I don’t usually go for this sort of language, but sometimes, you just have to bow to the absurd, dive in, and say things in language that simple minded people will understand. Such is the case of Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey who yesterday expanded the #ExxonKnew documents probe to organizations that don’t even take funding from Exxon. His advocacy group, the Center for Industrial Progress, was named in an April 19 subpoena for 40 years of internal company documents and communications. Clearly, Ms. Healey must have been asleep in class when the 1st and 4th amendments were discussed and is abusing her position of power.
Alex Epstein, who got a subpoena, posted his response on Twitter:
Lest you think Alex is one of those “old white guys” that alarmists like to stereotype, have a close look at his picture:
He has written a book: The Moral Case For Fossil Fuels and it seems to me, that very sensible book has made him a target.
I think his response, vulgar as it was, was also entirely appropriate.
Note: typo corrected about 15 minutes after publication: 2nd to read 4th. 1st amendment added.
Definitions:
The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble, or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.
The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides, “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
I disagree the 2nd is the insurance policy to defend all of them. Misstatement or not it is blunt force. Intimidation should not be tolerated. As, intimidation has become the crux of the issue.
And, not for this one issue everything they demand has now gone to, We will force you. The information revolution is coming to an end. The storm is coming.
noman
Arizona
Entirely appropriate 🙂
I admire his integrity, his clear thinking and his courage.
From about 11:00 in his testimony to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee he states that:
I wish senator Whitehouse was here, because what senator Whitehouse is doing to free speech is unconstitutional and I think he should apologize or resign.
https://youtu.be/R5KoYJ64vjA?t=676
The whole clip is great – really worth watching.
Nice. Well worth listening to.
I love the outraged female senator at the end – priceless.
It is a sad state of affairs when an apparently incredibly stupid woman can get elected to the senate. All I can do is shake my head and hope that her constituents smarten up and send her packing.
Yes. Using the term carbon pollution is a dead giveaway she has no idea what she is talking about.
Matt,
There is an old joke that “those that can’t do, teach. Those that can’t teach, teach teachers.” I’ve amended it to include, “Those that can’t even teach teachers become politicians.”
Jack June 16, 2016 at 3:26 pm
Re: “Yes. Using the term carbon pollution ”
Yup; Major Idiot Alert on that stupidity by Sen. Boxer/
Thankfully Boxer won’t be standing for re-election and California (and the Nation) will finally be rid of her. She and her co-conspirator Dianne Feinstein have been a blight on California and national politics for nearly 50 years and it continues to amaze me they’ve been returned. I have no idea ow they do it, in conversation through the course of my life I’ve never heard anyone support them.
Feinstein has threatened a 5th term run (at the age of 82). It’s very important she be defeated to avoid her appointing a successor.
14:15 is the key point: Epstein tells the committee that Sen Boxer seems to think that philosophy is unnecessary to evaluate science, but that religion is. Classic analysis.
I would have liked it more if Epstein had asked her if Psychology was necessary to evaluate science.
All in all, a class presentation. 10/10
Plenty of psycho’s in Climate Science.
An awesome tour de force.
14:55 Fracking really slipped by Obama, he didn’t really know about it, if he had known about it he’d have probably tried to get it banned.
15:03 So our prosperity right now depends on the ignorance of our politicians, which is pretty scary.
This presents very attractive legal opportunities to go after Healey et. al. There is no connection to Exxon, therefore no colorable possibility to claim ‘Merchants of Doubt’ securities issues. Therefore there never was any colorable probable cause, which is necessary for a subpoena under the 4th amendment. Epstein and his Center are notable only for the book he published. Clearly that book is protected 1st Amendment speech.
