JunkScience reports:
The Virginia Supreme Court holds that the University of Virginia is not a “person” subject to a “Civil Investigative Demand” from the attorney general.
This means that UVa won’t have to produce Michael Mann’s Climategate e-mails and documents to Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli.
More, including the opinion document at JunkScience.com here
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Does that also mean that the University of Virginia also is not a “person” with the right to sue others?
And hiding their work behind a technicality of the law is going to increase public trust in climate “science” how?
Oh right. If we saw the “work” the whole scenario would be shot full of holes. Better to keep their mouths shut and be thought to be hiding malfeasance than to open their mouths and prove the point.
As a non person, it cannot enter into contracts. I would expect funds to dry up immediately.
They may regret ever hearing the name of the smart ass lawyer that came up with that idea.
For purposes of FATA, a “person” is defined as “any natural person, corporation, firm, association, organization, partnership, limited liability company, business or trust.” Code § 8.01-216.2. Because this definition does not specifically include the agencies of the Commonwealth, UVA contends that it is not a “person” under FATA and therefore is not subject to CIDs.
Wow, just wow, how much broader can you get, I would think organization would pretty well cover anything.
I’m stunned.
They won. They were vindicated. See? They did nothing wrong. Yet another tribunal has found nothing wrong with their methods. Nothing to see here… move along.
Interesting, in light of the recent SCOTUS decision that effectively makes a corporation a “person”…
More interesting is the ramifications of this UVa decision…because it works both ways.
Plessy v. Ferguson was the 1896 landmark Supreme Court decision that allowed States to segregate people based on color..it was a unanimous decision 9-0.
Sometimes the courts screw up. Just because the is ‘consensus’…I mean 9-0…everyone can agree…that is a consensus by most standards…it took over 50 years to overturn.
Stupid judges…
I suppose the Virginia AG could pursue a “criminal investigative demand,” if that’s what Mann and UVA would prefer.
Oops…7-1…it was overturned 9-0 in 1954…my bad.
So, this comes from a non-legal type, but, my questions are: (a) who provides over-sight of the university/university system on behalf of the citizens and (b) who investigates (from a legal and prosecutorial standpoint) potential violations white-collar (fraud, corruption) of law or misspending of taxpayer monies in this state?
Should there be no one else/no other governmental office who might be able to provide legal redress of actions taken by the university or there personnel, by default might that be the AG – or maybe the governor? Could the governor issue an executive order regarding the info sought?
I’ll admit, I have not been keeping track of this issue ..
.
Ah well. I suppose they can’t lose ’em all…
Does this mean that the VA FOIA law is now gutted, since only individuals have to produce documents, and not organizations?
Darn shame. Are there any appeal routes left? Can he sue Dr Mann directly for the emails? Given the broad definition in the law I don’t understand the justices reasoning.
This will get appealed considering the US Supreme Court consistantly rules the exact opposite of this opinion.
Utter legal bull.
Hang on, one rule for V/A….another for \Greenpeace? Or am I just on the wrong thread?
I have noticed over the past 25 years that “appellate judges” appointed by ANY liberal governor or US President for confirmation to a compliant (liberal) legislature will read first their liberal-socialist playscript and prejudices,
then read their (liberal-socialist ) law books and (overseas) precedence preferences,
then read the law,
then read the state or Federal Constitution …
They will then create new law from their prejudices.
The telling item is “who appointed them”?
If a democrat nominated the judge, then the litmus test for selection to that appointment has been Roe v Wade since the 1970’s. And their resulting rulings from that judge rarely vary from their liberal-socialist doctrine.
Regardless of what any inconvenient words in the actual constitution or law say.
When the tools of justice have been corrupted, there is no justice.
Pretty clear the judge must be an AGW kool-ade drinker. RACookPE1978’s analysis above is spot on.
This calls for an act of Congress and it’s really simple – every university that enjoys federal grant money from now on WILL OBEY FOIA or get no more grants! It’s their choice…
So does this mean that UVA is immune to any civil suit brought against them? If a student is injured on campus by some neglect of the campus is the student now unable to bring a civil suit?
Does this mean that UVA loses the right to free speech?
A curious judgement, and one that seems erroneous. A person in legal terms does not mean specifically a human being and only a human being.
In UK tax law, there is something called a taxable person. It turns out that a taxable person may be an individual, or a corporation or any other association of individual persons who have come together for a common ends.
To claim that a university is not a person is, imo, applying a definition that seems to be totally literal, and not at all the intended meaning. Is there any way of appealing this?
What, exactly, is UVA and what laws apply to it?
Reading more closely the judgement, pages 5 onwards, the judges appear to have ruled that UVA is a commonwealth, and not a corporation or association etc. If that is indeed the case – and they cited precedent – then it appears that any state university is immune from investigation by the state. Curious indeed.