Prosecutor humiliated in Climategate U-turn:
charges “tainted”

It now turns out that last week’s statement by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) that alleged climate con man, Professor Phil Jones could not be prosecuted was wrong. Sterling journalism from the UK Telegraph is now assisting our campaign to bust the climate crimes being hidden by implausible cock ups by investigators of the Climategate scandal. Christopher Booker takes up the baton raised by my article that this farce is spiraling out of control and is not being intelligently reported. It appears the ICO “misread” the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Now, was that done accidentally or deliberately?

As I reported on Friday, the actions of the ICO makes a mockery of the whole judicial process. The ICO’s statement seriously prejudices the outcome of any criminal charges brought against Jones, chief climatologist at the UK’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA), for offences as per the FOIA.

The Telegraph’s Booker reports:

The Commission is thus impaled on a hook of its own devising. By admitting that serious offences were committed, it is now legally obliged to bring charges. And if these were brought under the 1977 Criminal Law Act, alleging that the offences amounted to a conspiracy to defy the law, there is no time limit anyway.

Furthermore, in a statement, Professor Edward Acton, vice-chancellor of UEA commented:

“The ICO’s opinion that we had breached the terms of Section 77 is a source of grave concern to the university as we would always seek to comply with the terms of the Act.”

But not so fast! In effect, the ICO has labeled Jones “guilty” of the offence so that it is now highly improbable that any court may lawfully convict him on tainted FOIA charges anyway. Jones’s lawyers will surely argue that the authorities have abused their man’s human rights. Perhaps they “forgot” every defendant is innocent till proven guilty. But in the light of other facts, as outlined below, I fear that fudging this case was the intention all along. But either way, ICO Commissioner Christopher Graham’s head must roll.

As we reported on Climategate.com, this bungle was no more than a technicality because a case for fraud against Jones may be brought using other sections of the criminal law. For example, under the Fraud Act (2006) ‘Section 3: Fraud by failing to disclose information’ it is an offence to commit fraud by:

failing to disclose information to another person where there is a legal duty to disclose the information.

However, today I can reveal the plot thickens because there is further evidence suggesting willful nonfeasance or malfeasance by government officials. Graham Smith, Deputy Commissioner, said in an emailed press release:

“Norfolk Police are investigating how private emails have become public.”

No mention of climate data fraud there. In fact we may infer that there is no police investigations into the alleged climate date fraud of Professor Jones at all because such cases involving international fraud involving sums greater than £1 million Pounds (US $1.6m) are required to be investigated by Britain’s Serious Fraud Office (SFO). And, where are they?

The SFO was established in 1988 after the Roskill Report recommended that this specialist duty be taken away from normal police forces and the Crown Prosecution Service. The report came in the wake of several failed prosecutions, as we have now seen perpetrated by the ICO. The Attorney-General’s office has been in direct charge of the SFO since the enactment of the Criminal Justice Act (1987).

So if the SFO is not on climate professor, Phil Jones’s case then who is?

What is even more galling, in light of the above facts, is that the criminal investigation into the CRU emails is not actually being carried out by Norfolk Police but by the National Domestic Extremism Team (NDET), a non-accountable secret police group under the sway of the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) (see our article), a private company run by British chief police officers who happen to have considerable pension fund investments in carbon credits! Anyone else see a conflict of interest here?

Based on the facts as known, the British Government may thus be accused of either deliberately or negligently conducting the investigation into the Climategate Scandal. As regular followers of this story will know, the Climategate controversy first hit the headlines when 1,000+ emails were uploaded to a Russian Internet server on November 19, 2009 causing a sensation among scientific bloggers and climate skeptics. The mainstream media has persisted in claiming the emails were hacked, despite the proof that the emails were contained within a directory marked FOIA (Freedom of Information) and were thus more plausibly leaked by a concerned whistleblower.”

In the wake of the furor over Climategate, the floodgates have opened with a succession of further climate calamities to embarrass advocates of pro-green global warming science. These latest news stories are slowly finding their way into a reticent mainstream media who are grudgingly starting to report climate fraud in fresh scandals such as Glaciergate, Amazongate and Pachaurigate. Although, these too, are only fully exposed on the internet.

It is no coincidence that after the ICO announced there would be no criminal charges against Jones, an exuberant Prince Charles paid a special visit to the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) to publicly praise Jones and his discredited “hockey team” for all their good work in “hiding the decline” in global temperatures.
His Royal Wretchedness said,

“Well done all of you. Many, many congratulations on your work. I wish you great success in the future. Don’t get downhearted by these little blips here and there!”

See him on video here (UK only).

Just think about this for one moment – the future king of England endorsing crime! This blatant show of eco-fascist hubris is to be condemned as another nail in the credibility coffin of the prince who talks to plants.

As a supplement to my legal analysis for the prosecution against disgraced Professor Phil Jones, and based on the thorough scientific analysis of over 1,000+ leaked emails made by acclaimed Australian physicist, Dr. John Costella, I have made a further analysis aided by my legal associates. We have been able to substantiate further the case against the prevaricating professor from the University of Unthruths.

Dr. Costella adds further commentary to one email that I consciously avoided including, for legal reasons, in my previous article on the prosecution evidence against Professor Jones. This is the now famous “trick” that Jones used to hide the decline and which John Costella addresses thus:

“Phil Jones to Ray Bradley, Mike Mann, Malcolm Hughes, Keith Briffa, and Tim Osborn, regarding a diagram for a World Meteorological Organization Statement:

Jones: “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temperatures to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. ” [November 16, 1999: email 0942777075]

I defer to the expert commentary of Costella:

“Those thirty-three words summarize the hoax so magnificently succinctly that the Nobel Committee should consider retrieving their Peace Prize from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Al Gore, and re-issuing it as a Literature Prize to Phil Jones.

This email was sent less than two months after the one analyzed above [not cited]. Clearly, Mike Mann’s problems with Keith Briffa’s data—that it didn’t agree with the real temperature measurements from 1961 onwards—had by this time spread to the data for the other “temperature proxies”, albeit only from 1981 onwards. Jones reveals that Mann did not address this problem by making honest note of it in the paper that he and his co-authors published in Nature, but rather by fraudulently substituting the real temperature data into the graphs, for the past twenty or forty years as required.

That Mann did so would, in and of itself, disqualify him and all of his research from any future consideration in the annals of science; but here we have the other leader of the field, Phil Jones, bragging that he admired the “trick” so much that he adopted it himself. Moreover, his email was sent to the major players who dominated this field. It is the silence of these conspirators over the intervening decade that has forever damned the field of “climate science” to a state of irreversible ignominy.”

Costella speaks authoritatively as a scientist. He is not an attorney, nor does he have legal training, but we get the drift of his meaning in the context of scientific ethics.

As you will note, the email of the ‘hiding the decline’ trick is dated November 16, 1999. This is ordinarily outside the time limit for a prosecution. But a nimble-minded prosecutor would argue that, as Jones sought to conceal such evidence by lies and deceit such pernicious conscious intent keeps such evidence alive so that, despite being over a decade old, it is still admissible under the rules of “compounded offences.”

Thus Jones may be further liable here for conspiracy to corrupt, contrary to section 1 of the Criminal Law Act 1977. For the purposes of concurrence, the actus reus is a continuing one and parties may join the plot later and incur joint liability and conspiracy can be charged where the co-conspirators have been acquitted or cannot be traced. Whether these scientists conspired with third parties (e.g.funding institutions) to fraudulently acquire taxpayer grant funding is moot here because there are no admissions to such in the leaked emails evidence. Such issues may best be addressed under the rules of privity as stipulated under Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999.

This may give us some extra latitude by permitting that if the victim (taxpayer) has suffered of any financial or other prejudice there of, there is no need to establish that the defendant deceived him or her. Moreover, we may treat Professor Jones’ emails as full confessions under the law. UK’s eminent Lord of Appeal, Lord Steyn, in R v Hayter [2005] UKHL 6 (3 February 2005) at paragraph 25 stated,

“a confession may be admitted not only as evidence against its maker but also as evidence against a co-accused implicated thereby.”

So that Jones’ admission about Michael Mann’s trick to “hide the decline” implicates those other climatologists who received the aforementioned email, i.e. Ray Bradley, Mike Mann, Malcolm Hughes, Keith Briffa, and Tim Osborn.

As an illustration, the case against Phil Jones and others under the Fraud Act (2006) is evinced by “Fraud by false representation (Section 2)” that summarizes what a prosecutor would be seeking to prove. To attain a guilty verdict against the Defendant the following five elements must be fulfilled so that Professor Jones:

    (1.) made
    (2.) a false representation
    (3.) dishonestly
    (4.) knowing that the representation was or might be untrue or misleading
    (5.) with intent to make a gain for himself or another, to cause loss to another or to expose another to risk of loss.

Below is a graph to show an example of the gain” made by Jones and his university chums by their dishonest practice.

Note the cool £6.6 million in 2002 followed by a lush £2.7million in 2006. So science crime DOES pay – and all with a special thank you from chuckling Charlie!

Bear in mind that UEA and Jones’s gain is a loss to other scientific institutions who did not resort to “tricks” to secure government grants (again, this is best addressed under privity as stipulated under Contracts (Rights of Third Parties Act 1999). Since we broke this story last, my legal colleagues and I have yet to hear or read of ANY defence, let alone a plausible one, to my proposed prosecution argument. We believe it is now essential that the SFO now takes over this investigation. It is contrary to the principles of Labour’s much-hyped transparency in freedom of information that a select police group is inappropriately operating outside its remit whilst the best of British fraud specialists are stood idly by.

If the authorities continue to bungle and blather then I fear the only conclusion that may reasonably be drawn is that the British Government is engaged in a cover up; a shabby grand conspiracy to evade political embarrassment rather than to honourably uphold their elected duty — namely, to best serve the interests of taxpayers.

Until recently I was enjoying correspondence (via my MP) with the Climate Minister, Joan Ruddock, in which I urged her to apply due diligence.

Strangely the Minister hasn’t replied to me lately. But my global warming skeptic friends and I are undeterred by such subterfuge, dithering and blind panic. We are steadfastly resolved to bust the greatest science scam of all time.

Gordon Brown’s largess with our taxes has brought this country to near bankruptcy and this must be rectified. For example, he has already wastefully donated at least £1.5 billion to a foreign fund to combat the effects of an arguable disaster caused by arguable climate change.

Britain is then committing itself to higher charges under the The Emission Trading Scheme above the £3 billion per annum at 2008 figures, while the rest of the European Union is set to pay 100 billion Euros per year. Uncle Sam is set to dip his hand into US taxpayers’ pockets for a cool $22 billion every year.

More bad news for eco-fascism is coming, methinks. Watch this space!

Possibly related posts:

  1. Police pension fund conflict of interest raises question of Climategate cover up
  2. Exclusive: Q&A on Climategate with Britain’s Chief Police Officers
  3. Swedegate: Climate professor’s lies exposed By Swedish meteorologists
  4. Climategate Professor Phil Jones could face ten years on fraud charges
  5. Acclaimed Climategate Analyst points to whistleblower rather than hacker

17 Responses to “Prosecutor humiliated in Climategate U-turn:
charges “tainted””

  1. ADE says:

    Big fleas have little fleas

  2. Al [not Gore thankgoodness] says:

    Terrific research and analysis John.
    If you [and your group] don’t carry this through to the end, I fear no one will.
    You and your team give all of us sceptics genuine hope, that the whole AGW, IPCC scam, will coming crashing down and the culprits prosecuted to the nth degree.
    Thanks for all your effort.

    • thanks for your support, Al. It is imperative that the message hits home, as I reported on Friday – the ICO lied and Jones CAN be prosecuted.
      The message in a nutshell is this – the ICO have doubly tainted any hope of prosecuting Jones on the FOIA charges. Jones has powerful friends in high places.
      We must demand that the government takes the case away from the ICO, Norfolk Police, the National Domestic Extremism Team (NDET), a non-accountable secret police group run by ACPO – a private, unaccountable limited company – and give it to the Serious Fraud Office whose remit is to handle these very cases.
      Anything less than I am demanding is either nonfeasance or malfeasance.

  3. Triple Bay says:

    I sure would not want to second guess the authorities here but me thinks this has rain all over it.

    I read this in some forum and forget who the poster was but I noticed his/her comment …..wet roads cause rain…

    This just may be the proof that wet roads do cause rain and we did not have to legislate cap and trade.

  4. Spenc Canada says:

    Ha! Hoisted on their own petard!

    Head on a pike at the entrance to warn all the university scientists please! Figuratively speaking of course!

  5. Dave N says:

    Did you include feedback factors in that funding graph? I’ll bet Phil Jones et all will claim you’re hiding some kind of decline..

  6. David44 says:

    Well, I confess I am no expert in jurisprudence especially the British variety, but I fail to understand how the opinion of the Information Commissioner that Jones, et.al. committed an offense under the Act prejudices prosecution. Isn’t it the ICO’s charge to do exactly that? Isn’t it the same as a prosecutor making the determination that an offense has been committed under any statute, then bringing charges in a court of law?

  7. Geoffrey H Sherrington says:

    It remains to be shown if there was misuse or misdirection of funding. The following emails fit the saying “No smoke without fire”. There is perhaps not enough information in the email collection to draw tight inferences. They are only part quoted below and there is a chance that I have missed some continuity. A search engine is at

    These emails are in turn, 826209667.txt

    Tax avoidance?

    From: “Tatiana M. Dedkova”
    To: K.Briffa@uea.ac.uk
    Subject: schijatov
    Date: Thu, 7 Mar 96 09:41:07 +0500
    Dear Keith, March 6, 1996

    Also, it is important for us if you can transfer the ADVANCE money on the personal accounts which we gave you earlier
    and the sum for one occasion transfer (for example, during one day) will not be more than 10,000 USD. Only in this case we can avoid big taxes and use money for our work as much as possible. Please, inform us what kind of documents and financial reports we must represent you and your administration for these money.
    Was the money granted for this purpose? Were there still country-to-country restrictions on money transfer this soon after the fall of the Berlin Wall?
    From: “Isaak M. Khalatnikov”
    To: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk
    Subject: Keith Briffa
    Date: Tue, 10 Jun 97 07:18:26 +0400 (MSD)
    Dear Keith,
    Thank you for the message of 5 June, 1997.
    I am anderstanding your difficulties with transfering money and I
    think the best way for us if you will bring money to Krasnoyarsk
    and I give you a receipt.
    Rashit will go to Yamal at the end of June and I go to the Polar
    Urals at the beginnind of July. We can find money temporary at our Institute and other sources for three months to fulfill our fieldworks.
    Sincerely yours Stepan Shiyatov
    Is this money laundering legal? How much must one declare to customs at the borders involved?
    From: Keith Briffa
    To: evag@ifor.krasnoyarsk.su
    Subject: transfer
    Date: Wed Nov 18 11:04:42 1998
    Cc: stepan@ipae.uran.ru
    I am told that the money transfer ( 5000 u.s. dollars) should have gone to the bank account you stated. Please let me know if this is received by you. I am also sending Stepan’s 5000 dollars to Switzerland now to be carried back by his colleague.
    best wishes

This website is for sale for $10,000. Contact us if interested.