuine persona, a demure young woman of modest means, socializing with few outside her sorority and applying herself diligently to her studies. She didn’t assume male drag until after she’d graduated.
Michelle, of course, is a guy. Estrogen shots notwithstanding, that mustache is a dead giveaway.
“ChE says:
December 18, 2011 at 6:44 pm
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.”
Umm, no. The “junior flunky” (mistake number 1 – I’ll comment later) doesn’t try to get a court order. She serves notice under the Title that the respondent has an statutory duty of care, which may be exercised upon within 90 days (with further extensions possible) by the issuance of the requisite orders or warrants. Since all three named blogs/bloggers have the same base data (presumed), the UK constabulary takes the path of least resistance and secures, TB’s copy of the data dump process, since the crime is alleged in the UK.
Since both US and Canada have a higher bar against search and seizure than WordPress as a corp, the repository for most of the data and email exchange is secured for further examination, rather than going after foreign nationals. The latter is eminently doable, but the effort is tedious.
The “junior flunky”, is sufficiently credentialed to take this all the way that it needs to go, having both credentials in computer science AND law, and young enough to have sufficient fire to care and the stamina to do the case law with the weight of the DOJ behind her. Take her on at your peril.
As far as i can see, Stephen Wilde has been a lawyer for 37 years, so I think it is reasonable to assume he is aware of the pitfalls. From posts he has made here and on Tallbloke’s blog he is also aware of the need to seek specialised advice as appropriate. I am sure we all have reservations but I for one have given my modest donation without strings and I hope we can leave Stephen and Tallbloke to get on with it. Updates on progress as they feel appropriate would obviously be welcome so long as they don’t prejudice the case or take the eye off the ball.
Yes.
The only thing to consider is that Tallbloke left a comment (at CA?) saying that this originated on his side of the pond. My first guess was that this originated in the US, but you’d think DoJ would have thrown some serious resources at it if that were the case. That letter to WP was pretty weak.
Read the referenced statute. It requires a court order. By itself that letter has all the legal authority of “get off my lawn”. It definitely doesn’t require WP to keep mum, and they didn’t. That’s why the attorney who sent it used the word “request”.
Just made my contribution.
Good luck.
“ChE says:
December 19, 2011 at 9:50 am
Paul Coppin says:
December 19, 2011 at 9:24 am
Read the referenced statute. It requires a court order. By itself that letter has all the legal authority of “get off my lawn”. It definitely doesn’t require WP to keep mum, and they didn’t. That’s why the attorney who sent it used the word “request”.”
The one with the reading comprehension issue here is you, not me. She made a request to preserve evidence “pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 2703(f)”
Which states:
(f) Requirement To Preserve Evidence.—
(1) In general.— A provider of wire or electronic communication services or a remote computing service, upon the request of a governmental entity, shall take all necessary steps to preserve records and other evidence in its possession pending the issuance of a court order or other process.
(2) Period of retention.— Records referred to in paragraph (1) shall be retained for a period of 90 days, which shall be extended for an additional 90-day period upon a renewed request by the governmental entity.
For disclosure of the preserved evidence, an order is required under sections (a), (b), (c) and (d) is not in question. She further requested that they not advise the customer, but there is no obligation to sequester the request, nor is there an obligation for the dept to notify the customer they have issued the preservation order. The preservation order serves notice that there is, or may be, an intention to serve the respondent with an order or subpoena. Having been served with the notice to preserve under 2703 (f) (which uses the words “shall”), the respondent ithen holds a liability before the court if they have not complied with the presevervation order, the remedy for which will be at the discretion of the court, upon hearing the evidence of failure to preserve. She used the word “request”, because that’s what the statute outlines. Don’t seek to represent yourself in court, you won’t likely fair well.
My troll meter is starting to beep.
F.O.I.A
Unleash your final exocet. Let go the code. Now is the time.
First ‘win’ for Roger. Email message just in from Zachary Shahan, Director of Planetsave who seems a nice guy but was taken in by the initial defamatory reporting.
“Hello Guys,
Given the actual request of the DOJ order and the changes in some of the Guardian text I quoted, it’s more worth my time (and everyone else’s probably) to just remove the story — there wasn’t much of interest in the story anyway (except that the police are trying to find out who the hacker was — but that’s nothing new), but I’m curious to hear what you find as to why they seized your equipment. That’s still completely unclear, right?
On the misinformation bit: there’s no intention on my part to make you (Roger) look like you have nefarious motives. I think you are genuine in your thought that the science is not settled (while, obviously, I am confident that it is — certain key parts of it, of course). As I think I mentioned before, I have one or two good friends in your boat. I don’t consider them nefarious and don’t think they or you intend to misinform people. I think there are nefarious people in the fossil fuel industry or working for them that originate much of this misinformation, but I have never assumed you are such a person (and I don’t assume most people who ascribe to your beliefs are). And I think it’s a shame people get carried away in that type of thinking!”
Perhaps some good can come of all this ?
Stephen Wilde: brilliant, well done.
Definitely. A mega-good would be for people like Shahan to realise that the old boogy-men “nefarious people in the fossil fuel industry or working for them” are very small in number and very short of cash, compared to:
1. the net renevue of the mega-corporates they work for
2. how much said corporations give to the ‘other side’
and most of all
3. how much governments, very high net worth individuals like Soros or Grantham and everyone else give to the other side.
What is the simplest way to establish this?
You’re the lawyer 🙂
An unnecessary and resource wasteful diversion.