Epstein should do the following. 1. Sue Healey personally for abuse of presecutorial discretion. 2. File a complaint with the Mass Bar Association, as this abuse is grounds for possible disbarment. They will have to investigate and hold an embarassing hearing. 3. File a criminal complaint with the local federal district attorney under 18USC241. If that is not acted upon, he has created a separate federal civil cause of action (unlawful discrimination) against DoJ for not enforcing a clear criminal law violation. 4. File civil suit against Healey, Gore, and the other participating AG’s under 42USC1983 and or 1985. Find a lawyer to take the case as a slam dunk contingency basis. Sue for CIP operating budget for say a decade, plus millions more in reputational damage (shill for Exxon, deni*r, whatever else can be ginned up from the wording of the subpoena). Based on the Gore/schneiderman presser and the facts already in evidence, move for immediate summary judgement on #4, as there are no facts in dispute. 5. Finally, if Mass has an antiSLAPP statute, move to quash the subpoena.
ristvan, it’s always a pleasure to read your informed comments on such issues, accompanied by legal references. Actual actionable advice.
Much more use than all the usual rants and unfounded ‘advice’ , however heartfelt and justified they may be.
sic ’em
“presecutorial discretion”
Should be :
persecutorial discretion
Actually, prosecutorial discretion. It was a typo.
Nyet, Nein, meant the misspelling; look again….
I believe Mr. Epstein’s reply already summarized your excellent analysis in two words.
Yes. But this Mass licensed attorney was giving rather more explicit instructions on how to.
ristvan
Wow; 248 words. I much prefer Epstein’s 3. Maybe we all go throw some tea in the harbor.
Epstein’s reply is more emotionally gratifying, but Rud’s reply is the more effective way.
When someone tries to intimidate you, you don’t sit back on the defense, hoping they go away. You attack. If this were to result in civil damages or Healey being reprimanded or disbarred, you can bet on it pouring water over the rest of the AG’s trying this stunt or considering it.
Both beats either .
Epstein should do exactly what ristvan suggests. Sue the heck out of Healey and everyone else involved. All of us have an interest in this. Using the Justice Departments of State and Federal governments to suppress free speech of American citizens is illegal in the United States, and these AGs should be held accountable.
Rud Istvan:
He’s actually done quite a few notable things. He’s arranged a number of debates, interviewed people at the Climate March in his “I Love Fossil Fuels” t-shirt and he has a pretty good podcast called Power Hour. Perhaps he could schedule you as a guest.
With your Harvard law degree and all this RICO and other legal stuff going on, You’d be a timely guest and you could plug your e-books.
Shades of Mark Steyn! Great advice. I hope Mr Epstein takes it. Will you take on the role of “a lawyer to take the case as [on?] a slam dunk contingency basis”?
/Mr Lynn
I hope Epstein is somewhere that Massachusetts cops can’t grab him.
My computer model also advises him against going for late night drives with any of their senators.
I think short and succint replys are the way to go from now on when answering alarmists.
When one of them used to make a statement about imminent thermageddon I would do my best to supply counter-arguments and provide links. However, from now on when a warmist says something such as, “the seas are going to boil!” I’m just going to reply, “no they’re not” and leave them to work themselves into a lather. Lovely!
Yes. But use factual soundbites. More effective politically. Fact: No child born this century has experienced any global warming. Fact: sea level rise is not accelerating according to geostationary (or corrected by differential GPS)long record tide gauges. Fact: polar bears do not depend on late summer ice. Fact: Antarctica is gaining ice (previous GRACE loss estimates used a flawed GIA correction wrong by a factor of almost 5. Fact: diurnal and seasonal ocean pH variation is 5x more than what CO2 might do by 2100 (at worst minus 0.15-0.18 pH thanks to buffering). Fact: coral bleaching is usually a healthy adaptation to more suitable symbionts. Fact: there has been no increase in weather extremes. Fact: CO2 is causing greening, for example in the Sahel.
Yep, a quick truthful one-liner also really gets a warmist’s goat!
‘Yep, a quick truthful one-liner also really gets a warmist’s goat!’
Truth. It’s the new Hate Speech.
