From ‘amazing tales of the vexatious’. Climate Change Dispatch writes:
In a clear slap in the face, the Virginia Supreme Court awarded Michael E. Mann and the University of Virginia a piddling $250 in damages in the email FOIA case. Showing the triviality of the manner, the court’s order (shown here) didn’t even specify the rationale for the derisory amount.
From The Daily Reporter:
The court’s recent order only states the amount of damages that the Energy & Environmental Legal Institute must pay. It doesn’t provide details about the rationale behind the award.
The institute sued in 2011 after U.Va. refused to turn over emails requested by the nonprofit conservative group under Virginia’s Freedom of Information Act. The Supreme Court rejected the group’s attempt to obtain the emails in April, saying retired Arlington Circuit Court Judge Paul Sheridan was right when he ruled that Mann’s emails were exempt from the law because they were proprietary records dealing with scholarly research.
Of course Mann’s incredible ego won’t allow him to see this as a slap in the face, he comments in The Daily Reporter:
“The damages in my view are symbolic,” Mann told The Daily Progress (http://bit.ly/1raJi0m) “What is important is not the $250 itself but the recognition by the court of the frivolous and pernicious nature of the (institute’s) suit.”
Mann, who is now a professor and researcher at Penn State University, said he planned to donate his award to the Climate Science Defense Fund. He said the fund exists “to assist scientists being attacked this way.”
What’s Mann’s hyperinflated ego can’t seem to assimilate, are these facts:
- FOIA is a law, it was put in place specifically so that taxpayer money couldn’t be used for government business without public disclosure. It is not the same as “don’t ask, don’t tell” which is what Mann seems to think applies to his work, IMHO.
- Because it is a law, it is a right to pursue. Asking for work correspondence and work product funded on the taxpayer’s dime is fair game, no matter what the judge says, IMHO.
- If Mann had no issues with the contents of those emails, we wouldn’t see him fighting so hard to protect them. This business about him doing it “for the greater good of science” is a load of bullpuckey to give him hero status, IMHO.
- As we’ve seen in the climategate emails, and more recently in the peer review ring busted and in The PNAS ‘old boys’ club’, the process of science and peer review seems to be more political, than logical. One wonders what sort of similar examples exist that have yet to be discovered.
- Mann is the only climate scientist to launch personal lawsuits against others, there seems to be no examples of the reverse from climate skeptics, personally suing Michael Mann or his peers. The idea of the “Climate Science Legal Defense Fund”, purportedly setup specifically for Mann, seems to be more about offense, than defense.
If I were ATI, I’d send him that $250 in pennies, which is fully legal tender, but also speaks to the triviality of Mann’s complaint, and the fact that the “Climate Science Legal Defense Fund” isn’t about defense as much as it is offense.
UPDATE: From David Schnare, General Counsel, Energy & Environment Legal Institute
There is a lot of misunderstanding about the $250 “damages” assessed by the Court. Any appellant that loses their appeal in the Virginia Supreme Court has to make this payment to the opposing party. It is generally intended to pay for the costs of printing of briefs. It does not include attorney’s fees or any other costs. Mann won’t get a cent. It all goes to the University who may or may not have to transfer it to the Attorney General’s coffers since that is who represented the University and who had to pay for preparation of their briefs.
More importantly, this is not all over. The court only decided the meaning of the term “of a proprietary nature” and they took our (plaintiffs) definition verbatim. They just refused to admit that which was their way of denying us our costs and fees. (We used over $300,000 worth of our time on this case, and thousands of dollars in costs.) What the court did not do was to discuss the rest of the “research exemptions” and that will come up with the next case that is already in the pipeline. That FOIA is seeking all emails associated with John Daly, Steve McIntyre and the IPCC. As none of those were collected by or for the faculty in pursuit of a research project sponsored by UVA, they should not be subject to being withheld. We will see what slimy games the University next plays to prevent the release of those documents. We’ll keep you informed.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Believe it or not, there are severe limits on how much change can constitute legal tender. IIRC, the limit on pennies is 20 cents and the limit on dimes is 10$ (or something similar).
What this means is that if you get a ton of pennies you can refuse payment and legally demand the “accptable” amount. (When pennies were actually bronze and dimes, quarters, etc. were silver, this was not so much of an issue, of course.)
Write the check out on a tree plug.
Withhold payment and let him go to court to get it if he really wants it. NB. I have zero legal expertise.
If you really want to have fun with the payment, have a check engraved into a large piece of stone such as granite. As long as all the required information is on the check it is also considered legal payment.
Sad to a spin in this issue, It is imaterial if it is $250.
Someone asking for a FOIA is punished for damages by the Court.
The State secrets are protected. Now that the Left controls the State(Governement) expect the many FOIA’s getting a sudden death.
Your third bullet is poor reasoning. It’s similar to the government spying on you and telling you it’s okay if you have nothing to hide, and as false. I don’t like the obfuscation of Mann, but I like that reasoning even less.
Brian R says:
July 15, 2014 at 12:05 pm
If you really ant to have fun with the payment, have a check engraved into a large piece of stone such as granite. As long as all the required information is on the check it is also considered legal payment.
Oh gosh, I’m rather afraid that if you paid him via a granite cheque, he would sue again, and this time he’d have concrete evidence. 🙂
Foreign currency is not legal tender.
Write the cheque out on a hockey stick.
Ima says:
July 15, 2014 at 10:25 am
> Pennies is a bad idea. It implies being spiteful. Take the high road.
And include a press conference on the courthouse steps. I assume the payment needs to go through the court system so they have proof it was made. Even if it doesn’t, have the press conference. Put on some talks, face paint some kids, have a fine old time.
go back to the original lower court decision.
http://www.dailyprogress.com/news/state-supreme-court-academic-emails-can-be-withheld/article_71349c92-c64d-11e3-a609-0017a43b2370.html
it upheld Sheridan’s ruling basically saying unpublished research is protected from foi due to its proprietary nature.
Very bad loss and it will require yet more lawsuits in the future to split the hairs between protecting proprietary research versus the interest of tax-payer investments.
“The damages in my view are symbolic,” Mann told The Daily Progress
Indeed and it is clear what the judge wanted to symbolise. Something very, very small.
We have a very old Monopoly set. Be happy to donate $250 from it.
I’ve read that too.
Oh come on. This, I am sorry to say, is nothing less than a victory for Mann and his belief that his work is not subject to scrutiny. How can you take delight in the fact that he was only awarded $250? When Mann says that the amount is not important, he is absolutely right. Had to give this post 1 star for monumentally missing the point.
I think there is a limit of 25 cents acceptable as payment in one-cent coins.
Ian M
hmmmm
evanmjones says:
July 15, 2014 at 11:38 am
“…..When pennies were actually bronze…”
just curious when US pennies were bronze? I was under the impression that they were copper until the war in which they were switched to zinc, as copper was prioritized for other uses, then the composition was changed in “recent years” to a cheaper mix as copper was too expensive.
policycritic said “Write the cheque out on a hockey stick.”
Brilliant !
That gets my vote.
In any regard, this is a loss. Someone asking for information under FOIA is fined by a court? Loss. Possible liability for Mann’s and UVA’s court costs (legal fees)? Big loss. Expense to the taxpayers? Big loss? Accountability from government? Big loss.
Many years ago, certainly, the UK allowed cheques to be written – exactly as
Man Bearpig says:
July 15, 2014 at 10:55 am
on all sorts of portable(-ish) property.
‘Misleading cases’ – by AP Herbert, from the 1960s – exemplified this. With humour.
Maybe this still applies. maybe not.
CAVEAT.
My legal training is pretty minimal.
CAVEAT.
For the instant case, I caution about paying in small denominations. Maybe five crisp fifties, with a birthday/wedding anniversary/work anniversary card, which ever is nearest.
Auto
Damages in this context is a very specific term of art, applicable to appeals court process, not damages in the normal legal sense.
It basically means that the loser needs to pay some of the winners paperwork costs in this type of case. Afaik it doesn’t say anything more as to merits of the appeal beyond the existing judgement – I.e. Appeal denied.
Mann’s claim that this is a slap in the face of ati is exaggerated, and Mr watts you should not take it at face value.
According to Snopes.com, pennies in all amounts are legal tender. Snopes says:
The site notes that,
I doubt that’s true of court-award damages; so assuming Snopes is correct and there’s not a separate rule that applies to damages, the debt could probably be paid in pennies.
Moderator, you may want to put this up just below the article.
There is a lot of misunderstanding about the $250 “damages” assessed by the Court. Any appellant that loses their appeal in the Virginia Supreme Court has to make this payment to the opposing party. It is generally intended to pay for the costs of printing of briefs. It does not include attorney’s fees or any other costs. Mann won’t get a cent. It all goes to the University who may or may not have to transfer it to the Attorney General’s coffers since that is who represented the University and who had to pay for preparation of their briefs.
More importantly, this is not all over. The court only decided the meaning of the term “of a proprietary nature” and they took our (plaintiffs) definition verbatim. They just refused to admit that which was their way of denying us our costs and fees. (We used over $300,000 worth of our time on this case, and thousands of dollars in costs.) What the court did not do was to discuss the rest of the “research exemptions” and that will come up with the next case that is already in the pipeline. That FOIA is seeking all emails associated with John Daly, Steve McIntyre and the IPCC. As none of those were collected by or for the faculty in pursuit of a research project sponsored by UVA, they should not be subject to being withheld. We will see what slimy games the University next plays to prevent the release of those documents. We’ll keep you informed.
David Schnare
General Counsel
Energy & Environment Legal Institute
Being nickeled and dimed is a better fate. It adds up.