Key Global Warming Court Case hit by Fatal Technicality

Written by PSI Staff

Climate scientist left with nowhere to hide in unwinnable multi-million dollar libel claim. Michael Mann’s lawyer, Roger McConchie, tries to put on a brave face as his client’s SLAPP suit against Tim Ball hits a fatal technicality that bodes ill for Penn. State University’s climate data fraudster.  Defeat and disgrace for Mann is inevitable due to his continued refusal to show in open court what Mann still laughingly terms his “proprietary data.”

Mann extract

Last week McConchie, who “literally wrote the book” on Canadian libel law, issued a standard facile press release dismissing as “preposterous…nonsense” a Principia Scientific International (PSI) article in which John O’Sullivan, an outspoken party to the proceedings, astonishingly declared Mann’s case against Ball effectively dead.  O’Sullivan immediately replied mocking McConchie. As we see detailed below, McConchie can’t flim-flam his way out of this one.

To readers unfamiliar with Canadian rules of civil procedure, Under Canadian law (Sedona Canada Principles), it is unlawful for an attorney to be complicit in his client’s intentional withholding of key evidence from the court.  Penalties and sanctions include fines, professional sanctions and disbarment for wilful offenders, not to mention potential summary judgment in favor of the opposing litigants (in this case, Dr Tim Ball).

The Sedona Canada Principles (see www.thesedonaconference.org) provide guidance with respect to the evidence preservation/disclosure obligation [1]. Canada demands that all litigants (and their attorneys) preserve documents or records from a wide-variety of data types, storage locations and the applicable applications to retrieve such information (if it relates to out-of-date or older archived records). For Michael Mann, this meant he had to prevail upon the Information Technology personnel at Penn. State University and his former employers at the University of Virginia to retrieve and surrender to him (and the British Columbia Supreme Court) all paperwork plus any “data and information stored in electronic form”

The Sedona Canada Principles are of great advantage to Dr Ball being that Mann cannot persist indefinitely in unlawfully keeping under wraps his “secret science.”  Already three years have passed since Mann first filed his claim against Ball after Ball published an article in Canada Free Press whereby he joked that Mann “belongs in the state penn, not Penn State.“

But all joking aside, the intentional concealing of key evidence is always fatal to any offending litigant’s claims, and any such act of concealment is known in the legal profession as spoliation.  Wilful spoliators (evidence destroyers/concealers) now face the most stringent penalties under Canadian law.

The Sedona Canada Principles is the preferred weapon against spoliators and was implemented across Canadian courts from 2006 to respond to the explosion in the amount and nature of information being created and facilitated by the introduction of computer technology in all walks of life.

Respected Canadian legal expert, John Kingman Phillips of Fernandes Hearn LLP, explains as follows:

What is Spoliation?

Spoliation has been summarized in North American Road Ltd. v. Hitachi Construction Machinery Co. (2005) by the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, as follows:

    Spoliation is the destruction or material alteration of evidence, or potentially the failure to preserve property for another’s use as evidence in litigation that is pending or reasonably foreseeable (Osepchuk v. Tim Hortons 1645, [2003] A.J. No. 542, 2003 ABQB 364 at paras. 43-44). Spoliation creates the rebuttable presumption that the evidence would have been unfavourable to the party that destroyed it (St. Louis v. Canada (1896), 25 S.C.R. 649 at 652-653).

In the discovery setting, inappropriate records preservation or counsel’s failure to advise the litigant of the records preservation obligation, may affect the litigant’s chances for success in its claim or defence. This risk becomes particularly acute where electronic records and data are concerned, given the volume, nature and ease of erasure or modification of such material, and where the scope of what may be relevant remains uncertain.

In one of the few appellate cases to address the point, the Alberta Court of Appeal in McDougall v. Black & Decker Canada Inc. (2008), summarized the Canadian law on spoliation as follows:

    1. Spoliation currently refers to the intentional destruction of relevant evidence when litigation is existing or pending.

    2. The principal remedy for spoliation is the imposition of a rebuttable presumption of fact that the lost or destroyed evidence would not assist the spoliator. The presumption can be rebutted by evidence showing the spoliator did not intend, by destroying the evidence, to affect the litigation, or by other evidence to prove or repel the case.

    3. Outside this general framework other remedies may be available — even where evidence has been unintentionally destroyed. Remedial authority for these remedies is found in the court’s rules of procedure and its inherent ability to prevent abuse of process, and remedies may include such relief as the exclusion of expert reports and the denial of costs.

    4. The courts have not yet found that the intentional destruction of evidence gives rise to an intentional tort, nor that there is a duty to preserve evidence for purposes of the law of negligence, although these issues, in most jurisdictions, remain open.

