The First Climate Change RICO Lawsuit is Filed by Editor

As first reported on WUWT, Leo Goldstein, a mathematician and the editor of, is suing multiple corporations and funds under RICO, alleging retaliation against witnesses, tampering with witnesses, bribery, and attempted embezzlement of $18 Trillion from pension funds. This is a press release made public yesterday on PRNewswire that updates our original story.

LUBBOCK, Texas, Sept. 26, 2016 /PRNewswire/ — Summons have been served upon Ceres, Inc., Ford Foundation, Rockefellers Brothers Fund, Environmental Grantmakers Association, Generation Investment Management LLP, and other corporations in the civil lawsuit 5:16-cv-00211-C, Goldstein v. Climate Action Network et al, pending before the United States District Court of the Northern District of Texas.  The lawsuit is based, in part, on the doctrine of “private attorneys general” in prosecuting violations under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations statute.

The lawsuit accuses the defendants of misappropriating tens of billions of dollars from public funds, and re-investing a large part of the misappropriated funds back into the allegedly illegal scheme.  The lawsuit singles out defendant Ceres, Inc., claiming it intends to steal $36 Trillion of public money over the next 36 years.  Workers and pensioners of California and New York are among the most vulnerable, but public funds and even private investments in other states are also in danger, according to the plaintiff.

The alleged criminal scheme has been running for decades, and thousands of scientists working in meteorology, atmospheric physics, oceanography, plant biology and other climate-related fields of research have been intimidated or even retaliated against, the complaint states.  Thus, the complaint does not rely on the dubious doctrine “fraud is not speech,” but alleges grave crimes.

Further, the lawsuit accuses the defendants of creating the political polarization around the climate issue, and claims that the enterprise set up and operated by the defendants and their allies has been intentionally degrading American scientific education and scientific research in order to advance its goals.  It alleges that the defendants utilized a large network of corrupt officials, pseudo-scientists, media front groups, and “marketing accessories,” all operating under complete control or undue influence of the defendants, to spread misinformation about the climate.

The complaint is being filed ahead of the expected class action lawsuits and criminal prosecutions against members of the alleged criminal enterprise, whose collective assets are likely to exceed $200 Billion.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Chris Riley
September 27, 2016 6:46 am

This is yet another reason to be concerned about the makeup of the Supreme Court.

September 27, 2016 6:47 am

Seems like a significant over reach to me.
On the other hand, it might make subsequent suits seem more reasonable by comparison.

Reply to  MarkW
September 27, 2016 10:14 am

It may depend on what he’s got.
What he’s saying they did might be criminal.
I haven’t seen the proof he’s selected as evidence.
Yet, there may be plenty of it.
This could drag out for 20 years…
Hell, Steyn’s case is already working on five, with no end in sight.

Reply to  mikerestin
September 27, 2016 11:51 am

True… however steyn maybe able to dogpile into this class action suit because his suit has been stalled for 5 years. That could be argued as money, intimation, etc. Hopefully steyn will get in contact with this person and see if they can work together. Steyn case is virtually proof of the terror tactics the alarmist use.

Carbon BIgfoot
Reply to  MarkW
September 28, 2016 5:42 am

This suit should include the American Chemical Society and American Institute of Chemical Engineers for their efforts to censor the discussion of CAGW.

September 27, 2016 6:58 am

The death of a thousand paper cuts begins 🙂

September 27, 2016 7:09 am

Pension funds come from an employee’s compensation packet and go into the pension fund, an investment fund.
Especially for pension funds of public employees, there are very clear rules for what can and cannot be done with the money, and there is always a good amount of oversight of this fund.
I am not going to read the entire filing. In the two WUWT stories on this, I do not see any thing that says money that should have gotten managed one way was diverted and managed another way.
Until some unknown time when “green” investments are no longer stable and reasonably seem profitable in the long term, there is nothing wrong in investing in green investments. It actually is a good idea in this case:
Al Gore and friends come up with a plan. It works whether man-made global warming from fossil fuels is true or not, and whether remediation and alternate energy sources actually mitigate. The plan is this: while building the political momentum for large industries and governments to invest in green technologies – such as a government investing in an array of windmills for electricity, Al Gore and friends simultaneously educate major investors – including the same governments – to get in on the ground floor – investing pension money in a new, long-term growth industry, the windmill. [I know they are old technology. But follow me here.]
That is not irresponsible investing. It is responsible investing. As long as it followed the rules governing how the money can be invested.
I don’t know typical rules for these funds. I just know I am under one, and I get these updates, as a little guy with some retirement money in one of these, that I am probably legally supposed to be getting. But it could be that, for example, it may not be OK for Al Gore, in his leading role with GIM, to simultaneously be a business developer – directly lobbying/advocating for governments to commit to “green” policies = which is tantamount to investing in green technologies. Can he play both sides?
If not, I would say the door is then open for the suit. It would not take much to find individuals in various positions to declare that they were somehow pressured or coerced, or misled, in their role in a way to promote this burgeoning market. For example, countries being persuaded simultaneously to sign on to pacts and treaties to go green, and by the same persuaders being persuaded to put federal pensions in a green investment fund such as GIM.

Reply to  TheLastDemocrat
September 27, 2016 9:39 am

Until some unknown time when “green” investments are no longer stable and reasonably seem profitable in the long term

Well the unknown time is now. The MTBF of a 10 panel system with 40 year panels, is only about 10 years, that’s for 10 panels. now, they will still generate, but the output will be less. Multiply this by millions for the panels they want to use and will need as a minimum.
Plus all of the power distribution, inverters and stuff, those will fail at some rate. Electronics failure rates are driven by temperature, thermal cycles, environment, moisture, and vibration, and solar has almost all of these they have to survive. So they are going to have issues as the panels, millions of them start getting to be 10-20 years old, and those are just the ones in use now, they want to greatly increase that number at the same time.
It’s going to require great fields of panels. Panels as far as you can see in some places, and they are going to require people, or robots continuously servicing them. They only work at about 25 cents for generation per kWhr, I pay 7 cents.

Reply to  micro6500
September 27, 2016 10:21 am

Assuming the panels are tracking, which most industrial ones don’t. I’ve never seen a setup where the inverters are mounted on the same hardware as the panels.

Reply to  MarkW
September 27, 2016 10:39 am


It’s just the last big influence on failure rates other than the objects construction itself.
I did not mean to imply I was including it as significant factor in solar panels case.

Bryan A
Reply to  micro6500
September 27, 2016 10:36 am

Hillary’s goal of 500,000,000 solar panels per year sounds like a large number but if you consider a home will take approx 30 panels (some more some less) to meet it’s daytime power needs, 500M panels equates to
16,666,667 U.S. homes
333.334 homes per state per year
925 homes per day per state
1 home for every 3.1 counties
1 home for every 25 cities in every state

Reply to  Bryan A
September 27, 2016 10:59 am

If 10 panels start failing in 10 years, that’s 50 million panels with reduced output(how most panel failures show up) at about 10 years. At 1000 times better reliability (they will try to improve it), that’s still 50,000 panels, and as you’re pointing out you still thousands of times more of them on everyone’s houses.
But, what if the plan was to convert let’s say 1/6 of the economy, all energy production to solar. Where people would make millions of panels, millions, and millions. Then whole huge industries of people installing, cleaning and repairing solar panels. This and a new grid to handle shipping power where the sun isn’t shining. Let say it replaces +90% of oil production, and everything that goes with it. But is devoting such a large portion of the productive capacity of the country, or even the world a good thing?
Is it really a make work project? They keep telling us about all of the good green jobs we’ll have?

george e. smith
Reply to  micro6500
September 27, 2016 11:42 am

Don’t have to have any vibration problem due to tracking hardware.
Don’t even need to track. Perfectly good non tracking non-imaging optical collectors are well known, that operate all sunlit day and all year.
And they can save considerably on area of solar cells.
You can get a 2.5 X one axis concentration, that will track the sun properly without ever moving.
You could get perhaps 4X single axis concentration with perhaps once a month latitude correction.
That might be just a hand tweak by the window cleaner “janitor” each month. Take five minutes tops including keeping it 100 year storm safe, and time for taking selfies while up the ladder. nothing more than loosening a lock nut, turning a crank (one turn) and tightening lock nut.
Not advocating Farms the size of some US States (57 of them). Local usage of existing real estate structures, for local electricity use.

Reply to  micro6500
September 27, 2016 11:54 am

The inverters needed for A/C conversion have a built in vibration problem. They all have to convert DC to A/C which requires making alternating current from the direct current from the panels. Typical inverters use 400Hz or so in the voltage converter to minimize noise and vibration, but the internal transformers all vibrate. The also likely use a stepdown transformer in the 60 Hz section to produce power line A/C.

Reply to  logicalchemist
September 27, 2016 12:14 pm

The inverters needed for A/C conversion have a built in vibration problem. They all have to convert DC to A/C which requires making alternating current from the direct current from the panels. Typical inverters use 400Hz or so in the voltage converter to minimize noise and vibration, but the internal transformers all vibrate. The also likely use a stepdown transformer in the 60 Hz section to produce power line A/C.

You are correct, in the overall reliability of the inverters potting of the transformers will be critical.
It’s funny how so many of the mode are simple open connections. Highest failure rates are connectors, good ones to bad ones, then solder joints, wires are here, then circuit traces and connections, then into the packages, same thing connectors, and circuit traces. Those little tiny aluminum wires on integrated circuits has currents rated in the million’s of amps per sq cm, just because they are so small.
Then you different types of metals have different rates of expansion, and sometimes bimetallic electrical effects, corners, electro-migration grain boundaries, and then all the smoke gets let out.

Richard G.
Reply to  micro6500
September 27, 2016 12:37 pm

Vibration? As in wind induced structural degradation?

Reply to  Richard G.
September 27, 2016 12:50 pm

Vibration? As in wind induced structural degradation?

I would expect this to be low, but much higher might be the wind flexing wires off a panel to a fixed point.
Wind turbines would have a reasonable amount.
But the one I think about as an example was my boss telling me about I think a missile on a vibration table (he sold the tables), and cranking it up and it getting all sorts of weird noises and stuff falling off. Solar doesn’t get those sorts of G’s.

Reply to  micro6500
September 27, 2016 3:40 pm

Failure rates are certainly an issue, and at this point we lack the data to have a good idea of the MTBF to expect.
A major problem is that the solar production of PV panels does not align very well with peak usage. The peak production of my solar panels is between 11:00 and 12:00, whereas peak electrical usage is after 17:00. On June 21, power production began after 6:00 and continued until almost 20:00. On December 21, production began after 8:00 and ceased shortly after 16:00. The highest demand months are in the fall and winter: October through March. These are also the months of the lowest solar production.
With solar panels (PV) there is a seasonal offset of the months of peak production and the months of peak usage. There is also a daily offset of the time of day of peak production and the time of day of peak usage. Pumped storage would allow the surplus power produced during the day to be used to generate power during the evening and night to peak shave the daily offsets, however I have no idea how the seasonal offset could be handled other than by fossil or nuclear power plants.

Reply to  micro6500
September 28, 2016 7:25 am

Great fields of solar panels are a vision of obscenity.

Reply to  pyeatte
September 28, 2016 8:25 am

Nothing like the huge fields of Sunflowers in bloom outside Boulder.
But who cares about hundreds of sq miles of desert, right?
Though how much of California’s rain and snow do they flush out to the oceans to care for I think a snail darter. I think I read near half, but like eagles, deserts are fair game for the green monster.

Richard G.
Reply to  micro6500
September 28, 2016 10:21 am

The South West deserts experience ridiculously strong windstorms. I have witnessed this on multiple occasions. They transport vast amounts of sand and dust, cause erosion (deflation and saltation) and deposition. I was enveloped in a three day blow that broke tent poles and left the windshield of my truck obscured from sand blasting and etching the surface. It can strip the paint right off vehicles. The long term maintenance prospects are daunting for an array of glass panels as the dunes march through.

Reply to  Richard G.
September 28, 2016 10:38 am

The long term maintenance prospects are daunting for an array of glass panels as the dunes march through.

Are you putting down GOOD GREEN JOBS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?????????????
I just wonder if the employees who will get those jobs have any idea that’s what they are being sold when Politicians offer them up as the savior of future employment?

Tom in Florida
Reply to  TheLastDemocrat
September 27, 2016 9:45 am

“The plan is this: while building the political momentum for large industries and governments to invest in green technologies – such as a government investing in an array of windmills for electricity, Al Gore and friends simultaneously educate major investors – including the same governments – to get in on the ground floor – investing pension money in a new, long-term growth industry, the windmill.”
Two points.
1. Does Al Gore have the appropriate SEC licensing to educate and recommend what major investors should be speculating on?
2. Your assumption that windmills are a long term growth industry is wishful thinking, one of the primary faults that cause investors to make bad decisions and lose money.

Reply to  TheLastDemocrat
September 27, 2016 4:02 pm

He might have them on the fiduciary requirements of all persons who look after OPMs (other people’s money). No prudent investor should invest in new technologies that require government subsidies (on the grounds of the fickleness of governments) or grants or which have unproven profitability. These risky developments should be left to angels. Germany’s experience with renewables should provide a warning about rushing into immature technologies. Investment managers, especially pension managers, must be prudent, expert and always act in the best interest of the people whose money they are investing.

Reply to  TheLastDemocrat
September 27, 2016 5:33 pm

I’m pretty sure the scheme you just layed out (… works whether man-made global warming … is true or not…) might be a RICO violation. The implication is that the push by people like Jerry baby here in California are conspiring to profit – or to bestow profit at the public’s expense. We already know that there is no benefit in his delta tunnel scheme that could not be achieved more cheaply by either re-designing the intakes for the canals (far and away the cheapest) or by telling So Cal to go desalinate its own water (more costly but less environmental disruption and less economic cost in the north state. They would still want the rest of the state help pay for their swimming pool water, but they want that anyway. Investing in “green” technology is only a responsible act if it is demonstrably fiscally sound. Jerry seems to be trying to force investments that are unlikely to pay off, except perhaps to real estate developers in So Cal.

David Cage
Reply to  TheLastDemocrat
September 27, 2016 11:53 pm

Surely to invest in a product that is solely dependent on subsidies for viability, subsidies that come from fossil fuel sales, is by definition a pyramid selling scheme. The day the pyramid grows greater than the ability for fossil fuel to subsidise it there has to be a collapse. I do not see how investing in a scheme like this no matter how good a short term policy can ever be considered responsible investing.
One day a significant number of people will see green energy as just another pyramid selling scheme and pull out so the collapse will be sudden and spectacular. I notice that people are seeing this on the electric car subsidy front so it may not be that long till the collapse.
Five years ago who would have even dared to suggest green was wrong on this scale? How long before someone dares to test in court whether solar farms are legal land use? In the UK land is designated farm , industrial or agricultural. One day someone is going to challenge the right to call it a solar farm and demand the right to put up a heavy steel pressing plant next door as the land is already an ugly industrial power generation site. There are so many areas where the law has been knowingly subverted by the green lobby that are open to challenge once there is the will. Investing in an area that has played so fast and free with the law is never responsible investment.

Reply to  David Cage
September 29, 2016 2:10 am

I would suggest that after the June/July period in South Australia when the wind farms were delivering negative energy to the SA grid (they took energy from the grid to keep the windmills rotating so as to keep the bearings lubricated in a period of total calm), and yesterdays total blackout of SA due to high winds (windmills not providing power), a few lightning strikes and a few collapsed poles, people in Australia may be beginning to wonder about the supposed benefits of green energy.

Carbon BIgfoot
Reply to  TheLastDemocrat
September 28, 2016 5:57 am

You Democrats live in a Fantasy World.

Reply to  Carbon BIgfoot
September 28, 2016 9:11 am

Your lack of faith in progressive self-sustaining unicorn farms is disturbing.

September 27, 2016 7:17 am

I have been hoping someone would do this.
On the evidence this is with the attendant carbon credits and renewable energy the biggest fraud since sub prime re-insurance.
I bet you when it comes down to it, though there will be a core of experts all of whom simply ‘took each others advice’, and no one will ever be identified as ‘the source’ of all the disinformation.

September 27, 2016 7:26 am

Perhaps Goldstein is doin’ a McLuhan in using the medium as the message.

September 27, 2016 7:31 am

From reading this post, I’m having a hard time determining whether this suit is being filed for or against the climate activists. The only clue I see is the “fr@ud is not free speech” being referred to as a dubious doctrine.

Reply to  Canman
September 27, 2016 7:39 am

read first link

george e. smith
Reply to  zemlik
September 27, 2016 11:43 am

What it say, since you read it already ??

george e. smith
Reply to  zemlik
September 27, 2016 11:45 am

I already know about the Library of Congress, and all of the information stored there.
Not much help to me knowing it is there.

Reply to  Canman
September 27, 2016 7:42 am

It becomes pretty obvious when you read the list of who is being named in the suit.

