( 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.
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.