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.
My understanding is that in the US the district attorney has exclusive discretion over whether or not to bring criminal charges. The victims of crimes have little or no rights in the prosecution other than as a witness.
However because of the government’s monopoly over the prosecution of crime they surely have a duty to protect their citizens by bringing charges where there is clear evidence of crime and an admission of criminality.
Not prosecuting in such circumstances would be a failure of the government’s duty to protect its citizens and an apparent abuse of the agreement whereby citizens allow their government to have discretion over whether or not to prosecute.
The decision of the public attorney not to act in this case is a strong argument for the victims of crimes being given the right to bring private criminal prosecutions together with applications under criminal law for restitution.
I would be interested to know what reasons the district attorney has given for not pursuing a criminal prosecution against Gleick despite overwhelming evidence and an admission of wrongdoing by Gleick.
How can an interested (foreign) obsrever help you?
the alarmists waste no time at all exploiting HI’s timidity and weakness, do they?
‘all ur talking pts r belong to gleick’
i wonder if the warmunist agenda includes programs to neutralize opposition by setting up fake opposition who submit with a whimper – you know – as an example to discourage the others.
heartland’s leadership teaches that resistance is futile
donate to heartland – support the Care to Despair Campaign!
can we cap and tax now?
(/bitter)
seriously- if HI is claiming that revelation of their donors would be damaging, it totally begs an explanation of precisely how and why- not to mention what the purpose was of raising that point AT ALL. it sure provides fertile ground for suspicions of all kinds. was that the idea, then?
it is as if somebody is trying very hard to fail and the HI explanation sounds absurd.
Honor belongs to WUWT and those who stand on principle,
Again . . . . . Gleick knows he is guilty, he confessed publically.
I think it is productive to look at the common options available to Gleick’s for getting support for his personal immoral acts wrt HI. By ‘common options’ I mean we have a wealth of documented ‘commom options’ for Support of immoral acts (COSIA) well worn excuses of criminal of why they did immoral acts.
I think that Gleick and his apologists for his immoral acts against HI have a wealth of excuse / justification options to garner support for his immoral acts. Here a just a couple out of many:
COSIA #1 – Tabula Rasa Option => This is the technique of expecting your moral record is cleansed of bad entries when admitting quilt and apologizing. Gleick used this in his ‘confession’ on Huffington Post where he said, “[ . . . ] I deeply regret my own actions in this case. I offer my personal apologies to all those affected.” This a low hanging fruit kind of option and it is of the very weakest options for getting support for your immoral actions.
COSIA #2 – All’s Fair in War Against Conspiracists Option => It is clear Gleick and his apologists favor this option to garner support for his immoral acts against HI. Gleick used this in his ‘confession’ on Huffington Post where he said,
This claim by Gleick and his apologists of a conspriracy to prevent debate and promote secrecy is contradicted by the nature of the actions of those supportive of Gleick’s claims of alarming AGW by CO2. Here are some highly visible public supporters of his alarmism by people, news media and blogs:
Gleick and his apologists for his immoral actions were against debate and now are saying Gleicks immoral acts where done to compensate for a conspiracy to block debate by ‘conspriaist’ critics of alarming AGW by CO2. Absurd.
Will this COSIA #2 work in the public? The public is not idiotic like Gleick and his apologists who try this ‘All’s Fair in War Against Conspiracists Option’.
In closing there are many more COSIAs to cite but it would take several blog posts to cover them.
Any other commenters have ideas for Gleick’s COSIAs?
John
Gleick’s behaviour has already been copied.
See this extract from The Sydney Morning Herald of January 11 2013
“As northern NSW baked in 40-degree temperatures this week, Mr Moylan was also feeling the heat from the Australian Securities and Investments Commission.
Last Saturday, he used his laptop computer to draw up a fake press release purporting to be from ANZ Bank, saying the financial institution had withdrawn financial support for a proposed Whitehaven Coal mine in the forest.
When he sent it to journalists on Monday morning, and impersonated an ANZ employee, the company’s stock temporarily crashed by nearly 9 per cent – equivalent to $314 million.
Mr Moylan has not been charged, but potential offences could lead to fines of $495,000 and up to 10 years in jail. An ASIC investigator made an unannounced visit to the Leard Forest campsite this week, seizing the laptop and mobile phone Mr Moylan used for the hoax”.
Many self funded pensioners lost money on the “hoax”
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/moylan-camp-is-feeling-the-heat-in-more-ways-than-one-20130110-2cj49.html#ixzz2Kw6eeVO8
D.B. Stealey says:”Funny, I do not remember “many commenting” as you claim. How about posting those “many” comments.”
Funny, I do. It seems we disagree. We must have read different blogs last year. But in lieu of that, I just said it, so you have poof that someone has said it. A first step toward “many”….
“And what, exactly, does Heartland have to lose?”
I wonder. That is a could be an interesting question. It might have an interesting answer. But it seems it wont be answered by those who know.
“Finally, I note that you are still dodging this question from another thread: how much Arctic ice is the right amount? Be specific.”
Again, some people know how to ask questions that have specific answers. You don’t.
Sorry, but I’m not comfortable with Heartland’s reasoning behind keeping its donors private. It stinks of a coverup, which in effect exonerates Gleick.
If as the widely-believed conspiracy theory suggests Heartland is indeed a front for all manner of robber barons who would rape the environment for their own self interests then this is exactly how it would have to react to retain its cover. It would have to conceal the identities of its donors lest the dots between money and message be drawn.
So, contrary to Heartland’s claim in the first comment, the only way it can clear its name is to take the fight forward and prove the conspiracy wrong.
I mean, why would you want to donate money to a PR outfit that’s been so easily smeared and snuffed of credulence? Might as invest it in wind farms. At least you might stand some chance of seeing a return on your investment.
@johnny:
As I understand the names of Heartland’s donors (at the time of the Gleick incident) are largely known now – Gleick put them into the public domain.
What Heartland is saying, correctly I think is; Is that what litigation would do, is provide an opportunity for Gleick’s lawyers to harass the donors with subpoenas for random paperwork.
That aside, most of Heartland’s work, and most of their donors, are nothing to do with climate change. It doesn’t seem unreasonable that somebody who donated to Heartland to support say their work on (say) healthcare issues, doesn’t really deserve to be dragged into a Gleick related lawsuit.
Johnny Hooper says:
February 14, 2013 at 10:34 pm
Sorry, but I’m not comfortable with Heartland’s reasoning behind keeping its donors private. It stinks of a coverup, which in effect exonerates Gleick.
__
I’m not sure at all how your being uncomfortable with HI’s policy exonerates Gleick from fraud, deceit and theft? Perhaps you could explain that? Your reasoning, if you can call it that, seems to be the old idea that the victim has a shady reputation, therefore the perp was justified to rape her. You may wish to put HI on trial here, but the rest of us will not forget who is really blameworthy and seems to be going unpunished. Make a defense of Gleick if you will. But don’t presume that waving your arms and blowing smoke at HI exonerates your hero in any way shape or form. That’s a disgusting concept. I can’t believe you actually used the word “exonerate”. Wow. Double wow.
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.
You cannot be serious. Every newspaper in the western world does this sort of thing routinely. Virtually all the British papers did snooping that was several orders of magnitude worse than Gleick. Even the clean ones in that affair publish stuff from the likes of Wikileaks. And the US ones are no different. Would the world have been improved without the Watergate leaks?
Newspapers and blogs would be pretty idiotic if they refused to publish information that was previously deemed secret. Especially once it is in the common domain. What they need to do is check to see if it is true.
So in the minor world of climate reporting, all the alarmist sites that published Gleick have failed in their basic duty to report the truth. Anthony did not commission the Climategate leak, and only published what was by then commonly available information.
If you cannot see that Anthony has consistently behaved better than most reputable British newspapers then your problem is with what he publishes, not how.
From Heartland:
“Why Isn’t Peter Gleick In Jail?”
http://fakegate.org
Good question.
Coalsoffire says:
“I’m not sure at all how your being uncomfortable with HI’s policy exonerates Gleick from fraud, deceit and theft? …But don’t presume that waving your arms and blowing smoke at HI exonerates your hero in any way shape or form. That’s a disgusting concept. I can’t believe you actually used the word “exonerate”. Wow. Double wow.”
Nah, Gleick’s done us skeptics a favour. The less we have to do with these creepy right-wing “think tanks” with “secret” financeers the better.
Good riddance to Heartland.
No-one really cares that Gleick technically broke the law. Everyone, especially the media, loves undercover scoops. Gleick might be a terrorist, he might be a liar, but he’s been martyred for his cause.
The real story is how Heartland is reacting: like it has something to conceal. And that something is who’s paying them to spread what the MSM presumes is disinformation.
When you fight every scientific institution in the world, you need to provide extraordinary proof that they’re all wrong. So being shady about who’s paying you just doesn’t cut it. It just makes you look extremely dodgy.
In other words Heartland got called a duck, indignantly protested it wasn’t a duck, and then prompted quacked like a duck.
The end result is that no conference organized by Heartland, no press release issued by Heartland, no person associated with Heartland, will be treated with any respect by the media. They might as well wear a badge that says “clear the rainforests for oil fields and tobbacco plantations.” They might as well be Donald Trump.
So yes, it’s time to find a new sponsor. One that’s completely transparent.
Johnny Hooper says:
February 15, 2013 at 10:04 pm
Nah, Gleick’s done us skeptics a favour. The less we have to do with these creepy right-wing “think tanks” with “secret” financeers the better.
Good riddance to Heartland.
No-one really cares that Gleick technically broke the law. Everyone, especially the media, loves undercover scoops. Gleick might be a terrorist, he might be a liar, but he’s been martyred for his cause.
The real story is how Heartland is reacting: like it has something to conceal. And that something is who’s paying them to spread what the MSM presumes is disinformation.
——
Again you miss the point. It doesn’t matter how shady or creepy the victim is, (and those are purely subjective evaluations) the law ought to protect them. Frauds, cheats and thieves should not be protected and lionized and exonerated for having victimized unpopular people or groups. You are entitled to criticize Heartland, and you may be right to do so. But if you forgive and even value Gleick for his help in furthering your cause against the HI you are no better than he is.
If somebody stole your cows or your horse, you used to not fair well with or without a judge. If you were a wolf eating a man’s pay, you likely ended up nailed to the side of the house (or at least the outside of you). And it didn’t matter if you were liked or not liked by your neighbor. Stealing was bad and if caught punishment came swiftly and harshly. So now our livestock and pay live on the internet. Are some of you saying that in some cases stealing is not stealing? What if you were to ask your grandmother what her opinion was? Chances are you would get your ears pinned back, or worse, end up nailed to the outside of her house.
WHAT IS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ON GLEIK’S CRIMES?
I’m asking because I’m wondering if a change in the White House in 2016, and therefore at the corrupt Holder Department of Justice (with Eric Holder keeping Obama’s dirt under wraps for him), will allow a second bite at the proverbial apple (provided the Dems loose) – here, meaning the Truth at stake in this case?
coalsoffire says:
“Again you miss the point. It doesn’t matter how shady or creepy the victim is, (and those are purely subjective evaluations) the law ought to protect them. Frauds, cheats and thieves should not be protected and lionized and exonerated for having victimized unpopular people or groups. You are entitled to criticize Heartland, and you may be right to do so. But if you forgive and even value Gleick for his help in furthering your cause against the HI you are no better than he is.”
You can sook about it all you like. I’m sure you never bleated about Climategate.
But never mind who’s right or wrong here. Let’s look at the outcome.
If you were to poll journalists about skeptics of global warming, here’s what you’d find:
Before Gleick’s troll
>80% of journalists would say the “denial” is drummed up by secret payments from oil/coal/gas industrialists who are in bed with conservative politicians. This was the prevailing view.
After Gleick’s troll
>80% would say the same thing but they’d be able to name Heartland as the coduit for these payments and point to HI’s refusal to reveal its sponsors as definitive proof that something fishy is going on. This is now the prevailing view.
And before you get all shouty, note this is coming from someone who is also skeptical of Global Warming, who has been reading this blog for years and certainly not a fan of Gleick.
So like I said before Heartland’s made its own bed. Now it has to sleep in it.
Could Heartland not perform a legal suit against the government for violation of the first amendment? Withdrawl of legal and police protection is certainly a punishment with the same effect as outright censorship. The fact that this is retaliation for politcal speech makes this a clear first amendment issue, violating the freedom of speech and association for Heartland and their contributors.
Johnny Hooper says: February 15, 2013 at 10:04 pm ” … So being shady about who’s paying you just doesn’t cut it. … ”
Quite the contrary. What those on the IPCC / Al Gore side seem to be spectacularly oblivious to is the shady appearance seen in hurling funding accusations – without a solitary shred of evidence to support them – that payments were made in exchange for demonstratively false, fabricated science papers, assessments, etc. To me, such a stubborn enslavement to a defense tactic like that is not only illogical, it is inexplicably suicidal to the entire cause of AGW. It’s like watching a huge passenger train hurtling down tracks ending at the edge of a cliff.
If the AGW promoting crowd wants to save themselves, everyone to a man must drop what they are doing and start dredging up actual evidence that skeptics would tell the truth if only they weren’t paid vast sums to lie about it.
Gleick is heavily censoring his new National Geographic blog.
This question of mine of mine was deleted, but that’s not what’s interesting. But compare the comment number (“#48”) to the number in the URL (“#comment-77”). It appears to me that Gleick is deleting about 38% of the comments.