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)

 

0 0 votes
Article Rating
34 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Resourceguy
April 6, 2017 12:15 pm

They sound like the Blackwater of the Greens.

joel
Reply to  Resourceguy
April 6, 2017 3:27 pm

Tell us more about Blackwater,other than what you have read in the newspaper.

Sleepalot
Reply to  joel
April 6, 2017 9:50 pm

Yes, that wouldn’t hijack the thread, at all.

john
Reply to  joel
April 7, 2017 4:00 am

Evergreen/UPC Renewables/IVPC/First Wind et.al. and hundreds of shell/shelf llc’s.

D. J. Hawkins
April 6, 2017 12:41 pm

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

Bruce Cobb
April 6, 2017 12:42 pm

They are the Organized Clime Syndicate.

Bryan A
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
April 6, 2017 3:00 pm

Could be
Organized Slime Cyndicate
Slime being green and all

TG
April 6, 2017 12:49 pm

This gang of CAN crooks makes the Mafia look like a decent law abiding organization!
LOL.

April 6, 2017 12:49 pm

That’s a real RICO case. Maybe Shukla can learn a few things from it.

Resourceguy
Reply to  philjourdan
April 6, 2017 12:54 pm

+1

Tom Halla
April 6, 2017 2:04 pm

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

rogerthesurf
April 6, 2017 2:14 pm

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

AP
April 6, 2017 2:14 pm

Excellent. Let me know how I can help with a donation.

Gary Pearse
April 6, 2017 4:30 pm

I’m not clear on what this is all about: who CAN is and more about the beef.

Barbara
Reply to  Gary Pearse
April 6, 2017 8:05 pm

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

JohnKnight
April 6, 2017 4:37 pm

Good on you, Leo . . and thank you.

Moa
April 6, 2017 5:24 pm

“headquartered in Beirut, Lebanon”

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

John Harmsworth
Reply to  Moa
April 6, 2017 5:41 pm

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

Paul Courtney
Reply to  Moa
April 8, 2017 8:06 am

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 $?

davesivyer
April 6, 2017 5:43 pm
Reply to  davesivyer
April 6, 2017 7:30 pm

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.

ReallySkeptical
April 6, 2017 5:54 pm

late 2018? When the US will be watching a midterm election? What timing.

commieBob
April 6, 2017 6:21 pm

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.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  commieBob
April 7, 2017 7:20 am

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.

commieBob
Reply to  Gary Pearse
April 7, 2017 1:48 pm

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

Reply to  commieBob
April 8, 2017 5:15 am

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.

Johann Wundersamer
April 6, 2017 7:48 pm

Leo Goldstein writes:
There is good news.

you’re serious. ain’t that good news!

Warren Latham
April 7, 2017 12:55 am

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.

Wharfplank
April 7, 2017 5:31 am

High dudgeon is near. It always happens when the rats nest is kicked open.

Gary Pearse
April 7, 2017 7:21 am

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.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
April 8, 2017 7:34 am

Ranks right up there with “NUTS”!

troe
April 7, 2017 7:38 am

Bite em good Leo. We are pulling for you.

April 7, 2017 10:20 am

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.

%d bloggers like this: