( March 2, 2012) – In response to actions taken by Virginia’s Attorney General, the Supreme Court of Virginia ruled today that the University of Virginia and all other state agencies cannot be served with civil investigative demands which compel agencies to provide information for fraud investigations involving government funds.
In response, American Tradition Institute’s Christopher Horner (Director of Litigation) stated:
“It has been our opinion from the outset of our pursuit of these public records that, by getting the University to admit it possessed records it was telling the public were destroyed, the Attorney General had already won.
There is no argument that these are not state property, or that the FOI law doesn’t expressly cover them; as acknowledged in UVa’s faculty handbook, its website, agreements faculty must sign, and elsewhere.
And so we look forward to their release under the Freedom of Information Act.”
For requests to interview Mr. Horner, contact Tom Tanton, ATI’s Executive Director at info@atinstitute.org or (916)645-2854.
“It has been our opinion from the outset of our pursuit of these public records that, by getting the University to admit it possessed records it was telling the public were destroyed, the Attorney General had already won.
But more than that – it would appear to show that the University of Virginia has dissembled presumably this means that they should be treated at best as equivocators and possibly as prone to falsehood. This is not the mark of an establishment that should be accredited to teach.
This case was determined solely on governmental immunity. It is likely other statutes apply. Although academics don’t believe it , and nor does Eric Holder for that matter, they cannot lie with impunity to law enforcement agencies and ignore FOI requests, particularly by lying.
Hypoxia. Yuck.
English please… I fear this is just too convoluted an opinion for me
Unless there’s a Climategate type leaker no one outside “the team” will ever see these, FOIA or not.
Can you just sue the president of the Uni. I assume he or she is a person.
Jay Dunnell says:
March 2, 2012 at 5:15 pm
English please… I fear this is just too convoluted an opinion for me
—————————————————————-
It means that UVa is part of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and that the Commonwealth of Virginia cannot be forced to co-operate with civil investigations for fraud under its own laws. This kind of provision is not uncommon – it is amazing how many laws governments exempt themselves from.
How is this ruling a victory for those seeking documents? What am I missing here?
I believe the significance is that UVA previously declared the records to have been lost or destroyed. I assume this proves they were/are not, and therefore makes a suit pursuant to FOIA regulations likely. Again, I don’t know that UVA declared them lost. I’m just trying to make sense of the press release.
Jay, he is saying that thought they lost the battle, they won the war.
The decision itself seems to contradict the accountability of government to the people it serves. Instead, it seems to say that government rules and the rest of us should be quiet.
“Virginia is for Larceny™”
Sort of has a nice ring to it.
jeez… there’s no rationale for triumphalism in this narrative.
your target eluded you. you lost.
there’s no way to spin it without looking like a pinwheel yourself.
There are multiple remedies here, including appeal by VA AG Cuccinelli, should he so choose.
The insulation of public institutions such as UVA from accountability is about to end.
Penn State is now the focus of a federal investigation into coverup in the Sandusky matter:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/02/justice/pennsylvania-sandusky-investigation/index.html
This is the identical institution which conducted an identical “investigation” into Michael Mann, absolving him.
The outcome of that investigation, and the people involved , have no credibility, and a pattern of criminality may well exist.
I do not think the Supreme Court of Va has any impact on ATI’s ongoing battle to see the emails. Digging further, it appears that UVA has stated they have lost or destroyed attachments. ATI insinuates here in this press release that this may not be true.
This press release below my further illuminate the issue.
http://www.atinstitute.org/virginians-get-first-peak-at-secret-uva-emails/
As a common man, I find this legal mobo-jumbo legal stuff disgusting. If there is nothing to hide, why not show it. Hiding behind “legal arguments” is just like admitting guilt in my opinion. I’ve lost all respect for UVa.
So the University of Virginia is above the law. Well shut my mouth and pass the cornpone.
Another Government which presumes that using public funds is not the public’s business.. and we should have no right to know how that money is being spent, even if it is being abused and wasted…
whats to stop them from stealing all your money and then telling you … to bad so sad screw you….
A Government of The Government, by The Government, for The Government – financed by
Sucka-Chumps.
Mate and checkmate!
What this means is that UVA can not argue that the emails are private property; they are, as a matter of settle law, the public property of the commonwealth. By winning the battle with Cuccinnelli they have likely lost the battle with ATI.
Can this affect the University of Virginia’s accreditation? University’s are very sensitive to accreditation as it affects that which is most dear to them – Money…,
So a state agency is not a “person” (SCOVA), but a corporation is (SCOTUS).
mpaul says:
March 2, 2012 at 7:41 pm
What this means is that UVA can not argue that the emails are private property; they are, as a matter of settle law, the public property of the commonwealth. By winning the battle with Cuccinnelli they have likely lost the battle with ATI.
HOW? Winning, lost…..Sorry, a bit thick here…..
Do not expect much help from accrediting agencies. I have written some blistering complaints about academic standards and quality–things that accrediting institutions should truly care about–only to have them investigate the way that UVa and Penn State investigate. There is very little accountability in this system, as it was never designed for accountability in the first place. Accreditation was set up by the schools themselves to help them establish legitimacy and direct Federal student financial aid.
Explanation here
http://johnosullivan.livejournal.com/48166.html
Streetcred says:
March 2, 2012 at 8:14 pm
Explanation here
http://johnosullivan.livejournal.com/48166.html
Excellent, thank you.
Streetcred: That is a good site and it’s nice to see Dr Ball is getting somewhere, but I think that mpaul above has hit the nail on the head though. ATI is NOT a VA governmental agency so the current ruling doesn’t apply to them — THEY still have FOIA rights. This is going to get very interesting.
Hoist on their own petard.
GeoLurking says:
March 2, 2012 at 6:11 pm
“Virginia is for Larceny™”
Sort of has a nice ring to it.
—————————————————-
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA.. Perfect!!
The simple answer would be for the Attorney General to say that as you are part of the government the University gets no funding until it complies and/or sack the board of the University.
I don’t understand some of the things he says. This was the state’s highest court deciding the meaning of a state law. There is no appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Even if the Supreme Court had declared the corporations are people in Citizens United (which it didn’t), it would have no affect on this case. As I said on another thread, I think the dissent in the Virginia case makes a good argument that the majority was wrong, but that’s not how the court saw it.
So were the people on that court Democrats or Republicans? Liberals or Conservatives? Did they apply the law without bias? Did they legislate from the bench?
In summary: –
1. After this decision in Virginia the University is not subject to the particular law BUT by implication the requested email correspondence DOES exist.
2. In British Columbia the defendant (Tim Ball) has the absolute right to see these emails (which are now agreed to exist) under the process of discovery in the case (“Belongs in State Pen rather than Penn State” jibe) bought by Michael Mann. Either Mann submits to the discovery process or has to withdraw his claim or lose his reputation.
3. There are still solid grounds for the Virginia AG to proceed against Mann and/or the University using other laws.
Is my reading of the situation correct? If so this seems like tremendous progress.
With the reputations of Mann and Gleick both suffering through their own actions it has been a good few weeks recently.
My local shop can’t keep up – I’m going to have to buy a popcorn machine of my own.
gnomish says:
March 2, 2012 at 6:15 pm
jeez… there’s no rationale for triumphalism in this narrative.
your target eluded you. you lost.
there’s no way to spin it without looking like a pinwheel yourself.
BUT there is for optimism. Something you greenie-beenies don’t understand, eh?
Article 3 of the Virginia Declaration of Rights adopted in 1776 stated:
“That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation or community; of all the various modes and forms of government that is best, which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety and is most effectually secured against the danger of maladministration…”
And what value now have the the words of Abraham Lincoln in the Gettysburg address: “…we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”
The common factor is ‘the people’. The so called ‘government funds’ are actually the people’s funds. The government is of the people and governs for the people by those elected to represent the people. Independence was supposed to mean that taxation was only acceptable if the interests of the people were represented by those elected to represent them in government.
From what the founding fathers wrote it seems there is no such thing as ‘government funds’. The funds administered by the government should be considered of the people and are administered by the people elected to administer them, for the benefit of the people who elected them.
“Oldseadog says:
March 3, 2012 at 1:00 am
My local shop can’t keep up – I’m going to have to buy a popcorn machine of my own.
”
Given all the excitement and the clear need to popcorn amongst the readers, in this time of recession and austerity, WUWT really should put up a prominent link for visitors that teaches them how to make popcorn in a microwave =)
Look it’s easy: mix 1 tablespoon water with 1 tablespoon sugar and 25 gm popcorn in a pyrex bowl and put lid on top.
Microwave 3-4 minutes at 800 watts until (almost) everything is popped, then set aside, open the lid to let the steam disperse and corn dry.
Bon appetite!
(If you like it more caramelised, heat the water and sugar first to caramelise it, then carefully and quickly add the corn and put the lid on, then microwave as above.)
Happy nuking and munching!
What it means is, you’re never going to get justice or truth from modern Western governments.
They’re hopelessly infected, hopelessly Stalinized, hopelessly tyrannical.
If you want justice and truth, you’ll have to get them outside the official system.
Meanwhile in Australia, we are now facing the worst peacetime threat in our history to freedom of the press, freedom of speech and democracy itself
“Mr. Ray Finkelstein QC, a left-wing former Federal Court Judge with no media experience, at the request of the Gillard Government, issued a 400 page report which calls for a Big Brother Super-Regulator to ‘regulate’ political speech and – among other things – impose new laws with the power to stop climate change realists from speaking up.
Its “recommendations” will sicken every single Australian: They actually call for a Big Brother Super-Regulator to censor not just the newspapers and TV, but websites, personal blogs, and even what you say on Twitter!”
http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/2012/03/censorship-comes-to-australia
For further background to the Union and political corruption that is fuelling this push for censorship:
http://kangaroocourtaustralia.com/
Sorry. The link to kangaroocourtaustralia seems to be getting misdirected. Google the link instead and go to the correct site which has the names Stephen Conroy and Finkelstein mentioned. I warn that it is mind-blowing information which will astound all!
Looks like Virginia needs an ICAC
The statement says “cannot be served with civil investigative demands” but then says “which compel agencies to provide information for fraud investigations involving government funds.”
That sounds like this needed to start as a criminal fraud investigation to be able to obtain evidence of fraud.
There is always the criminal conspiracy angle which this ruling does not apply to.
The legislature can always hold up the funding court ruling or not.
Try http://kangaroocourtofaustralia.com/ instead. Although I don’t see the names you mentioned.
Mesa Econoguy says March 2, 2012 at 6:18 pm: “There are multiple remedies here, including appeal by VA AG Cuccinelli, should he so choose.”
Dismissed “with prejudice” by the state Supreme Court means no appeal.
Ah, found the Finkelstein article, interesting stuff (and I’m from the US):
http://kangaroocourtofaustralia.com/2011/09/26/justice-finkelstein-and-a-fist-full-of-dollars-this-is-the-clown-running-the-australian-media-inquiry/
The Virginia statute concerning CID apparently does not include state entities, i.e. UVA. End of story.
However, declaring UVA a state entity of the Commonwealth does reinforce the idea that it is subject to FOIA.
Amino Acids in Meteorites says March 3, 2012 at 12:06 am: “So were the people on that court Democrats or Republicans? Liberals or Conservatives? Did they apply the law without bias? Did they legislate from the bench?”
Virginia is a relatively conservative state, with the exceptions of Northern Virginia and Norfolk. Its Constitution was penned by George Mason and James Madison in 1776. Thomas Jefferson provided comments but they were too late to be included. The Virgina Constitution and Bill of Rights inspired their Federal equivalents. So there is a profound legal heritage in Virginia which I believe (hope) informs the legislature and judiciary today.
Personally I believe the ruling is legally and technically correct, however much I’d like to see the emails and documents unveiled (we had a taste of them in the UEA Climategate files). The ATI’s FOIA seems a more appropriate vehicle in this instance.
@KV says:
March 3, 2012 at 4:26 am
Sorry. The link to kangaroocourtaustralia seems to be getting misdirected. Google the link instead and go to the correct site which has the names Stephen Conroy and Finkelstein mentioned. I warn that it is mind-blowing information which will astound all!
————————————————————————————————
WUWT?
Domain-lock: LOCKED
Creation: 2011-02-21
Update: 2011-02-21
Expiration: 2012-02-21
http://www.whoisentry.com/domain/kangaroocourtaustralia.com
I thought that Mann would drop his suit against Tim Ball rather than provide the E-Mails, but then it’s the UVA – apparently – that has them in its files. One would think that Mann would lose in Canada, but … They sue in Canada for “the guy belongs in the state pen not Penn State”? Canada, Australia, US government defining and enforcing “environmental justice” while NASA (or was it another agency) proposes that the government defince scientific ethics. These are the last bastions of freedom. My alarmism of the day: Anthropogenic Global Silencing.
Unless there is something not yet linked, I don’t see where UVA explicity identified for the record that the cache of E-Mails exists. And they can always accidentally destroy them or fire someone for doing so and hire them back in another department. I’m going with we’re never going to see them – just like you never see much of a big court award if the other side would rather outspend you on appeals.
I’m a simple man. I see it as: receive public funds and you renounce the private realm; as such, held accountable to the people. I just wish Public Officials would stop bowing to a supposed tribunal; we have no such thing. Go in, and get whatever e-mails you wish.
This is similar to police officers seizing and/or destroying/preventing filming of a public response. Afraid of looking bad and of criticism.
Yet again the “we’re just small guys fighting the might of BIG-OIL sceptics”, get shown to be the establishment pretending to be poor little guys … worse the establishment in the pockets of BIG-OIL.
Ask anyone in wind who the big players are and they will tell you they are oil companies.
The real question is when will the obstensibly anti-capitalist NGOs like greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, admit that they are just a part of the establishment?
And where can I find non-establishment environmental groups who are actually trying to save the planet rather than line their pockets?
Dismissed “with prejudice” by the state Supreme Court means no appeal.
Jim says:
March 3, 2012 at 5:40 am
Ah, found the Finkelstein article, interesting stuff (and I’m from the US):
http://kangaroocourtofaustralia.com/2011/09/26/justice-finkelstein-and-a-fist-full-of-dollars-this-is-the-clown-running-the-australian-media-inquiry/
================
Take a look at http://kangaroocourtofaustralia.com/2011/10/24/how-the-australian-federal-police-and-federal-courts-collude-to-sweep-criminal-conduct-of-judges-under-the-carpet-part-one/
“ROMLEY STEWART STOVER December 7, 2011 at 11:34 am # I also was subjected to the Federal Court and after nearly 3 years of the court trying to make me sign a 50/50 court order, I asked the so called FEDERAL MAGISTRATE WILLIS why she autographed her name as: “FEDERAL MAGISTRATE WILLIS” when her name was JOSEPHINE ANNE WILLIS? I asked why the signature didn’t appear as: “Federal Magistrate: JOSEPHINE ANNE WILLIS” and at that point, the court went into a form of shock, The guard approached me and told me to stop!, I asked him who he was and if he touches me I will call the federal police and have not only the guard charged but also FEDERAL MAGISTRATE WILLIS charged under the Queensland Criminal Code Act: 1899: Personage because the trust: FEDERAL MAGISTRATE WILLIS was a fiction without subject matter and rendered the so called Court Order as a False Document. The mater ended their and a few days later I received a call from Registrar BOYD from Sydney and he asked for a meeting and then asked for my permission to vacate the whole matter and end it. There was no order made after three years and I still have 50/50 custody of my child. It appears that the name magistrates are using are false in order to remove them from commercial liability and any document signed by a fictitious name is invalid. It appears that the only jurisdiction they have is when you consent to accept a false document because no court order appears valid because Governments are nothing more than foreign contracting governing corporations registered in the UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION and no person can exists within such a corporation under their true birth name. Even JULIA EILEEN GILLARD appears as JULIA GILLARD PM. and never signs a document to her lawful name: JULIA EILEEN GILLARD”
KV says:
March 3, 2012 at 4:18 am
Meanwhile in Australia, we are now facing the worst peacetime threat in our history to freedom of the press, freedom of speech and democracy itself
“Mr. Ray Finkelstein QC, a left-wing former Federal Court Judge with no media experience, at the request of the Gillard Government, issued a 400 page report which calls for a Big Brother Super-Regulator to ‘regulate’ political speech and – among other things – impose new laws with the power to stop climate change realists from speaking up.
Its “recommendations” will sicken every single Australian: They actually call for a Big Brother Super-Regulator to censor not just the newspapers and TV, but websites, personal blogs, and even what you say on Twitter!”
http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/2012/03/censorship-comes-to-australia
For further background to the Union and political corruption that is fuelling this push for censorship:
http://kangaroocourtaustralia.com/
_______________________________________
You will notice that the people of Australia were first disarmed by their government…
“Gary D. says:
March 3, 2012 at 5:08 am
The statement says “cannot be served with civil investigative demands” but then says “which compel agencies to provide information for fraud investigations involving government funds.”
That sounds like this needed to start as a criminal fraud investigation to be able to obtain evidence of fraud.”
This is certainly true in Canada. Because things like fraud are prosecuted under the criminal code, the standard for evidence gathering is much higher. Warrants must meet tests under the Cdn Charter of Rights in order to provide admissible evidence. Administrative demands usually do not meet such stringency, and in any case, are rarely provided with a mechanism for judical oversight, unlike a warrant. Evidence gathered under a civil demand must be shown to have met the Charter tests for gathering before it may be entered into a court proceeding that is hearing a charge layable under the criminal code.
So does this mean that the Penn State of Virginia does not need to produce a budget – just like the feds? I always admire the bold, self-serving manner in which governments declare themselves beyond reproach.
Maybe time for FOIA to relase a code or two?
Seems that this is an organized system protected by State Law to perpetrate fraud. Filing a Civil RICO might gain there full attention.
From the University of Virginia School of Engineering and Applied Science site.
“Nature has wisely provided an aristocracy of virtue and talent for the direction of the interest of society, and scattered it with equal hand through all its conditions.”
Thomas Jefferson
1821
If the university is concealing evidence of a fraud that was intended as proof to support Legislation, regulation and taxes it seems to me it is important to the people subject to legislation, regulation and taxes and should be made public.
In other words the people should not be subject to the consequences of a fraud to protect a person or a university. And it is in the universities best interest to resolve even a hint of fraud.
Ironic that Jefferson was the first President to do big, unrepresetnative government contrary to everything he said about government once he got to be the government. At least he did it for the Louisiana Purchase. I wonder what the UVA expects to get out of it besides avoiding embarassing exposure. A seat at the ruling table?
Seems rather simple to me.
UVa has obtained a legal opinion which says that they don’t have to show the AG the emails they say they do not have just in case it turns out that they don’t not have them.
To my mind, this decision says that the taxpayers have no right to know how the University spent their money. The solution is simple: No more taxpayer money until the university changes its policy.
If UVa gets over $300 million a year in federal funding, wouldn’t be a strech to assume that even simple Mann was federally funded as well? And does not federal law trumpet state law in US?
soz, should be would it be rather than wouldn’t.
Coach Springer, UVA has already given, within the past 3 months or so, all the emails to Mann. Mann has them in his possession. It is not necessary for Ball to go through UVA. If, as Mann says there is nothing damning in them, he could simply redact the privacy concerns and release them.
“With prejudice” doesn’t mean the case can’t be appealed; it means the courts won’t hear a case on the same issues. In this case, I assume the court is saying that because state agencies aren’t subject to the statute, the AG can’t amend the CIDs that were found to be defective by the lower court, and refile the case. The case can’t be appealed because the Virginia Supreme Court is the highest court that will hear the case, so there’s nowhere to appeal.
Jesse says
As a common man, I find this legal mobo-jumbo legal stuff disgusting. If there is nothing to hide, why not show it. Hiding behind “legal arguments” is just like admitting guilt
———–
Sure Jesse, just send me all you banking details. And when you refuse I’ll accuse you of hiding something and admitting guilt.
So it boils down: to you want you want privacy for your own stuff and transparency for everyone else’s stuff. Sorry, everyone else has the same idea as you.
Jim says
Although I don’t see the names you mentioned.
———–
It’s just a bunch of made up stuff by some hater trying to convince people he is full of insight when he is more likely full of something else.
The link is more self promotional than relevant to the discussion.
Garry says
Dismissed “with prejudice” by the state Supreme Court means no appeal.
———
Is that also judge speak for cuccinelli’s case being bogus?
1dandyTroll says
If UVa gets over $300 million a year in federal funding, wouldn’t be a strech to assume that even simple Mann was federally funded as well? And does not federal law trumpet state law in US?
—————–
It is well known that 4 out of 5 grants to Dr Mann were federal grants. So what is your point?
LazyTeenager says:
March 3, 2012 at 3:04 pm
“It’s just a bunch of made up stuff by some hater trying to convince people he is full of insight when he is more likely full of something else.”
It appears the National Library of Australia doesn’t share your uninformed opinion LazyT!
From the top RH of the kangaroocourt site:
“On the request of the National Library of Australia and in recognition of this sites value for future generations and research this site is now archived on a regular basis on their Pandora website. So even if I was to stop writing there would always be a copy of this site available.”
You obviously don’t live in Australia LazyT or you would know the truth of at least some if not all of what Shane has documented at ‘kangaroocourt’. You were also obviously too lazy to follow any of the verification links he provides.
I suggest for starters that you follow the stories and all links on “Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s Criminal History” and “Julia Gillard appoints Bernard Murphy, her partner in crime from Slater and Gordon Lawyers, as a Federal Court of Australia judge.”, then ask yourself why Bruce Wilson has never been pursued or prosecuted for the $1,000,000 Australian Workers Union Fraud and why the investigation (by goverment appointed Union mates) into current sitting Labor MP Craig Thomsons’s misuse of his Health Services Union credit card has dragged on for four years.and is still not resolved.
Why do you think Shane has not been sued off the face of the earth? Is the fact that he may just have Truth on his side too complex a concept for your LazyT mind?
Where freedom of speech is so much at risk I think the matters raised are very relevant!
Jay Dunnell on March 2, 2012 at 5:15 pm said:
English please… I fear this is just too convoluted an opinion for me
———–
I read the judgement after you guys started going on about it just to make sure you weren’t spinning a tale.
The text is clear and well reasoned. It says a government agency, even if defined as a corporation, is not the same as a (private sector) corporation as used in the fraud act that Cuccinelli is using.
James J. Hill on March 2, 2012 at 7:00 pm said:
So the University of Virginia is above the law. Well shut my mouth and pass the cornpone.
———
No it’s not above the law. It’s just that the law cuccinneli tried to use does not apply to it.
Bill H on March 2, 2012 at 7:07 pm said:
Another Government which presumes that using public funds is not the public’s business.. and we should have no right to know how that money is being spent, even if it is being abused and wasted…
————
Sure Bill. So are you complaining about an government agency spending millions of dollars on a worthless court case?
Because that’s what Cuccinnelli is doing. Spending millions of dollars just based on the hope that he will find some email that can be exploited to discredit Michael Mann.
Given that the research that Mann did is decades old, the results have been verified many times by others not connected to Mann, and the statistical techniques used have been given a mostly ok assessment by a statistic professional body, what do you reckon are the chances that a case of fraud is going to stick?
If this whole thing turns out to be a whopping failure, millions of Joe public’s dollars just got flushed down the toilet by Cucinnelli. If that happens is Cuccinelli going to do jail time for abuse of power?
That’s certainly a reasonable argument, but the dissent points out that there’s language in the law restricting when an action can be brought against state agencies and officials. That section would be unnecessary if no action could be brought against state agencies and officials. A standard rule of statutory construction is that the interpretation shouldn’t render parts of the statue unnecessary or superfluous. The majority didn’t address that point.
Looks like FOIA requests and subsequent litigation or a change in the federal Administration will be necessary before this information is regarded seriously.
KV;
In case you haven’t figgered it out yet, you left out the “of” when you typed the URL. A good e.g. of why copy-paste is better!!
kangaroocourtOFaustralia
LazyTeenager says:
March 3, 2012 at 5:14 pm
If this whole thing turns out to be a whopping failure, millions of Joe public’s dollars just got flushed down the toilet by Cucinnelli. If that happens is Cuccinelli going to do jail time for abuse of power?
_________________________________________________________
the billions spent on CAGW are a complete waste of tax payer funds…
the VA Supreme court lays the ground work where UVA is a government agency. therefore all of their work product, emails, and paperwork are thus GOVERNMENT PROPERTY. this makes them subject to the Public Records Act and FOIA demands/requests by the PUBLIC..
The Attorney General has duties to oversee and investigate fraud allegations. Now that the Court has deemed them part of the state government they must produce, on demand, all relevant records to him… on demand- not a FOIA… and the Governor can place an executive order forcing them to disclose. The Public can use FOIA but the AG only needs to ask… the court made this incredibly simple for him…
The waste is some here are to lazy to look for themselves in both policy and science matters, they parrot what they are told to say.. The shear fact that billions have already been wasted on the lie what a few dollars to expose the bastards?
by the way (lazyboy) Mann’s work had been proven fraud many times….
now its time to hold him accountable….
Some thoughts on the email as a SysAdmin. As long as they are on a tape (or other backup) then they are available. If the emails were ‘given’ to someone else, the local copy would be retained until such time as it was ordered deleted by a local MailAdmin. It would remain then on tape for as long as the backup tape is retained.
As a person knowledgeable on the opinions of Jefferson (and Madison) they both would be aghast at the UVa (Jefferson’s “child” as he was a strong reason it was founded) acting in a way that violates public trust. Especially since Jefferson (and Madison) had very high skepticism of the Gov’t ablity to be trusted. (see US Constitution for Madison’s oppinion.)
Either they are a government institution and the documents are available under FOIA or they are a private institution that receives government funds and the documents are available via Cucinelli’s request.
Either way, these documents must be produced. Now that a judge has ruled about which statute is applicable, what’s the holdup?