JS, yes the warmunists will hate the truth about CAGW. That is what makes verifiable climate truths so useful in what is an increasingly ugly battle.
ristvan is absolutely correct – try to be factual. It’s more difficult and generally less satisfying, but is more likely to influence people. And bear in mind that while the person you are talking to may be rusted on to their position, listening third parties may well be influenced. [BTW, Alex Epstein’s reply was 3 words, not 2. Only the first 2 words were fact-free.]
‘ristvan is absolutely correct – try to be factual’
I find that as a skeptic, I can’t ever be caught in an error, even an honest one. Truth is absolutely our only viable weapon – that’s what makes it so dangerous to alarmists.
It’s no little disadvantage against an opponent who freely spits out whatever histrionic tripe best fits their narrative – even if it’s contradictory from minute to minute.
Constitution? Fuggedaboutit!
As celebrity socialist author Naomi Klein says of the democracy smashing power of the big green scientific AGW stick, “This Changes Everything”!
Naomi is on the Board of 350.org which has connections with Greenpeace and both are involved in a Congressional inquiry.
According to media reports, both of these organizations refuse to supply records to a U.S. Congressional committee.
What she has written is not the issue at hand.
Speaking of Klein and her ludicrous LEAPs … be sure to check out the latest from my “neighbour”, A Chemist in Langley:
Debunking the Leap Manifesto’s 100% Wind, Water and Sunlight Health Cost Statistics for Canada
He makes virtual mincemeat of Klein and her guru of choice!
Thank you for that link; very enjoyable reading.
HO, ditto the thanks. Else that would have escaped me.
The only speech that needs constitutional protection is offensive.
Sorry, but BS. Offensive to who?! There is always somebody who will find something offensive. I find the entirety of the “Global Warming/Climate Change” BS narrative offensive (both to science as a field and to my own intelligence), but that doesn’t mean I think those idiots pushing it don’t have a right to blather on.
This abuse of power by AGs isn’t about [quashing/the need for protecting] “offensive” speech, it is about silencing dissent. And THAT is TRULY offensive.
“There is always somebody who will find something offensive.”
I think that was Gabro’s point. If you’re not protecting “offensive” speech, you’re not protecting ANY speech.
Dear Mr. Epstein,
Please provide all documents necessary to convict you of laws we’re moments away from making up and prosecuting people for retroactively.
Charges may include but are not limited to:
Disagreeing with an Authoritarian Liberal.
Disparaging a Nobel Laurate.
Thinking Critically.
Basing conclusions on evidence.
Wrong Think.
Failure to salute to the flag of the Anthropocene.
Wrong Speak.
Failure to meet your book burning quota.
Failure to eagerly apply yourself to meeting 10:10 goals.
Failure to uncritically accept pronouncements from post-normal / advocacy scientists.
Failure to supply incriminating evidence.
Sincerely Yours,
The Department of Social Justice
Although the “moral case for fossil fuels” is clearly debatable and I could quite easily argue the opposite or, to frame the discussion in a positive sense, the “moral case for expanded use of green technology”, especially when there is a finite supply of fossil fuels remaining and we’re quickly burning through them (pun intended), I have to agree that the Mass. AG clearly overstepped her authority. I also agree that the demand for 40 years of internal company documents and communications is clearly a fishing expedition and that, as a private author, Alex Epstein’s First and Fourth Amendment rights were both infringed in equal measure and that she (the Mass. AG) is abusing her position of power. I would DISAGREE that the corporation he founded does NOT enjoy the protections of the First and Fourth Amendments, contrary to the findings of SCOTUS in ‘Citizens United’.
I thought the following Tweet of his was quite amusing:
“The Massachusetts Attorney General is persecuting @exxonmobil and now me for having opinions she disagrees with”. Seriously, “persecuting ExxonMobil”. This is almost impossible (the ExxonMobil part) or maybe even a contradiction in terms because, if persecution means having them pay for something (oh, like cleaning up after the Exxon Valdez oil spill), its quite neigh impossible (to persecute them). Their 2015 profits were $16.2 B, that’s $44 M/ day; the Exxon Valdez ran aground in 1989 and, to date, it has cost $7B for the cleanup (https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/news/2010/04/30/7620/oil-spills-by-the-numbers ). If we annualize that expense, it works out to be $259 M/ year or $710 K/ day since 1989, a number that is barely 2% of their *daily* profits in 2015 numbers.
One final point, he doesn’t look a day over 40 in that picture (and quite possibly younger) so, since he founded his Think Tank in 2011, exactly what “corporate documents” are the targets of the subpoena since the corporation didn’t exist 40 years ago and he most likely WASN’T EVEN BORN yet? To give him the benefit of the doubt, that ‘s really a question for Ms. Healey.
Correction to first paragraph: “I would DISAGREE that the corporation he founded “enjoys” the protections of the First and Fourth Amendments, contrary to the findings of SCOTUS in ‘Citizens United’.
If corporations don’t enjoy those rights, the government could shut all media down because they are mostly corporations. A corporation is really just a legal structure for individuals and groups to operate in, and any speech is really an extension of the speech of the individuals or groups that run them. And those individuals and groups DO have that protection. So it makes sense to protect the speech and due process rights of corporations.
So in your learned opinion, a group of individuals operating under a voluntary agreement (a corporation) relinquishes their individual rights upon and because they’ve entered into an agreement.
TM, you and Obama may disagree but Citizen United was decided correctly from a constitutional perspective. Legally, corporations are ‘persons’ which conveys speech and association freedoms. Political contributions are a form of both. Basic 1st Amendment stuff.
I am less enthusiastic about regarding corporations as “persons.” The corporation is a creation of law, not of nature, and it is empowered to conduct legal and financial transactions…all the while holding its human initiators and agents as blameless. It is a contrivance to escape legal liability. It seeks rights, but shields its decision-makers from responsibility. This is not a good thing, and they should never be given a say in political matters, for that would be collusion with the regulatory power. The people involved have their own political rights, and that is sufficient for anyone.
And don’t get wroth over the lack of alternatives. Before there were corporations (and excessively greedy shareholders), there were privately-owned businesses and partnerships. A good example of this is General Atomics. Or possibly SpaceX.
I speak as one who has worked for a major corporation for the past 40 years. The more the corporation becomes an uncontrolled juggernaut with a rubber-stamp board of directors and a faceless-mass, greed-motivated body of shareholders, and top executives who are liable to the sins of corruption, cupidity, and stupidity, the less it should be held in esteem.
All the information the MA. Attorney General might need is contained in Epstein’s book: “The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels”. But that assumes that she will go to the trouble of reading it and can understand it.
You assume she can read?
As far as the inclusion of the 2nd amendment; although incorrect specifically, the attacks on the 2nd amendment and the complaisance that many moderates have towards the inroads on that amendment that are now enshrined in law and precedent were just the tip of the iceberg for a long time on the attack by the left on the Bill of Rights.
If one is successfully attacked and diminished, then all of them are diminished and in danger.
Because the attackers can always come up with a rational seeming argument against their validity. They will always find willing defendants and causes that appear to justify the encroachment on the citizens rights due to some perceived threat or other.
That is how a right is effectively destroyed; by regulating it, by claiming it is outmoded or dangerous and by outright denial that such a right exists.
Remember this the next time you find yourself agreeing with someone on “Gun Control”. All those rights have a purpose, they were felt to be so important that they became the linchpin of the entire document and without their inclusion, the United States would not be what it is today.
ALL OF THEM.
Indeed!
My favorite retort to the “gun control” crowd is “The first thing Hitler did was take away everyone’s guns.”
“Liberal Fascism” is still Fascism, even when hiding behind the “smiley faces.”
Hear, hear.
With regard to the 2nd Amendment, some points: (1) The meaning of “shall not be infringed,” for those who are obtuse, is “shall not be regulated.” “Infringe” means to touch upon in any degree, however slight. (2) According to the body of the Constitution, Congress has no enumerated power to make laws to govern the subject of firearms or firearms ownership. (4) Excepting that Congress does have an enumerated DUTY to provision and train the civil militia.
Consider also the implications of any “regulation” of the 9th and 10th Amendments.
The 9th and 10th Amendments.
Which, after our congressional Squealers get their pots of white paint, will no doubt read: “Everything that is not mandatory is prohibited. And vice-versa.”
Some reaction by ExxonMobil
Note, Under the Clinton Presidency, Exxon and Mobil merged into one company. Mobil was very aggressive in one page editorials in the NY times defending the industry.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/exxon-fires-back-at-democratic-ags/article/2594015
Read Exxon’s pleadings against Walker’s USVI subpoena, also. Its a series of devastating points. No juridiction, conflict through the DC contingency law firm that actually got the subpoena issued, violation of civil rights under both Texas and Federal law,…
Taking his response literally could actually be quite fun… 😉
An AG has to prove that a company or person’s actions CAUSE HARM to their constituency before they’re allowed to make such a demand.
The theory is that there was harm caused to EXXON’s shareholders.
Dumb theory. The stock has been very good to shareholders. Falsely claiming CAGW certainty when there is none implies mitigation measures that would send the stock down and harm shareholders. That is where Schneiderman will trip up.
Some people in the state must think their self righteousness out weighs the law. They must think climate science has been settled and any contrary view has been outlawed by all 3 branches of government.
From mere political correctness it’s come to ideological correctness and government force demands that you prove you are not tainted. I’m voting straight Libertarian from now on.
to bad the libertarian party ticket this go round isn’t even close to being libertarian.
Welcome to the do not fly list.
CAGW is like a state sponsored religion. If you don’t agree with them, you get prosecuted. Bow down and kiss the ring of Gaia!
US 4th Amendment from English law:
Entick vs Carrington (1765). Lord Camden’s ruling:
“The great end, for which men entered into society, was to secure their property. That right is preserved sacred and incommunicable in all instances, where it has not been taken away or abridged by some public law for the good of the whole. The cases where this right of property is set aside by private law, are various. Distresses, executions, forfeitures, taxes etc are all of this description; wherein every man by common consent gives up that right, for the sake of justice and the general good. By the laws of England, every invasion of private property, be it ever so minute, is a trespass. No man can set his foot upon my ground without my licence, but he is liable to an action, though the damage be nothing; which is proved by every declaration in trespass, where the defendant is called upon to answer for bruising the grass and even treading upon the soil. If he admits the fact, he is bound to show by way of justification, that some positive law has empowered or excused him. The justification is submitted to the judges, who are to look into the books; and if such a justification can be maintained by the text of the statute law, or by the principles of common law. If no excuse can be found or produced, the silence of the books is an authority against the defendant, and the plaintiff must have judgment”
Human rights and civil liberties, from nearly 350 years ago.
Check out Frank Turner (English folk/punk singer) and his song “Sons of Liberty” from the album Poetry of the Deed, especially the lyrics at the end of the song. Same sentiment.
Frank Turner – “Sons of Liberty”
Please make sure you post any response to that succinct rebuttal, AW.
Attorney General Maura Healey’s action is far more vulgar and profane to the rule of law than Alex Epstein was to public language.
Goodbye lol and rofl, hello fof
FoF!
spread the meme!
– TNDbay
Here Mr. Epstein explains what triggered him: http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2016/06/16/first-the-government-went-after-exxonmobil-now-theyre-going-after-me/#32eb853369a1
Describing Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey as a “fascist” looks like fair comment to me.
He was also correct to ask her to “Foxtrot Oscar”
I avoid that F word as it demeans sexual intercourse, I’ve told Gutsy Alex that. In general I support him. I understand he is writing an article/letter.
Bad words were made for bad things.