People send me stuff. Today, I’ve been given CEI’s response to the “emergency stay” that Ed Maibach filed (via his own attorney) last week that sought not only to prevent the release of new emails, but also sought to retroactively quash previous court rulings on April 22nd and May 13th, court decisions that released the first tranche of emails as we previously covered at WUWT here: BREAKING: #RICO20 Edward Maibach tries ’emergency stay’ to retroactively pull Shukla/George Mason University emails from view
Maibach’s original petition to stay included this statement:
CEI’s legal counsel considers the Maibach request for stay ridiculous, and filed a scathing response today:
They used some strong language, even going so far to label Maibach as a “legal gymnast”:
Further, not only do they show how Maibach’s argument is ridiculous, they call for sanctions against Maibach’s Attorney Shannon Beebe and the Spiggle Law Firm, effectively arguing that she is incompetent and has misled the court and made false claims about a scheduled legal hearing in court pleadings.
Some selected sections follow.
What a circus Edward Maibach has started.
Here are all the documents filed today (PDF), now part of the public record.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
So who is Matt D Hardin whose signature appears above the typed “Christopher Horner”?
Mr. Hardin is an attorney, it is not uncommon to have an attorney sign “on behalf of” when the relationship is well established, and the client and attorney have agreed to move the matter forward. Our trust attorney signs our distribution checks all the time, but I’m not clear why he only sends them to my wife.
There is a common saying:
“Where there is smoke, there is fire.”
So far, we’ve been seeing voluminous smoke.
Should we stand back a bit in case something goes “bang?”
Aristotle would have been proud for so exposing logical fallacies.
Similarly, trom John Christy’s evidence, Steve McIntyre finds that:
Engineering Prof. M.J. Kelly exaines
Lessons from technology development for energy and sustainability
MRS Energy & Sustainability : A Review, Journal Materials Research Society, 2016
doi:10.1557/mre.2016.3
Popularly summarized as:
Professor Says ‘Madness’ Of Fighting Global Warming Will Impoverish Everyone
Now if “climate scientists” could just
1) learn the rudiments of logical analysis
2) learn how to apply the scientific method and
3) recognize and avoid systemic corruption of science
we might discover actual data and develop validated reliable climate models sufficient to make some informed policies.
As detailed by Richard Feynman in his 1974 Caltech commencement address: Cargo Cult Science.
I’m not sure that they don’t know about logical analysis and the scientific method, but they aren’t using them as this is a political exercise that may cause them significant problems. A court is not a political forum. Suggesting that they learn those processes implies that they are ignorant of them instead of evil and willfully ignoring them. I think these people want control more than saving the planet and the truth doesn’t help them with that.
Oh, I hope that the court slams both Maibach and his council for this. Not because of climate arguments but just for being so dumb, disrespectful and wasting the court’s time with vindictive B/S.
They are trying to USE the court for their own ends, not to seek justice. I would expect any judge will find that very inappropriate and contemptuous.
Should be interesting.
I just hope it’s not some doddering old fart of a judge who starts getting a hard-one when a cutie in a black robe walks into his court. She does not seem to have got where she is today by having a razor sharp legal mind, so it must be some other faculties she has to rely on.
Looks like a very expensive row of teeth that she’s proudly showing off. Shy must be making some money. Somehow.
I have to say, it is nice when I see someone giving the attorney some stick for a change. I know that clients can often be quite rabid about what they want doing, but – in my opinion – it is the role of their attorney to keep them to what is germane to the law. Too often I see that it is the lawyers who are making the inflammatory statements and i think they should be censured for this more often.
Attorneys are human too. I had a case once where my attorney and opposing attorney got into a name calling fight, and the judge flamed both of them. Don’t make the judge mad…
I’m wondering how many of the RICO 20 think to themselves every now and then, “It seemed like such a good idea at the time.”
Duh, 20?
BINGO!
Now all we have to do is send a package with the appropriate printed material and a packing list saying Here’s your sign.
For those not familiar:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here's_Your_Sign
I know, why don’t we start a conspiracy to accuse other of conspiracy and then campaign to get them thrown into jail.
We will obviously be immune from prosecution, just like Peter Gleick was, because it’s all for “the cause”.
It’s not like any of use a making money out of any of this or double dipping or anything, what have we got to loose?!
Reminds me of a former co-worker who would steal things that were under his jurisdiction and then be the one to report them as stolen so no one would suspect him.
How many got bonuses for the effort?
Pedant Alert!
Presumably the court Justice in the snippet of The American Tradition Institute transcript knows the proper usage of affect and effect, but the court reporter apparently does not:
This misusage is common, but when I find it in official court transcripts I give up. It seems the only appropriate reaction is to reprise Rupert Giles from Buffy the Vampire Slayer:
Could be a spelling mistake. They could have meant “infect”. Seems like a more important question to ask.
To be fair Alan, The court reporter is in the USA and they are unable to spell aluminium correctly 😀
It reminds me very much of the kind of thing that goes on in Wikipedia where I understand politically active academics with nothing else to do engage in “legal” manoeuvres to prevent anyone removing their blatant propaganda – and where they and their buddies are judge jury and executioner.
So, I guess this behaviour is and culture is so commonplace in academia, that it will be a real shock to find themselves in even a pseudo-impartial court.
[snip -wildly off-topic -mod]
“legal gymnast”? More like court jester.
I don’t think the court will be amused.
This side show is great fun but it will be interesting to see what they are trying so hard not to reveal.
They really do not seem smart enough not to incriminate themselves, so this can only get better.
Read the new pleadings. What is clear is that GMU is in contempt of court for not having handed everythingmover on May 13. CEI should go after them as an institution, as well as the FOI officer in her individual capacity.
Rud: I agree. GMU and like institutions are the enablers for this nonsense by both providing resources and an environment that is fundamentally anti-free speech. It is as if the enlightenment never happened.
That is something I really do not understand about this whole mess. Why was Maibach allowed to determine what was or was not related to the request? It seems to me that the appropriate way to handle FOIA (VFOIA) requests is to have the officer (or appropriate representative) conduct an email/records search, inform the party involved (Maibach) what has been identified as related, and then allow said party to argue if they think something should not be released. This request in particular should have required an independent party’s involvement, since Maibach has an adversarial relationship with CEI.
They likely don’t have a records “officer” and figured it was Maibach’s responsibility to come up with the emails. Of course assuming all the while that he would be completely honest and not try anything “sneaky”, because we all know how scientists are always completely honest and incapable of being sneaky. (I’m being sarcastic, for those of you who haven’t figured that out yet 😉
They are hoping obummer will ride in on a white horse with Lynch and save their sorry arses. Which he would certainly do if he thought he could get away with it. The most treasonous potus in history.
Absolutely, she facilitated knowing that maibach expressed bias “they are trying to hurt me” and didn’t ensure compliance
“Absolutely, she facilitated knowing that maibach expressed bias “they are trying to hurt me” and didn’t ensure compliance”
IOW, she believes you should answer properly to legal requests, except those that come from someone who doesn’t love you! Any such request can be answered by “I need a safe place” or “Reading this might trigger me”.
I worked IT for 20 years, we always provided access to the mailbox of staff in question to auditors, as well as backups pre FOI request to ensure nothing was deleted
In the corporate world FOI requests are taken very seriously, especially in Reinsurance and other finance sectors be cause Irish and UK laws demanded retention of business related emails for 7 years
“With integrity, you have nothing to fear, since you have nothing to hide. With integrity, you will do the right thing, so you will have no guilt.”
– Zig Ziglar
I disagree with Zig on this one. It sounds plausible, but law enforcement these days can twist things around just like the media does. And then they hose you with it. Best just to be silent as is your right. Seems very similar to the climate wars. Here are a couple examples of the rot in other venues:
Over 25 years ago, I had a permit from the state to collect and possess some California Kingsnakes native to Utah for the purposes of breeding and genetic experiments. I had proposed during that time that it would be more environmentally friendly to allow amateur herpetologists to collect, breed and sell offspring so people didn’t have to get them from the wild for pets. The state Division of Wildlife Resources was adamantly opposed to this idea, and even though I had not violated any aspect of my permits, they started proceedings to revoke the permit. They first asked to see my facilities for snake breeding, and my attorney suggested letting them. So we did. Then I get a letter stating that I am in violation of the terms of my permit, without documenting which terms were violated. I got to have a hearing with me versus all people from the Division, and it was a kangaroo court situation which I recorded on tape. Then the Wildlife Board rubber stamped their findings, still without any evidence that I had violated the terms of my permits. My permit was revoked. My attorney counter sued on my behalf and we won. That was a lot of work for simply trying to be honest when I had nothing to hide.
My integrity never protected me from that. In this world you need to be very careful and wise as the sophistication of these tactics is rather high.
The media is not to be trusted either. Recently Katie Couric had a “documentary” in which she misrepresented pro-gun control people by editing the interview footage. Unfortunately for her and fortunate for us, somebody else recorded the audio of the interview and showed the deceptive edits.
http://freebeacon.com/issues/audio-shows-katie-couric-gun-documentary-deceptively-edited-interview-pro-gun-activists/
So the corruption is everywhere and you can’t trust the institutions of the culture any more. It is a shame, but that seems to be the way it is. You have to have integrity AND be really savvy.
PS After my incident, I was able to get the Utah Legislature to pass a law that forbid the Division from revoking any permit that had not already been adjudicated in a real court with proper due process. And even later, I succeeded in using the Legislature’s administrative rules committee to get the Division to allow people to collect, breed and sell progeny of native species.
pro-gun control or pro-gun rights?
Rights are rights and life is life. You would think that one group that supports your right to bear arms would also support a woman’s right to determine her reproduction rights. And the other group that calls to deny your right to bear arms would also be against a woman’s right as well. In the truest sense, both guns and a woman’s right kills. You can only be anti gun and pro abortion or pro gun and anti abortion. You can’t be pro gun and pro abortion or anti gun and anti abortion. It’s strange how the system is set up.
rishrac wrote “Rights are rights and life is life.”
Let’s try mixing it up: “Rights is life and life is rights”
It makes an interesting sense. Without rights, what is life?
Anyway, rights don’t exist. What exists is a social convention to mostly not challenge you as you do something. Those agreements change frequently.
“You would think that one group that supports your right to bear arms would also support a woman’s right to determine her reproduction rights.”
That’s a supersize Non Sequitur. My right to bear arms is derived from my right to life itself. My desire to stop abortion is also related to my right to life “paid forward” to someone just starting out on life.
What you seem to be requesting is a right that doesn’t exist; the right to start a fire and then put it out at any time you please; but it may not be possible.
“And the other group that calls to deny your right to bear arms would also be against a woman’s right as well.”
I suppose that some people, socialists usually, wish you to have no rights of any kind, but merely government mandates.
“In the truest sense, both guns and a woman’s right kills.”
You have said nothing so far about killing. How did this enter the picture? Is “womans right to reproduction” just a euphemism for killing?
Guns exist primarily for defense. A woman’s right to reproduce is the same as mine; government cannot say you cannot have children.
“You can only be anti gun and pro abortion or pro gun and anti abortion.”
I can be anything I wish; but your description seems to describe Democrats versus Republicans.
The optimum way to figure this out is to realize that Democrats are in it for themselves — I don’t want you to have a gun and do what you want to do; but *I* want to do whatever I want and you get to pay or work for it, if anyone must pay or labor.
Depending on the state you live in, the law of the land determines what you are allowed to do. Not arguing the right or wrong of any position. I was only pointing out the strangeness of position of parties. You either have a right or you dont. It’s either legal or it isnt.
rishrac wrote “Depending on the state you live in, the law of the land determines what you are allowed to do.”
Some variation exists from state to state as to what you are permitted, prohibited or required to do.
“I was only pointing out the strangeness of position of parties.”
Agreed; but only as seen from other points of view. When properly understood then it is not strange. Youth tend to vote Democrat but that’s because Youth is accustomed to having its own way, immediately. “I want everything and I want it right now!” There’s no consistency when judged by principles but it is perfectly consistent when judged by human impulse.
The right tends to be oriented toward survival of the species; the real socialism — protection of human reproduction, survival, shelter, food, defense (and at times offense to get these things).
This is why marriage is right wing, religion is right wing, self-defense is right wing, property rights inseparably connected to life itself (Life, liberty, property). Rights exist to ensure and enhance life, but not necessarily everyone’s life or all kinds of life. No right-winger would ever sacrifice himself or his family for a minnow.
“You either have a right or you dont. It’s either legal or it isnt.”
That’s a bit simple minded (well, a lot simple minded). Rights do not exist; and yet they do — the moment you think of it you have just instantiated a right. The hard part is persuading others that you actually do have this right and they must honor it.
The Constitution created no rights; or at least the Bill of Rights created no rights. It acknowledges pre-existing, common law rights and simply says the government will not infringe upon them.
Being right and being legal are very different things and there’s quite a bit of fuzzy grey area filled with lawyers deciding, moment by moment, whether the thing you just did which was legal last week is perhaps suddenly no longer legal.
For instance in New York City it is now illegal to fail to refer to persons by their preferred pronouns of which a great many exist beside “he” or “she”. Headline: You can be fined for not calling people ‘ze’ or ‘hir,’ if that’s the pronoun they demand that you use
[https]://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/05/17/you-can-be-fined-for-not-calling-people-ze-or-hir-if-thats-the-pronoun-they-demand-that-you-use/
Do you have a right to demand that others call you whatever you prefer? Maybe you prefer “Your Highness”!
The simple answer is you have every right that you can imagine, for that is all it is. Someone imagined it. Then you persuade others, in this case a city council, that this right actually “exists” floating around somewhere and it is the city’s duty to enforce it.
What is legal is what other people let you do. Rights are demanded, legality is permitted.
In some countries exercising any right I can imagine will significantly reduce my lifespan, quality of life or both.
These questions are the legal side of climate science and those that would silence those of us who have a different understanding.
The biggest headache I can see is that some day there will be an issue that is real and will have to be addressed. The same people who are pushing the CAGW will learn lessons from this and apply them then. We shouldn’t want to teach them too much.
Rishrac – much as CAGW activists learnt from the banning of DDT. You can sidestep the issues of freedom and democracy ie regulation instead of legislation.
Of course.. they also took the idea of cap and trade when we went from leaded gas to unleaded.
Jeff, that sounds like quite a battle. Good on you for not caving in and letting them get away with it.
The Virginia Citizens Defense League members made their own audio recording of the interview and can prove that Couric committed a journalistic fraud.
And yes, Juan, I’m sure Jeff meant to say pro-gun rights. The pro-gun control people are the fraudsters.
More than once I’ve seen reporters “edit” comments to completely change what was said.
rishrac, so in your opinion, a group that supports people’s right to defend themselves must also support the right of women to kill their children?
It really is sad the way leftists refuse to deal with reality.
Guns rarely kill, the vast majority of the time, merely showing the bad guy that you are armed is sufficient to cause him to leave.
Guns are about defending yourself, they are not about killing.
On the other hand abortion always kills the baby.
Ahh, sweet confirmation of the tried and true, old and venerated adage:
— “A students work for C students, B students teach!”
— So, I give you Heir Doctor Professor Maibach!
Where’s Al Gore’s RICO-related emails?
Maibach’s score on “Rate My Professor” is one of the lowest at GMU (as of 2010). I won’t repeat any of the epithets used to describe him, but “difficult” is the most polite.
Been awhile since I checked the ratings of Eli Rabett/Josh Halpern, but they were always a laugh.
Well, I don’t really believe in Karma, but it sure is sweet when it comes around and bites some sanctimonious prig in the butt.
My search came up empty. Can you post the link?
Here he is.
http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=1120693
Once again I ask, why is he using an employment law firm? He is expecting to be fired. He’s a lousy prof. and a troublemaker trying to hide behind his employer and drag them into his fight. They refuse to back him and will use this fiasco as a reason to can him. He is getting ready to sue them.
I doubt that the attorney in question is incompetent, or even guilty of trading on her looks. I suspect she is of an age where the twin “echo chambers” (to quote an Obama official) of University and Law School make it perfectly acceptable to denigrate someone who doesn’t hold politically correct opinions (i.e. CEI). After all, that sort of disparagement happens all the time, from her professors, her fellow students, and her activist role models. That she’s surprised when opposition counsel and the court react badly is only a consequence of coming out from under the bubble and seeing the real world that we ordinary folk live in. Hopefully this will be a life lesson for her, but I doubt it.
@ur momisugly Taylor and just looking at how she has bungled this case I doubt she’ll have it on her CV. ( Must have been on a long sabbatical during these past few weeks)
Her superiors may have realized they were in a no win situation , and decided to give this case to an expendable junior.
That way they can blame her when it all goes belly up.
There was an article on Drudge yesterday that claimed that 82% of law professors are Democrats.
Got a fund raising appeal from UCS (Union of Concerned Scientists) this morning. They’re unhappy that the US House is asking for their e-mails about exposing (supposedly) Exxon’s disinformation campaign to conceal the oil-carbon-warming linkages. Maybe we’ll get some brighter lines as the where “private” stops before this whole RICO mess stops?
My grandmother told me that I should never lie, because lying makes you comfortable with lies, and you lose the ability to distinguish lies from the truth. I guess the same can be said about tolerating incompetence – you lose the ability to distinguish competent people from incompetent ones.
I’ve a question about the article, where can i contact the
person responsible?