Judge Quashes Subpoena of UVA Research Records

esocid writes "An Albemarle County Circuit Court judge has set aside a subpoena issued by Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli to the University of Virginia seeking documents related to the work of climate scientist and former university professor Michael Mann. Judge Paul M. Peatross Jr. ruled that Cuccinelli can investigate whether fraud has occurred in university grants, as the attorney general had contended, but ruled that Cuccinelli's subpoena failed to state a 'reason to believe' that Mann had committed fraud. He also set aside the subpoena without prejudice, meaning Cuccinelli can rewrite it to better explain why he wants to investigate, but seemed skeptical about the underlying claim of fraud. The ruling is a major blow for Cuccinelli, a global warming skeptic who had maintained he was investigating whether Mann committed fraud in seeking government money for research that showed the earth has experienced a rapid, recent warming. Mann, now at Penn State University, worked at U-Va. until 2005. 'The Court has read with care those pages and understands the controversy regarding Dr. Mann's work on the issue of global warming. However, it is not clear what he did was misleading, false or fraudulent in obtaining funds from the Commonwealth of Virginia,' Peatross wrote. The ruling also limited Cuccinelli to asking about only one of the five grants issued, which was the only one using state funds."

Comments

Good

[mbone]

If this is not a political prosecution, I don't know what is. As a Virginia taxpayer, I don't mind politicians bloviating, but I don't like them chewing up public resources to do so.

Re:Good

[mangu]

the argument could be made, it just wasn't on the warrant, to investigate the use of the one grant.

Is the Virginia Attorney General qualified to do that investigation?

A public officer needs to have some basis for any investigation he starts. Unless he has the proper scientific qualifications, or has received reliable information from an expert in the field, anything he does is nothing but political pressure.

And you have no clue if it's politicians bloviating with public resources or not until something is found or nothing is found

Unless something is found, it's the Virginia Attorney General who must prove he had cause to start that investigation. If he didn't have anything concrete, then he's at least guilty of wasting the state's resources.

Politics And Science Don't Mix

[WrongSizeGlass]

Cuccinelli is trying to use professor Mann as a political piñata to further his career. I'd shit in my hat if I thought for one second Cuccinelli gave a rat's ass about science (except for how science affects the teaching of evolution in schools).

If a climatologist is the biggest fish on Cuccinelli's radar then he needs to take a closer look at local problems that directly affect his constituents. I'm not saying global warming wouldn't directly affect his constituents ... just that trying to silence a scientist just because he doesn't agree with his findings shouldn't be a top priority for politicians (such as those in Cuccinelli's position).

Re:Politics And Science Don't Mix

[the gnat]

It is interesting (and very bigoted of you) to assume anyone who is a AGW skptic is anti-science and pro-intelligent design.

I realize that this isn't universally true, but I've noticed a large overlap - specifically, the vast majority of creationists appear to be "AGW skeptics", and they are certainly anti-science, and very militant about it. When I see the cretins from the Discovery Institute reading from the same script as the anti-AGW crowd, I'm naturally suspicious of the latter. This may seem unfair to you, but it's no more unfair than accusing climate scientists of wanting to force society back to a pre-industrial state.

Which brings up a more accurate point: while the "skeptics" may not all be anti-science, they definitely come across as anti-scientist.

Re:Politics And Science Don't Mix

[Anonymous Coward]

The term "AGW skeptic" is a misnomer. Skepticism in the typical scientific or philosophical sense is about asking for evidence for claims. The problem with "AGW skeptics" is that evidence for AGW is plentiful and evidence against it is scant. Someone who refuses to accept evidence presented, no matter how scientifically sound the evidence is, is not a skeptic. The more accurate term is "AGW denier".

Re:Politics And Science Don't Mix

[CheshireCatCO]

No, to deny merely means to refuse to accept the claim regardless of what evidence has been put forward. The word makes not assumptions as to whether the claim is true or untrue. It's possible to disagree with AGW without being a denier, but such a person would be open to the possibility of it being accurate.

These people are certainly deniers. Their counter-claims have little validity (most have none and many are outright fabrications) and most of their arguments lately have been ad hominem attacks on the researchers. So far, I have yet to see one of them acknowledge the strength of the data or admit to having made a mistake when they were shown to be wrong. They're deniers, pure and simple.

Cuccinelli is a partisan hack

[Goonie]

It appears that Ken Cuccinelli is a partisan hack who's using his position as Attorney-General primarily to advance right-wing interests, and thus further his own political ambitions.

Last week he was going after abortion clinics.

This week it's Michael Mann.

Yes, very disturbing

[garyisabusyguy]

It comes down to suing researchers out of existance if their results conflict with a political stance

This is beyond scary, it is a sign of America moving from a world leader in research to a has-been backwater

Re:Yes, very disturbing

[Score Whore]

Eh? It seems to me that it comes down to needing a subpoena in order to get access to a public employee's work product.