September 27, 2016 8:18 am

As much as I hate these “global warming” organizations, I can’t back this lawsuit. The RICO law is probably unconstitutional or, at the very least, unconstitutional in its application. A bad law can also be used against our side. Image Bill Nye the socialist guy suing Watts Up With That or Climate Depot under RICO. I’m sure Greenpeace would love to sue and imprison the thorium people under some BS law as well. The queen of anti-nuke cultists Helen Caldicott was talking about Nuremberg-type trials for people in the nuclear industry.

ferd berple
Reply to  Timothy Weaver
September 27, 2016 8:44 am

Intimidation, threats, firings and money. These are the key to RICO. Was pressure put on someone to control the flow of money.
For example, Judith Curry. She went from the darling of the IPCC to pariah, apparently for questioning the climategate emails and the official IPCC position. And according to what I read this has affected her academic career and advancement. There are many other less well known examples.
I’m pretty sure hundreds or even thousands of scientists across the country have held their tongues on climate change out of fear for their careers, and someone else has benefited financially, and the persons that have benefited have been the same ones promoting the fear and intimidation.
Like the church during the inquisition. If you are found guilty by the church, your lands and titles are forfeit to the church. So no one speaks up out of fear, and the church helps itself to immense wealth.

Reply to  ferd berple
September 27, 2016 3:51 pm

It seldom worked like that. In Spain, at least, titles were forfeit to the Crown, whence they came, not the Church. Regarding money and property, “If the heretic were a clerk or a lay vassal of the Church, the confiscation went to the Church; if otherwise, to the temporal seigneur.” This was one reason the Spanish Kings didn’t oppose the Inquisition much; it was in their interests for people to be found guilty. Full information:

September 27, 2016 9:07 am

Don Quixote tilting at windmills. The suit is misdirected and misclaimed and poorly lawyered.
Not that adequate grounds do not exist under 42USC1983 and 18USC241. Neither is RICO per se.

Reply to  ristvan
September 27, 2016 9:49 am

It beats the current stall tactics on FOI that have reached the level of a high art form with template responses.

Reply to  ristvan
September 27, 2016 1:10 pm

Thanks Ristvan. The only one as usual to be citing legal references and not just spouting opinion.
When this Goldstein thing got reported here last week I said it looked ill-advised and naive. While is second the sentiment, there is absolutely no point in going into this kind of action unless you know what you are doing and are well advised.
It seems that Ristvan is of the same opinion that this has not been thought through.

Reply to  Greg
September 27, 2016 2:15 pm

Correct. CEI, CATO, and many others actually targeted by AG subpoenas are in a much better legal position to stop this stuff. Although the ‘private attorney general’ legal theory does exist, courts almost never allow it in practice because of the potential for abuse of prosecutorial discretion. As here. Alleging investment fund RICO collusion with Ceres and the Ford Foundation via the climate action network is just nuts. You can never prove a conspiracy to defraud without proving the IPCC is also fraudulent. Not going to happen, ever. A delusional legal action that notmproper attorney would deign to help.

September 27, 2016 9:09 am

Pass me the popcorn.

NW sage
Reply to  Bitter&twisted
September 27, 2016 5:18 pm

With butter please!

September 27, 2016 9:23 am

It is unlikely the propositions promoted in this suit will catch on and become popularly held as “received wisdom”. However, the statement appears to make at least as much sense as the current narrative of catastrophic climate change.

Walter Sobchak
September 27, 2016 9:34 am

Dude is wasting his time. The Court system is only for liberal leftists to impose their views on the rest of the world.

Reply to  Walter Sobchak
September 27, 2016 9:45 am

It will generate some documents though and stall tactics don’t work as well in this venue.

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  Resourceguy
September 27, 2016 12:21 pm

It depends on who you are and which side you are on.

Caligula Jones
September 27, 2016 9:42 am

As Glenn “Instapundit” Reynolds says, the only way to deal with bullies is to “punch back twice as hard”.

Ross King
September 27, 2016 9:49 am

In answer to Canman, I too was left confused buy the lack of clarity in the opening para. Open and there’s no doubt about Goldstein’s bona fides. I only hope he has access to deep-pockets!
As my old Finance Prof., used to demand of our term-papers & analyses: “Always state the obvious!”

Reply to  Ross King
September 27, 2016 9:53 am

“Always state the obvious!”

This is a really good piece of advise, more than once a lot of time was wasted because it wasn’t obvious to all parties.

Reply to  micro6500
September 27, 2016 11:59 am

to clarify- advise is what you do, advice is what you get.

September 27, 2016 10:13 am

I’m not a lawyer, so I am talking out of my rear end. But any suit alleging $18,000,000,000,000.00 in damages strikes me as frivolous on its face. It’s like suing and expecting a judge to award you the entire GDP of the U.S. economy for a year.

Reply to  Scott
September 27, 2016 10:24 am

Negotiating tactics. Always ask for more than you expect to get.

Caligula Jones
Reply to  MarkW
September 27, 2016 1:39 pm

I believe there may be precedent that if you DON’T ask for a large amount, your case can be seen as weak and vexatious. If there are no real damages, you’re just being an irritant.
Or something. I’m just a pretend architect, not a pretend lawyer.

Reply to  Scott
September 27, 2016 2:16 pm

I am a lawyer, and you are correct.

September 27, 2016 10:21 am

Here are some posts from 2014:
Allan MacRae wrote on September 22, 2014 at 9:27 am
Phil – please see my post of September 21, 2014 at 11:28 pm
I suggest that someone is going to sue these warmist fraudsters in the USA, probably using the civil RICO statutes.
Watch for it…
Best, Allan
Allan MacRae wrote on September 21, 2014 at 11:28 pm
On Accountability:
I wrote this to a friend in the USA one year ago:
I am an engineer, not a lawyer, but to be clear I was thinking of a class action (or similar) lawsuit, rather than an individual lawsuit from yourself or anyone else.
I suggest that there have been many parties that have been damaged by global warming alarmism. Perhaps the most notable are people who have been forced to pay excessive rates for electricity due to CO2-mandated wind and solar power schemes. Would the people of California qualify? Any other states? I suggest the people of Great Britain, Germany and possibly even Ontario would qualify, but the USA is where this lawsuit would do the most good.
There is an interesting field of US law that employs the RICO (anti-racketeering) statutes to provide treble (triple) damages in civil cases. That might be a suitable approach,
Despite congressional attempts to limit the scope of civil RICO, only one major area of law has been removed from the RICO Act. The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.A. § 77 et seq.) eliminated liability for RICO claims based on securities Fraud, unless the defendant has already been criminally convicted of securities fraud. The act thus removed the threat of treble (triple) damages in such cases. Congress concluded that federal securities laws generally provide adequate remedies for victims of securities fraud. Therefore, it was unnecessary and unfair to expose defendants in securities cases to the threat of treble damages and other extraordinary remedies provided by the RICO Act.
Critics of the RICO Act applaud this congressional action but argue that the same reasoning can and should be applied to other areas of Civil Law. These critics maintain that the act’s broad scope has given plaintiffs an unfair advantage in civil litigation.
One criticism of civil RICO is that no criminal convictions are necessary to win a civil case under the act. The plaintiff need only show, by a Preponderance of Evidence, that it is more likely than not that the ongoing criminal enterprise occurred. As a result RICO has been used in all types of civil cases to allege wrongdoing. By contrast, a criminal RICO case must be proved Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.
In addition, the judge and jury in a criminal RICO case are prohibited from drawing an adverse inference from a defendant’s invocation of the Fifth Amendment Privilege against Self-Incrimination. No such ban exists, however, in a civil RICO case. Critics contend that it is unfair for a party in a civil RICO case who has concerns about potential criminal liability to be forced to waive his or her Fifth Amendment privilege in order to mount an effective defense in the civil action. Once testimony is given in the civil case, the party has effectively waived the privilege against Self-Incrimination, and the testimony may be used in a subsequent criminal prosecution. Critics contend that the RICO Act should be amended to stay (delay) a civil RICO proceeding until a criminal RICO proceeding has been concluded.
The critics of civil RICO also believe that its use has given plaintiffs an unfair tool that often serves to coerce a party to settle out of fear of a treble damages award. These critics believe that no civil RICO action should be allowed unless the party has been convicted under criminal RICO.
[end of excerpt]
I suggest the Climategate emails could provide the necessary evidence of a criminal conspiracy to defraud the public, through fraudulent misallocation of government-funded research monies, and wind and solar power schemes that were forced upon consumers and which were utterly incapable of providing significant or economic new energy to the electric power grid.
Your thoughts?
Regards, Allan

richard verney
Reply to  Allan M.R. MacRae
September 27, 2016 2:29 pm

In the UK electricity price is double what it would be had the government not pushed the green/renewable agenda.
Gas bills may be up by about 10% because of this.
UK citizens do not know how much they are paying extra for all of this. Politicians are not being honest about the extra costs already being paid, and the UK MSM is either in cahoots, or just does not care, or investigative journalism and fact checking is dead.
Whatever the reason, it is a scandal and is one which will come to light once climate alarmism dies.
Further, the high cost of energy is costing business dear, with industrial closures (eg steel works) leading to loss of tax revenue and payment of state benefits.
The cost to the ordinary citizen is huge.

Reply to  richard verney
September 29, 2016 8:14 pm

Agree with you Richard.
How is it that the UK, with 1/6 the population of the USA, has up to 1/2 the number of Excess Winter Deaths?
It is astonishing that anyone listens to these warmist scammers, who have been wrong about EVERY scary prediction they have made to date.
Unfortunately, the warmists have convinced many of our politicians, and when misinformed politicians fool with energy systems, innocent people suffer and die.
The problem with “green energy” is that it is not green and produces little useful energy. The key problem is intermittency. In the absence of grid-scale storage (aka the “”super-battery”), grid-connected green energy is typically destructive, since it greatly increases electricity costs and also reduces grid reliability.
The high rates of Excess Winter Mortality in the United Kingdom are evidence of this green energy debacle. Britain and Germany have driven many of their citizens into energy poverty, and are now retreating from green energy foolishness as fast as they politically can.
Cheap abundant reliable energy is the lifeblood of society – it IS that simple.
Regards, Allan
Reference: “Cold Weather Kills 20 Times as Many People as Hot Weather” by Joseph D’Aleo and Allan MacRae, September 4, 2015

September 27, 2016 10:23 am

How can ‘investing in renewables’ be responsible if you only get ‘a profit’ because of subsidies?
Subsidies are money taken by law from poor people and given to people with money.
Does not seem fair, reasonable or moral.
A change in politics can end subsidies overnight – responsible investment – NO!

Reply to  steverichards1984
September 27, 2016 12:43 pm

How can ‘investing in renewables’ be responsible if you only get ‘a profit’ because of subsidies?
Fiscal responsibility of investment fund managers is to the fund’s investors. Not to society as a whole.
If someone is e.g. making a profit white slaving to the middle east, its responsible to invest in them if it makes a profit, and it is legal. Which it might be in some part of the world.

Reply to  steverichards1984
September 27, 2016 2:18 pm

Warren Buffet does it because he makes money so long as yhemsubsidies are there. Perfectly legal. Its the subsidies that are ‘criminally stupid’.

September 27, 2016 10:52 am

Keep in mind, that this suit may be a “false flag” operation. It may be done badly, to close the door and prevent anyone else from doing the job well.

Science or Fiction
September 27, 2016 3:34 pm

«claims that the enterprise set up and operated by the defendants and their allies has been intentionally degrading American scientific education and scientific research in order to advance its goals.»
Here is one example of that:
Climate Change in the Next Generation Science Standards (K-12)
«Table 8: Fifth Grade Performance Standards
5-LS1-1 Standard :
Support an argument that plants get the materials they need for growth chiefly from air and water.
Clarification Statement & Assessment Boundary:
Emphasis is on the idea that plant matter comes mostly from air and water, not from the soil.»
CO2 has become so dangerous that the totalitarians try to avoid teaching kids that plants use it, need it and benefits from more of it – another step towards idiocracy.

Johna Till Johnson
September 27, 2016 6:30 pm

@ristvan–I am NOT a lawyer, but my first reaction upon reading this was, “where’s the standing?” Am I right in concluding that a private citizen in Texas has zero standing when it comes to claiming damages from, say, the AG of New York?