    5. Generally, the issues of whether spoliation has occurred, and what remedy should be given if it has, are matters best left for trial where the trial judge can consider all of the facts and fashion the most appropriate response.

    6. Pre-trial relief may be available in the exceptional case where a party is particularly disadvantaged by the destruction of evidence. But generally this is accomplished through the applicable rules of court, or the court’s general discretion with respect to costs and the control of abuse of process.

Mann’s case is thus unwinnable as long as he refuses to show his secret r2 regression numbers. We know he still has them and are not lost or destroyed because he admitted as much in court papers in 2011. He withholds them deliberately and thus holds an unfair advantage in these proceedings.

Tim Ball’s lawyers now enjoy an array of potential sanctions (including dismissal of claims and striking of defences) to defeat the Penn State data fraudster, who, if past behaviour is any guide, won’t be giving up his secret science.

Michael Mann is particularly desperate to keep hidden his r2 regression computer code, which have been withheld from sceptical scientists who wanted to verify his work since 1998. Larry Bell, over at Forbes, has a fine article (Sept 18, 2012) giving some bankground into this.  It is the code that, if seen in open court, will prove conclusively whether Mann intentionally and deliberately faked his ‘hockey stick’ graph to create the illusion, most famously in the globally influential UN’s IPCC Report of 2001 (AR3), that humans were dangerously warming earth’s climate. Mann then compounded his mendacity and ill-gotten fame by (falsely) claiming to share a Nobel Prize with the IPCC which PSI’s Thomas Richard first exposed. In his court papers Mann also fraudulently claimed a slew of official investigations cleared of him of any wrongdoing. But none of those investigations ever had sight of those hidden r2 regression numbers Tim Ball (and I) want examined in the BC Court.

 It is the crucial evidence that will prove once and for all whether Ball’s “state penn” jibe was fair comment or not. By foolishly and arrogantly suing Tim Ball for libel in the British Columbia Supreme Court, Mann’s day of reckoning has finally come.

—————–

[1] The Sedona Canada Principles:

Principle 1: Electronically stored information is discoverable.

Principle 2: In any proceeding, the parties should ensure that steps taken in the discovery process are proportionate, taking into account  (i) the nature and scope of the litigation, including the importance and complexity of the issues, interest and amounts at stake; (ii) the relevance of the available electronically stored information; (iii) its importance to the court’s adjudication in a given case; and (iv) the costs, burden and delay that may be imposed on the parties to deal with electronically stored information. 

Principle 3: As soon as litigation is reasonably anticipated, parties must consider their obligation to take reasonable and good faith steps to preserve potentially relevant electronically stored information. 

Principle 4: Counsel and parties should meet and confer as soon as practicable, and on an ongoing basis, regarding the identification, preservation, collection, review and production of electronically stored information.

Principle 5: The parties should be prepared to produce relevant electronically stored information that is reasonably accessible in terms of cost and burden. 

Principle 6: A party should not be required, absent agreement or a court order based on demonstrated need and relevance, to search for or collect deleted or residual electronically stored information.  

Principle 7: A party may satisfy its obligation to preserve, collect, review and produce electronically stored information in good faith by using electronic tools and processes such as data sampling, searching or by using selection criteria to collect potentially relevant electronically stored information.

Principle 8: Parties should agree as early as possible in the litigation process on the format in which electronically stored information will be produced. Parties should also agree on the format, content and organization of information to be exchanged in any required list of documents as part of the discovery process.

Principle 9: During the discovery process parties should agree to or, if necessary, seek judicial direction on measures to protect privileges, privacy, trade secrets and other confidential information relating to the production of electronic documents and data.

Principle 10: During the discovery process, parties should anticipate and respect the rules of the forum in which the litigation takes place, while appreciating the impact any decisions may have in related actions in other forums.

Principle 11: Sanctions should be considered by the court where a party will be materially prejudiced by another party’s failure to meet any obligation to preserve, collect, review or produce electronically stored information.  The party in default may avoid sanctions if it demonstrates the failure was not intentional or reckless. 

Principle 12: The reasonable costs of preserving, collecting and reviewing electronically stored information will generally be borne by the party producing it. In limited circumstances, it may be appropriate for the parties to arrive at a different allocation of costs on an interim basis, by either agreement or court order.

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Comments (32)

  • Avatar

    AJ Virgo

    |

    Team Bell has delivered a knockout and this slowest of 8 counts being performed over the unconscious suit clearly has Manns groupies (yuk) here in the comments section completely nonplussed.

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”jsullivan”]We’ve let Ridley show us all in great detail what a wackjob he really is and now, due to popular demand, anything he now posts will be deleted. For anyone wanting further proof Ridley is a pyscho, simply Google: peter ridley cyberstalker[/quote]I feel bad for having fed the troll. In my defense, I was trying to figure out his motives. I now realize that for whackos being whacked is itself a motive.

  • Avatar

    Yelder Retep

    |

    Hi John O’,

    You really do hate people knowing the truth about you, don’t you and you’ll do all in your power to stop the spotlight shining onto the skeletons in your “cupboard 55”. You’ll recall my 14th January 2011 E-mail to your PSI group in which I said “ .. if PSI is ever perceived by disciples and followers of the CACC doctrine as a threat to their cause not only PSI but everyone associated with it will be attacked with whatever can be used or invented. Each of us will be carefully researched and any skeletons in cupboards will be dragged out into the open. Any suggestion of past dishonesty or irrationality will be exploited .. ” (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/psi-due-diligence-20102011-selected-e.html).

    The skeletons in the dark recesses of your cupboard certainly have been caught in the spotlight since then, haven’t they. You can huff and puff all you want John o’ but facts are facts!!

    In your other comment on this blog thread (#9) you claimed “I am a party to the action in the Mann-v-Ball case .. ” but as always with your claims, close scrutiny is warranted. Andrew Skolnick advised me recently that Michael Mann’s lawyer Roger McConchie said recently “ .. O’Sullivan is not a party to the lawsuit, actual or otherwise .. ”.

    Unlike you, Roger McConchie knows what he is talking about, having qualified in law through recognised channels rather than watching Judge Judy, reading a prisoners’ guide to law then purchasing his LLB from an Internet diploma mill like Hill University,

    Note that Roger has had a successful career as a litigator for decades (http://www.libelandprivacy.com/roger-mcconchie_bio.html) unlike your 18 years of intermittent employment as a high-school art teacher followed by a few years blogging on the subject as a “legal analyst” (http://johnosullivan.wordpress.com/about/).

    Pete Ridley
    http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/curriculum-vitae-for-john-osullivan-2010.html
    http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/spotlighton-principia-scientific.html

  • Avatar

    jsullivan

    |

    We’ve let Ridley show us all in great detail what a wackjob he really is and now, due to popular demand, anything he now posts will be deleted. For anyone wanting further proof Ridley is a pyscho, simply Google: peter ridley cyberstalker

  • Avatar

    Yelder Retep

    |

    John Anthony O’Sullivan’s 2009 “Cupboard 55” novel “Summit Shock” includes items relating to his claim in 2011 to have contracted with Tim Ball if he lost the ongoing Mann v Ball defamation case (http://johnosullivan.livejournal.com/42475.html). For the real characters in this “TRUE” story read John for Leo and Barbara for Carla.

    Chapter 24 E-mail from: Carla to Leo on 26 May 2004 “ .. I wired five hundred .. should cover the mortgage and some left .. ”.

    Chapter 35 “ .. Monday 12th May 2008 .. Bailiffs had been at my door twice in less than three weeks. Every possession of worth I had was carefully noted on their inventories .. Bankruptcy was an increasing likelihood .. ”.

    Chapter 38 “ .. I was gutted at having to give up my home .. I had to distract myself and mourn no more for the loss my beloved east coast home now rented cheaply to a family of three .. ”.

    E-mail of 13 Aug 2009 from Carla to Leo “ .. I will pay the difference to the mortgage company direct if you give me the details. Thank your new partner for helping out .. ”.

    E-mail of 13 Aug 2009 from Leo to Carla “ .. I have now been referred to a psychiatrist and will soon get treatment to cope with my stress. About the house – after taking off agent fees and insurance that leaves me £400 a month short of what is owed .. If you do the above and pay what you have promised, then I will continue to do the work that benefits us both. But my mental health comes first and I won’t put up with you not paying what you agreed .. ”.

    E-mail of 13 Aug 2009 from Carla to Leo “ .. Glad to hear you are getting help… but what’s with ’Sounds Fair ‘? .. are you going to give up on what we have worked so hard for? I am very happy to carry on as I am. Do not need to speak with you on the phone – we can make contact through e-mail ..”.

    E-mail of 13 Aug 2009 from Leo to Carla “ .. Because you have not paid the mortgage for several months I was forced to give up my home and live elsewhere. Not my choice! If my new partner hadn’t paid my mortgage I would have lost my house altogether by now. You owe her for the three months she paid .. ”.

    Then during a chat with his 23-year old “Lilly Stevens. My Lilly of the Valleys” QUOTE: .. it is money I am doomed to pursue to the bitter end. .. . Carla must go; Carla must be put away for good .. “So you’d only think about more children if you got your share of Carla’s money?”
    She had me to a tea .. “It’s what I’ve worked for .. I’ve not amounted to much either financially or as a role model.” “But that was then, you know it would be different with me. Carla was wrong for you – you married for the wrong reasons – not for love.” She said it .. UNQUOTE.

    Whether or not everything in that novel is true, as John O’Sullivan claimed, the house mortgage issues seem very close to the truth and that final chapter appears to sum up the owner of PSI Acumen Ltd. very nicely.

    Pete Ridley
    http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/curriculum-vitae-for-john-osullivan-2010.html
    http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/spotlighton-principia-scientific.html

  • Avatar

    Yelder Retep

    |

    In a novel that he self-published in August 2009, over two years prior to that boastful announcement of his, John O’Sullivan did talk about his long-standing mortgage payment problems. I’ll post some relevant extracts from “Summit Shock” (the second of his two “factional” novels in what he called his “Cupboard 55” genre, which might reasonably be regarded as “ .. a pretender poisoned by dirt .. ”). At one time John O’Sullivan make available 7 sample chapters of that novel (at http://cupboard55summitshock.blogspot.co.uk/) but now he only provides a copy of the front cover and even removed the description of his “Cupboard 55” genre. Never mind, retired New York investigative journalist Andrew Skolnick wisely saved a copy before it vanished from John O’Sullivan’s blog and kindly made it available to us all (http://www.aaskolnick.com/global_deniers/SUMMIT%20SHOCK.htm).

    Notice that claim by John O’Sullivan at the end of those 7 sample chapters that it is a “ .. thrilling TRUE story .. ” (my emphasis). I’ll provide some extracts relating to that home which John O’Sullivan was so magnanimously prepared to sacrifice if Tim Ball lost the Mann v Ball defamation case ongoing through the Supreme Court of British Columbia but with two false names replaced with real ones. i.e. Barbara Bracci (see his commentary at http://www.blogcatalog.com/blogs/summit-shock-american-court-corruption/all/) his second wife, is referred to Carla Limoncello in the book and John O’Sullivan as Leo Bloom. He used real names for some characters, including Summit Captain William Peek. Exchanges between John O’Sullivan, Peek’s sisters and Jerry Skrocki, another character in the book under that false name Jerry Polanski, can be found here http://www.schlissellawfirm.com/blog/2009/court-of-appeals-full-custody-includes-the-right-to-make-educational-decisions/.

    Pete Ridley
    http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/curriculum-vitae-for-john-osullivan-2010.html
    http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/spotlighton-principia-scientific.html

  • Avatar

    Yelder Retep

    |

    On the 21st Feb. 2014 John O’Sullivan (owner of this PSI blog) published another of his ludicrous malicious attacks “MICHAEL MANN FACES BANKRUPTCY AS HIS COURTROOM CLIMATE CAPERS COLLAPSE” – http://www.principia-scientific.org/michael-mann-faces-bankruptcy-as-his-courtroom-climate-capers-collapse.html). In it he boasted “ .. Respected Aussie climate commentator, Jo Nova was one of the few to commend my unparalled commitment to Ball’s cause .. ”. He linked to a 2-year old article by Joanne Nova in which she said “ .. John O’Sullivan is putting in above and beyond what any single skeptical soul ought to .. Tim Ball and John O’Sullivan are helping all the free citizens of the West. The burden should not be theirs alone .. ”.

    At that time Joanne Nova appears to have accepted on face value John O’Sullivan’s 7th Dec. 2011 article in which he boasted to the blogosphere that “I Just Bet My House on the Outcome of Science Trial of the Century .. Yesterday this author literally wagered his home, life savings, and all his possessions on the outcome of a crucial global warming lawsuit currently ongoing in Canada .. what is it that drove me to such apparent recklessness endangering not only my own well-being but that of my family? .. So persuasive is the evidence to me that last night I signed a contract in favor of Dr. Ball to forsake my worldly goods in the event the B.C. court ruled in favor of his adversary, Dr. Michael Mann.. “ (http://johnosullivan.livejournal.com/42475.html).

    On face value that seemed to be a magnanimous gesture indeed – but was it really? In the spirit of “transparency” which John O’Sullivan used to claim as so important to his PSI blog perhaps he would like to advise us here of what happened in January 2014 to that Norfolk UK house of his. Also, perhaps he’d like to notify Companies House as to from where he is now running his private company PSI Acumen Ltd. of which his PSI blog is claimed to be a “subsidiary”. It seems that he hasn’t yet updated his company records notifying them and other interested parties of his recent change of address.

    Being open and honest can be very embarrassing but, being an optimist, I hope that one day John O’Sullivan will live up to what he said in another of his malicious attacks on Michael Mann “ .. In the final analysis full transparency is worth the cost .. ” (http://www.principia-scientific.org/junk-scientist-michael-mann-now-promoting-hiv-aids-misinformation.html) – but I won’t hold my breath waiting.

    Pete Ridley
    http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/curriculum-vitae-for-john-osullivan-2010.html
    http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/spotlighton-principia-scientific.html

  • Avatar

    Greg House

    |

    [quote name=”Sunsettommy”]I encourage anyone here to report this many times banned pest,[/quote]

    As administrator, isn’t there on option to receive an email notification every time someone posts a comment?

  • Avatar

    Sunsettommy

    |

    From now on the chronic troll named Peter Redley will have ALL of his new comments DELETED!

    I encourage anyone here to report this many times banned pest,to help me delete his comments and ban him again.

  • Avatar

    Sunsettommy

    |

    [quote name=”Lonny Eachus”]Just a suggestion…

    I’m trying to get a feeling for this “Yelder Retep” or “Peter Ridley” or whatever his name is…

    While it seems apparent that it is justified to remove his posts, it does make one curious.

    Would someone please post a link to his blog so the rest of us can see what he is blathering about?[/quote]

    He has been banned many times because he is an off topic troll who likes to attack people.

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”Lonny Eachus”] . . . so the rest of us can see what he is blathering about?[/quote]I think If I had more time I would have been able to figure out what his point was/is by reading more of his website. But I have a 4 hour cutoff that I stick to religiously.

  • Avatar

    Lonny Eachus

    |

    Just a suggestion…

    I’m trying to get a feeling for this “Yelder Retep” or “Peter Ridley” or whatever his name is…

    While it seems apparent that it is justified to remove his posts, it does make one curious.

    Would someone please post a link to his blog so the rest of us can see what he is blathering about?

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”Yelder Retep”]. . . pop over to my blog profile . . . [/quote]I have seen your blog. Your cut and paste skills are on full display! Your friends and family must be quite proud of you.

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    Yelder,

    You don’t get it. For all anybody knows you’re the guy that lives next door to John O. and you have a grudge because his dog pooped on your lawn. You need to give your audience some indication of who you are so that we don’t dismiss you as just another misguided AGW loon.

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”Yelder Retep”]Hi James (AKA solvingornadoes),

    There are none so blind as those who will not see.[/quote]It’s regrettable that the rules of reality prevent you from providing us a link to your imagination so that others might have some idea of what it is you think you see.

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”Yelder Retep”]. . . like the dirty old pot-bellied stove-pot calling the shiny new kettle black. More to come on that.[/quote]Yelder,

    You don’t get it. If you come to a blog/website and the only message you have to convey to the audience of that blog/website is that the people running the blog are trying to censor your message, well, people are going to dismiss you as a kook. I’m just saying that maybe you would/might gain a wider audience if you put more effort into peppering your posts with substantive issues so that it is not so easy for your audience to so quickly determine what a complete whackjob you really are.

  • Avatar

    James Rollins

    |

    So from the above, we all come away with the concept John O’Sullivan has had a life so forgettable he’s the poster child for

    “CLEAN HANDS” during any judicial proceedings. The color Icee he gets, when he had the car washed & waxed last, whether he got the coconut rum deodorant for an extra 2.98:

    but it’s not him, whose friends,

    are being rattled till they can barely sit still due to the enormous, slow-motion implosion of Michael Mann and his mystique.

    He can possibly come up on charges there where he works now.

    But you, you’re just going to have to watch it happen and know what it was to have chosen
    the
    wrong
    friends.
    Your friends won’t be in history books for a hundred years as ferretting out science fraud.

    Your friends are gonna be the frauds we sniffed out like rats and bet at the very game you bet they, we, couldn’t:

    Because Michael Mann’s a chickens*** and he’ll blink because I say he’ll blink.

    The first time he produces those discovery documents lawyers are gonna line up for free just to get their eyes on the papers that are going to be the downfall of the largest extant, protracted US Government scam of it’s time.

    By the way if you want the footage I have pictures of John O’Sullivan eating his ice cream and it was from a

    (1)Sugar Cone
    (2)Bowl with plastic spoon

    You don’t get to know simply cause ya wanna know.

    What’cha need to do, is go find some way for Michael Mann to manage to somehow disappear off a cruise ship to never be seen again yet work from the front lines of the climate wars around the world.

    Mann’s a fraud and it’s hilarious he has to watch it all in slow motion to realize ten years after his stinking corpse is dead,

    he’ll be another forgotten wannabe in coffee table books telling of stunning fraud in Academia.

    Pfft I’ll go ahead and tell yas Peter you see desperate: he had his ice cream with a cup and plastic spoon.

    Now ya can’t tell people you did important investigation into the man making your guru look like the wannabe he was: he wanted to be somebody important.

    What Michael Mann wound up being is the Enron Face of Government White Collar Crime;

    and we who are, real working scientists, always knew he’s just a third rate low rent schmuch without any more morality to him than a Mamba in a sleeping bag.

    Sullivan’s got my ip address if you’ve got a big shot smartass you think can stand being told kiss my a** in a court room. Michael Mann’s a public figure and that means he,

    you,
    everybody associated with one CENT of public money being spent is O.P.E.N. S.E.A.S.O.N.

    Chump.

    Michael Mann’s been committing fraud since I saw him say under oath the reason there aren’t more tree bore samples was the difficulty of getting ”all that equipment out into deep wildernesses.”

    Increment Borers. God forbid they use a battery drill for part of it.

    Michael Mann is a criminal and criminopath fraud and a chump. Because I say so.

    http://goo.gl/5WbhXb

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”Yelder Retep”]I’ve been blogging about the CACC nonsense since 2007 and only became aware of your existence a few days ago.[/quote]As a science communicator I think I understand the difficulties of being an effective thereof. You appear to deeply believe that you have some kind of substantive scientific dispute with CACC and/or PSI. If you do, I can’t figure out what it is, honestly. You need to put more effort at getting your core message across–assuming you even have one. And, you need to stop blaming PSI for your inability to communicate effectively. Grow up.

  • Avatar

    Yelder Retep

    |

    ohn O’,

    You said “ .. I do not have a wife .. ” but you certainly did when you self-published your two “factional” novels “Vanilla Girl” and “Summit Shock”, both of which had a mention in Andrew Skolnick’s Affidavit #1 (http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/2012%2004%2019%20-%20Affidavit%201%20of%20Skolnick.pdf) and on Lucia Liljegren’s thread (http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/do-industrial-countries-absorb-co2/).

    Your self-published factional novel “Summit Shock”, which you claimed to be a “true story”, is about Barbara’s experiences as an officer in the New York State Correction Service and how (and why) you and she met up, married then split up. Remember that you claimed at the end of the sample chapters “ .. To read the rest of this thrilling true story buy the ebook .. POSTED BY JOHN O’SULLIVAN AT 06:48 2009-08-08 .. ”.In Chapter 36 you disclose how on Friday 4th July 2008 your alter ego Telemachus Johns advised you QUOTE: .. “ .. Here’s how to get rich and throw off that New York millstone from your neck .. ” .. he enunciated about the route to fiscal fecundity by way of (you) relieving (your) estranged wife .. of her anticipated fortune .. “First you gotta re-write this book you’re writing on her .. the old fish is hooked good and proper .. File for divorce, man! Once you got the bitch where you want her. She’ll have her millions and be praising you to the hilt like the swooning sow she always was. After she’s given you all the hero worship you can handle a good divorce lawyer will slice off your half of her winnings and you’re away. Master stroke! .. ” .. “Oh, Jesus, not another Telemachus ‘master stroke.’ The last time you pulled one of them I got slung into a police cell – my name’s still in the gutter now!” “Oh, here we go – not the schoolgirl story again! .. Well, sometime you’re gonna have to stop being the mooch – sucking off cash cow (Barbara).” .. UNQUOTE.

    You went on to talk about a ‘phone conversation with Barbara on Monday 7th July 2008 in which you told her QUOTE: .. “ … I got another letter about it this morning- threat to repossess – they’re taking my house.” .. “That’s a lot of crap, Leo. I make the payments every month – I won’t let you lose your home” .. UNQUOTE.

    Well, those anticipated $millions that you talked about in your “true story” never materialised and on top of that it appears that Barbara saw the light and by 2012 was no longer prepared to let you milk her, eh John O’, hence your present predicament!!

  • Avatar

    Yelder Retep

    |

    John,

    You will recall being featured in Gareth Renowden’s 4th July 2011 “Hot Topic” article “SO MANY LIES – AND THE LIAR WHO TELLS THEM” (http://hot-topic.co.nz/so-many-lies-and-the-liar-who-tells-them/), just at the time of the formal launch of his PSI blog.

    On 6th July 2011 Andrew Skolnick made the point on Gareth Renowden’s article, that “ .. It’s really amazing how O’Sullivan’s many online resumes and profiles contradict each other. In my many years of investigative reporting, I’ve encountered a lot of highly skilled liars and frauds. This John O’Sullivan is not one of them .. ” (http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/do-industrial-countries-absorb-co2/) . More relating to that can be found in “Curriculum Vitae for John O’Sullivan (2010)” (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/curriculum-vitae-for-john-osullivan-2010.html). I say in “SpotlightON – PSI and PSI Acumen Ltd” Section 4.0 Over-ambitious and questionable Membership Claims “ .. As for many claims emanating from PSI, closer scrutiny is warranted .. ” (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/spotlighton-principia-scientific.html).

    You’ll recall Steven Mosher’s comment on that very interesting thread of exchanges on Lucia’s blog “ .. sorry O’sullivan, you have hurt and you continue to hurt Tim Ball .. ”.

  • Avatar

    Yelder Retep

    |

    John,

    Like you, Andrew Skolnick is also a party to the action in the Mann v Ball case, having submitted a couple of affidavits. In July 2012 Richard Littlemore linked to them in his article “Affidavits in Michael Mann Libel Suit Reveal Astonishing Facts About Tim Ball Associate John O’Sullivan (http://www.desmogblog.com/affidavits-michael-mann-libel-suit-reveal-astonishing-facts-about-tim-ball-associate-john-o-sullivan). Those affidavits align with much of what I have posted on my blog. In his 181-page Affidavit #1 Andrew Skolnick talks about his investigations into your involvement in the case, your questionable claims about qualifications, PSI, your second wife Barbara, your self-published factional novels “Vanilla Girl” and Summit Shock” and much much more – well worth reading!

    On 17th November 2011 when commenting on a RankExploits article by Lucia Liljegren you said of Andrew Skolnick “ .. it is time for Skolnick to move on .. and for others should stop taking his utterances at face value .. You have all too easily taken Skolnick’s word on everything as if he is a trustworthy source .. ” (http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/do-industrial-countries-absorb-co2/). Well, that really is like the dirty old pot-bellied stove-pot calling the shiny new kettle black. More to come on that.

  • Avatar

    Yelder Retep

    |

    John,

    You make claims about personal attacks, your marital status and participating in the Mann-v-Ball case but as I have said on several occasions, no-one should ever accept your claims on face value – close scrutiny is always warranted.

    I do not attack you but do what you claimed PSI was all about when you formally launched it in July 2011. Your home page “ core values” included “ .. the pursuit of truth ought to be our abiding goal .. ”. I pursue the truth about the PSI blog, its members and PSI Acumen Ltd and put it into the public domain for others to consider. I have said on numerous occasions that if you consider that I have misrepresented anything then tell me what, when and how so that I can review and consider whether a retraction or apology are warranted.

    Since I started spotlighting PSI following your unfounded defamation allegation two years ago against Professor Curry, Andrew Skolnick and me (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/professor-judith-curry-threatened-with.html) you have failed to do this. Don’t you think that it is time that you put up or shut up John‘O?

    Last October Andrew Skolnick E-mailed your second wife Barbara, you and me about a “ .. BBC report on how a down-and-out fellow named Peter Smith was able to “better” himself through the online university American University of London http://www.care2.com/causes/rescue-dog-gets-an-mba-and-uncovers-fraud-at-online-university.html. Peter Smith turns out to be a poor unwanted dog living at a rescue shelter, with no one to take him in. And that’s not the only thing Peter has in common with John O’Sullivan — his resourcefulness, chutzpah, and shameless dishonesty remind me of you know who .. ”.

    Perhaps you’d like to enlighten your followers here about the contents of your response and while you are at it, about how you obtained your “LLB” in 2010. Wasn’t that from the on-line diploma mill Hill University?

  • Avatar

    Sunsettommy

    |

    [quote name=”jsullivan”]Mr Ridley, your personal attacks on me are not fact-based. I do not have a wife. Plus, I am a party to the action in the Mann-v-Ball case. Is there any actual fault you can discern in my legal analysis? If you can’t refrain from petty off-topic personal attacks don’t be surprised when our moderator deletes you.[/quote]

    I have banned him many times in the last two weeks,but the man goes around them to keep posting his attacks.

    I am now deleting his new comments as I come across them.

  • Avatar

    jsullivan

    |

    Mr Ridley, your personal attacks on me are not fact-based. I do not have a wife. Plus, I am a party to the action in the Mann-v-Ball case. Is there any actual fault you can discern in my legal analysis? If you can’t refrain from petty off-topic personal attacks don’t be surprised when our moderator deletes you.

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”Yelder Retep”]Hi “solvingtornadoes”,Are you “Jim McGinn, Theoretical Scientist” (http://www.solvingtornadoes.org/) or did you just pinch his blog name to hide behind?[/quote]One and the same (AKA Claudius Denk). So, I don’t think you could accuse me of “pinching” my own identity.[quote name=”Yelder Retep”] I see that one “solving-tornadoes” commented on PSI “Senior Member” Joe Postma’s blog “About” page (http://climateofsophistry.com/about-the-author/) and that “solving-tornadoes” has James McGinn and John O’Sullivan “In his circles” (https://plus.google.com/107013273847994117040/posts).[/quote]It’s amazing the things you can find with a search engine. You should go to google groups and do a search under claudius denk and see that I’ve been kicking alarmist butt for quite some time now.

    Now that we’ve gotten acquainted it’s time for you to answer the question: Are you for full disclosure by scientists or against it?

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”Yelder Retep”]Hi “solvingtornadoes”,My perspective on the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change (CACC) issue, including the PSI blogging group’s involvement, is fact-based.You say that you have been to my blog but perhaps you should go back again and read my articles properly, but please first remove your blinkers. If, after reading them, you still don’t understand my perspective or see the points that I make then I suggest that you read them again more carefully. Others seem to have no trouble understanding, including PSI members, past and present.As for your suggestion that I am one of the CACC alarmists, you are talking nonsense, just as John O’Sullivan does about the Mann v Ball case.[/quote]I’m just trying to give you some feedback to help you communicate better with your audience. I’ve read a number of your posts, and your complete blog. Are you saying it’s acceptable for scientists to keep their data secret from a public that has, purportedly, paid for it? Or are you in favor of full disclosure?

  • Avatar

    Yelder Retep

    |

    Hi “solvingtornadoes”,

    Are you “Jim McGinn, Theoretical Scientist” (http://www.solvingtornadoes.org/) or did you just pinch his blog name to hide behind? I see that one “solving-tornadoes” commented on PSI “Senior Member” Joe Postma’s blog “About” page (http://climateofsophistry.com/about-the-author/) and that “solving-tornadoes” has James McGinn and John O’Sullivan “In his circles” (https://plus.google.com/107013273847994117040/posts).

  • Avatar

    Yelder Retep

    |

    Hi “solvingtornadoes”,

    My perspective on the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change (CACC) issue, including the PSI blogging group’s involvement, is fact-based.

    You say that you have been to my blog but perhaps you should go back again and read my articles properly, but please first remove your blinkers. If, after reading them, you still don’t understand my perspective or see the points that I make then I suggest that you read them again more carefully. Others seem to have no trouble understanding, including PSI members, past and present.

    As for your suggestion that I am one of the CACC alarmists, you are talking nonsense, just as John O’Sullivan does about the Mann v Ball case.

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”Yelder Retep”]This seems like more hot air from the PSI blog’s “CEO and Legal Consultant”. WHo would most likely understand the law best, someone “QUOTE: .. who “literally wrote the book” on Canadian libel law .. ” like Mr McConchie, or an out-of-work high school art teacher like John O’Sullivan?

    For more see “SpotlightON – Michael Mann v Tim Ball et al.” (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/spotlighton-michael-mann-v-tim-ball-et.html).[/quote]Yelder,
    You seem to have a very opinionated perspective on all of this. I’m just not seeing how or where your opinions evolve into a specific point. (And, yes, I did go to your website, but that didn’t help.) I think you need to give your audience some perspective of where you stand on specific issues:
    Are you saying it’s alright for scientists to withold data?
    Even if it is data paid for by the government?
    Are you saying MM never witheld data?
    Are you saying he did but that we should make an exception in this instance, because . . ?
    I don’t think it is altogether unreasonable to expect you alarmists to take a stand on something substantive every once in a while. Do you?

  • Avatar

    Yelder Retep

    |

    This seems like more hot air from the PSI blog’s “CEO and Legal Consultant”. WHo would most likely understand the law best, someone “QUOTE: .. who “literally wrote the book” on Canadian libel law .. ” like Mr McConchie, or an out-of-work high school art teacher like John O’Sullivan?

    For more see “SpotlightON – Michael Mann v Tim Ball et al.” (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/spotlighton-michael-mann-v-tim-ball-et.html).

  • Avatar

    Mark Stevens

    |

    [b]Dead Mann Walking……[/b]

  • Avatar

    Mervyn

    |

    This is a very informative article that allows us to better appreciate the predicament of Michael Mann.

    Great article.

Comments are closed