Prince William FOIA case on global warming headed for Virginia Supreme Court
The fight by a conservative legal group and Del. Robert Marshall (R-Prince William) to obtain the e-mails written by leading climate change scientist Michael E. Mann while he was at the University of Virginia was shot down by a judge in Prince William County last year. But Marshall and the legal group appealed, and the Virginia Supreme Court has agreed to take the case and rule on whether the state’s Freedom of Information Act exempts unpublished academic research from being disclosed to the public, even after it’s been concluded or has been released elsewhere.
…
Richard C. Kast and Madelyn F. Wessel, U.Va.’s lawyers, argued that Judge Sheridan got it right when he ruled that the university had properly interpreted FOIA. They acknowledged that there was no judicial precedent on the FOIA exemption, but that “the policy of open government under the act is not ‘absolute,’” citing more than 100 exemptions in Virginia’s FOIA law. They noted that the Institute and Marshall challenge the judge’s interpretation of “proprietary,” but that the conservatives “offer no alternative definition or explanation as to why the plain meaning of the term should not apply.” Plain meaning, in U.Va.’s view, being “a thing or property owned or in the possession of one who manages and controls them.”
Mann said in an e-mail to me [the WaPo writer] that “I believe Judge Sheridan’s ruling protecting faculty research correspondence is correct and is precisely what Sen. Thomas Michie intended when he proposed his legislation to amend Virginia’s FOIA law and the legislature enacted in 1984 to enhance the ability of Virginia’s public colleges and university’s to protect the scholarly research endeavor.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/local/wp/2013/10/09/prince-william-foia-case-on-global-warming-headed-for-virginia-supreme-court/
– – – – – – – – –
How about one year? One year after the research has concluded then FOIA applies to releasing the material produced by “government employees on government property using government facilities for government purposes”.
The year is long since up. Come on Va Supreme Court, justice for taxpayers funding scientists is a simple concept. Release the material.
John
Its right that people want to see what they get for their tax money. But Mann is only a tiny fish in a big climate pond.
The real question is what did we get for the more than $100Bn worldwide ‘invested’ around the world in climate studies.
It seems that our knowledge is barely increased since this firehose of cash was turned on.
What did they do with it all?
Nothing could be stronger proof of something to hide than fighting so hard to keep it from being disclosed. Mann, you will be found out.
Can the court/judges ask to read the emails during the course of the proceedings?? That would certainly tighten up a sphincter or two I’d suspect….
I wish someone at the University had the necessary gumption to fish out those e-mails and simply release them.
If Mann believes in what he has, he should stand by it proudly and show the world. Perhaps one of his followers – you know, someone who really believes – will think so too, and do it for him.
Too much to hope for…? Oh, well.
Tom G(ologist) says:
When a ruling causes legislatures to change laws, no-one benefits. It’s how we end up with convoluted laws which every person looks at and asks: How did we end up with THAT law?
I think that lawyers have a truism for this. Goes like:
“Bad cases make in bad laws”
[snip over the top -mod]
Too little too late to save us from the carpet bagger. And Mann as the new Climate Czar of Virginia.
It will also depend on whether the CAGW scam is at its tail end and it is decided to toss Mann to the dogs to divert attention from his masters.
““government employees on government property using government facilities for government purposes” — Quote from John Whitman
‘For government purposes’ is really the crux of it. Essentially it comes down to the idea that either government paid for the research, and so it is theirs, which satsifies ‘purposes.’ Or the idea that government research grants are Food Stamps for Philosophers.
Don’t forget about the National Review and Mark Steyn’s defense in the defamation lawsuit launched by Mann. The defense will be entitled to discovery. He may have to cough them up anyway or drop the lawsuit. If there is a trial, all discovery data becomes part of the evidence.
… and the evidence is public record.
I think Paul W is right. The National Review and Steyn case will be the one to look out for because of the right to discovery.
In that particular action Mann has everything to lose: discovery will hopefully reveal his email shenanigans to the world, or he’ll drop the case and we can all infer that he’s worried about his emails being seen because they are so incriminating.
I would bet serious money that the collusion to produce the hockey stick is detailed to the point of who, when, and where the money trail leads, back and forth emails to the puppet masters and or their discussion as to how to control the media or peer review process, from the early start of the fru@d.
Can we read anything into the mere fact that the state supreme court has decided to review a case already decided in favor of the defendant?
For all those stating Mann has something to hide otherwise he would not fight the disclosure, remember the 900 lbs gorilla in this case, UVA, probably has greater reason to fight the precedent that would be set by a decision requiring disclosure. Mann may not be the driving force here.
@Patrick B – Mann is not the driving force. But he is a willing participant. UVA did indeed initiate the fight, and it could have stayed that way. But Mann stepped in (even though he had no legal standing nor was a party to the original suit). One has to wonder why.
– – – – – – –
Jquip,
Although I wish I had said that, it was said by Va Judge Sheridan in the initial trial.
Regarding your “Or the idea that government research grants are Food Stamps for Philosophers.” That was well put. I like it, but would suggest a qualification, namely ‘natural philosophers’.
John
– – – – – – – –
Gary Hladik,
It does seem that it indicates a Va Supreme Court interest in a critique of the correctness of the initial court’s ruling.
I am not a lawyer. Any legal counsel in the audience?
John
So this is why Mann appeared in a video decrying the Republican Candidate in The Virginia Governor elections then. What a devious, twisted and dishonourable thing to do …
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tPFfRRmBsI
Our plaintiffs brief is due in early November. You all will be able to read it then. Also, the court is going to see 31 example emails and another half dozen I’ll be using in the brief. They do shoe Mann as he actually was, and I don’t know about his mother, but mine would not have been proud of me if I’d written them.
David Schnare
Plaintiffs’ Counsel
@David Shnare – WOW! Mann must be really rich! Paying his lawyer to argue the case in front of a bunch of people that will not and CAN NOT affect the outcome of the case.
Wish I had that kind of money.
Showly not!
We have all had to deal with an habitual liar at some stage. Lies, to support lies, to support lies. Then one day you pick up an inconsistency and realize that all they have been telling you from the outset is a big pack of lies. These people will lie to the bitter end and beyond to avoid the truth ever coming out. Ever notice that the more prestigious the “organisation” they represent, the longer it takes for the trust to wear thin and the bigger the stakes of the con? This one of course goes all the way up to the UN. Michael Mann is showing the classical signs of an habitual liar. He knows that the contents of the emails are dynamite-the truth must never be revealed. If he really had nothing to hide, he would release the emails willingly to settle the matter. Mind you, people from the Left seem to be habitual liars in general(not that other politicians are much better.)
Working in big Pharma, our emails can be requested by agencies. If there is deemed a legal hold on one of our programs, it’s against the law to delete any emails regarding the program and all those emails can be obtained by the agency. How can these publicly funded schools be any different?
And indeed, what in the world are in Mann’s emails that they are protecting so heavily???
Latimer Alder on October 9, 2013 at 12:42 pm
Its right that people want to see what they get for their tax money. But Mann is only a tiny fish in a big climate pond.
The real question is what did we get for the more than $100Bn worldwide ‘invested’ around the world in climate studies.
It seems that our knowledge is barely increased since this firehose of cash was turned on.
What did they do with it all?
—————————
They fudged data, wrote bogus computer models, published papers, gave biased news conferenses, and attended conferences, In addition they garnered salaries for themselves and their research assistants, grad students, and post docs. Plus the Universities charge a huge overhead on any grant monies brought in and spent. Everyone benefits but the tax payer
Much as I love the man, I haven’t seen much evidence that he is heavily involved here. UVA seem to be fighting this one and probably because a decision against them would open the flood gates to University FOI requests generally. We wouldn’t want that now would we? Who knows what headline generating ‘skeletons in closets’ might be uncovered (not necessarily at UVA)? A win for UVA is a win for every organisation subject to FOI.