Skip to comments.Fakegate: why the perps should be prosecuted (Guest post by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley)
Posted on 02/23/2012 10:31:53 AM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Yesterday I had the pleasure of chairing a packed meeting in the Palace of Westminster (dont tell the Clerk of the Parliaments), at which Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT spoke even more brilliantly than usual on global warming, and engagingly answered many questions from Parliamentarians and the public.
Afterwards, Dick went to brief a Cabinet Minister (who shall be nameless, but he is a good egg, and privately regards catastrophic manmade global warming as nonsense). The Minister indicated in effect, and with scarcely-concealed regret that the party line set by David Cameron in response to various opinion polls, focus groups and other such artifices for identifying and following a consensus rather than setting a lead, and not the objective scientific and economic truth, was likely to remain the basis of UK climate policy.
In reality, orders issued to our elected nominal government by the hated, unelected Kommissars of the EU, our true government, who have exclusive competence to decide and dictate the UKs environment and climate policies, are and will remain the basis of UK climate policy, regardless of what (or whether) Cameron and his vapid focus groups think (if think is the right word). Government of the people, by the people, for the people has perished from this once-free, formerly-democratic corner of the Earth. We have all the trappings of democracy and none of the reality.
Over tea and scones at the National Liberal Club while Dick was with the Minister, several of us discussed what we call Fakegate the frauds recently perpetrated to the detriment of the blameless Heartland Institute. Among some there was a feeling, often expressed by the nicer but more woolly-headed and ineffectual sort of skeptic, that somehow scientists who commit frauds ought not to be prosecuted for them, for otherwise academic research would become impossible.
I hear this unsoundly-founded point so often that it is hard to keep an even temper. A fraud is a fraud is a fraud, whether perpetrated by a scientist or by anyone else. The mistreatment to which the Heartland Institute has been subjected by a fraudster and counterfeiter constitutes several serious, imprisonable offenses, known in US law as felonies. The perps, whoever they be, should be investigated, brought for trial, prosecuted, and fined or better still imprisoned. Punishment for specific, manifest scientific frauds in no way prejudices, compromises, or trammels the freedom and purity of academic research. It protects and enhances them.
Three frauds are evident in Fakegate. First, wire fraud by whoever used electronic means to obtain internal documents that were the property of the Heartland Institute by what the ineffable Richard Black of the unspeakable BBC calls subterfuge and what the criminal law bluntly calls deception. Secondly, circulation of a counterfeit document purporting to be a true Heartland document. Thirdly, reporting of the affair with reckless disregard for whether the counterfeit document was genuine on the part of the loony-left BBC, the Pooterish Scotsman, Britains Marxist daily The Guardian, and various blogs, notably the relentlessly malevolent and consequently uninfluential Desmogblog.
Title 18 (Crimes and Criminal Procedure), Part I (Crimes), Chapter 63 (Mail Fraud and other Fraud Offenses) of the US Codex Iuris deals with Mail Fraud and other Fraud Offenses. Paragraph 1341 defines fraud simpliciter:
Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property [or, by Paragraph 1346, the intangible right of honest services] by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, or to procure for unlawful use any article, or anything represented to be or intimated or held out to be such counterfeit or spurious article, for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice or attempting so to do, or deposits or causes to be deposited any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by any private or commercial interstate carrier, or takes or receives therefrom, any such matter or thing, or knowingly causes to be delivered by such carrier according to the direction thereon, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
In general, whoever knowingly perpetrates across state boundaries or recklessly perpetuates a deception calculated to cause financial or pecuniary advantage in goods or services to some or suchlike loss to others commits the Federal criminal offense of fraud.
If the deception be furthered by electronic means, it is wire fraud. If it be furthered by the use of counterfeit documents, it is a distinct count of fraud. If it be furthered by reckless and detrimental publication and repetition of the contents of counterfeit documents as though they were the real thing, when no steps before publication had been taken to verify that the documents relied upon were true, it is also fraud.
Let us begin with the wire fraud. The relevant US statutory offense seems to me to be 18 USC 1343 (Wire Fraud) of the US Codex Iuris, which opens with these words:
Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property [or, by Paragraph 1346, the intangible right of honest services] by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
I am unfamiliar with US law, and cannot confirm that these provisions still stand part of the US code, or that they have not been amended, or that there is no case law or rule of interpretation preventing their application in the present case. On the face of it, though, the obtaining of documents that were the property of the Heartland Institute by a scheme or artifice whereby the fraudster misrepresented himself as a Board member of the Heartland Institute was achieved by electronic means across state boundaries between the Pacific and the Great Lakes.
The term interstate commerce is interpreted latae sententiae in US law, since it is widely defined in the US Constitution itself. Therefore, the fraudster would not be able to escape a wire-fraud charge by asserting that his deception of the Institute was not in interstate commerce. Even if the court were to find that the deception was not in interstate commerce, the deception would still constitute fraud simpliciter under paragraph 1341 of the Code, though not wire fraud under paragraph 1343.
Next, the fraud arising from the creation and circulation of the counterfeit document. Whether or not the fraudster who deceived the Institute also uttered the bogus document, he certainly circulated it. Consequently, even if he thought but did not know it was genuine, his reckless circulation of it without having verified that it was genuine, and in the company of other documents obtained by fraud, would constitute a distinct but connected fraud charge and, given the malicious content of the counterfeit document and the very grave harm that it was calculated to do to the Institute, a very serious charge at that. The court would also take account of the fact that the perp had obtained all documents but the counterfeit document from the Institute and was, in the circumstances, under a particular duty to verify the genuineness of the document before circulating it with the others.
Finally, there is the fraud perpetrated by the various news and internet media, especially in the UK (where Marxism is many journalists creed) in perpetuating the Fakegate fraud by rushing to publication or broadcast without having verified the genuineness of the document that turned out to be counterfeit. Here, the well-established legal doctrine of mens rea applies. To commit a crime, one must know that one is committing a crime, or one must act in a manner calculated to cause harm to another while being reckless as to whether the harm that ones actions are calculated to cause constitutes a criminal offense.
Fraud charges against the guilty news media and blogs would not be likely unless and until the Fakegate fraudster had first been brought to justice before a Federal court.
The dripping malevolence of the commentaries by the various news media and blogs on what the counterfeit document purported to reveal about the Heartland Institutes supposed attitude to the teaching of science in schools would count very much against them in court. The intent to cause harm to the Heartland, and to cause collateral damage to Anthony Watts and others, is very clear. On the other hand, those who at least acted promptly by publishing Heartlands announcement that the document was counterfeit will have mitigated their crime to some extent. Those blogs that continue to publish the counterfeit document rather than removing it, and one blog that pretended to confirm the document as genuine, will face long prison sentences.
Or will they? Much of the scientific criminality surrounding the global warming scam only happens because the fraudsters in white lab-coats reckon that they are untouchable. They have the protection of governments, who are themselves profiting mightily by the scam; they are fawned upon by the news media, much as Al Capone was in Chicago; they are lionized by their academic institutions for the massive government grants they attract to investigate what, day by day, becomes more visibly a teacup tempest rebranded as Apocalypse; and, worst of all, the skeptics who ought to report the frauds and without whose reports the authorities are unlikely to act ex proprio motu are a bunch of wee, cowering, timorous beasties.
Since fraud across state boundaries is a Federal offense, any citizen of the United States, whether or not he is in any way connected with any of the parties to the frauds, has the right and the duty to go to his nearest police station and make a complaint that frauds have been committed to the detriment of the Heartland Institute. The complainant does not need to have any connection with the Institute, nor any permission from it. He just has to be as outraged as I am.
All he has to do is to go in and ask the police to investigate the frauds that have occurred. The facts are plain enough, and so is the law. The police will be bound to investigate and to pass a report of their investigation to the District Attorney, who, in matters of interstate fraud, would be likely to consult the States Attorney General. On the facts as I now have them, prosecution would certainly result, and conviction would be very likely.
But will anyone act? Around the fragrant tea-table overlooking the silent Thames, there was a marked reluctance to do anything other than talk about it. One said, I couldnt possibly make a complaint. Just think of all the unwelcome publicity. In fact, there would be no publicity, since any complainant not connected with the Heartland Institute will play no further role in the case once he has undertaken the simple duty of reporting the fraud to his friendly, local police station.
Another said, We really mustnt interfere with academic freedom in this way. Yet the action of the fraudster was not an exercise of academic freedom, still less a triumph for it. It was an abuse of it. It was a fraud. It was an offense. It was a serious offense. Read the Code.
The law, said Cicero in a beautiful passage in his De Legibus, is founded upon and rooted in love. And what is a sin? In Christian theology it is a failure of love. A sin is a sin because its fake-etrator is knowingly or recklessly doing harm and, to the extent of the harm done, is failing to love the victims of his wrongdoing. It is precisely because of the harm done to the Heartland Institute and to Anthony Watts and others that the sin in law the offense is grave. And it is precisely to prevent such harm from being done that the law provides punishment for fraudsters as long as someone, anyone, has the guts to go into a police station and start the ball rolling by making a complaint.
If just one or two of the numerous scientific frauds that are being reported to me were instead reported to the police, and if prosecutions and convictions were to ensue in just one or two cases, the global warming scam would come sharply to an end. Those scientists working in climate and related fields who have acted or published fraudulently (there are just a few of them, and they know who they are) would once again be reminded that they are not an untouchable, priestly caste at liberty to ignore the laws that the rest of us must follow. As the late Lord Denning used to say, in that gentle Hampshire accent of his, Be you never so high, the law is above you.
for your reading pleasure.
“the Pooterish Scotsman,”
Is that similar to the Poopish Irishman?
Back to reading. Thanks for the ping!
I think the best legal recourse for Gleick is to come clean, get a VERY speedy trial, and wrap it up in November-ish just in time to make Obamas lame-duck list of Presidential Pardons.
Robert Brown says:
Whether or not one favors this sort of thing often depends on whether or not the person obtaining the documents illegally is acting in a way one perceives of as being beneficial (to ones personal prejudices, if nothing else). One can work back through many famous cases from Viet Nam down through the present where documents have been outed by a process that strictly speaking breaks the law, but where what the documents reveal seems to justify the action a posteriori.
Climate skeptics, for example, speak of the individual(s) who outed the Climategate postings as being some sort of hero, in spite of the fact that what he or she or they did is almost certainly, strictly speaking, a criminal act. Of course so is some of what was being revealed by Climategate emails arguably criminal acts.
In at least the U.S., there is now some degree of protection for whistle blowers people who violate a privacy law to reveal overt lawbreaking on the part of somebody else. Of course this law is hardly consistent, and there are countless exceptions especially where national security or government is concerned, which is why Wikileaks is in such trouble. Nor does the open publication of leaked documents consistently reveal lawbreaking in the first place in many cases it is merely embarrassing or something that really is private and none of anyones business.
For these reasons I think the best thing to focus on in the case of fakegate (why is it that since Watergate which has nothing to do with a gate all subsequent leaked documents have to have a gate appended? Human language is so strange ;-) is not so much the nominal legality of the alleged phishing of the documents but rather the far more serious charge of fraud. Turnabout is fair play (legal or not, it is fair) so if Climategate was good then Fakegate might have been good if it werent for the fake bit!
After all, who bloody cares how climate skeptics are funded, or if? Talk about major league tempest in the smallest of teapots! There are (as has been pointed out) mountains of money available, much of it from highly suspect sources, for any work that supports the cause of CAGW and its solution, mandatory carbon trading and the deconstruction of modern civilization. Is there some sort of rule that states that climate skeptics have to be brave and self-sacrificing and pay for their own efforts? Not at all but of course one way the warmists like to claim that skeptics are biased is by alleging that they are really the catspaws of Big Oil or Coal Mining Capitalists, and are being paid to promote a point of view they dont even really believe in, in exchange for being made wealthy by under the table payoffs.
Which is truly, truly laughable. I wish. In case any Big Oil execs are listening, dont hesitate to make me an offer. I can be easily be bought, especially to do work Im doing anyway without any sort of compensation. Goodness, I guess it is time for me to take a trip down to the Caymans to set up my very own offshore account.
No, the real issue is the Fake bit. Faking documents to smear an entire body of individuals so that they collectively are taken less seriously in a scientific debate is appallingly unethical, and whether or not it is against civil law, it is almost certainly not outside of the realm of lawsuits seeking compensation and restoration of reputation. Granting agencies should also take careful note, as this is precisely the sort of fraud that corrupts grant funded research in this arena using any means necessary to not only fail to give fair consideration to opposing arguments, but to destroy those who offer those arguments by any means necessary. That is (and continues to be, at least for me) one of the most shocking things revealed by the Climategate documents that a cabal of scientific researchers would actually conspired to have journal editors and individuals who sought to publish legitimate scientific results that contradicted their own results discredited and fired. They tried to professionally ruin people for the sin of disagreeing with them!
If you want something that will crush science, it is letting this sort of thing go unpunished. I still await justice here, in the form of actual censure and professional consequences for those involved. But I suspect that I will wait for the rest of my life for that.
For justice in the Fakegate case well, Im guessing that one thing the Heartland institute does have is enough money to sue the hell out of people for fraud and slander. Im also guessing that at least some of the individuals involved have gone beyond the bounds where even the most tolerant of wink wink, nod nod, you know what I mean you know what I mean is going to be an acceptable solution. There will indeed be some public eviscerations now, in an effort to salvage what little is left of an already shabby reputation for self-policing of clearly inappropriate means and methods in supposedly scientific inquiry.
To the pope.?
To the word?
To the Word.
The Republicans have historically been more zealous to cover up Democrat scandals than have the Democrats.The Democrats have a much laxer view of what constitutes a scandal when it pertains to Democrats.
It is interesting to contrast the approach of conservatives - “The law states ... - therefore - the law has been broken” - with mealy mouthed leftists “well, some think this, and some think that, and she was wearing a short skirt, so maybe she deserved it ...” -
There was no responsible news reason for the original news story to be reported as it was. Only bias explains it. Therefore - they should all be explaining their slander - to a judge.
What REALLY should be done is a special prosecutor ....to investigate the massive waste of piblic money that has generated all of the bogus scientists feeling off of research grants ....which are set up to further Al Gore’s and others schemes to raise REVENUE for Global Governance purposes....as my Representative Dana Rohrbacher stated in his address on the floor of the House of Representatives.....
Its sad to watch the implosion of a Nobel Cause. Well it would be
But then DeSmog thinks providing fake documents is in the public interest. (Is there is a shortage of false and misleading articles around? Who knew?)
This particular parody refers to Charles Johnson (who?).
Looks about right. I don’t have it in my library, yet.
Laughing hard after seeing the video ....link at #17....Satire is a beautiful thing....at JoNova.
See #17 , #19/..
19 February 12
DeSmogBlog will leave them in place - in the public interest
Heartland Institute general counsel Maureen Martin has sent letters to the DeSmogBlog and several other publications demanding that we remove all Heartland-related documents that we posted on February 14, as well as all related commentary.
After due consideration, we could see no basis in fact or law for Heartland's demand that we remove these documents.
The Heartland letter is reproduced in full below with our observations.
Re: Stolen and Faked Heartland Documents
Dear Mr. DeMelle:
On or about February 14, 2012, your web site posted a document entitled Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy (the Fake Memo), which is fabricated and false.
On or about the same date, your web site posted certain other documents purporting to be those of The Heartland Institute (Heartland). Heartland has not authenticated these documents (the Alleged Heartland Documents).
Your site thereafter has reported repeatedly on all of these documents.
Heartland almost immediately issued a statement disclosing the foregoing information, to which your web site has posted links.
It has come to our attention that all of these documents nevertheless remain on your site and you continue to report on their contents. Please be advised as follows:
1. The Fake Memo document is just that: fake. It was not written by anyone associated with Heartland. It does not express Heartlands goals, plans, or tactics. It contains several obvious and gross misstatements of fact. Publication of this falsified document is improper and unlawful.
DeSmogBlog: Heartland has never identified the alleged "obvious and gross misstatements" in the "climate strategy" document. We have not identified any. Neither does Heartland specify anything "unlawful" about publication of the "climate strategy" document.
2. As to the Alleged Heartland Documents your web site posted, we are investigating how they came to be in your possession and whether they are authentic or have been altered or fabricated. Though third parties purport to have authenticated them, no one other than Heartland has the ability to do so. Several of the documents say on their face that they are confidential documents and all of them were taken from Heartland by improper and fraudulent means. Publication of any and all confidential or altered documents is improper and unlawful.
DeSmogBlog: Since Heartland does not know whether the "other documents" are fabricated, altered or authentic, we are at a loss to understand how Heartland is in any position to allege that the documents posted on DeSmogBlog were obtained by "improper or fraudulent means."
3. Furthermore, Heartland views the malicious and fraudulent manner in which the documents were obtained and/or thereafter disseminated, as well as the repeated blogs about them, as providing the basis for civil actions against those who obtained and/or disseminated them and blogged about them. Heartland fully intends to pursue all possible actionable civil remedies to the fullest extent of the law.
Desmogblog: Again, since Heartland does not know whether the "other documents" are fabricated, altered or authentic, we are at a loss to understand how Heartland can allege that the documents were obtained or disseminated "in a malicious or fraudulent manner."
Therefore, we respectfully demand: (1) that you remove both the Fake Memo and the Alleged Heartland Documents from your web site; (2) that you remove from your web site all posts that refer or relate in any manner to the Fake Memo and the Alleged Heartland Documents; (3) that you remove from your web site any and all quotations from the Fake Memo and the Alleged Heartland Documents; (4) that you publish retractions on your web site of prior postings; and (5) that you remove all such documents from your server.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you require any further information.
Very truly yours,
Dana sure is not one to be bashful when it comes calling a spade a spade.
Perhaps the owner of that blog site shall find themselves in court as well as the professor, in due time.
Actually, the Word has an excellent definition of sin: the Apostle James said “to him who knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.” Can’t get any plainer than that.
Sin is described in the Bible as transgression of the law of God (1 John 3:4) and rebellion against God. And as we read in those opening chapters of the OT book of Genesis, sin originated as a manifestation of disobedience to God. Can’t make it any clear then that.
I thought that’s what I said. Knowing what we are supposed to be doing (following what we know of God’s law, which is always good), and then doing something contrary to God’s law (which is refusing or rebelling against something we understand to be good), is the definition of sin. John and James were saying the same thing. However, the obvious corollary is: those who do not know how to do good (little children, the severely mentally handicapped) are incapable of sin. If there is no understanding of what “good” is, then there can not be the imputation of sin in any action by those so limited. Error, poor judgment, mistakes, yes. But not sin.