The Tallbloke Search Warrant

Here is a copy of the search warrant. The name of the detective who swore the information giving rise to the warrant has been whited out at Tall Bloke’s request. (Tall Bloke said that he had “promised anonymity” to the detective. I don’t know why he would do this, but he was the one surrounded by six detectives.) The information (affidavit) supporting the warrant doesn’t seem to have been provided to Tall Bloke so far.

The warrant entitles the police to enter and search the premises for “evidence of an indictable offence” referring to section 15 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. In its Climategate series, even the Guardian was unable to conclude that there had been a crime. So I wonder how the Detective Inspector came to the conclusion that the computers at Tall Bloke’s residence would provide “material that is likely to be relevant evidence and be of substantial value to the investigation of the offence”.

The warrant does not include “special purpose material”, which,under section 14, is said to include “(b)journalistic material, other than excluded material.” “Journalistic material” is defined in section 13 as follows:

13 Meaning of “journalistic material”.
(1) Subject to subsection (2) below, in this Act “journalistic material” means material acquired or created for the purposes of journalism.
(2)Material is only journalistic material for the purposes of this Act if it is in the possession of a person who acquired or created it for the purposes of journalism.
(3)A person who receives material from someone who intends that the recipient shall use it for the purposes of journalism is to be taken to have acquired it for those purposes.

In California, bloggers are legally included as journalists. I wonder what the UK situation is.

123 Comments

  1. Kan
    Posted Dec 16, 2011 at 1:32 AM | Permalink

    From the date on the warrant we know it was not due to AMacs Off Topic post at Dec 14, 2011 at 12:00 PM on the PNAS thread about Bernie M. Anything Bernie related is dangerous territory :)

  2. MJW
    Posted Dec 16, 2011 at 1:34 AM | Permalink

    The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984? What more can I say?

    • Steve McIntyre
      Posted Dec 16, 2011 at 1:46 AM | Permalink

      13 Meaning of “journalistic material”.

      (1) Subject to subsection (2) below, in this Act “journalistic material” means material acquired or created for the purposes of journalism.

      (2)Material is only journalistic material for the purposes of this Act if it is in the possession of a person who acquired or created it for the purposes of journalism.

      (3)A person who receives material from someone who intends that the recipient shall use it for the purposes of journalism is to be taken to have acquired it for those purposes.

      • Mark F
        Posted Dec 16, 2011 at 2:02 AM | Permalink

        Wow. Lots of things to establish, lots of room for jurisdictional anomalies wrt interpretation, and lots of potential costs. I think it’s almost time for the decryption of the remaining 200k documents, if they can be sanitized (privacy issues / redaction) in time.

      • MJW
        Posted Dec 16, 2011 at 8:49 PM | Permalink

        A very recent High Court of Justice case, citing Castells v Spain (1992) 14 EHRR 445, held that “journalistic material” can be produced by someone who isn’t a professional journalist. The court said:

        It is to be noted that the statute refers to “journalism” and “journalistic material”, and not to “journalists”. This is consistent with the Strasbourg jurisprudence.
        That distinguishes between types of speech rather than types of speaker. The type of speech to which it gives most protection is that which is directed to informing public debate (or, as it sometimes put, imparting information and ideas on political questions and on other matters of public interest). It is that type of speech which is referred to by a figure of speech as “the press”, or as journalism, in that body of case law. The Strasbourg jurisprudence does not look to the form in which the speech is published, and, if it is in a particular form, categorise it as journalism even if its content is no more than gossip which does not inform public debate.

        • Tom Gray
          Posted Dec 17, 2011 at 8:33 PM | Permalink

          If I read the statement correctly, it is indicating that even articles in newspapers need not be journalism if they do not “form part of the public debate.” I do not see this as expanding the interpretation but rather as limiting it even in some cases in which a newspaper publishes an article

        • MJW
          Posted Dec 17, 2011 at 9:18 PM | Permalink

          It may in some instances limit the definition of “journalistic material,” but in the cited case, the intent was clearly to extend the definition beyond material produced by the institutional press. The previous paragraph to the one I quoted says:

          Although journalists enjoy no special status or rights in law, the activity of journalism does. Journalism is given a special status in a number of English statutes, including the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 ss.9 and 13. For example, in the Data Protection Act 1998 (which is relied on in this case by the Claimants) s.32 is headed “Journalism, literature and art”. The section recognises Art 10 rights and makes special provision where the processing of data “is undertaken with a view to the publication by any person of any journalistic, literary or artistic material”.

          In the case it cites, Castells v. Spain, the European Court of Human Rights overturned the conviction of a non-journalist lawyer who wrote an article criticizing the government of Spain.

        • MJW
          Posted Dec 17, 2011 at 10:33 PM | Permalink

          Adding to my previous comment. The High Court’s definition of “journalistic material” both limits and expands the definition. If you’re part of an institutional news organization, it limits the definition, because is says speech isn’t “journalistic material” just because it was produced by a professional journalist. If you aren’t part of an institutional news organization, it expands the definition because it says speech may be journalistic material even though it wasn’t produced by a professional journalist. Quoting further from the court’s opinion:

          Thus in Castells v Spain (1992) 14 EHRR 445 the Court considered a statement made by Mr Castells in an article published in a weekly magazine. Mr Castells was not a professional journalist. He was a lawyer and a senator. But he was in this instance carrying on the activity of journalism.

          This view is supported by the previously quoted passage: “The section recognises Art 10 rights and makes special provision where the processing of data ‘is undertaken with a view to the publication by any person of any journalistic, literary or artistic material’.”

          I think it’s undeniable that Tallbloke’s blog is “directed to informing public debate.”

      • Dotor K
        Posted Dec 21, 2011 at 12:53 PM | Permalink

        Steve.

        About time you added Tallbloke’s Talkshop to your blog roll no?

    • J.H.
      Posted Dec 17, 2011 at 8:23 PM | Permalink

      LoL…. My thoughts exactly. One of life’s little funny bits.

  3. Punksta
    Posted Dec 16, 2011 at 1:47 AM | Permalink

    Anonymity for the detective.

    I have for some time been wondering if there is any police corruption in any of this. Footdragging to aid and abet a coverup ? The UEA and police are after all sister organizations working for the same ultimate employer – the state.

  4. A_S
    Posted Dec 16, 2011 at 2:40 AM | Permalink

    Perhaps a good idea to also white out the address of tallbloke’s University of Leeds work building top right of the warrant…

    • Pete H
      Posted Dec 16, 2011 at 4:19 AM | Permalink

      To late A_S, Leo Hickman of the Guardian has already printed it in an article!

      • tty
        Posted Dec 16, 2011 at 4:30 AM | Permalink

        And according to tallbloke his job is on the line as a result. Well done Guardian!

  5. Posted Dec 16, 2011 at 2:55 AM | Permalink

    Public money well spent… Seriously, these police officers have nothing better to do other than to investigate how information that should be publicly available, managed to get into the hands of the public?

  6. Posted Dec 16, 2011 at 3:15 AM | Permalink

    In its Climategate series, even the Guardian was unable to conclude that there had been a crime.

    Ah, but the questioning of Paul Dennis, followed by David Leigh’s Guardian front page splash implying that he was the Climategate ‘criminal’, in February 2010, has surely taught us that police activity in this case is best seen as an extension of UEA’s admirable public relations drive.

    • David S
      Posted Dec 16, 2011 at 6:49 AM | Permalink

      Which is not entirely surprising in view of the links between UEA’s dodgy PR advisors, Outside Organisation, and Norfolk Constabulary.

    • Punksta
      Posted Dec 16, 2011 at 6:52 AM | Permalink

      Is the Norfolk Constabulary subject to FOI legislation at all ?

  7. Posted Dec 16, 2011 at 3:34 AM | Permalink

    Someone must be terrified that the Climategate III (the third lot of info in the zip file) will be released.

    I think they are trying to put the frighteners on.

  8. Faustino
    Posted Dec 16, 2011 at 3:57 AM | Permalink

    Re: “I don’t know why he would do this,” from my dealings with tallbloke he’s a good bloke who wouldn’t want to cause grief for others.

    The search suggests to me that the police have no idea who released the e-mails, and have not been able to determine whether or not they were stolen. The raid appears to have been prompted by the US DoJ, I’m not sure what their interest is.

    • Ivan
      Posted Dec 16, 2011 at 10:50 PM | Permalink

      Maybe this could help you:

      “I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working on AR5 would be to delete all e-mails at the end of the process. Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden. I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Department of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.”

      Phil Jones

      • Punksta
        Posted Dec 17, 2011 at 2:19 AM | Permalink

        Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden. I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Department of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.” Phil Jones

        Assuming Ivan has correctly quoted Jones – why exactly does Jones’s work have to be hiddden ?

        And it’s one thing to say the DoE is happy (== doesn’t mind ?) that the station data is hidden, quite another that they insist that it has to be hidden.

        • jeez
          Posted Dec 17, 2011 at 4:55 PM | Permalink

          Read the quote carefully. Jones may not be referring to hiding his research, but hiding the way it was funded through DoE. Steve McIntyre noted long ago that CRU gets a lot of money from the US DoE for producing what appears to be minimal work.

          My read of the email above is that Phil’s buddies at DoE apparently (wink wink), were aware of, and didn’t mind, if the bulk of the funds, clearly allocated for specific projects, were diverted to support all sorts of CRU projects, salaries and day to day activities of the department.

          If true, here is the potential for some really embarrassing revelations and an appropriate application of the False Claims Act.

          I know the FOI requests are already filed for DoE. Phil does seem to have a history – snip-. Let’s watch for this. More popcorn please.

  9. Ipman
    Posted Dec 16, 2011 at 3:59 AM | Permalink

    Looking at the exclusions on the Search Warrant, I doubt very much whether the police have any right to remove and clone TB’s computers because there must surely be excluded material on the hard drives. Did the police take proper legal advice before they embarked on this mission for the benefit of Mannkind?

    • jorgekafkazar
      Posted Dec 16, 2011 at 2:45 PM | Permalink

      “We are Federales–Climate Police! We don’t need no steenkin’ legal advice.”

    • Posted Dec 17, 2011 at 5:12 AM | Permalink

      I agree. In the warrant there is no provision for the police to take anything away. Anything to be removed has to fully describe. Also, I am surprised the long time period -in Australia they get only 72hrs or 7 days
      I would suggest a complaint about the magistrate (who should be stood down)and the Detective who made out the Affidavit (he may be guilty of perjury and liable for jail)

  10. Faustino
    Posted Dec 16, 2011 at 4:19 AM | Permalink

    Delingpole has a Telegraph blog on this at http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100124397/climategate-obamas-boot-boys-strike-back/ Over 500 comments so far.

  11. Posted Dec 16, 2011 at 4:26 AM | Permalink

    Presumably the same legal instrument could have been invoked by the UK Information Commissioner when the first tranche of Climategate emails provided evidence that the CRU scientists had been deleting emails that were the subject of FOIA requests. Although this evidence concerned offences that could not lead to prosecution because of a time limit, there was no evidence that the practice had stopped, or that other information that was subject to FOIA requests was not still being deleted when the Climategate scandal broke.

    So why were Jones, Briffa and Osborne’s back bedrooms not subjected to the same kind of attention as Tallbloke’s, so that the police could determine whether there were back-channel communications between the suspects and other climate scientists for the purpose of initiating and co-ordinating illegal acts?

    Anyone who has had the misfortune to have dealings with the UK Information Commisioner’s office will be all too well aware of the answer.

  12. Latimer Alder
    Posted Dec 16, 2011 at 4:28 AM | Permalink

    The warrant says that the constable may be accompanied by such person or persons as are necessary….

    But five mates to subdue one recently injured guy? Were they expecting Big Steve, Anthony Watts and His Grace Montford to be holding out in an historic last stand? Or that Judy Curry was waiting to ambush them?

    • Alan Bates
      Posted Dec 16, 2011 at 6:18 AM | Permalink

      None of the above.
      The one they really feared was Donna and her wrecking ball!

  13. Punksta
    Posted Dec 16, 2011 at 4:37 AM | Permalink

    I seems clear the police have been suborned into put all their efforts into covering up FOI violations and plugging the flow of information of what UEA is up to.

    So what we need now is for the IPCC to investigate the Norfolk Constabulary’s role in all this.

  14. Punksta
    Posted Dec 16, 2011 at 4:38 AM | Permalink

    That’s the http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/en/Pages/default.aspx, silly.

