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.
“We will see what slimy games the University next plays to prevent the release of those documents. We’ll keep you informed.”
I expect a large amount of hard drives suddenly crashed at the university, with all the archives of all the emails that pertained to the request on them.
Earnest Hemingway once received an offer of $100,000 from a Hollywood producer for the movie rights to one of his books. Hemingway cabled him back with the suggestion that the producer change the hundred thousand into nickels and pound it up his ass.
Phil
=====================================================================
Thanks for the update.
I liked the idea of paying in pennies. I was about to suggest that the 25,000 pennies be divided by the days left to pay and sending that amount each day or paying in those store coupons that say in the fine print they are worth 1/100 of a cent. (That might require some crowd sourcing. 😎
Keep the tree rings burning!
Keep him in the sport light , keep him under pressure and watch him blow . Mann will do much good work for the very people he hates. And when he falls , its not just sceptics that will line up to kick him on the way down, such is the ‘quality’ of Mann.
My bet is the court isn’t going to view childish shenanigans such as paying in pennies with any humor.
Don’t play childish games. First, you don’t want to anger the court. Second, you don’t want to stoop to Mann’s level.
OK, so this guy’ work is no longer subject to scrutiny, in the scientific sense. Why should I ever give any thought to any further research he does?
Mann screwed himself. He now arbitrates his research. And if he can’t play by the same rules as all other scientists, hopefully his grant funds will dry up.
As a scientist I will not give second thought that there might be something useful in anything he claims as research. If he cannot open his data and research methodologies to the scientific community…. screw him.
Science lurches backwards.
Mr. Layman here.
My impression of information being “proprietary” has been that there is a patent or copyright or some such that the “proprietor” is making money from or in some other way profiting.
How does that word legally or scientifically apply to Mann’s research?
Hiding personal stuff in the emails I can understand. But this?
It may be small, but that’s $250 I could put to good use. At least until that check from BigOil (TM) appears in my mailbox… someday.
Mann who?
John
so, a $300,000 dollar loss and mike can claim vindication and another exoneration.
is there an estimate on what it cost mr mann?
fighting and winning are so very different.
“Write the cheque out on a hockey stick.”
Policycritic wins the thread! 😀
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.
Pennies (techinically 1-cent pieces; “penny” is a borrowed, non-technical term) were bronze. The first “small cents” were the Indian Heads (now, that was inflation, going from large to small). In 1943, a steel cent was issued. In 1944 – 1945, they were copper (from melted shell casings), then in 1946, they reverted to bronze, and in 1982, they went over to zinc. (Interestingly, there are both bronze and zinc 1982 cents).
In WWII, nickels were 20% silver (1942 – 1945) and had different and highly distinct mint marks. Like the copper in 1943, they needed the nickel for the war effort.
MJW says:
July 15, 2014 at 1:32 pm (Edit)
Very interesting.
As soylentgreen says, don’t tick off the court.
Man Bearpig says: July 15, 2014 at 10:55 am
“In the UK it WAS legal to write a check (Cheque) on anything as long as that item is legally owned and transferred to the issuing bank .. There have been even been cheques written on paving slabs, a cow and host of other ‘annoying’ items.”
Regretfully I must advise that the “Case of the Negotiable Cow” would not hold up in a modern court in the UK. Read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Board_of_Inland_Revenue_v_Haddock
and enjoy.
I find it outrageous that we can’t use FOIA like the left can. it looks to me like its a political tool created mainly for the benefit of the left.
I hope someday somebody hacks Mann’s UVA emails and puts them up on the web…
philjourdan says:
“At $250, that is $249.95 too much. Mann is not worth a plugged nickle.”
Agreed. But I’d pay more than that right now to see the emails this little prig has spent half of his career hiding from the taxpayers who funded him. This pissant belongs in prison. I’d be more than happy to help pay for his bus ticket.
Only you could turn an ignominious defeat into some sort of victory. You lost. Own it.
The law was designed to ensure accountability and transparency from government officials. It wasn’t designed so that fossil fuel funded front groups could harass academics to turn over their private emails.
I’m all for getting academics to release their data to ensure that appropriate methodology has been used and results are robust. But this garbage is just plain harassment.
Any and all of you would fight tooth and nail if a FOI request was made for your private email correspondence.
Quick, pay him with the circular stone disks once used as currency in the Pacific South Sea Islands before they are all inundated by the rising oceans!
M Mann won this round. Play it straight – just pay, don’t provide ammunition for diversionary tactics.
Then work on the next round.
This a victory for Mann, not a slap in the face. The value isn’t in the settlement. It’s in his stealing of taxpayer money without penalty.
Siberian, the $250 award doesn’t pay for one hour of one attorney’s time. Mann’s side lost serious money. Look up “Pyrrhic victory”
A few more victories and he’ll be bankrupt.
Siberian_Husky ‘
private email correspondence.’
Since when did e-mails about the job your employed by the public dollar to do become ‘private ‘ ?
The definition guy says:
July 15, 2014 at 11:13 pm
“Siberian, the $250 award doesn’t pay for one hour of one attorney’s time. Mann’s side lost serious money. Look up “Pyrrhic victory”
A few more victories and he’ll be bankrupt.”
Possibly, except I strongly suspect that it was the University that was paying for his defence since as I understand it he was fighting a FOI request (although I could be wrong as I havent been following this closely).
So in other words probably using public dollars to defend himself from spurious FOI requests.
Oh the irony.
@Siberian Husky – Mann was not employed at the university at the time of the request, so it would have both been illegal and unethical for them to pay his bills.
As it was, he was not a party to the initial suit, and only entered it to stick his nose into things. The case was always with UVA, not Mann.
Soros paid his legal bills.
Mann is correct here. It is a symbolic win. And I, for one, am surprised he has accepted it as such.