Bishop Hill Law Mann
Sep 6, 2011 Climate: Mann FOI The American Tradition Institute have just revealed that Michael Mann has engaged lawyers to try to intervene in the FOIA case between the institute and the University of Virginia.
Dr. Michael Mann, lead author of the discredited "hockey stick" graph that was once hailed by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as the "smoking gun" of the catastrophic man-made global warming theory, has asked to intervene in American Tradition Institute's Freedom of Information Act lawsuit that seeks certain records produced by Mann and others while he was at the University of Virginia, for the purpose of keeping them hidden from the taxpayer.
Specifically over the weekend ATI's Environmental Law Center received service from two Pennsylvania attorneys who seek the court's permission to argue for Dr. Mann to intervene in ATI's case. The attorneys also filed a motion to stay production of documents still withheld by UVA, which are to be provided to ATI's lawyers in roughly two weeks under a protective order that UVA voluntarily agreed to in May. Dr. Mann's lawyers also desire a hearing in mid-September, in an effort to further delay UVA's scheduled production of records under the order.
Dr. Mann's argument, distilled, is that the court must bend the rules to allow him to block implementation of a transparency law, so as to shield his sensibilities from offense once the taxpayer – on whose dime he subsists – sees the methods he employed to advance the global warming theory and related policies. ATI's Environmental Law Center is not sympathetic.
Reader Comments (67)
"the abusive and impulsive Dr Mann ...." (stuck record, 12.27) Reading through parts of the Climategate emails the other day, its struck me how those adjectives could also be applied to Citizen Trenberth, who seems to be finding himself in the news rather a lot lately.
mpaul,
I remember some weeks ago on a WUWT thread where you suggested that Mann might do exactly what he is doing now wrt trying to intervene in the Va court agreement between UofV and ATI. You had it scoped. : )
Another question is why at the 11th hour? Why not immediately after the Va court agreement with UofV and ATI? Wouldn't that have been strategically better? It may appear to the Va court that the timing of the request to intervene by Mann shows civil disruption instead or legal sincerity.
John
A famous chef having made his fortune through his cooking skill has decided one day to hide his treasue which was becoming more and more noticible each day.
So he buried his precious 6 ft under and thought himself safe.
Until one day his neighbour went digging on the field.
The Chef set out immediately to intimidate his neighbour and erected a sign declaring that " I have not buried my hard earned fortune 6 ft under this sign. Anyone found digging under this sign will be prosecuted for atempted theft of my fortune."
His neighbour, being a gentleman, understood, stopped digging and went home.
The Chef has nothing but envy of his own quick wit also went home.
Night fall, and the whole village gathered around the sign, shovels in hands..........
Sep 7, 2011 at 1:22 PM | Garry:
"To date Mann has had no legal standing in this matter, which has been between ATI and UVA."
-----
Mann can potentially get past this issue by challenging the constitutionality of VFOIA. In their filing, Mann's lawyers have begun to lay the ground work for this.
In their Motion of Notice to Intervene, they write:
"20. Dr. Mann's First Amendment constitution right to academic freedom is at severe risk in this case. See Sweezy vs. New Hampshire, 354 U.S.234, 250 (1959)"
Mann would clearly have standing to challenge the constitutionality of VFOIA since it is his right to free speech that he asserts is being threatened.
A constitutionality challenge could drag on for years particularly if the petitioner is not interested in moving things along efficiently.
Sep 7, 2011 at 3:36 PM | John Whitman:
"Another question is why at the 11th hour?"
----
There are four potential outcomes for Mann:
1. Win fast
2. Win slow
3. Lose fast
4. Lose slow
Mann wants to guard against outcome number 3. If he is going to lose (and I imagine his lawyers are telling him that losing is a real possibility) then he wants to lose very, very slowly. So we should expect Mann to do everything at the last minute.
@mpaul: "Mann can potentially get past this issue by challenging the constitutionality of VFOIA. "
Interesting point, but asserting Sweezy vs. New Hampshire, 354 U.S.234, 250 (1959) - which is a completely unrelated case - does not give Mann standing in Virginia (Sweezy objected to being labeled as a subversive). If it does, then all of FOIA in all of America is invalid as applied to "academic freedom." Maybe that's what they are trying to accomplish.
I suppose he could try to drag it up to the U.S. Supreme Court.
stuckrecord:"The assumption has always been that he is hiding something that will reflect badly on his climate misdeeds and activism. Consider the possibility that the e-mails may in fact contain some other manner of indiscretion; something sexual, or financial, or politically incorrect. Just because he is hiding something doesn't mean it is the thing we think it is."
I believe this is covered by the judgement that allowed ATI to have the emails and then for UVa and ATI to agree what can and cannot be made public. Clearly private matters can, and should, fall into this category.
He's been up to something and doesn't want anyone one to know, and it's professional, not private. The only conclusion.
@mpaul
This from a man who launched the libel suit against Tim Ball for merely repeating a longstanding known quip about Penn State and State Pen?! This from the man who threatens to sue because someone used his image in a satire?!
Talk about free speech for me, but not for thee, eh?!
