©
By Michael Sluss
RICHMOND
A top deputy to Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli asked the state’s highest court Thursday to reverse the decision of an Albemarle County judge who blocked Cuccinelli’s quest for documents related to the work of a former University of Virginia climate scientist.
The hearing before the Supreme Court of Virginia was the latest round in a legal battle between Cuccinelli and the university over an inquiry targeting former UVa professor Michael Mann, a prominent climate researcher who now works at Penn State University.
Cuccinelli’s office has said it is investigating “possible violations” of the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act by Mann in obtaining five research grants while at UVa, where Mann worked from 1999 to 2005. Cuccinelli in 2010 issued a “civil investigative demand” – similar to a subpoena -- seeking emails and other documents related to Mann’s work.
Albemarle Circuit Judge Paul Peatross ruled in 2010 that Cuccinelli failed to show why he suspects Mann may have violated the fraud statute. University lawyers have argued that Cuccinelli’s pursuit amounts to an assault on academic freedom. Other academics have accused the Republican attorney general of going to excessive lengths to challenge the science behind global warming.
Cuccinelli issued a more narrowly targeted demand for documents after Peartross’ ruling, which UVa also challenged in court. An Albemarle judge has stayed proceedings in that case until the Supreme Court acts on Cuccinelli’s appeal. In court this morning, Deputy Attorney General Wesley Russell argued that the documents sought by Cuccinelli are needed to determine whether fraud occurred.
“The attorney general may issue a CID when he has reason to believe that the parties to whom it is sent might have documents that are relevant,” Russell told the court.
UVa attorney Chuck Rosenberg said Peatross ruled properly when he concluded that Cuccinelli failed state the “nature of the conduct” to justify his inquiry.
“If the nature of the conduct is not stated, then the CID fails,” Rosenberg said.
Justice Cleo Powell asked Russell whether the court has a “gatekeeper” function to determine whether an inquiry is reasonable. Russell said the court only needs to determine whether the demand for documents is within the scope of the law.
“You want us, I guess, to give you carte blanche,” Justice Bernard Goodwyn said.
Goodwyn said the court has to determine what the legitimate scope of inquiry is. “That’s a hard question,” he said.
“I guess some think it’s harder than I do, your honor,” Russell said.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Yahoo
This is about Ken's future run for higher office,
attracting the biggest oil and energy super PACs and face time on Fox News for this opportunistically sharp, largely self-interested, corporate-embracing climber, who, in the manner of self-interested non-thinkers, capitalizes on and comforts himself with Biblical fantasies.
This inquisition is not about climate change, it is about Ken Cuccinelli.
You hit the nail on the head
There was never any factual or legal basis for the Attorney General to subpoena his own client, the University of Virginia. This is, and has always been, nothing but a publicity stunt to get free press for Cuccinelli and to shore up his Tea Party support for his next political campaign for Governor. On that basis, it has been a huge success.
This isn't about whether climate change theory is right
it is about whether fraud was committed in making the case.
There is clear evidence in the Climate Gate 1.0 and 2.0 emails that Phil Jones and Michael Mann conspired to withhold data from qualified skeptics and to destroy the data if it was subject to a FOIA request.
In the same Emails, there is an admission that East Anglia climate scientists tested Steve McIntyre's assertion that Michael Mann's Principle Component algorithm would produce a hockey stick graph even with random data, and proved McIntyre was correct, yet the graph was included in the IPCC AR4 report.
Either of those is more than enough probable cause for the AG to investigate fraud. The only question is whether the Feds or the VA AG should be doing the investigating.
Repeating myths and lies do not make them true
You would think that claims of conspiracies based on cherry-picked, out-of-context quotes would finally subside after both Mann and Jones have been repeatedly vindicated by numerous panels. But no, in what seems to be a game of Whac-A-Mole, there is always someone warming up old, long-refuted arguments. So if you bothered to actually read the peer-reviewed literature, instead of parroting myths from crank web sites, you would know that the "hockeystick" has been reconstructed multiple times since Mann's seminal work, with many different proxies and statistical approaches, including both proxy-less and non-PCA methodologies, and most recently, by the BEST study.
Again
I could argue the whole AGW thing again, but that's not the point here. The point is whether there is cause to investigate fraud.
Whether Mann is correct or not, he clearly participated in an effort to prevent qualified critics form having access to relevant data and he clearly concealed known weaknesses in his results, and clearly exaggerated the significance of his research.
That is reason to investigate, even if the investigation were to eventually exonerate him.
Again
"The point is whether there is cause to investigate fraud." The court ruled that Cuccinelli failed to show any cause to investigate fraud.
Also, none of Dr. Mann's research was funded by the state, so he could not have possibly defrauded the state.
Dr. Mann has already been exonerated by multiple independent investigations.
His results have been replicated by many other scientists, most recently by "qualified critic" Richard Muller.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/a-skeptical-physicist-ends-up-confirming-climate-data/2011/10/20/gIQA6viC1L_blog.html
Anti science Republicans
Republicans hate science because science involves facts. The Republicans oil and coal company masters don't want you to know the facts about global warming. Pay no attention to that Koch brother behind the curtain!
ROFLMAO
Since when has facts ever been a part of your mantra C33? Kind of remind me of that nutjob Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
4th Amendment of Constitution
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
That sounds familiar
That is why he is going to court. If he can’t prove probable cause, he shouldn’t have access to any “personal” correspondence. Who owns the stuff that was developed and written using government money? I say it is mine if I want to see it.