People send me stuff. We’ve recently reported on the #ExxonKnew court case held in San Francisco on March 21st, 2018. I have received the entire transcript as recorded by the court stenographer.
Presented without comment.
Exxon-Chevron-3-21-18globalwh (PDF)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I have discussed this by e-mail with the clerk to the court, and there has been no disposition, motion granted, or order made with regard to the plaintiff’s case, arguments or evidential exhibits. It will proceed to arguments on the outstanding motions to dismiss and then to trial.
TNX, Mike.
I looked at the Court schedule and cannot see another hearing/presentation for at least another three or four weeks.
After reading the actual words of the judge, I am becoming a “fake news” believer. Not completely, but the climate folks here and elsewhere junped upon a vague “feeling” by the judge that he interpreted one parafraph of the plaintiff submission the same as the defense lawyer. So I quote the actual words:
“I think Mr. Boutrous is correct.
I read that paragraph 67 the same way; that there was a conspiratorial document within the defendants about how they knew good and well that global warming was right around the corner.
And I said:
“Okay. That’s going to be a big thing. I want to
see it.”
Well, it turned out it wasn’t quite that. What it was
was a slide show that somebody had gone to the IPCC and was
reporting on what the IPCC had reported, and that was it.
Nothing more.” end quote from the transcript.
Where did several folks here get the impressoin that the judge actually uttered words such as
“Judge slams California cities lawyers says they misled the court – says document they claim “shows conspiracy” shows nothing of the sort ”
“nothing of the sort” is hard to find in the transcript that I have.
Lots of stuff ahead, and we prolly won’t have another court appearance for a month or more.
Meanwhile, I am very disapponted by the conclusions of many stalwart contributors here that a judge had “dismissed” so-called “conspiracy” aspects of the defendants actions 20 years ago that the plaintiffs asserted. It looks like all he did was “feel” that one document the plaintiffs referenced did not indicate a “conspiracy”.
Maybe one of our lawyers could see the transcript and provide an opinion.
Gums sends…
THE CASE
Judge Alsup knows the plaintiff and defendant equally desire consumers should pay more for the defendant’s products. Both openly advocate for carbon taxes, carbon trading and renewable energy levies to fund subsidies and grants etc.
Judge Alsup could have invited ‘sceptical science’ to join the tutorial. Happer, Koonin & Lindzen submitted a detailed amicus curiae brief and offered to participate in the tutorial.
Alsup clearly did not want tutorial data presented that may contradict data presented by the plaintiff or defendant.
The plaintiff’s case is improper.
Only three options were available to it:
1. In a court, seek injunctive relief to halt the sale of the defendant’s products in Cal.
2. By regulation, ban the sale of the defendant’s products in Cal.
3. By regulation, impose a nuisance levy on the defendant’s products in Cal.
Judge Alsup will dismiss the case upon commencement.
This is a Nuisance case (Cal. Civ. Code § 3479).
To prove loss or damage (loss under nuisance can be interference with a right), the plaintiff must plead the existence of a duty and causation.
The plantiff must, by expert witness, show an event causing loss or damage was caused by the defendant.
The event can only be an event occurring between 19xa and 19xb.
19xa is the date on which the defendant was made aware (or became aware) by a ‘qualified’ scientist that the combustion of their hydrocarbon products may cause a nuisance.
19xb is the date on which the plaintiff was made aware (or became aware) by a ‘qualified’ scientist that the combustion of the defendant’s products may cause a nuisance.
Any reasonable person would expect the University of Cal (University of Cal, Berkeley; Cal State University; Cal University of Pennsylvania) would advised the State of any risk of nuisance from the combustion of hydrocarbons given UC was involved in AGW research from its earliest days.
At 19xb, the plaintiff had but three options (set out above) which it failed to exercise.
Judge Alsup will likely dismiss this case based on the defendant’s dismissal motions.
There are three further grounds for dismissal:
1. Invalidity by The Statute of Limitations (19xb).
2. The plaintiff was aware of the nuisance risk prior to the defendant or at a date so close as to make the assessment of a quantum of damages impossible.
3. The defendant is fractionally responsible for any nuisance and the plaintiff is unable to separate the defendant’s emissions from Worldwide CO2 emissions from coal and hydrocarbon combustion.
Salute Warren!
Looks as you are a lawyer.
I question references to California code.
I thot this case was being heard in U.S. Federal court.
Make no mistake, my opinion is that green attorneys from several states can sniff the billions like better lawyers than they did over 20 years ago with “big tobacco”.
I was not a tort lawyer after retiring from the Air Force, but seeing all the local cases and waching my Mom’s broken knee case gave me cause to revise my feelings.
Gums sends…
or of al franken’s famous air grab. judge got right up close to some vulnerable spots but stopped shy of poking them
Does anyone have this exxon-chevron-3-21-18globalwh.pdf transcript file translated to a nicely formatted word processor file (.doc, .docx, .odt, .rtf, etc.), please?
I made a .txt version (with page numbers, but no line numbers), and saved a copy here:
http://sealevel.info/Calif_v_BP_et_al/exxon-chevron-3-21-18globalwh_v07.txt
(Each page begins with an indented page number and ends in an underscore followed by an ASCII FormFeed character.)
But I’d rather have a word processor file.
I took a stab at converting the plain text version into a word processor file, trying to mimic the formatting of the original .pdf file as best I could. This is the result (saved from LibreOffice Writer 5.4.3.2):
http://sealevel.info/Calif_v_BP_et_al/exxon-chevron-3-21-18globalwh_v11.odt
I also saved it in .rtf format:
http://sealevel.info/Calif_v_BP_et_al/exxon-chevron-3-21-18globalwh_v11.rtf
and in .docx format (and then tweaked it slightly in MS Word):
http://sealevel.info/Calif_v_BP_et_al/exxon-chevron-3-21-18globalwh_v11.docx
The indentation & bolding is not always correct, and you shouldn’t trust the line numbers, but the pagination seems to be right.
Here’s the same thing, but in HTML format (exported from LibreOffice Writer, and hand-tweaked):
http://sealevel.info/Calif_v_BP_et_al/exxon-chevron-3-21-18globalwh_v13.html
(Each page number is a link to the top of that page.)