September 28, 2016 2:10 am

Today’s National Post outlines the Liberal energy debacle in Ontario – drive up electrical energy costs due to green energy schemes, destroy the manufacturing economy and jobs, suffer declining electricity demand resulting in even higher electrical unit costs, and then try to increase demand by forcing citizens to use electricity in place of better, cheaper forms of energy.
I am reminded of my first trip into East Germany, though Checkpoint Charlie in July 1989 – four months before the Wall fell. Nothing worked in East Germany – except the Stasi, the Secret Police.
This is what happens when doctrinaire imbeciles have political power – after a while, nothing works the way it should, and everything costs more.
By Terry Corcoran – National Post, 28 September 2016
Ontario’s energy minister on Tuesday read through the speech provided by his government spin- meisters. The province, said Glenn Thibeault, had decided to “suspend procurement” of 1,000 additional megawatts of unneeded wind and solar power. The cancellation would save a typical residential consumer “an average of approximately $2.45 per month.”
But there’s more to the decision than mollifying consumers. The real objective is to keep Ontarians in the dark about the mess left after a decade of disastrous Liberal power policy. One should never underestimate the ability of politicians to convert massive policy failure into a dazzling display of green concern for the welfare of voters. That’s the trick now being attempted by the Liberal government of Ontario as it begins to unravel parts of its financially disastrous green energy program.
Glenn Thibeault, the province’s latest energy minister on Tuesday read through the script provided by the spinmeisters within Premier Kathleen Wynne’s government. The province, he said in a speech to the Ontario Energy Association, had decided to “suspend procurement” of 1,000 additional megawatts of unneeded wind and solar power. The cancellation is “expected to save $3.8 billion in electricity system costs,” thereby saving a typical residential consumer “an average of approximately $2.45 per month.”
Only a government can get away with declaring a saving for consumers by not spending on projects that are not needed.
It’s the latest defensive electricity market move by the Wynne Liberals, who are down in the polls and facing a crisis over electricity prices. An eight per cent provincial sales tax recently imposed on power was suddenly eliminated and rural Ontarians will receive rebates on part of their soaring electricity costs.
But there’s more to the decision to suspend 1,000 MW of wind and solar projects than attempting to mollify unhappy consumers. The real objective is to keep consumers and the public in the dark over the electricity mess that exists after a decade of Liberal policy based on the slogan “Renewable is doable.” In the rush to green, Ontario’s electricity sector has become an overbuilt collection of electricity-producing assets selling power at high prices into a declining market. Since 2006, annual electricity demand within Ontario has dropped 6.5 per cent, mostly a function of declining industrial sectors. Meanwhile, installed capacity soared by more than 25 per cent, mostly a function of the government’s expensive wind and solar schemes.
While masses of new generating and transmission capacity have been added, the latest report from the province’s Independent Electricity System Operator warns that electricity demand is unlikely to increase over the next 20 years. The only way to boost demand, it projects, would be to adopt Plan C: mandate residential conversion to electric water and space heat, reduce commercial and industrial use of fossil fuels, and turn 2.4 million automobiles into electric vehicles.
The government now appears to realize none of the above is going to happen, leaving consumers to bear the cost of new capacity that’s not needed.
The excess capacity, supported by government- mandated feed- in tariffs and expensive transmission- grid modifications, has propelled Ontario electricity prices higher. Since 2006, the average price of electricity has risen 6.4 per cent per year in nominal terms. Residential consumers pay higher rates still.
The decision to stop buying more wind and solar is also an abrupt about- face for a government that had turned doable renewables into a religious mission. The planned new capacity — including 600 MW of wind and 250 MW of solar — had only been ordered by ministerial directive last April. Known as Large Renewable Procurement II, the new plan follows LRP I, which set out earlier to contract 300 MW of wind and 145 MW of solar. Those projects have not yet started.
The surplus electricity capacity means that nuclear, gas, hydro, wind and solar power producers are often paid not to produce electricity. At other times, surplus power is exported at cheap prices to neighbouring states. Ontario’s power regime pays 11 cents a kilowatt hour then exports the same power at two cents. Almost 15 per cent of Ontario’s annual power production is now dumped into the U. S. market. Ontario power consumers pay for these losses.
Experts and analysts have been warning of the excess wind and solar expansions for years. The Ontario Society of Professional Engineers’ Paul Acchione warned in 2012 that wind expansion is “costly” and “technically difficult to integrate” into the Ontario system. More recently, Ontario solar consultant Jon Kieran, in a National Post commentary, called on the government to cancel LRP II and revisit LRP I. He said there is “no logical reason to build more wind and solar megaprojects in Ontario.” He called the projects a form of “green corporate welfare.”
While the government has as of Tuesday only cancelled the LRP II procurements, Kieran said in an interview that LRP I could also be cancelled. None of the LRP I wind and solar deals are underway and they are not scheduled to receive firm notices to proceed until 2017. Kieran believes these deals could also be cancelled with minimum cost to the government. The major contractors are mostly U.S.-based firms.
All of this merely highlights the electricity system absurdity that’s been created over the last decade by the Liberal government. Producers are paid to produce power that’s not needed. On the demand side, consumers are paid not to consume the same power produced under government mandate. A paper last April by energy consultant Tom Adams and Guelph University economist Ross McKitrick concluded that Ontario’s demand-side program cost billions despite no evidence of real savings.
Maybe the Wynne government’s sudden withdrawal from large wind and solar projects is a sign of more preelection reforms to come. If it is, let’s be grateful that voters are finally starting to realize the results of 10 terrible years of Liberal electricity policy.

Peter Klopfenstein
September 28, 2016 3:25 pm

This is a tactic of the World Progressive Movement and Global Warming Scam to stifle legitimate criticism and science, and suppress free speech. Global Warming ideology is a world wide attempt to suppress or destroy legitimate science and prevent free discourse. Publishing an opinion in open society is not intimidation unless it can be proven it was focused on a particular individual.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights