Judge tells Cuccinelli no on subpoena for UVa
An Albermarle County judge told Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli today that he had failed to make his case that there was reason to suspect former University of Virginia climatologist Michael Mann of committing fraud.
Don’t think this will stop Cuccinelli’s witch hunt against Mann – which appears to be based solely on the fact that Mann has put forth a scientific theory, widely accepted by the scientific community, that the attorney general disagrees with. Cuccinelli immediately put out a press release saying his office was pleased with “some aspects” of the judge’s ruling:
“While this was not an outright ruling in our favor, I am pleased that the judge has agreed with my office on several key legal points and has given us a framework for issuing a new civil investigative demand to get the information necessary to continue our investigation into whether or not fraud has been committed against the commonwealth,” Cuccinelli was quoted.
You’ve got to love the denial: “While this was not an outright ruling in our favor…” No, Ken, it was a complete defeat.
Cuccinelli should give this up and save the state money and resources. He won’t, but he should.
Update: We’re working on an editorial about this ruling for later in the week.
August 30, 2010 - 12:36 PM
Cooch needs to stop playing politics with this one,. but no doubt he’ll continue wasting state resources on it.
It would be funny if it was not so serious and the state and our planet did not have so much at stake.
It looks like the only thing that could stop Cucunelli is heat stroke.
“You’ve got to love the denial: “While this was not an outright ruling in our favor…” No, Ken, it was a complete defeat.”
Did you read the whole article? Specifically this part:
“Peatross rejected UVa’s argument that it could not be the subject of a civil investigative demand from the attorney general. Peatross said the attorney general “may investigate grants made with Commonwealth of Virginia funds to professors such as Dr. Mann.”"
Next Cuccinelli will challenge an academician who professes the world is more than 6000 years old and ask for the data.
#4,
Bravo!
UVa is far from out of the woods on this one. The guy got state money and should be accountable.
@Stephen #4: I don’t think that authority has ever been in doubt. The question is whether the AG has to have a reason he can demonstrate to the court to begin such an investigation. Cuccinelli essentially argued he could do so on a whim. The court said he could not, and that he had shown known reason and provided no evidence that the nature of Mann’s conduct was in any way criminal.
Cuccinelli lost this round, badly. He should throw in the towel.
We’ve gone from open discussion to stonewalling legislation whether it’s good for the general population or not, to attacking university researchers who have opinions that differ with someone in a position of authority. We’ve got “regulated” abortion clinics on the horizon and a hats off to the Confederacy. This state has gone from being the home of some of the most advanced space and nuclear technology on the planet, a nationally recognized center for advanced education to a spawning ground for zealots. The fact that they were elected just boggles my mind.
If Kook can’t demonstrate that Mann acted fraudulently and isn’t allowed to access to UVa papers, isn’t he, by definition, prosecuting fraudulently? Furthermore, if his subpoena and appeal cost more than the grant provided Prof Mann, shouldn’t he be held accountable for fiduciary irresponsibility?
Rick…I have to agree with you 100%!
It’s gotten to the point now that if a researcher comes to a conclusion that is counter to a current administration on a study that was financed by state funds, that researcher and his/her notes are going to be the subject of state “investigations” (aka witch hunts).
Old McD and Cucci have their political agendas…they just don’t happen to be in Virginia’s best interest.
@Dan Radmacher #7: “I don’t think that authority has ever been in doubt.”
OK, let’s try this again:
“Peatross rejected UVa’s argument that it could not be the subject of a civil investigative demand from the attorney general.”
So it was never in any doubt, but UVa argued it anyway?