Dem AG Targets 90 Conservative Groups in Climate Change Racketeering Suit

[rangerrebew]

 Dem AG Targets 90 Conservative Groups in Climate Change Racketeering Suit
Posted By Lachlan Markay On May 3, 2016 @ 5:10 pm In Issues | No Comments

The attorney general of the U.S. Virgin Islands is targeting dozens of conservative and libertarian organizations in a racketeering lawsuit against climate change skeptics that has been widely described as an effort to silence political opponents.

In a subpoena issued in March, the office of USVI attorney general Claude Walker demanded from Exxon Mobil copies of communications between the oil company and 90 different political and policy organizations “and any other organizations engaged in research or advocacy concerning Climate Change or policies.”

The subpoena was part of a national, coordinated legal campaign by state attorneys general and left-wing advocacy groups to use the legal system against companies and organizations that disagree with and advocate against Democratic policies to address global climate change.

The existence of the subpoena was first reported by the Wall Street Journal in April. A newly released copy obtained by the Washington Free Beacon reveals the names of the organizations targeted in the effort, which had previously been redacted.

Those organizations include some of the nation’s preeminent conservative and libertarian nonprofit groups. The AG is requesting Exxon Mobil communications with the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute, the Federalist Society, the Hoover Institution, the Reason Foundation, and the Mercatus Institute, among other groups.

One target of the subpoena, the libertarian Competitive Enterprise Institute, has already publicly responded to Walker. Its attorney called the attorney general’s subpoena “a blatant attempt to intimidate and harass an organization for advancing views that you oppose.”

“Your demand on CEI is offensive, it is un-American, it is unlawful, and it will not stand,” wrote Andrew M. Grossman, an attorney with the Washington firm BakerHostetler. “You can either withdraw it or expect to fight.”

Walker’s efforts will likely meet similar resistance from other organizations targeted by the subpoena, some of which have publicly denounced it in reference to its targeting of CEI.

Hans von Spakovsky, a former Federal Election Commissioner and a senior legal fellow at Heritage, called the subpoena “a truly outrageous abuse of [the attorney general’s] authority and a misuse of the law.”

“This investigation is intended to silence and chill any opposition,” von Spakovsky wrote. “It is disgraceful and contemptible behavior by public officials who are willing to exploit their power to achieve ideological ends.

Walker’s subpoena is part of a coordinated effort by Democratic attorneys general spearheaded by New York’s Eric Schneiderman and undertaken in consultation and cooperation with leading environmental advocacy groups.

The participants huddled at a Jan. 8 meeting at the headquarters of the Rockefeller Family Fund, a left-wing foundation.

At the meeting, RFF, Greenpeace, other environmental groups discussed ways to “delegitimize [ExxonMobil] as a political actor,” “force officials to disassociate themselves from Exxon,” and “drive divestment from Exxon,” according to a copy of the meeting agenda obtained by the Washington Free Beacon last month.

One strategy that activists discussed was to enlist like-minded state attorneys general to use their powers to go after the oil company.

Emails subsequently obtained by the Energy and Environment Legal Institute show that staffers at groups involved in the effort then briefed aides to those AGs. They discussed using “climate change litigation” to advance their political goals.

Walker expressed an interest in “identifying other potential litigation targets” in one email.

Walker’s subpoena is itself of dubious legality, according to some legal experts.

“What they’re doing looks like a restrict the First Amendment free speech rights of people they don’t agree concerted scheme to with,” itself a potential violation of federal law, wrote University of Tennessee law professor Glenn Reynolds.

Article printed from Washington Free Beacon: http://freebeacon.com

URL to article: http://freebeacon.com/issues/dem-ag-targets-90-conservative-groups-climate-change-racketeering-suit/

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Liberals are such bullying scumbags.

[rb224315]

We need to beat them at their own game.  File suit against James Hansen and other chicken littles, then subpoena his emails & other records for all the world to see.  They're stealing taxpayer funds for a lie just to make a living for themselves, or in the case of Algore, make a nice fortune.

[Bill Cipher]

Gee, a politician who doesn't like certain "mean" speech so he's trying to loosen up with the laws to silence that speech.  Sounds like someone else we know. 

[Fishrrman]

"In late 2003, at the Sustainable Earth Summit conference in Johannesburg, the Pacific island nation of Vanutu announced that it was preparing a lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency of the United States over global warming. Vanutu stood only a few feet above sea level, and the island's eight thousand inhabitants were in danger of having to evacuate their country because of rising sea levels caused by global warming. The United States, the largest economy in the world, was also the largest emitter of carbon dioxide and therefore the largest contributor to global warming.

The National Environmental Resource Fund, an American activist group, announced that it would join forces with Vanutu in the lawsuit, which was expected to be filed in the summer of 2004. It was rumored that wealthy philanthropist George Morton, who frequently backed environmental causes, would personally finance the suit, expected to cost more than $8 million. Since the suit would ultimately be heard by the sympathetic Ninth Circuit in San Francisco, the litigation was awaited with some anticipation..."

From the introduction of State of Fear, by Michael Crichton, 2004.

[rangerrebew]

"In late 2003, at the Sustainable Earth Summit conference in Johannesburg, the Pacific island nation of Vanutu announced that it was preparing a lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency of the United States over global warming. Vanutu stood only a few feet above sea level, and the island's eight thousand inhabitants were in danger of having to evacuate their country because of rising sea levels caused by global warming. The United States, the largest economy in the world, was also the largest emitter of carbon dioxide and therefore the largest contributor to global warming.

The National Environmental Resource Fund, an American activist group, announced that it would join forces with Vanutu in the lawsuit, which was expected to be filed in the summer of 2004. It was rumored that wealthy philanthropist George Morton, who frequently backed environmental causes, would personally finance the suit, expected to cost more than $8 million. Since the suit would ultimately be heard by the sympathetic Ninth Circuit in San Francisco, the litigation was awaited with some anticipation..."

Have you ever read The Mouse that Roared?
From the introduction of State of Fear, by Michael Crichton, 2004.

[rangerrebew]

If the AGs want to go after someone, they should have gone after car manufacturers for all the people who have been maimed and killed by withholding of information.  If I were in the legal dept. of one of these companies I would be drooling at the chance to make a big name for myself.  In order of the AGs to win, they have to prove their is global warming, a challenge which will be nearly  impossible given the right challenges to the witnesses they have to provide.  If they can't prove their IS (depending on your definition of is, of course ) global warming, they can't convict someone of denying what doesn't exist in the first place.

[Fishrrman]

ranger wrote:
"In order of the AGs to win, they have to prove their is global warming, a challenge which will be nearly  impossible given the right challenges to the witnesses they have to provide."

I think this lawsuit has less to do with "winning" than it does with "intimidation".

Make the defendants spend so much, they'll give up and sign a settlement of some sort -- no doubt, with an agreed-to "restriction" on what the defendants will speak about in the future.

"Silence by legal intimidation".