Posted on 11/21/2009 6:30:39 AM PST by maggief
I know of them, but was anyone prosecuted using the papers as evidence?
I think that evidence obtained illegally cannot be used in court, but since the authority did not obtain the evidence illegally, would it be probable cause for a search warrant?
Well, it wouldn't be the first time that my common sense was confounded by a recent Supreme Court decision. What case was it?
Regarding ratting-out: that doesn't pertain to evidence obtained illegally. The ratter, in such a case, obtains immunity from prosecution for testifying that he and others committed certain illegal acts. I believe they have to be the same crimes. If so, then the immunity technique won't work in this case unless the hacker is an insider that colluded in fraud.
True for the civil end, but the criminal consequences can be waved away with an immunity deal.
Due to anti Catholic /anti Christianity sentiment, many myths have occurred as to how the church persecuted Galileo. This is only half true. Galileo's scientific peers used the Church and the inquisition to persecute Galileo, in exactly the same way as the AGW crowd has done. They are one and the same.
I agree, hoax is much too mild a term, fraud is probably more appropriate, but, I think there is an amount of treason that seeks to deprive people of their freedom and liberty.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2391568/posts
Who leaked the Hadley CRU files and why
examiner.com ^ | November 21, 2009 | Terry Hurlbut
EXCERPT
Mr. Stephen McIntyre at Climate Audit has made no secret of his repeated attempts to demand, under Britain’s Freedom of Information Act, that Phil Jones and his team yield up the data that are the basis of their claims for anthropogenic global warming (AGW) and its effects. Preliminary analysis of the archived e-mails also indicates that Jones knew of McIntyre’s efforts and was taking steps to stall and thwart them, in violation of the law. Perhaps, then, someone at CRU decided to take the law into his own hands.
This seems to already be disappearing from the radar screen.
Began reading the files yesterday and finally hit the sack this morning. Fraud is an understatement, but that was obvious before. What really angered me was all of the US tax dollars awarded in grants. These files are the property of the US tax payer. Who at the DOE was awarding this money to them?
OHH which should we use “Global Warming Fraud” or “Global Warming Deception”?
I think so, and part of me is hoping for it. However, I'm obliged to say that we may be wrong on the admissibility point. I'm waiting on a Supreme Court case that justifies waiving the exclusionary rules, in a criminal trial, for evidence obtained illegally by a private citizen.
BTW, "hoax" still works for me--it doesn't necessarily have to be funny to be a hoax, it just needs to be an intentional deception.
Trying to connect the dots ...
DOE ... PCMDI ... IPCC ... Hadley/CRU
(DOE email systems down for maintenance.)
U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Science
Office of Biological & Environmental Research
The Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison (PCMDI) develops improved methods and tools for the diagnosis and intercomparison of climate and earth system models.PCMDI provides major facilities for archiving climate model output, including frequently-analyzed variables such as those used for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment Reports. PCMDI makes such model output readily accessible to the climate modeling community.
http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/about/index.php
(PCMDI) now also are applying our collective expertise to support modeling studies initiated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): PCMDI is providing facilities for the storage and distribution of terrascale data sets from multiple coupled ocean-atmosphere GCM simulations of present-day climate as well as climate changes resulting from large transient increases in carbon dioxide. Extensive analysis of these simulations by members of the international climate community will provide an important scientific basis for the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report on Climate Change , which is scheduled for publication in 2006.
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17102
Total Control
These people controlled the global weather data used by the IPCC through the joint Hadley and CRU and produced the HadCRUT data. They controlled the IPCC, especially crucial chapters and especially preparation of the Summary for PolicyMakers (SPM).
Not long ago an MIT professor came out with a study debunking AGW and his stature was supposed to kill the movement, too. It seems not to have. I hope this has more success.
However, like most other leftist movements supported by the MSM the lies continue. Somehow the rebuttals disappear down a hole and the lies continue to advance.
The same is true of national health care, cap and trade, etc.
Why didn't you say so? United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 113 (1984): "This Court has also consistently construed this protection as proscribing only governmental action; it is wholly inapplicable 'to a search or seizure, even an unreasonable one, effected by a private individual not acting as an agent of the Government or with the participation or knowledge of any governmental official.'" That case involved a FedEx employee who thought a package looked suspicious and opened it - revealing cocaine. The fact that he showed it to DEA agents didn't make it a government search - the case judges that on the basis that the DEA agent didn't see anything that the FedEx guy hadn't seen already.
The prosecutor is not the police, and an immunity deal after a beatdown would definitely run into trouble in the DA's office and with the superior court judge.
Long as it’s the same jurisdiction, the prosecutor can grant immunity if he feels like it (although usually he has to get judicial approval of the deal). I wouldn’t think it would have to be a co-conspirator — although I don’t know of a case, I can imagine a situation where a prosecutor would give immunity to a burglar who had stumbled on a large drug operation, for the crime of committing the burglary. Otherwise, he would incriminate himself when he testified.
I'm getting a bit of an education, I have to say. Anyways, the miscreants are well below the Mafia when it comes to covering their tracks. (This time, anyway.) Should this scandal lead to a prosecution, I'm sure that a capable prosecutor will have enough evidence to make the case without reliance upon the leaked documents. I'm sure you know how Al Capone was turned into a convicted criminal.
And it's interesting to me that the senders and the receivers seem to have acknowledged authorship/receipt/authenticity, that might constitute an admission.
But of course if there are enough 'real' scientists left to raise a ruckus, these folks are through in the field, regardless of the legal consequences.
You're absolutely right - it's fascinating. Maybe a prosecutor will take the case up for the fun of it, or for its instructional value.
But of course if there are enough 'real' scientists left to raise a ruckus, these folks are through in the field, regardless of the legal consequences.
I'm of the opinion that there's enough skulduggery unearthed to meet the probable-cause standard without serious controversy erupting. At any rate, it signals a real need for a housecleaning - preferably at the undergraduate level. "Fudging = flunking," that kind of protocol
Thanks for the post(s); ping. Beyond contempt BUMP!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.