Groups File Lawsuit Against Rhode Island AG For Climate Change Targeting

Democratic party attorney generals wanted to use the power of the government to engage in lawfare and intimidation against those who refuse to believe in anthropogenic climate change. They’ve been receiving a bit of their own medicine, and here comes some more

(New Boston Post) Two national public interest groups are suing Rhode Island’s attorney general, whom the groups claim formed a “secret pact” with climate change lobbyists and other state attorneys general to prosecute those who raise questions about global warming.

On Wednesday, Washington, D.C.-based Free Market Environment Law Clinic and the Energy & Environment Legal Institute filed suit in Providence Superior Court against the Rhode Island Department of the Attorney General, seeking specific records detailing that office’s collaboration with other attorneys general investigating those who disagree with the prevailing wisdom on climate change.

This goes back to the collusion between the 19 Democrat AGs and climate change lobbyists and groups to target Exxon Mobile, as well as lots of private Conservative groups. They demanded tons and tons of material, including emails and documents going back decades, which would include donor information and the names of compatriots, who would then be included in the targeting. It was a massive attempt to chill Free Speech, which Warmists are attempting to criminalize as “fraud”, despite having no actual evidence. So much was simply a fishing expedition.

The suit filed in Rhode Island on Wednesday by pro-energy groups alleges that Kilmartin’s office withheld documents related to his office’s involvement in the effort to coordinate such strategies.

In particular, the suit alleges that Kilmartin withheld evidence of a “common interest agreement” which, they allege, is actually a sweeping effort by the attorneys general to exempt themselves state open records laws with respect to any discussions regarding the topics of energy and climate. The suit claims that the AG’s office violated the Access to Public Records Act, Chapter 38-2 of the Rhode Island General Laws and seeks to vindicate the public’s right to a transparent and open government by asking the court to require Kilmartin to produce the requested records.

The AGs want tons and tons of records, yet, they seem very unwilling to provide their own. Similarly, these same AGs and climate groups are refusing to provide the documents demanded by a subpoena from the House of Representatives. What do they have to hide?

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

6 Responses to “Groups File Lawsuit Against Rhode Island AG For Climate Change Targeting”

  1. John says:

    Those documents going back decades for Exxon???? Are those ones concerning the research papers that Exxon’s own scientists said that burning fossil fuels will cause global warming ?
    Free speech is of course protected
    But
    Being paid by someone in the furtherance of fraud isn’t protected by the 1st Amendment
    Teach that evidence of “fraud” is amongst other places in Exxon’s own corporate files
    They have been defrauding investors for decades by not giving them full disclosure

  2. drowningpuppies says:

    Sorry, retard, there is no evidence that the burning of fossil fuels causes global warming therefore no fraud was committed.

  3. gitarcarver says:

    john has no clue as to the meaning of “fraud.”

    Climate change groups argue that fossil fuel backers did similar deception, even though Mr. Olson, who has studied the tobacco litigation, said the comparison between oil and tobacco falls short on both the consumer and securities fraud fronts.

    In terms of consumer fraud, “The line that tobacco companies were alleged to have crossed was [devising] a scheme in large part to get people to buy their product by misrepresenting what was in it,” said Mr. Olson, who discussed the litigation in his 2004 book, “The Rule of Lawyers: How the Litigation Elite Threatens America’s Rule of Law.”

    “In order for there to be a parallel, you would have to have a lawsuit on behalf of people who filled their tank at the gas station because you said it was environmentally good, and now that they find it was environmentally bad, they say, ‘I would never have filled my tank with your gas. I would have bicycled instead of owning a car if I had only known,’” said Mr. Olson.

    The argument that Exxon violated the Martin Act by defrauding shareholders is “less silly,” said Mr. Olson, but still “fails on a number of different grounds.”

    “Companies are always doing simulations of what if this happened versus what if that happened. ‘Let’s be sure we’re ready if things go this way versus if things go that way,’” Mr. Olson said. “Companies of that size plan for an economic boom and an economic bust. They plan for pollution being more of a problem than they expected, and they plan for it being less of a problem than they expected.”

    “Picking out a document here and a document there and saying, ‘Well, look, you told your investors you were optimistic about the future of the oil business’ when this part of the company was planning on there not being long-term growth — it just isn’t securities fraud,” he said. “You need more than that.”

  4. Hoagie says:

    They have been defrauding investors for decades by not giving them full disclosure

    John, you have confused Exxon with the demoncratic party who has been defrauding Americans for decades. BTW John, do I see you for my Obamacare refund since my premiums have doubled when I was promised they would go down?

  5. Liam Thomas says:

    FRAUD could be defined as:

    Vote for me just one more time and I will END POVERTY.

    Vote for me and I will REPEAL OBAMACARE.

    Now thats fraud…..Exxons of the world powering the world and giving the world a standard of living unparalled in the history of mankind is hardly fraud or being deceptive to their shareholders.

  6. gitarcarver says:

    FRAUD could be defined as:

    Actually, if could be defined as that but it is not. Courts across the country (including the Supreme Court) have ruled that promises to gain votes are not fraudulent. The Courts have even ruled that lying about your history to gain votes (such as in the case of Stolen Valor) is protected speech.

    Weird, huh?