This was presented to the US Attorney’s office by the Jones-Day legal firm on behalf of the Heartland Institute in connection with the theft of documents by Dr. Peter Gleick of the Pacific Institute one year ago today.
It is a PDF document of a PowerPoint presentation. There are some redactions (black strips) in the document that are placed to protect the privacy of some of the people involved who were the the victim of Dr. Gleick’s actions.
I present it here without comment, published at the embargo time.
Criminal Referral of Dr. Peter H. Gleick Talking Points (PDF 5.6 MB)
=============================================================
UPDATE: Here is the press release from Heartland:
Why Isn’t Pacific Institute’s Peter Gleick in Jail?
The Heartland Institute today released a 57-page slide presentation produced by its legal counsel, Jones Day, titled “Criminal Referral of Dr. Peter H. Gleick Talking Points.” The report, presented to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Illinois, asked the government to prosecute Pacific Institute President Peter Gleick, a prominent climate scientist and environmental activist.
Several presentations based on information contained in this document were made to the staff of the U.S. Attorney’s Office, including David Glockner, at the time head of the criminal division, and Gary Shapiro, now acting U.S. Attorney. So far, the government has not prosecuted Peter Gleick.
[NOTE: No redactions were included in the presentation to the U.S. Attorney’s Office, with the exception of personal information on a donor’s check. More redactions are included in this document to protect the privacy of those Peter Gleick victimized.]
The following statement by Heartland Institute President Joseph Bast may be used for attribution. For more information, please contact Director of Communications Jim Lakely at jlakely@heartland.org and 312/377-4000.
“Today marks the one-year anniversary of ‘Fakegate,’ the day Pacific Institute President Peter Gleick sent to liberal activists and reporters documents he stole from The Heartland Institute and claimed to have obtained from a ‘Heartland insider’ and later from an ‘anonymous source.’ The documents included Heartland’s annual budget, fundraising plan, and other confidential documents. Media outlets in the U.S. and around the world reported on the ‘leak’ of ‘secret plans’ by an anonymous ‘insider’ at the world’s most prominent think tank promoting skepticism about man-made global warming.
“Gleick eventually confessed to being the ‘insider’ and explained that he had stolen the identity of another person – a member of Heartland’s board of directors, it soon became known – in order to steal the confidential documents. There was no ‘leak.’ Gleick also admitted to lying about the nature of one document he originally claimed had come from Heartland, a ‘strategy memo’ that purported to describe Heartland’s plans to address climate change in the coming year. That document was quickly shown to be a fake, written to misrepresent and defame The Heartland Institute. Gleick denied he was the author of the fake memo.
“The Heartland Institute, a nonprofit organization, retained legal counsel to formally request that the U.S. Attorney prosecute Peter Gleick for the federal crimes of wire fraud and aggravated identity theft. Today, one year after the crime was revealed and nearly one year after Gleick’s confession, the U.S. Attorney still has not filed charges against Gleick.
“We urge everyone who has an interest in the global warming debate to review the ‘Criminal Referral of Dr. Peter H. Gleick Talking Points’ presentation and decide for themselves whether Peter Gleick should be tried for his crimes. We ask the reporters and activists who were fooled by Gleick’s lies and who used the documents he stole and may have forged to attack The Heartland Institute, rather than come to our defense as the victim of a serious crime, to revisit their decisions and cover the story again, this time honestly. And we urge everyone to ‘look under the hood’ at the real science behind the global warming scare and recognize that man-made global warming is not a crisis.”
The Heartland Institute is a 29-year-old national nonprofit organization headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. Its mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. For more information, visit our Web site or call 312/377-4000.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Why is it that some people are currently in court for wire fraud and impersonation, while the self-confessed liar and wire fraudster, Mr. Peter Gleick, roams free?
When will the Heartland Institute realise that if it far easier to pursue this type of case in the British Legal system. Indeed, did they ever file a complaint to the Press complaints commission or indeed raise a complaint against the BBC?
There is a joke: “how many psychiatrists does it take to change a light-bulb …only one but the lightbulb really has to want to change”. Likewise … howmany does it take to restore the Heartland Institutes’s reputation? … only one, but they have to really want to restore it.
Going after Roger/Tallbloke was the warmists’ shot over the bow regarding organized climate skepticism. Obama’s speech shows that the powers that be have an interest in CAGW fears. For the Feds not to go after Gleick seems political rather than practical. But practical it could be.
Prosecutions that are entered are to be won, either legally or in the public domain but inconveniencing and damaging reputations. Not going after Gleick – could the evidence be bad? No. Would a jury convict? Ahh, there’s the rub.
If anyone on a jury thinks that the ends justifies the means, i.e. preventing mass biocide is worth a little fraud, then you get the hung jury and it is over. Which doesn’t seem difficult.
The Heartland claims the threat of CAGW is not just exaggerated, but bogus. Gleick claims that Obama and the IPCC correctly recognize the threat to the world. A jury would be asked to decide which one was right, not if Gleick did a technically/legally bad thing. Nobody will be punished for trying to prevent a Holocaust; that is what Gleick would say he was working towards. And he’d have Obama on his side.
The government avoids litigation it can’t win unless the government is trying to make a point or harass its critics. In the Heartland vs Gleick case, it’s favour is with the defense.
Yet after all this, Gleick is prominently displayed on CBC just a few days :
Last Call at the Oasis – The Passionate Eye – CBC
http://www.cbc.ca/player/Shows/Shows/The+Passionate+Eye/ID/2329541633/
Gleick is held out as a great example of AGW ethics.
Corruption is probably an organic, fundamental part of the social movement’s viability.
Matt Skaggs says:
February 14, 2013 at 7:23 am
This thread has already gotten quite silly. There is no criminal case because Heartland felt it was important that no one see them blink and claimed that donations were actually up after the theft. And there is no civil defamation case because all the defamation was in the faked strategy document and they cannot prove that Gleick wrote it. The stuff about liberal judges and threatening subpoenas is all hyperbole.
———————————
Matt, I’ve often wondered what flavor is the koolade CAGWist drink?
How can you condone this unlawful behavior.
Peter Glieck committed a criminal act.
The justice department is hosed.
Between ACORN, NBPP, Brian Terry’s murder, the gun running / dope smuggling operations plus all the voter fraud maybe the koolade is laced with something bad.
Think Matt.
What are they doing?
cn
So, just so the hypocrisy of our government employees/administration is not doubt:
Aaron Schwartz, computer programmer, writer, political organizer, and Internet activist, was prosecuted with the full force of the DOJ and driven to suicide for copying (from MIT servers) and publishing on the internet a multitude of government-funded research that was not being widely disseminated even though legally there was no reason to withhold them…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz#Investigations_and_prosecution
Peter Gleick, climate author, researcher, activist, was ignored entirely by the DOJ for using false pretenses to essentially commit the exact same computer crime (by the legal definition, though the methods were different) against a private organization (same as MIT really) to take truly private documents that had no business being in the open without consent of the owner.
I don’t know about everyone else who posts here, but it sure seems to me as if law and order has completely broken down in this country. The bureaucrats and political elite have a separate enforcement standard for them and their friends than all the rest of us.
Agree that decision not to prosecute could well be based in the politics of AGW and energy policy.
However, methinks that even under a conservative administration, the DoJ might still conclude it has bigger fish to fry in the absence of physical violence, no funds stolen, no guns or drugs smuggled, no one kidnapped, no attempt to bomb a gov building, no defrauding of investors, no tangible damage to prove, etc.
It will remain, however, as Exhibit A of the lack of integrity of many in the AGW alarmist camp.
Antwerpenaar says:
February 14, 2013 at 7:22 am
Charle H said: ‘it was a callous, childlike action’.
Indeed, just like the publication of stolen, private University of East Anglia e-mails, and of embargoed draft IPCC reports. Organisations and websites that do or support this kind of activity need to be roundly condemned.
Apples to rutabagas, but nice try, troll.
Antwerpenaar says:
“Charle H said: ‘it was a callous, childlike action’.
Indeed, just like the publication of stolen, private University of East Anglia e-mails, and of embargoed draft IPCC reports. Organizations and websites that do or support this kind of activity need to be roundly condemned.”
“…just like…” well only if you think conspiring to steal documents to contain a carefully forged payload of lies designed to defame and injure is “just like” presenting unedited, factual information anonymously provided (by a whistle blower?) that sheds light on the prevarications and agenda of people abusing their positions at the expense of the general public.
The former being an act committed with the apparent purpose to defame and harm, by lies and forgery, an organization that attempts to provide information, and the later is the presentation of damning evidence of existing corruption. Hardly “just like”.
Today, one year after the crime was revealed and nearly one year after Gleick’s confession, the U.S. Attorney still has not filed charges against Gleick.
——————————————————-
A willing partner in the obama culture of corruption.
Gleick’s intentions were clear: he wanted to intimidate Heartland and to impair their ability to participate in the public discourse on global warming. This is a crime that strikes at the very heart of democracy. We depend of the US Attorney to defend pluralism and the right of the political minority to be heard and to participate in public policy debates. If the US Attorney won’t defend freedom of speech, then who will?
I urge everyone to write to the US Attorney and express (in civil terms) your displeasure with his actions.
Bernd Felsche says: “When the people become wise to the fact that the Rule of Law is applied unequally;”
There is a fundamental principle of law … you don’t win … unless you go to court.
The heartland institute claim the loss of reputation is worth $5million. Their revenue is $7million/year. They are in effect claiming that the financial loss to them far outweighs the principle. They are claiming that $5million of reputation isn’t worth the small risk that clients will be put off by them going to court (and that somehow all the publicity will not get them new clients).
In short – it doesn’t stack up. Or perhaps more accurately, they have decided that they do not wish to have the “rule of law” … because it does not suit their profit line. Or worse, we’ve actually been lied to about the facts of this case and it is the Heartland Institute who have something to hide.
In other words, they should have either put up the case … or shut up.
The E=GREEN movement and all of it’s tentacles reach out everywhere and issue lies, distortions, fake data sets, created science, false premises, false conclusions, all designed to bring emotions up in their extreme followers. All the E=GREENS then attack the creditable sources of real peer reviewed studies that provided the complete base data and the white paper so all can attempt to disprove the Hypothesis but when it is issued a PROOF they all run to the MSM and say oh well they were paid by big Chem, big oil, big coal, big farming, big shipping, big populations so the PROOF is now tainted to all their believers. Silly Humans.
Doug Proctor says:
February 14, 2013 at 7:46 am
…For the Feds not to go after Gleick seems political rather than practical. But practical it could be.
Prosecutions that are entered are to be won, either legally or in the public domain but inconveniencing and damaging reputations. Not going after Gleick – could the evidence be bad? No. Would a jury convict? Ahh, there’s the rub….
…
———————————————————————
Thanks Doug, this is a possibility I didn’t consider. I’ve sat on a jury before and I think your assessment there is quite valid.
I suggest that those who have the opportunity ask him why he became a thief…in public…every time… for the rest of his life. We could preface his name with “admitted thief” in any reference or communication. Just don’t ever let anyone forget.
I was meaning to post earlier before getting distracted with the dreaded work. I would have asked if I was the only one who found this method of presenting a submission to a legal body just a little bit odd? It does seem more like a PR presentation than a legal document. It seems I wasn’t
I’d have instructed my lawyer to draft a letter and submit the facts as they are and have it signed and witnessed. No more. but then the UK legal system is a much more dour thing than the razzmatazz of the US courts.
Not a big point and I’m not making it for any effect. it just strikes me as odd. I have read the explanation given above and it makes a kind of perverse sense. Still strange to me. Ah Well.
And thank you Heartland ( Jim? ) for explaining the situation regarding the civil case. It’s been difficult to maintain respect for the organisation whilst there has been so much uncertainty over this. I fully understand the reasons now. I might have hoped that you sought the opinion of those who might find themselves in the situation of being called to court. They may well have chosen to side with you and damn the consequences. As I have said before, have the courage of your convictions.
All We could hope for now is that there is a media stink and the AG might reconsider their decision? But if it’s anything like the UK then I expect hands are already washed of the affair. No appeals process to a higher body?
This is where any expertise or understanding I fooled myself that I had, runs dry.
Chuck Nolan wrote:
“Matt, I’ve often wondered what flavor is the koolade CAGWist drink?”
[I am a skeptic, and I rarely drink anything other than water or beer.]
“How can you condone this unlawful behavior.”
[I don’t.]
“Peter Glieck [sic[ committed a criminal act.”
[If you mean scamming for private documents, the police have more important things to do than pursue fraud cases where the fraudster gains no benefit and the victim claims no harm. If you mean the defamation in the strategy document, even though you and I may believe Mosher’s analysis that Gleick wrote it, the evidence is insufficient to overcome reasonable doubt.]
“Think Matt.”
[The evidence suggests that at least one of us has spent some time thinking about this.]
Jake Diamond says:
People like you seem to have no sense of perspective that this is a David versus Goliath story.
Heartland gets private donations amounting to about $6 million per year.
http://heartland.org/media-library/pdfs/2010-IRS-Form-990.pdf
Only a small portion of that goes toward exposing the CAGW lie and I’m only guessing something like 20% or less given the breadth of policy areas they mention on their website. So that’s about $1.2 million from money freely donated to their cause going to fight CAGW.
On the other hand you have the US federal government who collects ‘donations’ at the end of a gun barrel and they waste over $2.5 BILLION of our hard earned money per year to “Combat Climate Change” http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/FY12-climate-fs.pdf (Of course that’s a drop in the bucket compared to what they waste adding up things like medicare/medicaid fraud down to Obama phones and loans to failed ‘green’ energy companies.)
(Assuming my 20% figure), that’s TWO THOUSAND TIMES MORE MONEY to ram the CAGW hoax down our throats with impunity as well as to justify billions more wasted in bad energy and economic policies, (probably over $100 billion). And all that’s not counting contributions to the progressive climate disaster “charitable organizations”, (called so the same as Heartland because they rely on charitable donations for their existence), such WWF, Sierra, etc. though, totally unlike Heartland, such rely on scaring people into giving money by advancing wild predictions and unsubstantiated claims. Plus there’s the totally slanted nonsense from lame stream media talking heads who collectively have about as many scientific neurons in their brains as a flea, (gee, maybe they took journalism in school because fluid dynamics wasn’t enough of a challenge for them…?) And I haven’t even included all the money to the another political entity who is intent on getting us all to fear CAGW for the purpose of expanding their control over us – the UN.
Thank you H.I. for your clear presentation about the Legal Referral of Gleick to the US District Attorney’s Office. Although I have followed the Gleick vs H.I. situation closely from the beginning, this is the first time I have seen a comprehensive legal view with all evidence shown in logical sequence. It is decisive.
I think your strategy is notable; a strategy to publically disclose the case; a case which the appropriate US District Attorney’s Office has not taken either timely or reasonable action on.
Gleick is a: liar, cheat, self-confessed idiot fraud and immoral bigot.
It is dishonorable behavior by the AGU when it openly and warmly welcomed him at their Dec 2012 Fall Meeting in San Francisco. I was in attendance and it was disgusting to see AGU leadership publicly embracing the opposite of integrity in its past integrity committee’s leader.
Shame on the US Attorney Office system for failing the trust of the US citizens in the idea of fairness in law.
Shame on you, the science community, for failure to openly and publically condemn Gleick’s immoral and dishonest actions. The public’s waning trust in you is understandably justified in this case.
This is a parasitic festering Gleick. Stay away from him or risk being tainted professionally.
I request all government grants to Gleick and the P.I. should be suspended pending the legal closure / resolution of his self-confessed crimes.
John
Mike Haseler says:
February 14, 2013 at 9:13 am
In other words, they should have either put up the case … or shut up.
—–
People keep wanting Heartland to shut up. The civil and criminal courts are only 2 courts. There is also the court of public opinion. Heartland can play in that court, and is, despite your demand that they do as you wish.
Two things, if I may: There are as yet unanswered questions about Gleick and the manner in which his docs ended up at Desmogblog, combined with the way in which anti-skeptic people have used supposed ‘document leaks’ to marginalize skeptics over the last 20+ years, as I detailed last Feb 28. “Fakegate Opens a Door: More than meets the eye in the Heartland controversy” http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/fakegate_opens_a_door.html
Second, Heartland now labels me as “Contributing Editor, Environment & Climate News”, http://heartland.org/russell-cook after perhaps a year of intensive lobbying on my part about going on the offense against accusations hurled at them rather than merely reacting defensively.
Stay tuned. There will be more. Heartland is not rolling over and playing dead on the larger situation.
Is there not a course of action using a “Mandamus” judicial remedy? (wiki link but I’m not trained in any legal aspect so I’ll take it as written and let the comments correct the error of my ways)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandamus
…..In the American legal system it must be a judicially enforceable and legally protected right before one suffering a grievance can ask for a mandamus. A person can be said to be aggrieved only when he is denied a legal right by someone who has a legal duty to do something and abstains from doing it.
…
…….A mandamus is normally issued when an officer or an authority by compulsion of statute is required to perform a duty and which despite demand in writing has not been performed….
I have been thinking about what is the high road for Heartland in this matter. Some of us believe that we are under the admonition to forgive and pray for those who despitefully use us. How about Heartland sending a letter to Gleick and to each of the organizations to which Gleick belongs or which embrace him from time to time, reminding them of the criminal and unethical behavior of their confederate. And pointing out that this reflects badly upon those groups that continue to work with him and that their apparent approval of Gleick is, by inference, an approval of his criminal and unethical tactics. Then magnanimously, Heartland could offer complete forgiveness to Gleick and to each of the organizations for their spiteful actions. Then just to be sure that the sincerity of the forgiveness is understood, Heartland should write the letters again every year, as open letters to the media as well, adding any new outfits that gather Gleick into their fold, and pointing out that despite Gleick’s unforgivable criminal behavior and the unethical and reprehensible approvals of his confederates, they are all still forgiven and Heartland is still praying for them. (Tevia’s prayer for the Czar comes to mind). Wouldn’t that be the high road?
Thanks, Coals of Fire, for reminding me of this lesson.
There are a number of standards of proof and innocence. In criminal court one is presumed innocent until found guilty beyond reasonable doubt. In civil court one may have to prove one’s innocence by a mere preponderance of evidence before a trier of fact. In the court of public opinion where we play you’re damned guilty on my say so!
I-ANAL – I Am Not A Lawyer. The law is an ass that lawyers ride to work.