Collusions ahoy! Law enforcement for rent…because climate

Attorneys General, Plaintiffs’ Lawyers, Activists Hold Fly-In Briefing For “Prospective Funders” On Possible Ag Investigations

A new CLW video,  citing to a recent report by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, “Law Enforcement for Rent,” lays out the most stunning revelation about an extensive and elaborate campaign to use law enforcement, in coordination with major contributors and activist pressure groups, to attain a policy agenda that failed through the democratic process.

Among the source documents released for the first time was an agenda of what one presenter called a “secret” fundraiser for which senior attorneys general attorneys flew in — some at taxpayer expense, others on the donors’ tab run through a pressure group — to brief “prospective funders” on “potential state causes of action against major carbon producers”.

This agenda was obtained by court order in the face of a determined and coordinated resistance that one Deputy Attorney General warned of as “an affirmative obligation to always litigate” requests looking into the scheme.

As detailed in CEI’s report, and source documents available on, organizers avoided “includ[ing] any specifics about the event” in handouts. One presenter described it not once but twice in emails to friends as a “secret meeting”; it was secret enough that the Vermont Office of Attorney General litigated to withhold the agenda—under implausible claims of privilege—for a year and a half before being compelled by a court to release the lineup for what turned out to have been an attorneys general-assisted fundraiser focused on pursuing opponents of the climate political agenda.

The event was held at Harvard University Law School and was co-hosted by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). Previous emails obtained by litigation in Horner et al. v. George Mason University showed that UCS had been secretly working with activist AGs to pursue opponents of the climate agenda since before July 2015.

Fundraiser participants involved senior attorneys from the activist OAGs. Harvard Law clinical instructor Shaun A. Goho, who previously worked for the green litigation group Earth Justice, led the effort to organize the April 2016 briefing. He noted to one AG lawyer, “[W]e know that there will be people from at least … California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, and New York.”

Interestingly, given follow-on lawsuits filed by cities and counties, other emails suggest the April 2016 “secret meeting” also included municipalities.

Presenters included much of the cast from the 2012 La Jolla meeting at which activists and plaintiffs’ lawyers sought “a single sympathetic attorney general” to assist this cause by subpoenaing private parties’ records in service of a campaign of litigation against opponents of the “climate” agenda.

References to “the Harvard event” appear throughout OAG Email correspondence obtained in open records productions from several state attorneys general offices in 2016-2018, including describing it as:

  • “a secret meeting”;
  • designed “to inform thinking that is already underway in state AG offices around the country regarding legal accountability for harm arising from greenhouse gas emissions”;[1]
  • “a private event for staff from state attorney general offices:”[2]
  • “the “carbon producer accountability convening;”[3]
  • for “prospective funders”; and
  • a “climate science and legal theory meeting.”

Given further revelations from record productions received in 2018, the Vermont AG’s claims of phantom privilege suggest apprehension over the prospect of this document seeing the light of day. Details were going to emerge; the only real question was when. What to do?

The host groups decided to belatedly blog about the event as if it were routine, responding to charges not made by anyone — what with the briefing being “secret” and therefore not (yet) public knowledge. UCS’s Peter Frumhoff, after appealing to his longtime involvement with the issue, closed his May 11, 2016, blog post with “Harvard Law School routinely hosts meetings that provide policy makers with opportunities to confer with scholars and practitioners. State attorneys general and their staff routinely confer privately with experts in the course of their deliberations about matters before them.” For its part, Harvard stated in an undated May 2016 post: “It is the normal business of Attorneys General staff to keep informed and to have access to the latest thinking about issues important to their work.” Nothing to see here.

For whatever reason, neither post mentioned that participating plaintiffs’ attorneys had been introduced to AGs by at least one major donor to make their pitch. Neither hinted that UCS paid AG lawyers’ way to what presenters were apparently informed was a “secret meeting”, which also avoided mention. Neither noted that this meeting, for which OAG attorneys flew in to assist with possible AG investigations and lawsuits, was in fact a green-group fundraiser.

For context, also recall that these AGs, led by New York’s Eric Schneiderman and Massachusetts’s Maura Healy had, just weeks before the “secret meeting,” vowed at a press conference to use any means necessary to go after opponents of the political agenda, which other public records show immediately followed a briefing from some of the same presenters from La Jolla and Harvard. Emails show the OAGs also asked the apparently very informal advisors to deny their role in briefing the AGs and Gore.

All of this is detailed in CEI’s report.

You can watch CLW’s new video here .



[1]           2/22/2016 emails from Goho to Connecticut OAG’s Matthew Levine, and Illinois OAG’s James Gignac, Subject: Invitation to event at Harvard Law School.

[2]           Ibid.

[3]           April 7, 2016 email from Shaun Goho to bcc: list, Subject: Logistics for April 25 Convening at HLS.

h/t to Chris Horner

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
October 24, 2018 10:07 am

Why is this not a violation of RICO and/or the KKK Act (18 USC 241)? Jeff Sessions is seriously negligent in not prosecuting this clear violation (among many others).

Reply to  Tom Halla
October 24, 2018 10:27 am

My primary hypothesis is that that the entire global warming and green energy narrative is not only scientifically false, but it is deliberate fraud.

I have written many times on wattsup the argument that global warming alarmism is a false crisis. I say that the evidence is already abundant that the warmist hypo is falsified. The Climategate emails prove that the warmist narrative is not only false, it is fraudulent.

I have also stated that the green energy is discredited due to high cost and intermittency.

So if my hypothesis is correct, what are the legal implications for these green fraudsters and those who financially support them and those who profit from them? I believe there is a long list of civil and criminal avenues to be pursued.

Joel Snider
October 24, 2018 10:36 am


I think they also had sufficient hubris to believe they could do so with impunity.
Whether or not they were right, will be determined by this November’s elections.

October 24, 2018 10:40 am

..of course it’s fraud

If someone told you don’t eat that…it’s deadly poisonous
…and you caught them eating it
Would you believe them?

No one knows the science better than the UN/IPCC…and that’s exactly the rules they made
CO2 is deadly poisonous…and the vast majority of countries get to increase their emissions

No one would be able to increase freon, DDT, arsenic, lead, mercury,,,because they are for real

They don’t even believe their own s c a m

In the mean time, don’t tell me I have to start eating bugs to save the planet…
..and out of the other side of your mouth say it’s ok for other countries to increase emissions until they make as much money as we do

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Latitude
October 24, 2018 11:59 am

Given the OSHA established PEL of 5000 ppm, we should all be able to breath a while. They just use it as a lever for a voluntary submittance to a single global socialist govt.

Robert of Ottawa
Reply to  Latitude
October 24, 2018 12:19 pm

The IPCC IS a political body. It IS NOT a scientific body.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Latitude
October 24, 2018 12:31 pm

Lat, do you think the world might (in this “age of Aquarius”) see a need to try and limit explosive vegetation growth by cutting back the CO2?

Reply to  Pop Piasa
October 25, 2018 5:29 am

Leave it to people like that who find a greening of the earth as an affront to their evil design.

First you have to identify what their “evil design” might be and it appears they have just one objective: power through control of the earth’s population and the smaller and weaker that population is, the easier they are to control!

A nationalist like President Trump comes along and upsets their plans so they respond the way Hillary and Obama tried, so far unsuccessfully, to subvert the last presidential election and destroy the current administration (for that effort has not ceased one bit)!

The entire world’s claim to freedom and prosperity hangs in the balance this coming election so VOTE!

Reply to  Latitude
October 24, 2018 5:38 pm

In reference to the earlier CEI report posted at WUWT.

Articles: 109 titles.
Search results: Georgetown Climate Center, USA.

Can just scroll through the article titles.

October 24, 2018 10:42 am

I happen to agree. It is designed to bring in global governance by securing each nation’s wealth as tribute. It is a modern scheme of conquering without war.

Steve O
October 24, 2018 10:55 am

Allan, I’ve often wondered if renewable energy is simply window dressing for the Big Dig — wealth transfers from Western economies to countries too corrupt to have functioning economies of their own, with UN bureaucracy gladly handling things along the way.

Such projects provide a public face, and bring along a vested interest group. Building windmills is not going to save the earth, but it exists for the same reason that energy conservation efforts focus on “turn off the lights when you leave a room.” The amount of related savings from turning off lights is inconsequential, but it serves as a reminder that a conservation effort is underway.

Reply to  Steve O
October 25, 2018 3:53 am

Hi Steve O,

Green energy schemes are much worse than “window dressing” – not only extremely costly , but also highly destructive – driving up energy costs, destabilizing electric grids, and increasing energy poverty and winter mortality. As an energy expert, I have known this forever and have written about it since 2002. My recent post is excerpted below.

Green energy is the greatest scam, in dollar terms, in the history of humanity. I think green energy proponents have known this was fraudulent nonsense, but there was much money to be made and the added benefit (for them) of damaging the economy.

Nobody can be this stupid for this long – I suggest it was deliberate leftist sabotage of economies – that is how the left takes power – promise imbecilic voters lots of free stuff, destroy the economy, and then live like kings on top of a ruined state – because you can’t be kings without lots of peasants – see Venezuela, Zimbabwe, North Korea, Cuba, and scores of other countries for examples.


Green energy is typically not green and produces little useful (dispatchable) energy. The core problem is intermittency, which is the fatal flaw of grid-connected wind and solar power. Green energy enthusiasts then ASSUMED they can solve this fatal flaw with battery storage, which is more uneconomic nonsense.

The fatal flaw of intermittency in green energy IS just that simple, but this obvious fact continues to elude many politicians and their minions.

My co-authors and I correctly predicted the failure of most green energy schemes in 2002, as follows:
“The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.”

In the same debate, we also wrote::
“Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”

Since then, tens of trillions of dollars of scarce global resources have been squandered on destructive green energy schemes that have driven up energy costs and destabilized electrical grids.

An audit in 2018 of the EU’s leading climate alarmist energy policy program by Germany’s Federal Audit Office concluded that Germany’s Energiewende was a colossal and hugely expensive debacle. Almost a trillion dollars was squandered in Germany alone, just on wind power – the German audit estimated the loss at about $800 billion, as reported here on wattsup.

Then there is all the wind power in other countries, and all the solar, and corn ethanol in North America and sugar cane ethanol in Brazil etc. and all the canola and palm oil biodiesel and … and … and ….

Side-effects of these green energy scams included rapid draining of the vital Ogalalla Aquifer for corn ethanol production in the USA and clear-cutting of the rainforests in South America and Southeast Asia to grow biofuels. These actions caused huge environmental damage.

A fraction of these wasted trillions could have put safe water and sanitation systems into every village on Earth, and run them forever. About two million kids below the age of five die from contaminated water every year – over sixty million dead kids from bad water alone since the advent of global warming alarmism.

The remaining squandered funds, properly deployed, could have gone a long way to ending malaria and world hunger.

Regards, Allan MacRae

John Tillman
Reply to  Anthony Watts
October 24, 2018 10:57 am


A bad choice by Trump. Not only is Sessions a Swamp Creature himself, but he was replaced in the Senate by a Democrat.

Mark Levin would have been a good choice. As a conservative, he opposed Trump in the primaries, but is ideal as an AG to attack the administrative Deep State.

Reply to  John Tillman
October 24, 2018 1:53 pm

Nobody forced Roy Moore, a problematic choice for traditional republicans, in the primary election. There was a safe choice.

And the attacks against Moore worked mostly because it was a first of a time. Reuse the same pattern of very old claims just got boring and may have vaccinated the public.

Brett Kavanaugh is now in the Supreme Court, possibly simply because of the way Moore was attacked.

John Tillman
Reply to  simple-touriste
October 24, 2018 2:01 pm


IMO the attacks worked against Moore because they were more plausible than the uncorroborated charges against Kavanaugh. And because a state-wide election differs from a confirmation vote.

October 24, 2018 10:12 am

The gangs of NY begat the political machine which begat the climate litigation machine. Just don’t call it democracy of Constitutional or lawful or good public policy.

Timo Soren
October 24, 2018 10:19 am

RICO them. Those AG’s need to be charged and charge the green groups with RICO.

Reply to  Timo Soren
October 24, 2018 10:34 am

What’s RICO?

Reply to  Alasdair
October 24, 2018 10:42 am

The US Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, which allows for prosecution of groups like the Mafia. It is a bit different from the older criminal conspiracy laws.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Alasdair
October 24, 2018 10:45 am

Learn to use a search engine; it can be useful.

Reply to  Timo Soren
October 25, 2018 4:08 am

I have been proposing lawsuits against warmist organizations under Civil RICO since 2013 – let’s do it – it needs major funding!
Best, Allan

Hurry up good people! It’s long past time to take the offensive!

Sue the warmists under Civil RICO!

Sue the universities, with their huge endowments. Sue the green organizations and their funding foundations. Follow the money that has supported and benefited from global warming falsehoods – it is the greatest scam, in dollar terms, in the history of humanity.


I have been considering this approach for several years and I think it is now time to proceed..

Civil RICO provides for TRIPLE DAMAGES. Global losses from the global warming scam are in the trillions, including hundreds of billions on the USA.

We would sue the sources of warmist funding and those who have significantly profited from the global warming scam..

The key to starting a civil RICO action is to raise several million dollars to fund the lawsuit, which will be protracted and expensive.

If serious funders are interested, please contact me through

Regards, Allan MacRae

September 21, 2014 11:28 pm

On Accountability:

I wrote this to a friend in the USA one year ago (in 2013):

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.

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.

Regards, Allan

J Mac
October 24, 2018 10:23 am

Climate change industry racketeering, at its finest!

October 24, 2018 10:41 am

Conspiracy theory my ass.

Reply to  rd50
October 24, 2018 11:41 am

I saw this today as well and it looks like the Plaintiffs are looking to sue deep pockets merely because they exist. How do you identify future “Regulations”?

Reply to  rd50
October 24, 2018 1:20 pm

Yes, they seem to have underestimated the short term risk of climate change inspired regulations, but they probably expected a sane administration to come into power eventually and reverse some of the silly Obama era regulations that were based on knowingly broken science and that were stifling the energy industry. That has started to happen already and going forward, when the science is eventually corrected and the actual ECS becomes the consensus ECS, the risk of regulations will drop to zero while the benefit from old regulations being relaxed increases.

Reply to  rd50
October 24, 2018 2:30 pm

Speaking of the Exxon-Mobil lawsuit, I came across this ‘old’ Exxon document from a recent (partially funded by Rockefeller money) article where they say they have an old Exxon document that shows their scientists knew about CO2 and global warming:

What I find interesting in the PDF is that some of the verbiage in it sounds straight out from today’s catastrophic climate change chaos. Hard to believe that those scientists back then used these words and phrases. As such, I wonder if this ‘old’ document wasn’t recently written or recently edited.

Text below that is bolded is what stands out to me.

Mitigation of the “greenhouse” effect would require major reductions in fossil fuel combustion.

-…highly respected scientists such as Wcodwell, Bolin and others have postulated a net biomass contribution to atmospheric C02 that ranges
from 1 to perhaps 8 GL/a of carbon. During 1980, a number of different groups Produced new estimates of the contribution of organic terrestrial fluxes to atmospheric C02. A consensus has not been reached, but…

-the second limit can be illustrated as an assumed threshold for inducing great irreversible harm to our planet,

– The CO2 in the atmosphere can be traced to anthropogenic sources…

– It was also assumed that fossil fuel carbon would grow at a rate of 0.8….

– It is anticipated by most scientists that a general consensus regarding the likelihood and implications of a CO2 induced GH effect will not be reached until such time as a significant temperature increase can be detected…

In summary, I’m skeptical that Exxon used these terms/phrases listed below back in 1982:
Use of “Carbon” instead of Carbon Dioxide.
“inducing great irreversible harm to our planet”
“anthropogenic” sources

Reply to  kramer
October 24, 2018 6:24 pm

Wasn’t there also a Greenpeace International lawyer present at that “La Jolla”, California meeting?

Reply to  Barbara
October 24, 2018 8:53 pm

UCSUSA, La Jolla, CA., June 14-15, 2012

Report: 36 pages
P.35 , Participants included:
Jasper Teulings, General Counsel/Advocaat, Greenpeace International, Amsterdam

Report also available online by title.

Reply to  Barbara
October 24, 2018 9:39 pm

Correction: Use lessons instead of lesson for the above UCSUSA article.

Articles: 155
Search results: Scripps Institution, California, USA

Reply to  Barbara
October 25, 2018 7:22 am


Articles: 1,080
Search results: Greenpeace International

Articles: 652
Search results: Union of Concerned Scientists, USA (UCSUSA)

Can just scan through the article titles.

Reply to  Barbara
October 25, 2018 9:02 am


Search results: Jasper Teulings, Greenpeace International.

Reply to  Barbara
October 25, 2018 10:59 am

Climate Accountability Institute (CAI), Snowmass, Colorado, USA

CAI Publications:
Scroll down to: Climate Accountability Institute & Union of Concerned Scientists (2012), California.

Articles: 158
Search results: The Climate Accountability Institute, Colorado, USA.

October 24, 2018 12:27 pm

“Neither hinted that UCS paid AG lawyers’ way to what presenters were apparently informed was a “secret meeting”, which also avoided mention. Neither noted that this meeting, for which OAG attorneys flew in to assist with possible AG investigations and lawsuits, was in fact a green-group fundraiser.”

It is called Quid Pro Quo.
Investigate UCS, thoroughly!
Investigate the AGs. Arrest and prosecute.

October 24, 2018 12:30 pm


Do you have to pay a fee to a prosecutor attorney to fight a criminal in court for you?


No. That would be a bribe. You have to file a report with the police. link

The principle, going back to the Magna Carta, is that the law is impartial. It shouldn’t matter how rich or powerful you are whether you are the victim of a crime or you are the accused.

If people are allowed to finance criminal prosecutions, things aren’t impartial any more. Those with money get justice.

The misuse of civil courts to punish the innocent is a bad problem. Just ask Tim Ball and Mark Steyn how they feel about being sued by Michael Mann. Having to defend yourself in court can financially ruin you. At least in civil court there is the possibility that a plaintiff can be punished using doctrines like Malicious Prosecution.

In criminal court, the police and prosecutor are protected from such punishment. So, we can have the whole weight of the state coming down on an innocent victim, paid for by a third party, and there will be no recourse.

Allowing prosecutors to accept payment and resources from third parties has a corrupting influence on the justice system. It should not be tolerated.

John Tillman
October 24, 2018 12:37 pm

Showing yet again that a colder world is a stormier world, and that warmer is better with weather, as with climate.

Flight Level
October 24, 2018 12:47 pm

Prohibition. Mafia. Payola.

October 24, 2018 1:02 pm

The mind boggles.

Is there no such thing as a non corrupt politician, public servant or charity?


Reply to  Roger
October 24, 2018 3:13 pm

Power corrupts. Always has, always will.
The secret is to keep government weak enough that corrupted politicians can’t ruin your day.
There are plenty of non-corrupt charities, they just don’t get any headlines.

Reply to  MarkW
October 24, 2018 3:45 pm

“Power corrupts.”

That statement, or a form* of it, was used by Lord Acton in discussing the Papacy. He traveled to Rome to attempt to dissuade the Church from declaring the Pope infallible in matters of faith and morals. Lord Acton has been proven correct.

* “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely . . . “

October 24, 2018 1:30 pm

Why is this not a surprise? Thanks for the tip.

We have midterms coming up in my state. One seat is for the State AG’s office, and since Illinois is a farming state, one would think the AG would favor farmers whose efforts bring in revenues in the form of taxes on gas laced with ethanol from high-fructose field corn and from soybeans.

The disconnect between the source of foodstuffs and revenues and this idiot agenda is just mind-boggling to me. They don’t seem to “get” it.

October 24, 2018 2:50 pm

How fortunate America is to have no other criminal activities for these jack asses to spend their time on. Sounds like conspiracy to pervert the course of justice to me. Or maybe just blatant and irresponsible political opportunism. Either way, I wouldn’t be very happy to pay my taxes so these creeps can run a crusade for the benefit of their own careers.

%d bloggers like this: