RICO lawsuit against Climate Action Network @CANIntl moves forward

Leo Goldstein writes:
There is good news in my lawsuit against the Climate Alarmism Enterprise – the Court set the trial schedule, thereby rejecting Defendants’ motions to dismiss.

The jury trial 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, is set for October 1, 2018, in Lubbock, Texas.

The lawsuit was initiated by a complaint, filed in September 2016, accusing the Climate Action Network (CAN), a political entity registered in Germany and headquartered in Beirut, Lebanon, and 39 other corporations and foundations, of violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”, 18 U.S.C. § 1961-1968). The defendants allegedly participated in the Climate Alarmism Enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity including numerous acts of retaliation against witnesses, tampering with witnesses, bribery, and embezzlement from pension plans.

ECFh140 Order Scheduling Trial (PDF)

 

Advertisements

34 thoughts on “RICO lawsuit against Climate Action Network @CANIntl moves forward

  1. Well done Leo. Many here, although supportive, didn’t think this would go far. Myself included. I await further developments with keen interest.

  2. I admire the thought behind the suit, but without major funding, the green blob will prevail.

  3. Interesting Donor List in their 2015 Annual Report :-
    Anonymous Donor
    Avaaz
    Beyond 2015
    Brot für die Welt
    Christian Aid
    CISU
    Climate Vulnerable Forum
    ClimateWorks
    European Climate Foundation
    ForUM
    Fundación Integral de Desarrollo
    Global Health Alliance
    Greenpeace
    GSCC
    HELIO International
    Misereor
    Res Publica
    Sierra Club US
    Sticht Global Climate Action
    Union of Concerned Scientists
    USCAN
    WEDO
    WWF

    A number I immediately recognize as being on the Rockefeller Bros list of recipients. http://www.rbf.org.

    Also a long list of “members” which are presumably also “donors”. Many members are also on the Rockefeller Bros list.
    http://www.can-network.org/files/CAN%20annual%20report%202015.pdf

    Interesting.

    Of course the Rockefeller’s are not big oil are they? Gone to renewables I’m told. Big joke really, because the Sherman Act, I understand, only deals with oil monopolies.
    So who is creating a market for renewables and why? ;)
    How much of Exxon do they still own?

    Cheers

    Roger

    https://thedemiseofchristchurch.com/2015/08/15/the-rockefellers-who-they-fund-from-their-web-site/?iframe=true&theme_preview=true

    • CAN/Climate Action Network, is an international umbrella organization that has affiliated CAN organizations in both Canada and the U.S.

  4. “headquartered in Beirut, Lebanon”

    Who other than Hezbollah are headquartered there ? I’ve been to Beirut, not exactly a known hub of science.

    • What makes you think CAN has anything to do with science other than perverting it?

    • Moa: Not a hub of science, but was an int’l banking capitol before a civil war, likely still nice for money laundering. Why would green science want to launder $?

    • dave @ 5:43 pm . Muslims mostly are ( except for the guys that own the oil) already living in the dark ages. It seems it would not be hard to convince any of them to stay there. Maybe the problem with them is that they want what we already have but without doing anything useful to get there.

  5. Here’s a link to the complaint.

    I see some similarity with the successful RICO suit against pro-life activists.

    The Court held that a RICO enterprise does not need an economic motive, and that the Pro-Life Action Network could therefore qualify as a RICO enterprise. link

    We also have Michael Milken who was accused under RICO in spite of the fact that he is an individual.

    It seems that the bar has been lowered considerably.

    • commie, This is an abuse by Democrats and activist judges of the RICO that is about to experience a sea change that I also am likely to be against. I’m all for a the right to choose, but I think this is bad legal action.

      • I would love to see the law smite Dr. Mann. On the other hand, I do share your concern.

      • I am a bit disappointed about the lack of interest
        [counted by the number of reactions here]
        yet I think if we [skeptical scientists] are going to come anywhere it must be via court action

        One of the major tragedies currently is that we are teaching our children the wrong lessons about who is responsible for climate change.

  6. Leo Goldstein writes:
    There is good news.

    you’re serious. ain’t that good news!

  7. This is good news from Mr. Goldstein and I wish him full success.
    I am sure he will have “joined the dots” mentioned in both threads (original and this one).

    If anyone has more “dots” please send them to him. Thank you.

  8. Fighting fire with fire. Actually, I have commented a few times that CAGW sceptics have been sued, supoenaed, harassed, slandered, mischaracterized, lied about regarding funding sources, threatened (Greenpeace: We know who you are, we know where you live, you be few and we be many – or close enough), the Gleick affair, the Shukla Gang, the Band of AG Consiglieri: intimidation, threats, interference in commerce and silencing free speech. I’ve wondered if what they were up to was illegal? I’ve wondered why only one side uses legal options in the extreme of all this.

    Good to see.Hope it sets a precedent. I agree with Steve McIntyre that using the courts to prosecute your beliefs is not a good thing, but there is a limit to what one should put up with. Alex Epstein of Center for Industrial Progress who wrote “The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels” [ https://www.amazon.com/Moral-Case-Fossil-Fuels/dp/1591847443 ] received a suponea from AG Hailey of MA to which he replied simply and eloquently :”**** off”. I like this because it underscored the idea of free speech.

  9. Gary

    I don’t think we are talking about ‘beliefs’ here. We are talking about science and people coming in to testify about their measurements.
    My own investigations show that most warming (GW) is natural and some could be caused by increasing vegetation as apparently this does trap some heat.
    The link between CO2 and GW in the past is causal, i.e. more warming causes more CO2. IMHO the opposite has not been firmly proven. There are some closed box experiments by Arrhenius and Tyndall but the atmosphere is large. I can prove from papers that CO2 also cools the atmosphere. Nobody has ever presented a balance sheet of how much cooling and how much warming is caused by the CO2.

    Best would be for Leo Goldstein to call as many sceptic scientists as possible who actually have some measured test results to prove that the GW is mostly natural and not caused by CO2 , i.e. the burning of fossil fuel.

Comments are closed.