Bishop Hill Tallbloke legal fund
Dec 18, 2011 Climate: other Tallbloke's solicitor has written to Anthony Watts:
Roger has been publicly libelled and abused across the world to the detriment of his reputation and has suffered distress, inconvenience and damage to property. The worst such offender appears to have been a contributor at ‘Scienceblogs’.
A fighting fund is being set up in order to mount a proper legal response. Donate here.
Bishop Hill
Note also the comments by Tallbloke's solicitor at WUWT, outlining the legal action that is possible. My guess is that the police may have a problem here:
i) Potential libel claims against Laden and Mann and any others who might be found to have stated, suggested or implied that there was criminality on the part of Tallbloke.
ii) Potential malfeasance by the persons responsible for the obtaining of the Warrant in the form deemed appropriate (but actually wholly inappropriate) and for the heavy handed treatment of Tallbloke who would always have been prepared to assist voluntarily.
iii) Various damages claims under UK law for distress, inconvenience, invasion of privacy and damage to property.
iv) Possible injunctive relief preventing examination, copying, cloning or any unauthorised use of Tallbloke’s private data.
v) Requests for immediate return of Tallbloke’s property and rectification of damage done during the process.
vi) Investigations into the sequence of events that led to this farrago and the identities of the person or persons responsible.
Other possibilities may come to mind in due course.
Reader Comments (94)
Stephen Wilde (Roger's solicitor) posted on WUWT (in an explanation of aim of the "fighting fund"):
"It is about a very specific libel AND about collating the information required to ascertain whether the Police acted incorrectly in any way."
I would urge extreme caution, as this conflates two entirely different issues. If it were only to consider the actions of the police, if and only if they do not return the computers within days, I would donate like a shot. However, entering into litigation with individuals in the USA is an entirely different matter - this sounds like a money making scam to enritch lawyers.
As I, and others, have said before, the best interests of a good, honest and decent man should be our primary concern.
Michael Mann: Quite the professorial tweet
Shub
Quell my anxiety. If Tallbloke goes at Mann for re-tweeting someone elses link, won't tweeting devotees rush to his defence for libertarian reasons? It could result in a recruited army of supporters he thoroughly deserves not.
Zed and related comments removed
Pharos
I think Mann is perfectly within his rights to retweet Greg Laden's tweet, and should be able to do so freely. I just thought it strange that he was so glad that someone, nay anyone, be put into trouble with the law, even if it is completely clear that they had nothing to do with the release of the emails.
A tweet is an impulse thing - if Mann retweeted Gren Laden's message, among all the messages that he must be getting, that says something to me about the state of his mind.
Bish/Tallbloke
can't contribute direct from your link as IE8 gives an error, assume the traffic to paypal is overloading their software, good, sane people power at work.
will see if funds are needed in the future & respond then.
take care T/B & family & all the best.
Its ridiculous to suggest a libel suit over name-calling on a blog, it'll only serve to make the sceptic community look ridiculous and of course pay the lawyers who are encouraging the action in the first place. If the lawers won't do it on a contingency basis then they're not confident.
I read that Tallbloke might be facing repercussions at work, he should save his fighting fund to combat fight that.
@Jaffa, I disagree. It was not about name-calling. The Greg Laden post went beyond name-calling to what is considered libel. On top of that the changes he made to Dave Burton's post is evidence of malice.
I think that TB has a good chance of winnng any action against Greg Laden based upon the malicious intent of the original post. Calling someone a thief without proof is in my view libel.
Shub: you are incorrect. Mann is not perfectly within his rights. He can, and likely will be named in the suit. He had no more reason than Laden to believe such statements were true.
Mark
Even if Tallbloke cannot in practice extract damages from Laden and Mann while they are in the US, it is going to make it very hard for them ever to visit the UK again - not a bad result.
As for what Laden did to Dave Burton, if Burton lives in the US I have no doubt that a hungry trial lawyer will take on his case on a no-win, no-fee basis if Burton wishes to pursue it. He completely reversed the meaning of Burton's post by totally rewriting it, right down to changing from one Biblical citation to another one (God fearing US jurors will just love that twist!) and posted it under Burton's name.
Not only was it untrue, it was clearly malicious. Nice guy.
could be some lawsuits in the offering!
18 Dec: Livemint/WSJ:Tarun Shukla: India asks its airlines not to submit carbon tax data to EU
Reuters contributed to this story
New Delhi: The Indian government has asked the country’s airlines to refrain from submitting carbon emissions data to the European Union (EU) for a new tax that will become applicable from 1 January for flights to Europe, hardening its stand further against the imposition of the levy…
India has led the opposition to the move with support from more than two dozen countries including the US and China.
“I am directed to say that the ministry has decided that there is no need for Indian carriers to submit any data to European Union under EU-ETS,” the civil aviation ministry said in a letter to all the domestic airlines that fly on international routes on 25 November. The letter was reviewed by Mint.
“Any correspondence received at your end (airlines) from the EU in this regard may be forwarded to this ministry, for taking necessary action,” the letter added…
The EU maintains it’s not a tax. “Yes, the inclusion of aviation in the EU emissions trading scheme is on track. Our law will be implemented on 1 January 2012, as planned and announced,” Valero-Ladron said…
It remains unclear what could be the result of India not allowing its airlines to submit data to EU.
India’s next step will be in consultation with other countries including the US, said a civil aviation ministry official who declined to be named.
“Whatever happens will happen in a coordinated manner,” he said…
“The last thing that airlines need is another operating tax,” said Steve Forte, a former CEO of Jet Airways. “A united front among non-EU countries would certainly help in changing the mind of the EU and placing the subject of reducing aviations emissions where it belongs: Icao (International Civil Aviation Organization).”
Forte added that he does not see a trade war looming.
“Worst comes to worst, the US will impose a similar tax on all EU carriers operating to and from the US, and the EU carriers will scream bloody murder until an amicable solution can be found.”
http://www.livemint.com/2011/12/18224636/India-asks-its-airlines-not-to.html?h=B
"Minor rant. Because I'm not where Paypal thinks I'm supposed to be, they put my donation into dispute and froze my account." Atomic Hairdryer
Happened to me some years back. They asked me to transfer 50p (or something like that) to prove who I was and that the card and account were mine, the money to be returned a few days later. To be honest, it was a while back and these old grey cells are not up to what they used to be. I sat for a while and thought of all the people around the world lending their 50p's to Paypal and thought, Not Me!
I wanted to buy Bishops latest work last week and had my daughter use her account. 1 week later and we still have not got the bloody book 9PDF version) ! Not Bishops fault and 75p will not stop me from going to the pub today but Paypal (ebay) do seem to have a huge bloody monopoly!
Anyway, rant over and I will pop to the daughters again today and send Roger the equivalent of last weeks bar tab and see where the book has got to!
:-) Just got the PDF Bish!
Re Jaffa
If he's facing repercussions at work as a result of the police action and publicity from the likes of Laden, then using the money to clear his name is what it, and the law is for.
I posted, in the first comment in this thread:
I sent a similar query to Tallbloke's solicitor over the weekend and got a speedy reply on Monday morning:
Mark,
I agree with you, if only in a more roundabout way.
I'd rather that a person was free to speak as he pleased, and this includes the right to say stupid things, and thereby fall afoul of private individuals or entities and face severe consequences. In this regard, I do not believe for instance, that the right to speak freely automatically results in every person casually smearing the name of every other that he dislikes.
Fear of consequence alone is not what ought to circumscribe the right to free speech, although I am sure there are enough individuals to violate this rule that that's what we get in the end.
"Shub: you are incorrect. Mann is not perfectly within his rights. He can, and likely will be named in the suit. He had no more reason than Laden to believe such statements were true.
Mark"
I'm not sure that there is a case against Mr. Mann, libel in the US has to show malicious intent, a twitter probably wouldn't give enough evidence to prove malice. Laden, on the other hand, has written and article, changed it when he realised he'd gone to far, and then with sublime stupidity posted on the article himself demonstrating considerable malice towards TallBloke. Now, he, I believe, is in deep doo doo.
More likely too much mother love ("You're so special, Michael!") , leading to youthful pompousness, being bullied at school, and a need to suppress feelings of inadequacy by becoming important..
geronimo,
No, you are completely incorrect about UK libel law. You NEVER repeat an allegedly libellous comment or accusation, unless you have documentary proof that it is true. Even quoting the libel to report it is a no-no. You are repeating the same libel and are just as guilty.
If the headline quoted were to be adjudged libellous, then ANY person quoting it in a public document is just as guilty as the original author, and just as liable for damages. The libel is not just in the words, it is the publishing as well.
Failure to acknowledge or mitigate the libel is probably a very bad idea as well.
Shub: perhaps we're closer than either of us originally suspected.
geronimo:
I don't disagree in reality, I was merely speaking on princple. Rather, I agree that just because a reasonable person could say "Mann was not within his rights," does not necessarily imply that such an action by Mann will be seen by the courts (at least in the US) as meeting the threshold of libel/defamation. Nuances that are difficult to consider (from the armchair) appear once legal teams get in front of a judge/jury (recall that OJ was acquitted). However, keep in mind that Tallbloke is filing in the UK and the threshold is lower, which I think will have at least some bearing on the outcome.
Mark
It would be interesting to know how the Guardian were so quick out of the blocks on this story and in particular how they obtained TallBloke's employment details.
Hacked climate emails: police seize computers at West Yorkshire home
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/dec/15/hacked-climate-emails-police-west-yorkshire?INTCMP=SRCH
I can only think of two sources - TallBlok himself or the Police.
I am delighted that the UK police and US authorities are finally taking their responsibilities seriously and making an attempt ot track down the criminals who hacked into UEA's server.
I really look forward to seeing some prosecutions and a few serious jail terms handed out.
Scots Renewables
Please specify the exact offence that you think is most likely to have been committed.
"I can only think of two sources - TallBlok himself or the Police."
Roger lists himself on his employer's site as 'Tallbloke', which takes a few seconds to find on Google.
This kind of paranoid speculation (and the recourse to law) is atypical and does not look good. Leave the paranoia to Moonbat, and the intimidation to the alarmists please.
I believe that Leo Hickman of the Guardian interviewed Tallbloke before the police raid.
The Computer Misuse Act became law in August 1990. Under the Act hacking and the introduction of viruses are criminal offences.
DEFINITION
The Act identifies three specific offences:
1.Unauthorised access to computer material (that is, a program or data).
2.Unauthorised access to a computer system with intent to commit or facilitate the commission of a serious crime.
3.Unauthorised modification of computer material.
Only section 1) is likely to be applicable in the case of Climategate.
The Act defines (1) (the basic offence) as a summary offence punishable on conviction with a maximum prison sentence of six months or a maximum fine of 2000 or both.
Not suggesting Tallbloke is guilty of the hack, but someone committed a criminal offence - and it wasn't the climate scientists. Good to see the police finally taking it seriously.
Scots @ Dec 19, 2011 at 6:35 PM - trust you feel the same way over FOI avoidance?
Scots Renewables
Since you appear to believe the Tallbloke is not guilty of a hack, perhaps you would confide in us just what he did do? And how do you know that someone has committed an criminal offence?
May I point out that if it was a "climate scientist" who released those emails and had permission to access those files, then just what was the criminal offence?
SR - what evidence do you have for the CRU server having been hacked? It is quite possible that the CG1 and CG2 emails were collated for FOI purposes (or rather for FOI avoidance) and then placed inadvertanty on a public server on CRU, where anyone could legally download them. For that matter, it could even be possible that the emails came to light after being found on a USB memory stick (or laptop) which Phil Jones himself inadvertantly left on a bus or where ever. Remember, our Phil has a track record when it comes to losing data.
Has any IT admin ever been convicted of unauthorised access to material stored on a system to which they had been given a root logon (superuser or whatever you call it) by their employer?
DPP v Bignall and Another
Queens Bench Division [1997] EWHC Admin 4706/06/1997 [1998] 1 Cr App R 1; [1997] Masons CLR 16; [1997] CLSR 13 No 5 352; The Times 6 June 1997 [1997] CLSR Vol 13, No. 4, 222
Two Metropolitan Police PCs caused a police computer operator to obtain DVLA motor vehicle registration and ownership data via the Police National Computer for their own private purposes.
Held - Defendants generally authorised to control access to data; Access for an unauthorised purpose not an offence. Unauthorised access held to apply to external hackers. Defendants acquitted.
Fighting a libel case in the US will cost 10's (probably 100's) of thousands of dollars, such cases can be and often are strung out for years, it'll come down to who has most money (or generous support) and I think we all know where the money is in the climate debate.
It's reckless and naive to encourage action, unless you've got some experience of fighting legal cases in the US (actually paying the legal bill every month) you ought to wind your neck in.
I'd love to see these liars being exposed, I just don't think this is the right fight.
Bishop, you wrote:
"I believe that Leo Hickman of the Guardian interviewed Tallbloke before the police raid"
Does this mean that Leo Hickman knew about the raid before it happened? That the police told him before the event?
Don Pablo,
Not my job - the police's job. Good to see Tallbloke helping them with their enquiries.
Messenger,
You need a course in basic logic. Making unsupported accusations on a public forum is unwise.
Scots Renewables
You need a course in basic English. A question is not an assertion.
Messenger.
I asked Leo if he had had any interactions with Norfolk Police recently. He said yes, he spoke to them after the raid. Lawyerly evasion? I've jsut asked him about before the raid.
I've asked Leo H the question on Twitter and he's, well, somewhat evasive.
After much pressing, he says no he didn't speak to the police between interviewing Tallbloke and the police raid/visit.
So what prompted LH to interview Tallbloke- mere coincidence?
"he spoke to them after the raid"
That must have been an interesting conversation...
Leo had asked me on Twitter why I thought Tallbloke got the link to CG2 and not me. I said why didn't he ask himself.
Lucia suggested that the comments were intentionally posted on wordpress blogs. The dossier link wasn't published on Lucia's blog either.
Bish - you say
I suppose it is not beyond the realms of possibility for someone from Norfolk to have monitored this tweet?
Why Wordpress?
Small update:
Greg Laden, the Harvard-educated anthropologist, writes:
This is exactly why 'free speech' is good. It enables the feckless to simply speak their mind, so we can all know what kind of thoughts they have, and then it allows them to backtrack, so we can all know that they won't even stand behind their own words.