If you want to talk scary, that's scary. Mann worked/works for public universities paid for with tax dollars. Explain why getting access to anything that he does while on tax payer time isn't as simple as saying "hey dude, can we see your work?"

Re:Yes, very disturbing

[AK Marc]

That's as sensible as going up to a road worker and asking to borrow his hammer to do some work back at your house. Sure, the hammer was bought with public funds, but that doesn't mean that the worker must give up his tools or that you have any right to them.

The results of the work should be public. The ownership of the copyright/patent of the results should be public. That's the work product. And that's not what they are after. They have the work product. And they don't like it, so they want the notes and such leading up to the work product so they can invalidate it. And not because it's actually invalid, but because you can take incomplete anything and spin it to be invalid.

Re:Yes, very disturbing

[dachshund]

If you want to talk scary, that's scary. Mann worked/works for public universities paid for with tax dollars. Explain why getting access to anything that he does while on tax payer time isn't as simple as saying "hey dude, can we see your work?"

Asking to see his work would have amounted to asking for a dump of his published, peer reviewed research papers. They're available without a subpoena. Just because someone works for the public does not mean that they're subject to arbitrary, unjustified investigation at any time, especially when that investigation is expensive and has to be paid for by the public.

And that's all this judge has said: present evidence that this expensive, time consuming investigation is justified, you get your information. Fail to present it, the public will be spared the cost both of the investigation, and the cost of lost research time that the public will have to bear while this individual is investigated for no reason. It's a valuable function, and our government wouldn't survive without it. In a hypothetical world where investigations have no cost, maybe it would be reasonable to allow this to go forward with no justification. We don't live in that world.

I guess that's "scary".

Re:Yes, very disturbing

[TapeCutter]

Considering the number of political investigations and FOI requests that Mann has been subjected to and complied with, what makes you think there is anything that is not already on the public record?

Just because the AG tried to issue a supoena without probable cause does not mean the information is not already available. The same is true for many of the FOI requests Mann gets from the likes of McIntryre, etc. Much of the requested information is already available either in his published work or in previous replies to FOI requests. The intent with these tatics not to shead light on the subject rather it is to create the impression that Mann is hiding something while at the same time bogging down his reseach with a mountain of legal paperwork.

Anti-AGW proponents like to paint themselves as modern day Galileo's but none of them are subjected to anywhere near the level of offical harrasment directed towards Mann and his team. Instead these unpublished, unqualified political hacks are invited to offer thier discredited opinions in the halls of power with depressing monotony. Lord Monckton is just one obvious example in this morally and ethically bankrupt abuse of political power.

Re:Way to ruin somebody's career.

[garyisabusyguy]

Maybe he can sue reality for not conforming to his imagination

Re:Politics aside

[Ironhandx]

RTFA, it was not a FOIA request. That may have in fact been much more successful. It was a subpoena request for information based on trumped up(invalid) fraud charges. However a FOIA request would have been much less politically advantageous if it went through, which is all that this whole thing was really about, he wasn't looking for evidence he was looking to be able to smear the guys name with the fact that there may have been enough evidence against him to even start a full scale legally backed investigation.

You should be thanking this judge for setting this idiot in his place and not allowing him to abuse the legal system and your tax dollars purely for his own political gain.

It is also still left open for the guy to back up his trumped up fraud charges a little better and resubmit the subpoena request.

Sorry if I'm less than sympathetic towards the guy but his entire career reeks of abuse of power to push nonsensical politically advantageous policies while largely ignoring bigger problems. Global warming and its existence isn't even on my top TEN list of things for politicians to be worrying about.

Re:Why fight it if you're innocent?

[SETIGuy]

There are a couple reasons not to. This wasn't an open records request. This was a subpoena. When that happens the University lawyers get involved and their first instinct is to not comply. It's usually a good instinct, because someone serving a subpoena has an agenda which is probably against the interests of the University. Second, the professor in question is no longer at the University that was subpoenaed. It's likely, if not certain that he took is research records with him. The University of Virginia probably only has accounting records for the grant in question, and (probably) backups of emails. Penn State, on the other hand, doesn't have much to fear from a Virginia prosecutor with delusions of grandeur.

I don't have a problem with providing any information requested about my research, provided what is requested actually exists. But when it comes to my emails... show me the subpoena.

Re:Why fight it if you're innocent?

[Daetrin]

IANAL, but i strongly suspect that an "open records request" is very different from a subpoena as part of an accusation of fraud. I could certainly understand a professor being, er, open to one and hostile to the other. The attitude/method of the person asking can certainly make a difference in the response.