If this is what "academic freedom" boils down to, then perhaps a constitutional amendment should be considered. Not gonna happen, I know ... But I always thought that with rights come responsibilities, silly me, eh? ... However, perhaps in his post-normal ego-centric world, "responsibilities" - not unlike valid statistical procedures - are whatever he decides they should be.
Come to think of it, perhaps this has been his problem all along; it might explain the shoddiness of his work ;-)
I hereby dub him "Mikey the last-minute-Mann" *
*from wikipedia:
No wonder Andrew Weaver (another "model" scientist who likes to launch libel suits at the drop of a word from those who do not share his high opinion of himself) chose to bill "climate change" - as determined by the luminaries behind AR4 - as a "barrage of intergalactic ballistic missiles".
My hat it has three donors,
Who wish you not know that.
For if you knew those owners,
Then I'd not have my hat.
====================
"If you're taking flak, you're over the target."
Sep 7, 2011 at 7:13 PM | hro001:
"This from a man who launched the libel suit against Tim Ball for merely repeating a longstanding known quip about Penn State and State Pen?! This from the man who threatens to sue because someone used his image in a satire?!"
I think its even more ironic than that.
It's the example emails that will sink Mann's arguments. It would be like Enron arguing that the SEC rule that requires public companies to be independently audited is unconstitutional because it infringes on Enron's right to freely discuss stock price manipulation schemes.
The purpose of FOIA is to allow the public a measure of oversight regarding the activities of public officials. Attempting to limit the scope of FOIA when there's a clear record of questionable conduct will surely backfire on Mann.
Reverting to the question of gifts and taxes...I just read the 2010 IRS 990 from the Union of Concerned Scientists which is available online. If I read the numbers correctly here's a rough cut...
$19MM in income, $20M in expenses and payroll (with related expenses) of about $9.0MM. $23MM of unrestricted net assets (down by $3MM from 2009).
Nice racket. And with $23MM they could certainly cover Dr. Mann's legal bills.
Apologies for an inaccurate figure above.
Total compensation with payroll and related expenses? Around $12MM on $19MM of dues, gifts, grants, etc.
The balance of the $20MM went to a variety of things.
They were very conservative on legal, accounting and lobbying expenses. $115K. (Bad news Dr. Mann)
Occupancy of $1.1. Where are you going to keep $12MM in payroll without $90K/month of offices?
But only $200K in office expenses.
IT of $351K
$770K in travel
Advertising $480K
Printing, Postage, Events, Mailing, Equipment rental...$2MM
Other of $2.6MM
Lest I forget, All Other of $539K
A little parody, strictly a parody and nothing but a parody, really/
Scene: a US federal courtroom
Judge says - "How does the defendant plead?"
Defense Attorney - "Mr. Mannikin pleads not guilty, your honor."
Judge - "Prosecution, are you ready to proceed with the trial?"
Prosecutor - "Yes, your honor. We would like to call forth . . . . . "
There is an altercation and interruption from the defense table.
The defendant stands up indignantly.
The defendant shouts - "Wait a minute! I said I wasn't guilty. That's it. There shouldn't be a trial. I said I am not guilty. That worked in all the other investigations I was exposed to. My word is the final truth in all these matters."
The scene fades as the MSM rush out of the courtroom saying over their cellphones in urgent tones that the defendant is not guilty . . . .
End of the parody, which I swear is just a parody . . . . honestly, on my ancestor’s graves it is.
: )
John
@ John Whitman Sep 7, 2011 at 10:01 PM |
Indeed! Many a (not far off the) truth is said in jest!
@mpaul
Interesting that Dr. Mann should compare himself to a radical socialist academic. I can certainly see many parallels between Sweezy's cause and radical environmentalism.
That said, McCarthyistic persecution is not among the similarities. ATI isn't asking Mann about his personal beliefs. They are asking the University of VA how the people's resources were used.
Strong FOIA law yielding transparency protects the people's interests. Dr. Mann forgets that he was employed by the government.
@DGH
Agreed. I read most of Sweezy v. New Hampshire and it seems unrelated to Mann's claims, except the invocation of "academic freedom," whatever that means.
You correctly note that Mann forgets that he worked for the Commonwealth of Virginia, which as I posted earlier in this thread has a computer use policy that expressly states: "No user shall have any expectation of privacy in any message, file, image or data created, sent, retrieved, received, or posted in the use of the Commonwealth’s equipment.."
Yet in their filing, Mann's lawyers repeatedly state that the FOIA concerns Mann's "personal email." Which of course it does not. There is no such thing as "personal email" on a state-owned and state-run computer system, server, or backup media. What a preposterous assertion.
Hence it will be interesting to hear whether the court agrees that the Virginia computer use policy is null and void ... at least for Mann, or perhaps for the entire Commonwealth, or even more so for each and every business and government entity in Virginia which has a similar "privacy" policy (e.g., none) or computer use policy. That is what's at stake. The court can't easily apply one law to everyone in the Commonwealth and yet another version of the law ("academic freedom") to Dr. Michael Mann.