Bishop Hill Corrupt inquiries
Nov 11, 2011 Bureaucrats Climate: Mann Readers here have come across one two university cover-ups in the last few years, so the news reported at Climate Audit that the President of Penn State university has been fired for failing to investigate allegations of paedophilia against one of football coaches is perhaps less of a surprise than it might be to others. For these latest allegations to be centred on Penn State - Michael Mann's place of work, and the university responsible for one of the Climategate non-inquiries adds a certain piquancy to the story.
As McIntyre points out, the impetus do this seems to have been to protect the university's commercial interests. One can only assume that the university bigwigs were incentivised to maintain and grow the flow of funds into the football programme.
When we turn to the university of East Anglia then, we might wonder if we can see a similar commercial incentive in place. I think we probably can - it is known that CRU was bringing in very large sums of money from US funding bodies for doing very little at all. The need to protect that flow of funds may well have been enough for the integrity of the inquiries to be jettisoned from the start.
Can we conclude from this that the universities are not working for the public benefit?
(H/T Dead Dog Bounce)
Reader Comments (56)
@C. Henry Nov 12, 2011 at 8:44 PM
Hmmm ... looks like someone needs to point Thomas Fingar and the NIC in the direction of Donna Laframboise's The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World's Top Climate Expert
In a recent review at NuclearStreet, Randy Brich observed that this exposé of the IPCC is "timely, terrific and totally transforming".
Penn State has f****d up big time this month!
[BH says: Mind your language please]
Al Gore, the 'royal wizard' provided ample deluded thinking to the British royals to get the job of spreading retarded nonscience in front of the scientific community, and he refused to give up . That points to an alternate reality syndrome of some kind. Kids get terrified of the power that these sick pukes wield against them. Too bad the CFR-TV has American males by the frontal lobes and they can't break free.
I've been out of town for awhile, but when hearing about the Penn St contraversy, I did wonder if it would be tied into Michael Mann at climate blogs. I was a bit afraid that it would.
Guys, there is absolutely no comparison to what Jerry Sandusky is reported to have done and what Mann was accused of doing. Yes, one can point out that there is a possibility that the motives driving university trustees may share some similar basis', but why even bother making the point?
Michael Mann's alleged actions would make him a self important dickhead with an ego and lacking ethics. Jerry Sandusky is, by what is accounted for in the grand jury report, a monster.
Tim
I don't see the problem with making the point that if investigation of a monster can be botched, so can an inquiry into a self-important dickhead - as you point out this is the issue at question.
Tim,
Nice try. Just because you're not aware that defrauding the federal government is a crime does not make it go away. Below are just some of the relevant laws that could be violated by a researcher who accepts federal funding under false pretences. A real investigation would consider all these and more:
"Mail Fraud and Wire Fraud
Modern courts have interpreted each of the elements of the mail fraud statute broadly. For example, schemes involving virtually any use of the United States mails satisfy the statute's mailing requirement. As the 1989 ruling in Schmuck v. United States made clear, the mailing need not be essential to the scheme, or even support it, but may be merely incidental to the scheme. Similarly, courts have held that the wire fraud statute applies to schemes involving any interstate communication, including use of telephone lines, radio or television, fax machine or computer transmission."
"False Statements Fraud
Major Fraud Act in 1988 to address procurement fraud in government contracts. The offense is known as major fraud against the US, and it is codified at 18 USC 1031.
"The statute requires the prosecution to prove a false statement in procuring a government contract in excess of $1,000,000 in value. Bascially it is intended to be used where the fraud occurs on a large scale.
"Although the $1,000,000 threshold limits its application, 18 USC 1031 has advantages for federal prosecutors because the statute of limitations is 7 years as opposed to 5. Compare 18 USC 1031(f) and 18 USC 3282 (5-year period of limitations).
"And more importantly, the potential penalties are greater. Major fraud against the federal government has a possible 10 year prison sentence (compared to 5 years for false statements). See 18 USC 1031(a).
"Federal law also has a false claims statute at 18 USC 287. This statute prohibits knowingly making a false claim against the US government or any department thereof. The maximum sentence for this offense is 5 years incarceration.
"Finally, defendants should beware the possibility of civil prosecutions for false claims or major fraud. Even if the US Attorney is not involved, a private plaintiff can assert a false claim suit under 31 USC 3730. This is known as the “qui tam” law that allows plaintiffs to bring actions on behalf of themselves, the public interest, and the federal government for violations of the False Claim Act.
"Qui tam suits are called whistleblower lawsuits, and the plaintiff can recover 15 to 25 percent of the money that is the subject of the suit."
The key to resolution of most such cases happens when a whistleblower, someone with inside knowledge of the crimes (such as a grad student, a fellow researcher, a computer tech), comes forward to share the details with investigators.
Some additional resources to help your legal education are below.
http://www.enotes.com/major-acts-congress/mail-fraud-false-representation-statutes
http://www.taf.org/federalfca.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_Claims_Act