Much angst among Heartlandgate perpetrators over the increasingly obvious fact that Peter Gleick not only shouldn’t be prosecuted, but can’t be prosecuted under federal law, for duping Heartland employees into revealing their true intentions, to lie about global warming so people won’t “believe” it and support solutions.
But this odd site cut through the clutter and posted the words of the relevant law, establishing Peter Gleick’s lack of criminality:
18 U.S.C. 1343:
Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both….
Did you catch that, Dear Reader? Gleick would be guilty of federal wire fraud had he asked the perpetrators of Heartlandgate to send him money or property.
But all Gleick asked for was a copy of their agenda for a meeting, and the supporting data. No money, no property. Nothing of value. Nor did he intend to use, nor could he use, any of that information to get money or property.
You noted, of course, the site is one promulgated by the Heartland Institute itself.
(Did they really mean it that way? Probably not.)
(By the way — you may want to read the actual law from an authoritative source like the Cornell University Law Library’s Legal Information Institute (LII), and not a version filtered by people who deny global warming, nor its severity, nor its causes, or who don’t work to hoodwink gullible politicians.)
How can you tell whether you should be concerned, Dear Reader?
For example, if you’re a teacher, should you be concerned that in Heartlandgate, the Heartland Institute reveals itself to be working to “dissuade” science teachers from teaching science? Or, if you’re just a concerned citizen, should you be concerned that you’ve heard precious little about the analysis of the documents released, from major news outlets?
If you are in any degree confused about who to believe in this issue, or worse, if you are convinced that there is a pattern of skirting of the laws by scientists (contrary to the evidence), you should be concerned that you’re not getting the full story.
More, Resources, Further reading:
- ‘Heartlandgate’ Takes a Turn for the Surreal (motherjones.com)
- Guardian: Peter Gleick on leave from Pacific Institute over Heartland leak (junkscience.com)
- Peter Gleick and the Heartland Institute Expose (legalplanet.wordpress.com)
- Peter Gleick is a hero (sfgate.com)
- Peter Gleick, the Heartland Institute, and Scientific Ethics (legalplanet.wordpress.com)
- Peter Gleick requests short-term leave of absence from Oakland’s Pacific Institute (mercurynews.com)
- Climate change deniers in high dudgeon as leaked memos reveal their deceptions (timpanogos.wordpress.com)
- ‘Heartlandgate': Climate Beliefs Don’t Hinge on Leaked Documents (livescience.com)
- Heartlandgate gets wilder: Greenpeace a target for theft by Heartland Institute