Tuesday, October 4th 2011, 8:51 AM EDT

Discredited global warming scientist, Michael Mann, sees his last-ditch efforts to hide data fall apart as legal experts reveal a mountain of legal precedents against him.

In his recent papers (filed on September 2, 2011) Mann claims ‘academic freedom’ and ‘proprietary materials’ as his defense. But legal experts who have since reviewed Mann’s submission to the Circuit Court of Prince William County, Va., say they are so full of holes they are doomed to fail.In this article we show why the Virginia court isn’t likely to give Michael Mann a ‘get out of jail free’ card when it comes to covering up what looks increasingly like a monumental climate conspiracy.The three facts likely to be fatal to Mann’s case are:• Of more than 240 reported cases involving professor-v-university disputes the university almost always wins (note: Mann’s former university employer has already agreed to surrender Mann’s files).• Freedom of speech for professors at state universities has been restricted in a series of U.S. Supreme Court case rulings since 1977.• No American court has ever ruled to protect a former employee (Mann is no longer employed in Virginia).References:[1.] Standler, R. B., ‘Academic Freedom in the USA’ (2000), www.rbs2.com (accessed online: September 23, 2011).[2.] (i) (publicly criticizing school administration) Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968); (ii) (loyalty oaths e.g. Communist Party) Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U.S. 589, 603 (1967);Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U.S. 479 (1960);Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234 (1957); Slochower v. Board of Higher Education, 350 U.S. 551 (1956);Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U.S. 183 (1952); (iii) (Biblical theory of creation) Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987);Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968).[3.] Stastny v. Central Washington University, 647 P.2d 496, 504 (Wash.Ct.App. 1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1071 (1983).