  15. Mailman
    Posted Dec 16, 2011 at 5:00 AM | Permalink

    Well at the very least at least they got a real judge to sign the warrant and not one of those pretend justices of the peace!

    Mailman

  16. Salamano
    Posted Dec 16, 2011 at 5:36 AM | Permalink

    A Federal Judge ruled recently that bloggers are NOT journalists (in a case in the US)…

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/09/usa-blogger-ruling-idUSN1E7B70UA20111209

    • Will Richardson
      Posted Dec 16, 2011 at 9:19 AM | Permalink

      Dear Salamano,

      The case which you cite ruled that a particular blogger did not qualify as a “journalist” as defined by a particular state law affording “journalists” the privilege of not disclosing their sources if such disclosure would be otherwise required by a criminal subpoena or civil discovery. The case is limited to its circumstances and jurisdiction.

      Generally, courts may compel testimony from any person, even a bona fide “journalist”, on any material legal issue, absent a statutory or constitutional privilege.

      • Salamano
        Posted Dec 16, 2011 at 9:40 AM | Permalink

        I think that the ruling was made by a “Federal” judge makes a difference though, particularly in the context of SM’s inquiry as to whether bloggers are protected in similar ways that journos are.

        Journalists may sit out “in contempt” to protect their sources (ie., not offer anything that’s ‘compelled’ of them), and may also appeal up the chain asserting their rights. Bloggers may not have such abilities, and may be held in contempt (jail), well, for a while.

        On an only barely related note, how many times has Greg Anderson (Barry Bond’s trainer) been jailed for contempt for not providing compelled information…three? four?

      • JEM
        Posted Dec 16, 2011 at 10:01 AM | Permalink

        This ruling is fairly widely considered an outlier – the blogger represented herself and didn’t cover herself in glory doing so.

    • mpaul
      Posted Dec 16, 2011 at 12:56 PM | Permalink

      This is an area of evolving law. In the case of tAV and CA, both are established blogs that have been around for several years, both have a large, recurring audience and both have been cited by major news outlets as blogs that have a substantial voice in the climate debate. Its hard to imagine how a US judge could conclude that they are not members of the media.

    • AnonyMoose
      Posted Dec 16, 2011 at 2:38 PM | Permalink

      Comments about that recent case mentioned something about UK licensing of journalists, although I can’t recall whether that present exists or if it has been proposed.

  17. RB
    Posted Dec 16, 2011 at 5:57 AM | Permalink

    Im not sure the journalistic material issue is relevant.

    I think the police would argue that the information they are seeking is not journalistic, as defined.

    True the emails and other documents may well be, but that’s not what they are looking for.

    Material (and forgive me for not being particularly pc savvy – but logs, IP addresses, etc.) that they may be after to try to trace the source of the “leak” are not of themselves journalistic material, but of course would be relevant evidence and of substantial value to the investigation.

  18. James
    Posted Dec 16, 2011 at 6:09 AM | Permalink

    Interesting the application was made in Norwich magistrates court….

    Home of the UEA.

    Hmmmmmm

  19. sleeper
    Posted Dec 16, 2011 at 6:13 AM | Permalink

    I think I just saw Mosher dumping all of his computers in Bender’s pool.

    • theduke
      Posted Dec 17, 2011 at 9:32 PM | Permalink

      Now that’s funny.

  20. RB
    Posted Dec 16, 2011 at 6:26 AM | Permalink

    Section 8(1) of PACE is interesting though.

    The jurisdiction to issue this warrant under section 8 PACE is qualified in that the magistrate concerned must be satisfied, amongst other things that the material does not consist of or include…..special procedure material. (8(1)(d) ). In reality this is a requirement that the magistrate has a reasonable belief that material sought by the police will NOT include special procedure material.

    “Computers and associated equipment” means ALL computers at the relevant address.

    If the police know that the “Computers and associated equipment” were likely to contain special procedure material then they are obliged to bring this to the attention of the magistrate and if they do not, where they ought to have done, the magistrates decision to issue the warrant may be quashed because it can be successfully argued that the magistrate was satisfied as he should have been regarding the requirement of section 8(1)(d).

    Did the police know TallBloke was a blogger/journalist? Is a blogger a journalist? Did they have a reasonable belief that the computers did not contain journalistic material?

    The High Court made just such a ruling in 2009 in R, Bates (On the application of) –v- Chief Constable of Avon & Somerset Police.

    A copy of the judgment is here:

    Paras 23-28.

  21. RB
    Posted Dec 16, 2011 at 6:28 AM | Permalink

    magistrate was satisfied
    should read
    magistrate was not satisfied

    sorry

  22. Fitzcarraldo
    Posted Dec 16, 2011 at 6:40 AM | Permalink

    a new release?

    http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/and-the-leaks-go-on/

    • Latimer Alder
      Posted Dec 16, 2011 at 6:59 AM | Permalink

      Re: Fitzcarraldo (Dec 16 06:40),

      Leaks of the Zero Order Draft for AR5. Presumably in response to Richard Tol’s recent comments that the IPCC had graciously concluded that they were immune from FoI laws. – snip –

      And I can only assume that all climatologits are required to take Advanced Hubris courses, but never asked to study Nemesis. One day they will begin to understand that they are not above the law and they are not Masters of the Universe.

      • Luther Bl.t
        Posted Dec 16, 2011 at 2:21 PM | Permalink

        You have made a typo to treasure. Thnx.

        • Ipman
          Posted Dec 16, 2011 at 3:38 PM | Permalink

          Yes a real gem. When I saw it earlier today I thought it was deliberate and maybe it was.

          Pronunciation is important of course. the “g” is hard, not soft in this case.

        • Latimer Alder
          Posted Dec 17, 2011 at 11:50 AM | Permalink

          Re: Luther Bl.t (Dec 16 14:21),

          Typo?? Not me.

  23. Posted Dec 16, 2011 at 8:04 AM | Permalink

    Michael Mann has chosen to retweet a link to the most intemperate of the blog posts rejoicing in the intrusion at Tallbloke Towers:

    Computers of Criminal Cyber-Thieves Seized http://tinyurl.com/6u47ezy

    Tallbloke is considering suing Greg Laden for libel and asking whether a retweet constitutes repetition. Good luck to Roger with any of that but it’s not the precise legalities that interest me here. What interests me is that Roger’s job in Leeds is reportedly at risk and that Michael Mann, who, whether we like it or not, is viewed as a very senior scientist these days, chooses to take sides in this very public way.

    We know from the emails that Mann and friends have few scruples in blighting the careers of those deemed to be hindering ‘The Cause’. This outworking of the most recent episode seems to me to constitute a new form of an old habit. A stark reminder that we need to fight and win against these self-appointed guardians of unverifiable truth who so quickly become persecuters of those who dare to question it – if they think they can get away with it.

    A note then on paranoia, of which some of us are being accused by such icy rationalists as ‘BBD’ on Bishop Hill. Some concerns may seem like paranoia later if we do win. I say far better that than losing livelihood or freedom with the hollow comfort that we were right after all. The key distinction to be mindful of at such moments is not paranoia and its opposite – because one’s never going to know – but defeatism and courage. May Tallbloke continue to blessed with much of the latter, with great wisdom to boot.

    • ChE
      Posted Dec 16, 2011 at 12:13 PM | Permalink

      I asked my attorney domestic partner that question, and she was fairly clear that it does. The interesting part though is how to sue an American in English court, and as long as Laden and/or Mann have online followers in the UK, Tallbloke has a proper action in the UK.

      Bottom line: he’s got a good case against both of them in the UK courts.

      • ChE
        Posted Dec 16, 2011 at 12:35 PM | Permalink

        Further to that point, once you have a judgement in the UK, it can be executed in the US through some mechanism having something to do with the Hague convention. It gets a little more complicated after the Ehrenfeld case though, because several states have passed legislation against executing such judgments under certain circumstances.

      • Posted Dec 17, 2011 at 5:06 AM | Permalink

        The interesting part though is how to sue an American in English court

        I’m not sure about other types of legal suits, but I do know that in the case of alleged libel, anyone residing in the U.K. (or anywhere else – viz many suits by certain Middle Eastern panjandrums) can launch a “libel” suit against a person who does not reside in the U.K. [e.g. Irving vs Penguin Books and [US citizen] Deborah Lipstadt]

    • Andrew
      Posted Dec 16, 2011 at 3:42 PM | Permalink

      Paranoia, didn’t the local authorities get into trouble for being wrapped up in the News Corp scandal this past summer? How can one be sure it is not happening again…or maybe not.

  24. Geoff Sherrington
    Posted Dec 16, 2011 at 8:06 AM | Permalink

    One wonders if the police know what they are seeking. Do they have a copy of Climategate 1, and/or 2, and/or 3? If they do, did they obtain their copies lawfully? If they obtained their copies lawfully, does this mean that all others with copies obtained by the same route have obtained them lawfully? What is the position of police who knowingly downloaded material thought to have been stolen, if this was the case? Alternatively, did the UEA or CRU give authorised emails to the police, including the USA Dept of Justice?

    Being trivial, do police acquire a Rolex watch before raiding a home where they think there might be a Rolex watch, so they can be sure they have the genuine item? While such a watch can be identified reasonably easily and surely, this surety does not occur with Climategate emails whose status is open to subtle modification and change of outcome. If harmful false sections were inserted by police or others in the material taken from Tallbloke, against which primary reference could he defend himself?

    The USA Department of Justice, given its input, might also have copies of some of these emails. If so, what is the USA DoJ doing, holding items that are owned by the British taxpayer, but denied to the sight of most Britains by resistance to FOI?

    The most frequent impression I have from those I trust is that the mission as described in my reading is a mission that was designed to fail.

    • jorgekafkazar
      Posted Dec 16, 2011 at 2:55 PM | Permalink

      IIRC, UEA “scientists” were also working with the assistance of US government grants.

    • Richard S Courtney
      Posted Dec 19, 2011 at 7:20 AM | Permalink

      Geoff Sherrington:

      “One wonders if the police know what they are seeking. Do they have a copy of Climategate 1, and/or 2, and/or 3? If they do, did they obtain their copies lawfully?”

      One can reasonably assume the police have all that information because it would be on the UEA back-up server which the police must have examined as part of their previous investigation that indicated UEA had breached FOI legislation (UEA could not be prosecuted for this because of the length of time since the breach).

      However, UK authorities may have wanted a clear indication of which parts of the information on the UEA back-up server are now in the public domain. And Tallbloke’s computers contain a clear, collated compilation of that information which is already in the public domain.

      Richard

      • Posted Dec 20, 2011 at 1:28 AM | Permalink

        However, UK authorities may have wanted a clear indication of which parts of the information on the UEA back-up server are now in the public domain. [...]

        But surely if this were the case, all they needed to do was follow any of the many links available on various sites from which CG2 could be downloaded?

        I suppose there is the possibility that whoever uploaded that which they’d downloaded from the original link to the server could have removed (or inserted!) some files. But this strikes me as being highly unlikely (and counterproductive).

        In any event, one still has to wonder why the seizure required six police officers. And at this point, one also has to wonder how long does it take to “clone” two hard-drives?! Ergo, why has Tallbloke’s property not been returned to him?

  25. Geckko
    Posted Dec 16, 2011 at 8:09 AM | Permalink

    Can a British legal eagle confirm that the warrant above allows for the removal of comuter etc., rather than the search of computer (on the premises)?

    • JCM
      Posted Dec 16, 2011 at 10:23 AM | Permalink

      Police search for and take possession of the items they seek. Removal is the norm so that the occupier may continue his/her day to day activities after the initial search and removal is completed. This warrant allows only 2 entries for carrying out a search.

  26. Roy UK
    Posted Dec 16, 2011 at 9:11 AM | Permalink

    The Warrant is fine. There are no problems with the warrant as it stands (ie One picture at the head of the post). The Warrant gives the police officer the power to enter the premises. Once inside he can search for items PACE 1984 sec 19:

    (4)The constable may require any information which is [stored in any electronic form] and is accessible from the premises to be produced in a form in which it can be taken away and in which it is visible and legible [or from which it can readily be produced in a visible and legible form]if he has reasonable grounds for believing—
    (a)that—
    (i)it is evidence in relation to an offence which he is investigating or any other offence ; or
    (ii)it has been obtained in consequence of the commission of an offence; and
    (b)that it is necessary to do so in order to prevent it being concealed, lost, tampered with or destroyed.

    So the question to be asked is- What is the offence being investigated?

    If the answer is the release of the climategate e-mails then:

    If Tallblokes computer was seized we have to assume ALL computers belonging to owners of websites where the files where release will likewise be seized. So the next computers which will be seized will be the first on where the files turned up.

    “A miracle has happened,” announced a contributor to Climate Audit, a website devoted to criticising the science of climate change.

    “RC” said nothing more — but included a web link that took anyone who clicked on it to another site, Real Climate.

    Hmmmm…

    • Ipman
      Posted Dec 16, 2011 at 9:30 AM | Permalink

      Interesting. Instead of releasing his computers to the police, could TB not have provided them with a CD or other media containing the “offending” material? I didn’t think the law allowed the police to use search warrants as a basis for a general fishing expedition. What if TB has personal information on his computer which is totally unrelated to the police investigation – why should he have to relinquish that along with any “offending” material? Exactly what is the police investigating anyway and at whose instigation – it seems to go beyond the UEA.

      • Roy UK
        Posted Dec 16, 2011 at 11:17 AM | Permalink

        A CD/DVD would not be sufficient. Nor would a clone of the disc done by the owner.

        What I do not understand is the reasoning behind only taking 2 computers (even if the other computers are not working. Remember the part in the warrant where they are allowed to come back another time. Maybe it is time for all of your computer equipment to be removed to the dump (or somewhere) so that a repeat visit is not necessary. Also keep the recept of the new replacement you get, to prove you got it after execution of the warrant.

        It does not add up. Where did the information or request come from? Tallbloke is not the only person in the UK to have the released e-mails link thrown at him (And I would guess he never asked FOAI for it!). Nor is he the only one in the world. Where are the other search warrants being executed? Was the request from the US? and have ANY computers been seized over there? This is making the police here a laughing stock.

        They have had TWO years to investigate UEA leak and not a bloody thing. My heart goes out to tallbloke.

      • Posted Dec 16, 2011 at 5:45 PM | Permalink

        “could TB not have provided them with a CD or other media containing the “offending” material?”

        Are you kidding??

        Asking the person that you are investigating to give you the evidence they are looking for??
        How many people would turn over the real evidence?

        • Latimer Alder
          Posted Dec 17, 2011 at 1:22 AM | Permalink

          Re: Matthew W (Dec 16 17:45),

          Was that not exactly the way that the original Climategate ‘investgations’ (Russell, Penn State, Oxburgh) were conducted?


          Investigator:

          Dear Phil/Mikey/CRU

          Are you guilty of anything at all?

          Investigated:

          No

          Investigator:

          Thanks – case closed. Can I have the cheque now please?

          Senior university guy:

          Here’s the cheque. You played a blinder. Can we look forward to your services next time we have a bit of a kerfuffle among the staff? I understand there’s some locker room antics among the sports jocks….next week perhaps? Usual fee for the usual verdict? Splendid.

        • Posted Dec 17, 2011 at 8:25 AM | Permalink

          Yes
          Ans we see how conclusive that was !!!!

    • JT
      Posted Dec 16, 2011 at 11:19 AM | Permalink

      “The Warrant is fine” by English law perhaps, in Canada it would specify “the offence” in respect of which the items sought would be expected to supply evidence. One hopes the information to obtain said warrant specifies an offence or offences known to the law, but it has probably been sealed by court order on the grounds that its publication would either jeopardize the ongoing investigation or reveal confidential sources of information.

      • Roy UK
        Posted Dec 16, 2011 at 2:37 PM | Permalink

        In the UK, a warrant allows a police officer entry into a premises. Therefore, as you can see what I said above, the warrant (which is shown in the picture) is “fine”. However, the reason for the warrant being issued, and executed, is under question. What was the ofence being investigated by the UK police.

        A warrant can be requested by the police (in the uk) to obtain evidence. This does not have to be evidence from a suspect. It can be evidence from anyone.

        So…

        The question remains, What OFFENCE are the police investigating? This has to be a substansive offence. Failure to investigate the offence FULLY is a discipliniary matter against the police officers concerned (generally the police officer in charge). Refer to my previous post. If the Norfolk constabulary instigated this investigation (against tallbloke) they should be investigating every person who had the same message posted on their blog. ie RC/WUWT/CA.

        They cannot investigate Climategate 2.0 unless they completed their investigation of CG 1.0.

        Questions can be asked.

        • Roy UK
          Posted Dec 16, 2011 at 3:03 PM | Permalink

          Just a little more, the offence should have been indicated in the schedule (which should be left with the occupier of the premises searched). The schedule details the offence. JT is correct when he says the warrant should show the offence, but in this case the schedule will mention which crime is under investigation.

          The Warrant itself is fine, because it is signed and explains the details of what is to be looked for. (for example they cannot take his microwave or beer…).

        • Ipman
          Posted Dec 16, 2011 at 6:06 PM | Permalink

          The Code of Practice on search and seizure includes the following:

          1.3 The right to privacy and respect for personal property are key principles of the
          Human Rights Act 1998. Powers of entry, search and seizure should be fully and
          clearly justified before use because they may significantly interfere with the occupier’s
          privacy. Officers should consider if the necessary objectives can be met by less
          intrusive means.

          Considering that TB was not regarded as a suspect, you have to wonder just how much regard the police gave to his Human Rights.

        • Red Etin
          Posted Dec 20, 2011 at 6:56 AM | Permalink

          Roy UK,
          Presumably the Warrant as shown is “incomplete” without the attached schedule, which is referred to in the Warrant, though only referring to “premises described in the attached schedule”. There are presumably reasons why TB has chosen not to share the schedule details.

        • j ferguson
          Posted Dec 20, 2011 at 7:20 AM | Permalink

          RoyUK,
          If the warrant is for evidence gathering for an offence of which TallBloke is not suspected and let’s say “could not be connected.” then how much detail is needed on the description of the offense? Suppose it is an Official Secrets Act enquiry?

        • Mark T
          Posted Dec 20, 2011 at 8:51 AM | Permalink

          I think in the US such a thing would be covered by a material witness warrant, but such a warrant makes it clear that you are considered a material witness. Some leagal eagles may wish to correct me if I’m wrong.

          Mark

  27. Posted Dec 16, 2011 at 9:48 AM | Permalink

    So the Guardian journalist who worked with Julian Assange (and Assange’s various sources) can have his computers seized at any time in the UK?

    • JohnH
      Posted Dec 16, 2011 at 11:35 AM | Permalink

      No, first he is a ‘Real’ Journalist and also the Guardian would use the ‘The Cause is Just’ as they have already used as a defence when it was found they were hacking phone messages. Also according to the Guardian Juilian is ok to leak state secrets but FIOA is not allowed to leak emails that should be subject to FOIA but aren’t because UEA can’t be bothered to meet their legal requirements despite Acton signing a written undertaking to operate with in the FOIA requirements.

      • Posted Dec 16, 2011 at 7:12 PM | Permalink

        Thanks for clearing that up. I lack the sophistication for climatological thinking.

  28. EdeF
    Posted Dec 16, 2011 at 10:07 AM | Permalink

    That would be Detective Inspector: Jane Tennyson (of the Prime Suspect series, sarc)

    Could not help but notice the doughnut stain on the warrant.

  29. TAC
    Posted Dec 16, 2011 at 10:34 AM | Permalink

    Steve, thank you for keeping us in the loop on this. The confrontation between “right to privacy” and internet/technology presents a fundamental challenge to our world; it goes way beyond climate.

  30. George Tobin
    Posted Dec 16, 2011 at 11:54 AM | Permalink

    I don’t understand the basis for the warrant mostly because I still don’t understand what specific crime is alleged.

    If getting hold of the emails is the crime, subsequent distribution is largely irrelevant unless a recipient is going to be charged as a conspirator. If not, then so what if Tall Bloke or anyone else has a copy of the allegedly purloined content? The relevant evidence would be of the time and date of the taking, ports, logins and IPs etc., which evidence is best obtained from ISPs and/or UEA server logs.

    If an insider released this data (a)in protest of unlawful non-compliance with FOI rules and/or (b) to shed light on dubious practices within government-funded activities, I don’t see how that is a crime, merely whistle-blowing. I can see how civil liability issues might arise but that is not the concern of law enforcement officers.

    • Posted Dec 16, 2011 at 5:41 PM | Permalink

      I can only guess…………….

      But perhaps the police had some reason to think that Talbloke had some direct contact with FOIA.

  31. Craig Loehle
    Posted Dec 16, 2011 at 12:56 PM | Permalink

    It seems to me that the warrant should specify at least something about what is to be searched for, not just “evidence in relation to an offence”. At least in the USA I think it would.

    • AnonyMoose
      Posted Dec 16, 2011 at 2:42 PM | Permalink

      The USA has tended to require government to give more reasons for its actions than “because the King says so”.

      • ChE
        Posted Dec 16, 2011 at 9:15 PM | Permalink

        Until recently.

  32. Mark T
    Posted Dec 16, 2011 at 1:20 PM | Permalink

    Fox News just picked up the Climategate 2.0 story and the link to the DoE. They quoted both Steve and Anthony. Won’t be long before the connection to this issue is made in a follow-up story (well, I hope).

    Mark

  33. ChE
    Posted Dec 16, 2011 at 1:22 PM | Permalink

    I just watched Orson Wells’ 1962 production of Kafka’s “The Trial” last night. There are some creepy parallels.

  34. Philip P
    Posted Dec 16, 2011 at 1:26 PM | Permalink

    Since Roger knows the name and location of the magistrate that signed the search warrant, he (or maybe his lawyer) should be able to contact the magistrate to ask on what basis the warrant was issued.

  35. See - owe to Rich
    Posted Dec 16, 2011 at 2:13 PM | Permalink

    Regarding the “basis of the warrant” and the “which crime”, it seems obvious to me (not that that makes me right) that the supposed crime is the exfiltration of the CRU emails, and that the police, whilst not suspecting Tallbloke, have very strong hopes that deep forensic analysis will reveal something about who told Tallbloke about the new Climategate tranche, and who might therefore be the perpetrator or the perpetrator.

    Anyway, the episode probably puts to rest my theory that the police knew perfectly well who the perpetrator was, but didn’t dare prosecute because of his position within UEA and the climate world.

    Rich.

    • Roy UK
      Posted Dec 16, 2011 at 2:49 PM | Permalink

      “the supposed crime is the exfiltration of the CRU emails”

      Well it is all very well to guess at what crime is being investigated, but in the UK that is a fishing expedition. That is not allowed when requesting a warrant.

      “Your worships, we suspect tallbloke of commiting or knowing about a crime or having evidence related to a crime, can we have a warrant to search his premises and remove some computer equipment”

      “Your worships, we suspect *someone of commiting or knowing about a crime or having evidence related to a crime, can we have a warrant to search his premises and remove some computer equipment”

      *someone Insert your name here, or the name of a friend, neighbour, or someone you dont like.

      That is why the schedule (referred to in the warrant) is the important part of the document. What Crime did tallbloke commit, witness or have evidence of, that RC, WUWT or CA didn’t. Where are the other warrants being executed?

      • ChE
        Posted Dec 16, 2011 at 4:24 PM | Permalink

        For starters, the others are in other countries. This may take a while.

        • Kozlowski
          Posted Dec 16, 2011 at 5:28 PM | Permalink

          WUWT is not in another country, and it appears that the instigator is the US Dept of Justice. So why was the search warrant not served on WUWT first?

        • HaroldW
          Posted Dec 16, 2011 at 6:24 PM | Permalink

          Kozlowski –
          Per tallbloke, it is the Norfolk Police who are the investigators. Because WordPress is in the US, they required the assistance of law enforcement in the US to get evidence from WordPress. Hence the involvement of the US DoJ, merely co-operating with a friendly request from the UK.

        • ChE
          Posted Dec 16, 2011 at 9:14 PM | Permalink

          But the question remains, are they going to eventually raid Jeff and Steve? I believe that Jeff is in the US, and I would think that they would have gone after him already if they thought he had anything of value.

          Also, as others have pointed out, Watts also got a note from FOIA, and they’re not going after him, as near as anyone can tell. All rather strange.

        • HaroldW
          Posted Dec 16, 2011 at 10:29 PM | Permalink

          That’s a good question, ChE. So far, all that we know is that the US DoJ has consented to sending a “preserve” order to WordPress. Perhaps they don’t require a lot of evidence to do that. But to get a warrant — either to obtain the WordPress logs, or to inspect/seize computers at Jeff’s — ought to require serious evidence. It’s not at all clear that Norfolk Police are able to satisfy that evidentiary hurdle. Especially for the computers — I can’t imagine that the computers would have any evidence about “FOIA” (beyond what might be in the WordPress logs) unless Jeff had been emailing/skyping with him/her/them. And if there was email contact, wouldn’t it be smarter to get records from gmail? I’d like to think that DoJ wouldn’t allow a fishing expedition; but I have no idea whether that’s realistic or not.

        • Mark F
          Posted Dec 16, 2011 at 11:04 PM | Permalink

          I hate to sound cynical, but “justice” is an industry, not an objective, in this context – in my opinion.

        • See - owe to Rich
          Posted Dec 17, 2011 at 3:48 AM | Permalink

          I think that with 3 identified targets for the information they desire, they are saving resources by doing them one at a time. If they get what they want from the first source, they won’t need to bother with the other two.

          And they start with Tallbloke, because he’s such a nice guy (see how he cheerfully handed over his computers without a fuss) and he lives in a country (UK) which perhaps has the weakest laws in favour of the individual (discuss!). I mean, we even allow extradition to the USA for alleged hacking!

          I’d like to see someone try and take Steve’s computers without having a court review and signatures in blood first!

          Rich.

  36. DeWitt Payne
    Posted Dec 16, 2011 at 2:35 PM | Permalink

    OT:

    Steve,

    Are you aware that Eli Rabett has posted an article claiming you’re a rent-seeker for using the FOIA to obtain data? Given your background in economics, I thought you might find that humorous as it certainly doesn’t fit my understanding of rent seeking.

    • Posted Dec 16, 2011 at 5:39 PM | Permalink

      I wish I could slap you for making me go to that site !!!
      Awful, awful, awful !

      All very humorous is a very sad way !!!!

    • observa
      Posted Dec 18, 2011 at 6:45 AM | Permalink

      Well I couldn’t resist posing the following(with edits for typos)-

      “The data sets in question cost money to create. Their creators make money by selling licenses (limited licenses) to use the data — licenses that have no market value if their property is forcible redistributed by the government as soon as a FOI request is made.”

      Which naturally raises the following questions-
      1. How much did these creators charge bodies like the CRU at EAU for their valuable data and if not why not?
      2. Knowing full well their data would be used for the typical scientific enquiry of- Hypothesis/Data/Methodology/Conclusion and that ALL such scientific steps would need to be reproducible and open to verification, how much should they charge for such a one off release of such valuable data?(also if CRU came under FOI legislation then the same may apply)

      These are tough questions for The Team, particularly as there was much initial obfuscation over releasing the raw data even before ‘the dog ate the homework’ re the methodology stage. Not enough storage space for all that apparently, but thankfully some kind soul relieved the CRU of the need to continually store all those illuminating but pesky emails.

  37. KingOchaos
    Posted Dec 16, 2011 at 3:49 PM | Permalink

    This has piqued my interest again in all things climate… cg2, not so much. Why pray tell was the search executed by six constables, this seems utterly bizarre to me, were they expecting spetznez operatives to leap out from behind the couch! Or tallbloke to meet them at the door wielding a battle axe? Just seems excessive, for someone hunting for the leaker/hacker of just boring academic communications/ taken out of context. But maybe thats the norm in the UK for hackusations?

    (hell, at the time my marriage went south, i had a few unsavory accusations come my way(hell hath no fury), and the police were sent to seize my fire arms, and issue a protection order, they sent two, i have more guns than he has computers. )

    • ChE
      Posted Dec 16, 2011 at 4:27 PM | Permalink

      I think the six constable business is just new (last couple of decades) police procedure for any time they make surprise contact with anybody. They do it in the US all the time. The “overwhelming force” theory. In case, you know, Tallbloke might have a whoopee cushion or something.

    • Gail C.
      Posted Dec 16, 2011 at 9:19 PM | Permalink

      The reason for the 6 bobbies is so each one could carry away a computer balanced on the handle bars of his bicycle.

      Why else do you think they looked at the stack of 20 computers and decided to carry off only the two light weight lap tops and a router?

      Tallbloke and his computers: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/15/josh-on-the-skeptic-computer-raid/

    • LC
      Posted Dec 16, 2011 at 9:32 PM | Permalink

      What’s also interesting is the make-up of the posse of six policemen. One would expect Norfolk officers to be present (it’s their investigation of course) and one would suppose that an officer representing the Yorkshire force might be present as Tallbloke Towers is on their “patch”, but why the officers from the Met? Were they all from the Computer Crime Unit? Or is the Met’s Anti-Terrorist Unit still taking an interest in this case? If so, why?

  38. DocMartyn
    Posted Dec 16, 2011 at 5:16 PM | Permalink

    The Warrant is signed by a Justice of the Peace; anyone without a (major) criminal conviction can become a JP. Odd that the Plod went to a magistrates court to get the Warrant. JPs and/or magistrates work on offences which carry up to six months in prison, to a maximum of a year of imprisonment for a pair. Above that it goes off to crown court. English magistrates courts don’t handle extradition/international cases, except Westminster Magistrates Court (which is really not a Magistrates Court) that has defined, exclusive responsibilities for all terrorism and extradition offences throughout the UK.

    • Posted Dec 17, 2011 at 9:47 AM | Permalink

      Not so in Oz. If there is to be any damage or anything to be remove the warrant has to be signed by a magistrate or a judge. If anything is to be removed or damaged (eg breaking down a door) it is usual that an independent witness such a JP should be present so that the police can defend themselves against a charge of wilful damage. If the police get the wrong place or act on wrong information compensation can be claimed (and has been grated) so the police usually are very careful. As a JP(qualified-we sat for a 3hr examine after 6days training) I would certainly not have signed the warrant because I want to avoid an appearance in court.

  39. Posted Dec 16, 2011 at 5:28 PM | Permalink

    The 3 sites under investigation, according to the 12/9/11 US DOJ letter to WordPress (see http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/12/14/tallbloke-towers-raided-many-computers-taken/#more-3831 ) are

    tallbloke.wordpress.com
    noconsensus.wordpress.com (Jo Nova)
    climateaudit.org

    Surely Jo Nova is a journalist??

    • HaroldW
      Posted Dec 16, 2011 at 5:33 PM | Permalink

      Hu,
      Sorry, no. noconsensus.wordpress.com is Jeff Id’s site.

      • Posted Dec 17, 2011 at 12:23 AM | Permalink

        My mistake —
        noconsensus.org (aka No Frakking Consensus) is Donna Laframvoise, author of The Delinquent Teenager
        Jo Nova is joannenova.com/au
        noconsensus.wordpress.com (the Air Vent) is Jeff Id (who, with Steve and Tallbloke, is under investigation)

    • EdeF
      Posted Dec 16, 2011 at 6:34 PM | Permalink

      All three of these sites are journalists in the best sense of the term. They regularly
      report on the science behind climate studies. There is commentary, discussions, breaking
      news and guest commentary. The sites are viewed by millions of viewers and readers from
      around the world. There is archiving of the articles and references to old articles.
      There is investigation of climate science. These blogs fulfill something that is now
      lacking in the MSM; good ol’ fashion analysis and reporting. This is journalism, this
      is the new media.

  40. jlc
    Posted Dec 16, 2011 at 5:56 PM | Permalink

    Now Maginnis McGee Has become a JP
    and the on thing he hates more than sin is…

    • Richard S Courtney
      Posted Dec 19, 2011 at 12:03 PM | Permalink

      Paul:

      You say;
      “They are looking for evidence of the identity of FOIA.”

      Really? I wonder how you know that because the Search Warrant (see above) does not say that.

      Personally, I think the most likely reason is to determine = with minimum effort and maximum accuracy – what is already in the public domain and what is probably in the encrypted file.

      As I said above in response to Geoff Sherrington asking:

      “One wonders if the police know what they are seeking. Do they have a copy of Climategate 1, and/or 2, and/or 3? If they do, did they obtain their copies lawfully?”

      I answered:

      “One can reasonably assume the police have all that information because it would be on the UEA back-up server which the police must have examined as part of their previous investigation that indicated UEA had breached FOI legislation (UEA could not be prosecuted for this because of the length of time since the breach).

      However, UK authorities may have wanted a clear indication of which parts of the information on the UEA back-up server are now in the public domain. And Tallbloke’s computers contain a clear, collated compilation of that information which is already in the public domain.”

      Richard

  41. Paul
    Posted Dec 16, 2011 at 7:45 PM | Permalink

    “(3)A person who receives material from someone who intends that the recipient shall use it for the purposes of journalism is to be taken to have acquired it for those purposes.”

    I’m thinking the warrant is invalid on the basis of number 3. They are looking for evidence of the identity of FOIA. FOIA’s submission to Tallbloke meets the test in no 3 of the definition of journalistic material, requiring a different warranting procedure under the special procedure rules…. If this is true, a solicitor should be able to get Tallbloke’s computers back forthwith..

    • David A
      Posted Dec 18, 2011 at 4:45 AM | Permalink

      Indeed this is so, and it also brings up the very possible conclusion that no crime was committed at all if a whistleblower was involved in the e-mail release.

    • Richard S Courtney
      Posted Dec 19, 2011 at 12:04 PM | Permalink

      Paul:

      My reply to you has appeared in the wrong place (i.e. a little above here).

      I hope this is in the right place.

      Richard

  42. Tony Mach
    Posted Dec 16, 2011 at 7:55 PM | Permalink

    Off topic:
    NOAA Employees Have More Freedom to Speak Than NASA Employees

    http://nasawatch.com/archives/2011/12/nasa-and-scient.html

  43. ferd berple
    Posted Dec 16, 2011 at 8:38 PM | Permalink

    “(3)A person who receives material from someone who intends that the recipient shall use it for the purposes of journalism is to be taken to have acquired it for those purposes.”

    If not for journalism, what other purposes did the FOIA release serve? In saying that the release was not for journalistic purposes, you would have to establish that there was some other purpose that fit the facts.

  44. ferd berple
    Posted Dec 16, 2011 at 8:43 PM | Permalink

    Definition of JOURNALISM
    1
    a : the collection and editing of news for presentation through the media b : the public press c : an academic study concerned with the collection and editing of news or the management of a news medium
    2
    a : writing designed for publication in a newspaper or magazine b : writing characterized by a direct presentation of facts or description of events without an attempt at interpretation c : writing designed to appeal to current popular taste or public interest

    point 2C would appear to apply

  45. kim
    Posted Dec 17, 2011 at 9:27 AM | Permalink

    The news travels all around the world while the law is putting its boots on.
    =========

  46. Matt Skaggs
    Posted Dec 18, 2011 at 11:36 AM | Permalink

    Roy UK,
    As far as Jeff Id is concerned, the difference may be the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution. The WordPress accounts are suspected of information laundering. Writing a US warrant must be a bit of a challenge. Blanket protection for journalists under the 1st Amendment seems to venture into uncharted waters here as well, based upon the comments of others. I have no clue how that works in Canada.

    Matt US

    • Richard T. Fowler
      Posted Dec 18, 2011 at 2:13 PM | Permalink

      As I understand it, the the publication of the Pentagon Papers was (first) tolerated and (finally) vindicated, not by the fact that journalists were involved in the publication, but by the fact that the papers revealed severe crimes that would have likely gone unrevealed if the (otherwise illegal) copying, leaking, and publication of the papers had not happened.

      The same issues apply with Climategate.

      RTF

  47. Posted Dec 18, 2011 at 5:21 PM | Permalink

    I would have turned them away, and told them that UNTIL the search warrant had a LEGIBLE and TRACEABLE Judge’s identity, it was MEANINGLESS and they would have to USE FORCE on me. (That would help in the resulting multi-million dollar lawsuit.)

5 Trackbacks

  1. By Climate Capers | Cranky Old Crow on Dec 16, 2011 at 7:39 AM

    [...] The Tallbloke Search Warrant [...]

  2. [...] A copy of the search warrant can be seen at Climate Audit GA_googleFillSlot("wpcom_sharethrough_viplite"); Rate this: Share [...]

  3. [...] special police attention. Last week six officers, from three different divisions and armed with a search warrant, raided his Yorkshire home. They spent more than three hours there and although they assured him he [...]

  4. [...] See here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/ http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news Washington Examiner Guardian http://joannenova http://climateaudit [...]

  5. By Climategate Continued « the Air Vent on Jul 2, 2012 at 4:48 PM

    [...] The search warrant issued for confiscation of Tallbloke’s computer’s is available at CA. Rate this:Like this:LikeOne blogger likes [...]

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,262 other followers

%d bloggers like this: