Breaking: Intervention in the Plans of AGs United for the Unconstitutional Power

motion-ag-intervene

Leo Goldstein writes via email:

I have just filed a motion to intervene in the ExxonMobil v AG Healey (4:16-cv-00469-K) lawsuit, currently pending before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.  The original lawsuit was filed by Exxon in response to a civil investigative demand (a subpoena equivalent), issued by MA AG Maura Healey. This “investigation” started following the infamous “Attorneys General United for Clean Power” press conference with Al Gore on March 29, which was a culmination of shadowy meetings of trial lawyers, Greenpeace operatives, and other usual suspects, sponsored by Rockefeller Brothers / Rockefellers Family Fund. Much of the evidence has been uncovered by E&E Legal.

To me, the most shocking part is that “AGs United” and many other government officials involved with the energy are like marionettes in the hands of Greenpeace and other foreign forces. And let us not to forget: the Climate Action Network, the apex umbrella organization of climate alarmism, is headquartered in Beirut, Lebanon – probably the largest hub of the international terrorism in the world. Many of CAN members campaign not only against the fossil fuels, but against nuclear power as well, and collect and transmit to the headquarters data about our nuclear facilities. Obama administration is not going to help – consider alerting your local law enforcement.

But my Motion lists many concerns. Investigation by AG Healey against Exxon is an attempt to suppress speech not only by Exxon, but by all citizens who might look for lawful employment, business, or support from Exxon, and similarly situated corporations. Exxon is used (and has been used for the last 15 years) as a tool for suppressing freedom of speech.  Some quotes from the Motion and the Complaint:

1) The phony “investigation” by AG Healey and her accomplices is directed against the free speech of the Applicant.  AG Healey attacks ExxonMobil because she believes or pretends to believe that ExxonMobil supports, employs, or does business with climate realists – individuals and organizations that disagree with climate alarmism. Climate alarmism and its relative, the global governance agenda, are the core beliefs of the Democratic Party (and possibly its only true beliefs).  In fact, ExxonMobil did not speak against climate alarmism in the last 10 years.

AG Healey attempts to deny the Applicant his First Amendment free speech rights in a relatively novel way.  She does not tell him, “You are forbidden to disagree with the core beliefs of the Democratic Party.”  Instead, she tells his potential employers and supporters, “You are forbidden to employ or support the Applicant, if he disagrees with the core beliefs of the Democratic Party.”  Nevertheless, the intent and the effect are the same – denial of the Applicant’s free speech rights. …

2)      AG Healey and her accomplices are attempting to establish their climate alarmist beliefs as the state religion.

3) AG Healey has violated the rights of the Applicant under Article I Section 1 of the Constitution: All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. AG Healey has attempted to subject the Applicant to the powers of various international organizations, United Nations agencies, and other foreign entities.

6) The actions by AG Healey devalue the Applicant’s life, in violation of the Fifth Amendment.  Climate alarmism, advanced by AG Healey and her accomplices, calls human breath “pollution,” since breathing releases carbon dioxide.  Human breath in general and the Applicant’s breath in particular are not pollution.  AG Healey must be enjoined from taking any action based on the belief that carbon dioxide is pollution.  The actions by AG Healey also imperil the Applicant’s life because they are aimed at shutting down industries that extract, process, and/or use fossil fuels all over the United States.

You can download the whole Motion, the Complaint and accompanying affidavit and exhibits from my site.

The Motion to Intervene might be dismissed by the Judge, or opposed by either party in the lawsuit. Stay tuned.

Advertisements

62 thoughts on “Breaking: Intervention in the Plans of AGs United for the Unconstitutional Power

  1. GO, GOLDSTEIN!

    May God bless you with the success of David against Goliath! David had the skill and the courage, all he needed was the opportunity….

    I wish I could be your litigation assistant!

    With admiration,

    Janice

  2. Nice press release, but very poor from a legal standpoint. Someone should sue under the various Ku Klux Klan laws about conspiracy to violate civil rights under color of authority.

    • Ugh. That’s right. I work in a law office, and every single time I see a motion worded in terms like those it is flatly denied.

      This is a legal issue and needs to be addressed as such. It’s important. This reminds me more of an editorial than a legal document.

      Bear in mind that I strongly support the goal of the motion. But I cringe at the wording. Even if the motion is granted here, it will almost certainly be overturned on appeal.

  3. He needs a good lawyer to calm him down. This will go nowhere. Spoken as a lawyer. You judge how good after we see where this goes. Have commented on his Don Quixote quest before.

    • Yes. Even as an engineer, I note that a ton of his stuff would require an immense amount of discovery on his part to even begin to make the case if he even found it. Having said that, it is past time that intimidation by creeps like Healey is met by stronger countermeasures. Somehow, Mass (where I live) has an amazing record of AGs being only capable of being political hacks. The list is long.

      • Saw an article the other day saying Soros is funding the campaigns of local DAs. That should scare everyone. What purpose would a foreign citizen have in getting local DAs indebted to him?
        Political persecution of his enemies is the only reason I can think of.
        That being said this will be dismissed poste haste w/prejudice.

    • Instead of doing one of your usual drive-by, incomplete sentence, denigrations, Mr. Istvan. Why not help the man? If you know how his Complaint could be improved, tell him exactly how.

      • Janice I admire your intentions, but asking anyone with a background in practical law to correct this action is well above and beyond, akin to asking an accomplished composer to turn “Three Blind Mice” into a a symphony. There has to be a starting point, in this example there’s none.

      • +1 JM, at least this guy is trying and what ever way possible he needs support not derision. Speaking from the legal stand point mr. ristvan may very well be correct ( and is probably correct but at least this is language I understand) but what some have failed to mention was this last sentence Mr Goldstein wrote bevore pointing them out:

        “Some quotes from the Motion and the Complaint”:

        So we aren’t even seeing the whole document in the statement in the article above and I haven’t read the links. So to me, unless people have seen the whole document and make comments after, there is no room for snide remarks. Thanks

      • Tom: Mr. Istvan, an attorney, says that Mr. Goldstein’s Complaint is completely ineffective. The Complaint is FULL of facts and on point law. Why not give it a chance to “go somewhere” by HELPING THE MAN instead of just snarking at him is why I wrote so bluntly to Rud Istvan above.

        Bartleby: This Complaint is based on facts (some very well known) and relevant law. A competent attorney could easily turn this Complaint into a more proper form/thoroughly legal researched pleading. It would take time, yes, but there are MANY retired, motivated, attorneys who could do just what you believe is impossible.

        This is a valiant attempt by a non-lawyer (and a foreign national AND an English-not-first-language writer) to present valid, based in facts legal claims. All he needs is a little help.

        Mr. Istvan: Sorry for the tone, but, to attack such a man with NO encouragement or concrete advice is not only unkind, it is unworthy of you (I would like to believe).

      • “If you know how his Complaint could be improved, tell him exactly how.”

        Simple. Open the Document in word

        CNTRL + A
        SHIFT +DELETE

        [Perhaps that would also work on many of Mr. Mosher’s recent snide and pointless comments? /mod]

      • Remove crap like this, “These “climate models” are electrochemically etched stone
        chips, electromagnetically inscribed with programs. AG Healey is free to worship these
        stones, accept words and numbers that come out of them as prophecies or proclamations,
        and imagine that she “believes in science,” but she has no right to use the power of her
        office to force anybody else, including the Applicant, to do the same, even by proxy.”
        Cute, but Judges have to read this and don’t appreciate people wasting their time with drivel. I fail to see an establishment of religion because someone pretends to trust computer models. I see an attempt to use fear masquerading as facts to grant the gov’t powers that only would only be allowed in the most dire of emergencies and then only for a limited time. i.e. imposing restrictions of free speech, freedom of association, confiscation of private property etc…

      • Janice Moore October 25, 2016 at 6:46 pm

        “Tom: Mr. Istvan, an attorney, says that Mr. Goldstein’s Complaint is completely ineffective. The Complaint is FULL of facts and on point law. Why not give it a chance to “go somewhere” by HELPING THE MAN instead of just snarking at him is why I wrote so bluntly to Rud Istvan above.”

        Janice, you referred to ristvan as such, “Instead of doing one of your usual drive-by, incomplete sentence, denigrations, Mr. Istvan”.

        I find ristvan’s comments always worth reading and certainly is not guilty as you charge. Perhaps you meant Mr Mosher.

      • Dear Tom,

        I’m glad that you find Mr. Istvan’s comments so worthwhile. Some of them are (to me). Many of them are of the M0sher variety, however (to me). I appreciate your trying to be sure I had the right person. I did.

        Your WUWT ally,

        Janice

      • P.S. (to Tom) Okay, perhaps not “many” (are terse and unfair/unkind). I may be biased by the fact that at least two have been directed at me. But, some are.

    • Thanks, Istvan. I receive criticism as an attempt to help, not derision. The best help in the current situation is to sue the culprits independently, using the full power of law. The evidence is all over the Internet, and my search engine helps to uncover it. “Culprits” include not only the four hyperactive AGs, but also the EPA head, the “science czar” Holdren, John Podesta, and many other government officials and DNC operatives.

      My motion and complaint were filed verified, and I stand behind each word. The motion sounds outlandish because it describes the outlandish situation. Democratic Party fell in the abyss of obscurantism, then sold its soul to the Devil (foreign enemies), in exchange for power. Now it does what the Devil (the foreign enemies) tells it.

      “The Devil” is a metaphor here, but it is a suitable and a time honored metaphor.

      • Unless you could sue independently regarding the “interest” you claim, or can show that a legal right you have is imperiled or necessarily impacted by conclusion of the litigation in which you seek to intervene, your motion will fail unless the judge is asleep or elects to ignore precedent on intervention. While nobody can reasonably doubt your interest in the proceeding, you have not outlined a cognizable legal interest; that is an interest you would have standing to defend. In general, political issues are adjudged affect ordinary citizens’ interests too remotely to given them standing.

        I would not be surprised if you end up paying attorney’s fees for whichever side(s) oppose your motion.

        Please do not take this as unkind criticism. Just be prepared for an adverse outcome. I think you should consider withdrawing your motion, promptly. (One of the parties may suggest as much, privately.)

  4. Bravo, Charlie Leo Brown, for pushing back in the name of us all! It is time that AGs stuck to real crime instead of fabricating nonsense.

  5. The AGs should turn in their license to practice law and be forced to go back to law school for remedial instruction on the First Amendment for starters. What a bunch of fascist pigs.

  6. Maura Healey, Al Gore, Greenpeace, Climate Action Network, Bill McKibben and 350.org, et al,

    What are your plans to deal with deporable knuckledragers like me who will steadfastly refuse to go along with the socialist utopia you plan to foist upon the ignorant proletariat?

  7. Mr. Goldstein’s highly detailed Complaint is a fine summary of the history of the AGW sc@m and the climate hu$tler’s misdeeds — an excellent reference work!

    *****************************************************************************

    Excerpts from the unofficial copy of Mr. Goldstein’s Complaint:

    PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

    The idea to use imaginary threat of the carbon dioxide emissions as a lever to obtain power and money was first expressed in the report from the 1972 United Nations Environmental Programme. … Congress even convened the Carbon Dioxide Assessment Committee (CDAC){ which,} from 1979 to 1983, firmly rejected alarm … Further research and observation practically eliminated the earlier concerns about the carbon dioxide emissions.

    Complaint at 2.

    {}1993-2001, Clinton – Gore administration … systematically remov{ed} distinguished scientists from positions of influence in the scientific agencies and institutions, replacing them with environmentalists or their marionettes, and closing whole research directions … The climate pseudo-science {} avoided the public scrutiny, when Congress rejected Kyoto protocol with the 95:0 vote … .

    Complaint at 3.

    In 1980’s, the climate alarmist claims did not have sound scientific grounds, but could not be dismissed out of hand. The distinguished scientists politely called {} the alarmists’ ungrounded statements and exaggeration {} “uncertainties”. … new research has shown that the alarmist claims did not only contain “uncertainties”, but were flat wrong.

    The climate alarmists reacted by taking even more extreme anti-scientific positions, and persecuting their
    opponents not only for dissent, but even for doubts. … misappropriating … public money … up to tens or even hundreds of billions of dollars per year. A large part of this money was “reinvested” back into promotion of the climate alarmism. This is how we arrived to the current situation, … .

    Complaint at 3,4.

    ***

    STATEMENT OF FACTS

    {Note: “Climate Alarmism Enterprise” is the Plaintiff’s label for the Defendants’ overall, coordinated, scheme to promote AGW, etc..}
    ***

    B. The Cr1m1nal Activities

    — Retaliation Against Witnesses

    Having lost their case in the Congress and in the court of public opinion, they directed their most extreme attacks not against opposing politicians, but against distinguished physicists, biologists, and other experts … .

    Complaint at 35.

    The following scientists were among those who had attended and testified in official
    proceedings, and against whom the Defendants retaliated:

    Frederick Seitz (1911-2008) – a distinguished physicist, …
    Robert Jastrow (1925-2008) – a distinguished astronomer and physicist, …
    Fred Singer (b. 1924) – a distinguished physicist …
    William Happer (b. 1939) – a distinguished physicist, …
    Richard Lindzen (b. 1940) – a distinguished physicist, …
    William Nierenberg (1919-2000), a distinguished physicist and the Chairman of the Carbon Dioxide Assessment Committee (1979-1983) … .

    Complaint at 36, 37.

    — Tampering with Witnesses

    Acts of retaliations against witnesses, listed in the Retaliation against Witness subsection, were performed publicly, and had the intent and effect of influencing or preventing testimonies of other persons in official proceedings related to carbon dioxide …

    These acts of retribution included smear campaigns in the media, character a$$a$$ination, and interference with the lawful employment of the witnesses … .

    Complaint at 37, 38.

    From 1998 to 2008, {The Oregon Petition (1998)} was signed by … at least 20,000 {confirmed, bona fide,} … qualified experts, capable and willing to testify in … Congressional hearings. The subsequent intimidation campaigns, conducted by Defendants separately and in coordination with each other, had the intent and effect of preventing them from attending and giving testimonies in official proceedings. …

    Complaint at 39.

    {E}xample of witness tampering:

    In December 2015, Greenpeace targeted distinguished physicist William Happer the day before he was to testify to Congress on CO2. … Greenpeace {via e mail} impersonated a representative of a Middle Eastern fossil fuel company and offered to hire Dr. Happer to write a paper to support their CO2 position. … Dr. Happer asked for no remuneration, and when Greenpeace kept pressing to provide some, he made clear that { } he was not motivated by money … “My activities to push back against climate extremism are a labor of love, to defend the cherished ideals of science …”

    Instead, “if” the company wanted to reimburse him, he explained he would rather they donate “whatever” amount to a charitable scientific organization that educated on this issue but paid him nothing: “If your client was considering reimbursing me for writing something, I would ask for whatever fee would come to me would go directly to CO2 coalition . . . [which] occasionally covers travel expenses but pays me no fees or salary.”

    Ignoring this impeccable exchange, the evening before he was to testify, Greenpeace … threaten{ed} to publish a story about him and “how fossil fuel companies are able to pay academics to produce research which is of benefit to them.” … When he testified anyway, Greenpeace carried out its threat by publishing a report about him called “Academic-For-Hire” … .

    Complaint at 39, 40.

    Defendants and their accomplices practice{d} … intimidation against witnesses and potential witnesses by threatening or harassing persons within two degrees of separation from these witnesses, including witness’ employers and employers’ partners or donors … .

    Complaint at 41.

    ***

    — Bribery of Witnesses

    On multiple occasions, Defendants gave, offered, and/or promised money, services, and/or other things of value to putative scientists, for or because of their false testimonies in official proceedings, including but not limited to Congressional hearings and hearings before authorized governments agencies.

    {And also} for intentionally corrupting (including but not limited to altering, destroying, or concealing) objects or records (including but not limited to scientific measurements, historical records, processed data, computer programs, published scientific works, or the metadata associated with them) with knowledge and intent that these corrupted objects or records would be introduced in official proceedings … .

    Complaint at 44.

    An example of this bribery is the relationship between Defendants and Dr. Michael E.
    Mann … In 1998, Michael Mann … published an article called “Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries” in the then prestigious scientific journal Nature. In 1999, {he} published another article in the Geophysical Research Letters., this time pretending to have reconstructed global temperature patterns over the last 1,000 years. These articles purported to show that the last decades of the 20th century exhibited average hemispheric temperatures higher than any in the last 1,000 years, contrary to the historical records … The Summary for Policymakers from the IPCC Third Assessment Report prominently displayed a hockey stick-like graph, based on these articles, as a “proof” of allegedly unprecedented warming. These articles were based on fr@ud. … Complaint at 46.

    The Defendants rewarded Mann both financially and in other ways … . Complaint at 48.

    In April 2010, the Virginia Attorney General started a probe, based on evidence of fr@ud related to grants, received by Mann at UVA. Defendants and their collaborators obstructed { } this probe. Complaint at 49. …

    ***

    — Br1bery of Officials (Complaint at 50, 51.)

    ***

    — Embez_z1ement from Pension Funds (Complaint at 52-55.)

    — Other Misconduct (Complaint at 55-57)

    ***

    CAUSES OF ACTION — COUNT I — R@CKETEER1NG IN VIOLATION OF RICO, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(c) (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)

    … The Climate Alarmism Enterprise has an existence beyond that which is merely necessary to commit predicate acts and, among other things, oversaw and coordinated the commission of numerous predicate acts, each of which caused direct harm to Plaintiff, on an ongoing basis in furtherance of the scheme.

    During the Scheme Period, each of the Defendants agreed to and did conduct and participate in the affairs of the Climate Alarmism Enterprise through a pattern of racketeer1ng activity within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(1) and (5), and 1962(c).

    It was among the purposes of the Climate Alarmism Enterprise
    to … suppress dissent, including but not limited to witness testimonies in official proceedings; to undermine the Constitution;
    to inflict enormous damage on the USA, its citizens, and residents; and
    to steal {an} enormous amount of money.

    This scheme was also intended to, and did, in fact, result in huge profits for the members of the Climate Alarmism Enterprise, and caused harm to Plaintiff. …. The Defendants’ activities were interrelated, not isolated, and involved a calculated series of repeated violations of the law in order to promote their scheme.

    The Climate Alarmism Enterprise has existed since at least 1988, and all the named Defendants and others as yet unknown participated in its management or operation since at least 2008, and this conduct and these activities have continued as of the date of this Complaint.

    Complaint at 62-64.

    ***
    DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL {Good for you, Mr. Goldstein! :)}

    ***
    Leonid Goldstein, pro se

    ************************************************************************
    ************************************************************************

    “Pro se.” Go, little David, go! God and one can defeat an army.

    Janice

    • Thanks JM, I sincerely hope this somehow gets accepted by the judge but seeing whose pockets the courts are in? I sort of doubt it. Who knows? Stranger things have happened, I for believe the voice of Mr Goldstein must be heard.
      Especially the part about Dr. Happer’s situation prior to his testimony before Congress, that one alone is well worth it. I hope the election coverage will not bury this seeing that CC has been on the back burner for some time.
      In my opinion it has been buried for the simple reason Clinton and the left would look the f(t)ools they are. that would cost her dearly. I actually have been surprised Trump and his campaign haven’t pressed her on that at all. The MWM , main world Media) seems to have covered none of this for the same fear. But I guess we’ll see what happens after the election. We live in interesting times.

    • Remember, this, too, Mr. Goldstein, David, too, was mocked and jeered at by the regular army guys; his own people hissed at him. David did not have a sword. David did not have a shield or a helmet or a spear. He just had a little sling and one stone.

      And that one little stone brought down a giant.

      • Well it was no “little sling”. Not a “slingshot” that kids play with, but a “sling” that could launch fist sized rocks at 200+ mph and accurately hit targets over 1000 feet away. Goliath with his spear and sword may well have been the first person in the historical record to have brought a knife to a gun fight. David even killed both a bear and a lion with his sling. No lions or bears in the whole area today. Don’t spread that one around, the alarmists will claim it was climate change and start citing the bible.

        Anyway, thanks for the additional detail. Goldstein has more going for him than I thought, but he’s going to need a plane that he can park on the tarmac next to the DOJ for an impromptu meeting to have any hope of prevailing.

  8. Quote: The Motion to Intervene might be dismissed by the Judge, or opposed by either party in the lawsuit. Stay tuned.

    I’d be interested to see what Mr Goldstein believes he is adding to the material already set out by the parties.

      • Step 3 for South Park’s underpants gnomes was profit. What is step 2 for Mr Goldstein. Or put another way, where to from here? Hence my question above.

        I am really interested in what he believes he is saying that Exxon have or will not.

      • individuals running the exxon show are being defensive.
        it’s as if they think they’ll avoid a beating if they simply tuck and cover. there is no trace of courage in exxon’s show – nothing to admire and nothing to inspire. they are insipid.
        l.g. makes a counteroffensive. he’s made counter-accusations of rico violations.
        he’s smarter than exxon just for that, no?

  9. You know, if one person, just one person, does it, they may think he’s
    Really sick and they won’t take him.

    And if two people do it, in harmony, they may think they’re both faggots and
    They won’t take either of them.

    And if three people do it! Can you imagine three people walkin’ in, singin’
    A bar of “Alice’s Restaurant” and walkin’ out? They may think it’s an
    Organization!

    And can you imagine fifty people a day? I said FIFTY people a day . . .
    Walkin’ in, singin’ a bar of “Alice’s Restaurant” and walkin’ out? Friends,
    They may think it’s a MOVEMENT

  10. Mr. Goldstein, this is for you:

    “It is not the critic who counts;
    not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles,
    or where the doer of deeds could have done them better.
    The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena,
    whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood;
    who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again,
    because there is no effort without error and shortcoming;
    but who does actually strive to do the deeds;
    who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions;
    who spends himself in a worthy cause;
    who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement,
    and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly,
    so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls
    who neither know victory nor defeat.”

    Theodore Roosevelt

    God bless you for trying.

    Janice

  11. Leo,
    I have read your documents carefully.

    Best of luck and I hope you find a sympathetic judge.

    ” . General
    Business Law prohibits such increase in costs of essential items like food, water, gas, generators, batteries and flashlights,
    and services like transportation, during natural disasters or other events that disrupt the market.”

    Just wondering if AGW and the banning of fossil fuel and the close down of thermal generating plants etc would qualify as an event(s) that disrupts the market.

    Do you think I should write to Mr Scniderman?

    Cheers

    Roger

  12. If Exxon puts on it’s big boy pants Scniderman and the people he fronts are toast . But more important was
    the Scniderman / Gore little clique of AG’s mistake of going after others who won’t be doing a sue/settle .
    Can’t wait to see the Creepy Climate Clowns in court . It’s about time .

  13. Leo Goldstein says: “To me, the most shocking part is that “AGs United” and many other government officials involved with the energy are like marionettes in the hands of Greenpeace and other foreign forces.”
    —————————
    And let us not forget that Russia has been accused of bankrolling Greenpeace and other Euro Green groups, to instigate anti- fracking campaigns. They are no doubt involved in such Green mischief on these shores, as well.
    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jun/19/russia-secretly-working-with-environmentalists-to-oppose-fracking

    http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/06/20/russia-greenpeace-nato-fracking_n_5513992.html

  14. Greenpeace is a “foreign king”. Doing a foreign king’s bidding is high treason. Try them and hang them high.

Comments are closed.