Leticia James

this is misspelled disambig

oops see main, format broke

---

Watch: Trump blames Letitia James for Exxon leaving New York for Texas — in 1989 - Alternet.org

---

an 3 24

Former President Donald Trump is still seething at New York Attorney General Letitia James after losing his civil fraud case earlier this year. And if he's elected to a second term, his Department of Justice may throw the book at her.

Rolling Stone reported Wednesday that the ex-president's lawyers are planning a vengeance campaign against James in the event Trump gets elected in November and installs a far-right attorney general. Reporters Asawin Suebsaeng and Andrew Perez wrote that "Trump and his MAGA legal brain trust — many of whom are informally auditioning for roles in his potential second administration — are serious about keeping their vengeful options wide open."

"Letitia James is not going to get away with it," Trump attorney Alina Habba said on Fox News. "We will come at them. We will come hard and we will literally fight until the truth comes out. There was nothing wrong. President Trump has done nothing wrong. All he has done is won a campaign. And that is scaring them because they know when he goes back in November 2024, he is going to clean house."

In order to appeal Judge Arthur Engoron's verdict in the bench trial, the former president owed a bond of $464 million, which included the $355 million in penalties and statutory interest. But a New York Appeals Court recently reduced that bond to just $175 million, and gave Trump another 10 days to come up with the money (he'll still need to pay the full judgment amount if he loses the appeal). But despite the multiple breaks he's received since the verdict, Trump is still planning to prosecute James under a federal statute.

Suebsaeng and Perez reported that Trump is specifically aiming to prosecute the New York attorney general under 18 U.S. Code § 595, which prohibits state officials from using their "official authority for the purpose of interfering with, or affecting, the nomination or the election of any candidate for the office of President."

Former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti called the use of that statute a "non-starter," saying prosecuting James would be an "abuse of power" that would likely trigger impeachment hearings.

"James used her authority as Attorney General to enforce the laws of New York," Mariotti said. "To characterize that as ‘interference’ in an election raises obvious federalism concerns. It would essentially mean that state officials could not enforce any state law against an entity affiliated with a potential presidential candidate."

The Rolling Stone report pointed out that President Joe Biden could theoretically use that same statute to prosecute Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, given his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Suebsaeng and Perez also noted the irony of Trump complaining about "election interference," given his multiple documented attempts to interfere with the certification of election results.

"As it were, Trump has been charged in two criminal cases — one federal, one in Fulton County, Georgia — for actual election interference during his attempts to overturn his 2020 election loss to Biden," they wrote.

Trump has made revenge the themes of his 2024 campaign. At his first official rally of the 2024 election season in Waco, Texas — the site of a deadly FBI raid on the Branch Davidian cult in the 1990s — Trump told the crowd he was their "retribution." He repeated that statement at the 2024 Conservative Political Action Conference.

---

evasion subterfuge

https://www.alternet.org/2022/04/trump-2657202486/

---

ref 4 last

Exxon Is Cleared in Climate-Change Accounting Case - WSJ

a New York state judge clearedExxon Mobil Corp.of fraud claims, saying New York’s attorney general had failed to establish that the oil giant had deceived investors about how it accounted for the cost of future climate-change regulation.

The verdict Tuesday capped anearly three-week civil trialbetween the state and Exxon, which had spent several years fighting the case. The company is battling similar accusations in other state and federal courts.

In his 55-page ruling, New York State Supreme Court Justice Barry Ostrager said the attorney general’s office didn’t prove that the company had violated the Martin Act, a broad antifraud statute commonly used to pursue financial crime, or other similar laws.

“The Office of the Attorney General failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Exxon Mobil made any material misstatements or omissions about its practices and procedures that misled any reasonable investor,” Justice Ostrager wrote.

Still, he noted that the case and his ruling centered on allegations of securities fraud. “Nothing in this opinion is intended to absolve Exxon Mobil from responsibility for contributing to climate change through the emission of greenhouse gases in the production of its fossil fuel products,” the judge wrote.

During the trial, the office of Attorney General Letitia James, a Democrat, accused the company of using two different accounting methods—one public, and one internal—to project its business costs in countries that were expected to implement policies to combat climate change.

How Exxon planned for these costs and their potential impact on the company’s health mattered to investors, the office said, with the omission of the information resulting in an inflated stock price.

The attorney general estimated the damage to shareholders to be as much as $1.6 billion.

Lawyers for Exxon said the company, while acknowledging the existence of internal calculations, had done nothing wrong and that a reasonable investor wouldn’t expect to have access to the information.

The company had also accused the attorney general’s office of being motivated by politics in bringing the case.

A spokesman for Exxon said the ruling affirmed the company’s position that it had provided investors with accurate information.

“The court agreed that the attorney general failed to make a case, even with the extremely low threshold of the Martin Act in its favor,” the spokesman said.

Ms. James said in a statement that investors are entitled to the truth. “Despite this decision, we will continue to fight to ensure companies are held responsible for actions that undermine and jeopardize the financial health and safety of Americans across our country, and we will continue to fight to end climate change,” she said.

During the trial’s closing arguments, the attorney general’s office dropped two of the four fraud counts from its case.

Lawyers for Exxon argued the office shouldn’t be allowed to drop those counts and that the company deserved a ruling.

Justice Ostrager said by finding the attorney general hadn’t proved the Martin Act-related counts, his ruling also established the company wasn’t liable on the other fraud counts, which carry a higher burden of proof.

Exxon faces a similar lawsuit in state court in Massachusetts, whose attorney general’s office has accused the company of deceiving investors about climate-change costs.

The Massachusetts suit also accuses Exxon of violating a state consumer-protection law by conducting a deceptive marketing campaign.

The company also faces shareholder lawsuits in federal courts in Texas and New Jersey that allege violations of federal securities law and accuse the company of deceiving investors.

In all those cases, Exxon has denied wrongdoing.

Write toCorinne Ramey at Corinne.Ramey@wsj.com

87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

Appeared in the December 11, 2019, print edition.

---

July 7, 2021

Attorneys General in New York & Five Other States File Brief in Support of Juliana v. United States While Plaintiffs Oppose Attempt By Republican Coalition to Intervene

:{:{}:

no lnx

For immediate release July 7, 2021

Contacts:

Julia Olson, 415-786-4825, julia@ourchildrenstrust.org

Andrea Rodgers, 206-696-2851, andrea@ourchildrenstrust.org

Philip Gregory, 650-278-2957, pgregory@gregorylawgroup.com

For interviews with youth plaintiffs, email beth@ourchildrenstrust.org

Attorneys General in New York & Five Other States File Brief in Support of

Juliana v. United States While Plaintiffs Oppose Attempt By Republican

Coalition to Intervene

EUGENE, Ore. – Attorney General Letitia James of New York on Tuesday filed a “friend

of the court” brief in support of the landmark constitutional climate case Juliana v. United

States, spearheading a wave of support from states that also include Delaware JENNINGS, ELLISON Hawai‘i,

http://ag.hawaii.gov/ SHIKADA

Minnesota,ELLISON

Oregon,

Attorney General Ellen F. Rosenblum Oregon's 17th Attorney General A former federal prosecutor and state trial and appellate judge, Ellen Rosenblum was first elected to a four-year term as Oregon's 17th Attorney General in November, 2012. She was re-elected to a second term in 2016 and to a third term in 2020.

and Vermont.TJ DONOVAN https://ago.vermont.gov/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney_General_of_Delaware

Kathy Jennings

In their amici curiae motion, the six Democrat-led states noted that the

wide-ranging effects of climate change -- “including the costs of combating rising

sea levels, health risks posed by rising temperatures, and threats to States’ food

and water supplies, among others -- implicate far broader quasi-sovereign

interests in the health and well-being of state residents than those noted by

proposed intervenors.”

Also on Tuesday, attorneys from Our Children’s Trust, which represents the 21 Juliana

youth plaintiffs, filed a brief opposing an earlier attempt by Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas,

Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North

Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia to join the

Biden administration in defending the case.

In June, the coalition of Republican

attorneys general said it wants to “participate in settlement negotiations” to “object to

any proposed settlement” and threatened to go all the way to the Supreme Court to

keep the youths’ case from going to trial.

In their filing opposing the attempt by some Republican-led states to intervene, the

plaintiffs’ attorneys point out that those 18 states are suffering billions of dollars in

losses related to climate impacts from extreme heat, sea level rise, and extreme storm

events, and any economic losses to the fossil fuel sector are far outweighed by severe

economic harm from the climate crisis.

“What the 18 Republican attorneys general seek is unprecedented,” said Julia

Olson, chief legal counsel of Our Children’s Trust. “They want to be allowed to

come into the case to fight the youth and prevent their claims from going to trial or

be resolved through settlement, but they refuse to waive their sovereign immunity

under the U.S. Constitution, which means they would not be subject to any orders

of the federal courts. They essentially want status as interlopers, with all the

privileges to participate as a party-defendant and fight these kids, but with no

responsibility or accountability. What they seek only hurts children in their own

states too.”

The Juliana constitutional rights lawsuit, filed in 2015, argues that affirmative actions by

the federal government under both political parties directly contributed to the climate

crisis – including creating a national fossil fuel-based energy system that is a substantial

factor in causing the plaintiffs’ injuries. By doing so, the plaintiffs argue, the government

has knowingly violated their constitutional rights to life, liberty and property, the public

trust, and equal protection of the law.

The Juliana plaintiffs’ amended complaint -- which the coalition of Republican attorneys

general is attempting to block -- is focused on winning a declaratory judgment that the

nation’s fossil fuel-based energy system is unconstitutional, much like the plaintiffs in

Brown v. Board of Education argued the public school system of segregation was

unconstitutional.

In June U.S. District Court Judge Ann Aiken ordered attorneys for plaintiffs and for the

Department of Justice to meet for a settlement conference with Magistrate Judge

Thomas Coffin, calling it “a tremendous opportunity” to address the climate “crisis” and

not just a “ministerial step.” Those talks are underway.

If Judge Aiken grants the motion to amend, and the settlement process is unsuccessful,

the case would be able to move forward in the trial court on the question of whether the

federal government’s fossil fuel-based energy system, and resulting climate

destabilization, is unconstitutional.

---

https://www.democracynow.org/2021/5/7/headlines/new_york_ag_says_18_million_fake_comments_were_posted_in_support_of_2017_fcc_net_neutrality_repeal

new York’s attorney general says the nation’s largest broadband companies funded a secret campaign to influence the Federal Communications Commission’s repeal of net neutrality rules. Attorney General Letitia James said Thursday an investigation by her office found that in 2017, “The broadband industry hired marketing companies that co-opted and created identities and filed nearly 18 million fake comments with the FCC and sent over half a million fake letters to Congress in support of the repeal.” Supporters of net neutrality say protections are needed to preserve an open internet and to bar internet service providers from stopping or slowing down the delivery of websites.

TOPICS:

---

dingdong?

https://www.alternet.org/2021/01/nra/

"Thoughts and prayers."

"The NRA's claimed financial status has finally met its moral status: bankrupt."

—NY Attorney General Letitia James

That is what many opponents of the National Rifle Association wryly stated in response to news that the pro-gun lobby group had officially filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on Friday in the United States.

In a statement on its website, the NRA—which promotes the interests of the gun industry and gun owners unbothered by the unparalleled level of gun violence seen in the country—said it was leaving New York state, where it is currently registered, to restructure in Texas as part of a "new strategic plan" it is implementing.

"Thoughts and prayers to the NRA fanatical fiends who bear the blood of tens of thousands on their paws," said Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.) in response. "The world will be a better place when the NRA is finally destroyed. Looks like that day is closer."

While the NRA claims in the statement that it is "in its strongest financial condition in years," it said the strategic plan "involves utilizing the protection of the bankruptcy court" and "dumping New York" so that it can reincorporate in Texas to continue its activities without such a "corrupt political and regulatory environment."

Brady United, which has called for the NRA's dissolution for decades, said Friday that "news of the NRA filing for bankruptcy is just the latest proof that the NRA has cheated its members and American taxpayers in pursuit of an extremist agenda that has made our country markedly less safe."

They told us the @NRA was too powerful, that the politics were too difficult. They were wrong. Today, the @NRA fi… https://t.co/DirmJAZAay

— Peter Ambler (@Peter Ambler)1610746222.0

David Hogg—one of the survivors of the 2018 Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in Parkland, Florida who later became a vocal gun control advocate—was among those who welcomed the news late Friday afternoon and thanked all the tireless activism over the years focused on the NRA's deadly brand of influence peddling.

Thoughts and prayers https://t.co/bEkZ29n3WU

— David Hogg (@David Hogg )1610745956.0

"Don't read this as the NRA is going away," Hogg added. "They are not yet," he said, "but this is one step closer."

NRA fleeing New York, filing for bankruptcy, due to NY AG lawsuit (via @KLBKNews) https://t.co/xKtFWMVspi

— Violence Policy Center (@Violence Policy Center)1610749230.0

In August, as Common Dreams reported at the time, New York Attorney General Letitia James filed a lawsuit against the NRA which sought to dissolve the organization based on widespread evidence of corruption and financial self-dealing that violated the state's requirements for nonprofit status.

In a tweet on Friday responding to the NRA's move to divorce itself from New York, James said: "The NRA's claimed financial status has finally met its moral status: bankrupt."

"While we review its bankruptcy filing," she added, "we will not allow the NRA to use this or any other tactic to evade accountability and my office's oversight."

FROM YOUR SITE ARTICLES

---

trump fdn broke law

an 920

Donald Trump’s son Eric, a major figure within the Trump Organization’s businesses, has claimed he told a court that he is willing to appear in compliance with New York Attorney General Letitia James’ subpoena.

But in a new briefing, James pointed out that Eric Trump and his legal team have in fact stated a “categorical refusal” to appear — and that one of those refusals occurred during an interview with Fox News Radio.

“Eric Trump’s own public statements after this proceeding was commenced confirm that position,” said the briefing, noting that during that interview, Trump said, “The question is… why would you possibly comply?”...

---

https://www.mediamatters.org/national-rifle-association/after-ny-state-ag-files-anti-fraud-lawsuit-against-nra-conservatives

After New York Attorney General Letitia James initiated a lawsuit against the National Rifle Association that asks a court to dissolve the group, some right-wing media figures called her “partisan” and dismissed the move as “trying to score political points” in an election year. Others called for GOP attorneys general to retaliate against liberal groups in kind.

New York attorney general alleges the National Rifle Association engaged in years of financial mismanagement and fraud

New York attorney general filed suit to “dissolve” the NRA following an 18-month investigation into “fraud and abuse.”New York Attorney General Letitia James filed a lawsuit on August 6 that looks to “dissolve the NRA in its entirety” and calls on organization leaders, including Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre, to “pay back unlawful profits.” According to the 169-page lawsuit, LaPierre “spent millions of dollars of the NRA’s charitable assets for private plane trips for himself and his family.”

He also “repeatedly directed private aircraft to make additional stops” to pick up or drop off family members, “expensed over a hundred thousand dollars” on golf club membership fees, and attempted to purchase a $6.5 million mansion in Dallas, all allegedly funded by NRA donations. The lawsuit describes how the mismanagement went beyond LaPierre, alleging, “Directors or members in control of the NRA have looted or wasted the corporate assets, have perpetuated the corporation solely for their personal benefit, or have otherwise acted in an illegal, oppressive or fraudulent manner.” NPR, [8/6/20; People of the State of New York v. The National Rifle Association of America, 8/6/20]

NBC’s Tom Winter: LaPierre and other NRA officials “have used this as a personal piggy bank, according to the attorney general.”During the August 6 edition of MSNBC’s MSNBC Live, NBC national security and justice correspondent Tom Winter explained that the complaint has “nothing to do with the NRA’s lobbying efforts.” Winter went on to describe how nonprofit organizations have to file expenses and operate in accordance with certain laws, and that the lawsuit alleges the NRA “failed their fiduciary responsibilities here, according to the attorney general, … and as a result, this organization cannot be run as a nonprofit organization anymore and it has to be dissolved.” MSNBC, *MSNBC Live*, [8/6/20]

Some in right-wing media rushed to dismiss the lawsuit as a political move in an election year

Fox News contributor Ari Fleischer calls James “one of the most partisan figures” who made “one of the dumbest, biggest mistakes” she can make in an election year.During the August 6 edition of Fox News’ Outnumbered, guest Ari Fleischer called James “one of the most partisan figures” who ran for attorney general “on an anti-Trump platform, an anti-Republican/conservative platform,” before calling the lawsuit “one of the dumbest, biggest mistakes” she could have made in an election year. Fox News, *Outnumbered*, [8/6/20]

Fox News host Laura Ingraham: James is “a complete and utter goofball socialist” who will “still have her security detail, I assume. The rest of you, you’re on your own.”

The Daily Wire’s Ben Shapiro: “This sounds…somewhat political.”

The Daily Caller: James is “trying to score political points.”

Newsbusters’ Tim Graham: “NY AG James sounds exactly like the NY Daily News with that NRA-is-a-terrorist-organization slime.”

Fox News host Sean Hannity: “It’s obvious this is political, we’re 89 days out of a presidential election. The timing to me, my read, is intentional.”During the August 6 edition of Fox News’ Outnumbered Overtime, Hannity called the timing of the charge “political” and “intentional.” Hannity went on to say he doesn’t “know anything about [the NRA’s] finances, but the timing of this stinks to high heaven to me and reeks of a political agenda.” Fox News, *Outnumbered Overtime*, [8/6/20]

Rush Limbaugh: “Gun sales are a record high right now ... here comes Letitia James.” During the August 6 edition of Premiere Radio Networks’ The Rush Limbaugh Show, host Rush Limbaugh played a clip of James announcing the lawsuit before saying “gun sales are a record high right now, and it makes perfectly understandable sense with all of the rioting and the lawlessness and the Democrats talking about defunding the police, here comes Letitia James and now a lawsuit against the NRA in New York state.” Premiere Radio Networks, *The Rush Limbaugh Show*, [8/6/20]

Fox News correspondent: “Not a coincidence that the lawsuit was filed today, just a few months before the election.” During the August 6 edition of Fox News’ The Story with Martha MacCallum, correspondent David Spunt reported on the lawsuit, and said it was “a major political fight after this was announced today, especially just under three months away from a presidential election.” Spunt went on to say that it is “not a coincidence that this lawsuit was filed today, just a few months before the election. Incredibly political.” Fox News, *The Story with Martha MacCallum*, [8/6/20]

Fox News host Tucker Carlson: “If you wanted to short circuit Republicans in November’s election, you’d go after the NRA.” During the August 6 edition of Fox News’ Tucker Carlson Tonight, Carlson said it’s “hard to overstate how third world this lawsuit is” and compared James to Russian dictator Joseph Stalin. He went on to say the NRA will now have to spend its money pegged for “helping Republicans” in the 2020 election cycle on legal fees and called the lawsuit a way to “short circuit Republicans” this November. Fox News, *Tucker Carlson Tonight*, [8/6/20]

Sean Hannity: This is a “bizarre, 170 paged, oddly timed” lawsuit. Fox News host Sean Hannity introduced the lawsuit as “bizarre” and “oddly timed” during the August 6 edition of Fox News’ Hannity. He questioned why James would file a lawsuit now when the city is also dealing with the coronavirus pandemic and rising crime and called it a “political attack.” Fox News, *Hannity*, [8/6/20]

Fox’s Laura Ingraham: The lawsuit is “political hit job and a warning shot to others who dare question the leftist authority.”During an interview with Rudy Giuliani, Ingraham called the lawsuit a “political hit job” and an attempt to “crush an influential conservative organization in an election year.” Giuliani agreed, calling James “a poor excuse for a lawyer” and the lawsuit “silly.” Fox News, *The Ingraham Angle*, [8/6/20]

Several conservative media figures suggested Republican attorneys general go after liberal groups in retaliation

Stephen Miller: “Planned Parenthood, you’re on the clock.”

One America News Networks’ Liz Wheeler: “Imagine going after the NRA but refusing to touch the Clinton Foundation.”

Conservative podcast host Derek Hunter suggested New York could nowdissolve the Clinton Foundation.

TheBlaze’s Leon Wolf suggested Republican attorneys general can now dissolve Planned Parenthood.

---

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/06/us/nra-board-subpoena-letitia-james.html

Aug. 6, 2019

With the gun debate intensifying in the wake of last weekend’s mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton, Ohio, the National Rifle Association’s problems deepened Monday evening as the New York attorney general’s office issued a subpoena seeking documents from more than 90 current and former members of the organization’s board.

The subpoena is an escalation of a continuing investigation into the tax-exempt status of the N.R.A., which is chartered in New York, and engulfs the organization’s board of directors in the inquiry. The subpoena seeks financial records and other documents that would shed light on spending decisions made by the board.

The latest moves come in a year when the N.R.A. and its board have been in turmoil. Its finances and political machine are being strained amid a host of legal battles, as well as a rebellion from some donors and members and infighting that has led to the departures of the board’s president, Oliver North, and the N.R.A.’s top lobbyist and second-in-command, Christopher W. Cox.

A spokeswoman for Letitia James, the New York attorney general, who opened the inquiry in April, declined to comment. Ms. James’s office has broad authority to investigate nonprofits, and has been scrutinizing whether the N.R.A. was using funds designated for charitable purposes appropriately, and if payments made to board members, officers and affiliated parties complied with relevant tax laws and fiduciary requirements.

Her office can pursue potential remedies in court; a previous inquiry by Ms. James’s predecessors led to the shuttering of President Trump’s charitable foundation, a far smaller enterprise.

William A. Brewer III, the N.R.A.’s outside counsel, said in a statement: “As we understand it, counsel to the N.R.A. board accepted service of a subpoena to the board that relates to the production of documents and information.”

He added: “Such a request was expected and, as we have said many times, the N.R.A. will cooperate with any reasonable, good faith request for information given the organization’s commitment to good governance.”

The group is also facing a separate inquiry by the attorney general for the District of Columbia, Karl A. Racine, who is focusing on the N.R.A. Foundation, a large affiliated charity chartered in Washington. Its ties to Russia have also been the focus of Congressional inquiries.

The latest development will apply new pressure to the board, which has largely but not uniformly supported Wayne LaPierre, the N.R.A.’s longtime chief executive, amid the recent power struggle that led to the departures of Mr. North and Mr. Cox. Last week, three board members who had opposed Mr. LaPierre’s management — Sean Maloney, Esther Schneider and Timothy Knight — resigned from the board. On Monday, the N.R.A. disputed a report on a gun blog that its board had been dropped by the insurer who provides insurance against litigation, calling it untrue.

This year, a number of news accounts have raised questions about the N.R.A.’s spending decisions, many approved by its board. In March, The New York Times reported that Mr. North, then the board’s president, had a lucrative financial contract with the N.R.A.’s most important contractor, the advertising firm Ackerman McQueen. (Ackerman and the N.R.A. subsequently embarked on a bitter legal battle.) The Times also reported that the N.R.A. had directed $18 million to a production company in which an N.R.A. official, Tyler Schropp, had a stake.

The organization’s payment practices were further examined in an April story in The New Yorker. And in May, leaks revealed that Wayne LaPierre, the N.R.A.’s longtime chief executive, billed $275,000 through Ackerman McQueen for purchases at the Zegna luxury men’s wear boutique in Beverly Hills and $267,000 in personal expenses, including flights and limousine service for trips to the Bahamas, Florida, Nevada, Budapest and an Italian lake resort. Payments made by the N.R.A. to its board members have also been an area of continuing scrutiny.

Ms. James’s inquiry has aroused the ire of President Trump, a key N.R.A. ally. He tweeted in April, after the investigation was opened, that Ms. James and New York Governor Andrew M.Cuomo, whose administration is locked in its own legal battle with the N.R.A., were “using the State’s legal apparatus to take down and destroy this very important organization.”

Ms. James’s office, in its own tweet later that day, wrote: “Attorney General Letitia James is focused on enforcing the rule of law. In any case we pursue, we will follow the facts wherever they may lead. We wish the President would share our respect for the law.”

Danny Hakim can be reached at hakim@nytimes.com.

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/06082019/exxon-climate-fraud-investigation-witness-pressure-investors-new-york-attorney-general

Prosecutors in New York are accusing ExxonMobil of trying to discourage potential witnesses from testifying about whether the oil giant misled investors over the costs it may face from future climate regulations. They asked a judge to block Exxon from making what they describe as "unreasonable" and extensive requests for documents from the witnesses.

On Thursday, Justice Barry Ostrager of the New York Supreme Court sided with the prosecutors, saying that Exxon "can't go on a gigantic, burdensome fishing expedition to exhume hundreds or thousands of documents that have no relevance to the issues in this case."

Court filings show that Exxon sent letters to a group of investment advisers and shareholder activists who prosecutors want to put on the stand, informing them they will be subject to subpoenas from the company seeking documents relevant to the case if they choose to testify.

Because of their roles investing in and engaging with Exxon over climate change, these witnesses' testimony could prove critical to the state's case.

With opening statements scheduled to begin Oct. 23, a lawyer in New York Attorney General Letitia James's office wrote that the request would "impose disproportionate burdens on these witnesses in a transparent attempt to discourage them from testifying voluntarily, and threatening to upend the trial schedule."

While prosecutors had agreed to allow Exxon to interview the witnesses before the trial, the company went further by sending at least one witness what the attorney general described as an expansive request for documents and communications, including "all documents concerning your oil and gas holdings" and more. Exxon wrote on July 30 that it planned to send documents requests to seven witnesses.

James issued a statement after Ostrager's ruling on Thursday saying, "We appreciate the court's very reasonable decision to deny Exxon's over burdensome fishing expedition, and look forward to making our case in court this fall."

Aaron Caplan, a law professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles and expert in legal ethics, said the letter from Exxon included in the court filing was unusually aggressive and tested ethical bounds, though he said Exxon could argue that it is simply being thorough in its defense.

"It tiptoes right up to the line of impropriety," he said. "And whether it crosses that line is up to interpretation."

Prosecutors argued that the requests would set off lengthy negotiations between the parties and onerous demands for document searches on the witnesses and their employers, with less than three months before a scheduled trial.

Exxon did not reply to requests for comment. But a lawyer representing the company wrote in a filing that the request for documents and communications "goes hand-in-hand" with pre-trial interviews of the witnesses, a step prosecutors had agreed to.

Why New York Is Suing

New York prosecutors filed the case against Exxon last year, accusing it of defrauding investors by downplaying the costs it could face as governments try to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

At the heart of the case is the revelation that the company essentially kept two sets of books for how it estimated these costs, one that it shared with the public, and another that it used internally when assessing its investments.

The result, prosecutors allege, was that Exxon led investors to believe that it was being far more conservative about these future costs than it really was, thereby exposing the investors to greater risks.

The company has said the two figures were used for separate, legitimate purposes, and that it never misled anyone.

Exxon's Letters to the Witnesses

The latest tussle in court was prompted by a set of letters that Exxon sent to witnesses in early July, saying that if they decided to testify, Exxon would use a subpoena to seek documents from them.

The letter from Exxon that was included in the court filings says that the witnesses cannot be compelled to testify, but "nonetheless may be willing to testify." It says "please let us know" if you choose not to testify, and adds that if the witness does testify, "ExxonMobil is entitled to discovery concerning her relevant knowledge."

At least one witness, Danielle Fugere, president of As You Sow, an advocacy group dedicated to increasing corporate sustainability through shareholder engagement, received the specific document request. It asked for any documents related to the witness's investments in ExxonMobil or other oil and gas companies, as well as documents related to the investment criteria for these holdings.

Exxon also asked for copies of communications with the attorney general's office discussing the case or climate change, and any communications with a list of lawyers, academics, advocacy groups and foundations that have supported climate change lawsuits against the oil and gas industry.

It's unclear how many witnesses have received the specific document request. Other witnesses either declined to answer specific questions about the requests or did not reply to inquiries.

Fugere said she expects to testify if she's called as a witness, though she declined to talk about her potential testimony or Exxon's demands for documents.

Attorney: 'It's Pretty Unorthodox'

Caplan said the wording of Exxon's letter to the witnesses would have been less questionable had Exxon simply issued subpoenas without the suggestion that the matter would disappear if witnesses chose not to testify.

"You can see where it could be interpreted as Exxon using a carrot and stick approach," Caplan said. "If you're not going to be a witness, we don't need anything from you."

Annika Martin, a New York attorney who has squared off with BP over the Deepwater Horizon oil spill but is not associated with the Exxon case, said Exxon's letter appeared to be "aggressive and carefully calculated not to step over the line."

"It's pretty unorthodox to send a letter like that," she said. "I can't pin it on any rule it violates, but it is pretty clear what the intention is."

Published Aug. 6, 2019

PUBLISHED UNDER:

BUSINESS AND ACCOUNTABILITY OIL/TAR SANDS

EXXON CLIMATE LITIGATION

---

https://www.alternet.org/2019/05/should-the-nra-fear-losing-its-nonprofit-status/

no lnx

by Philip Hackney, The Conversation May 3, 2019

More likely dangers include administrative hassles and fines.

Oliver North sought a second term as president of the National Rifle Association.

It was not to be.

NRA first Vice President Richard Childress read a note from North aloud to thousands of the gun group’s members at their annual convention in Indianapolis. It relayed news of the retired lieutenant colonel’s departure and raised the specter of an existential threat to the organization.

As North had put it in a letter to the NRA board: “I am deeply concerned that these allegations of financial improprieties could threaten our nonprofit status.”

Could they? And what did North mean when he expressed concern about the NRA’s “nonprofit status”?

I’m an attorney who has worked for the Internal Revenue Service on legal matters associated with tax-exempt organizations and a professor who studies nonprofit law. It strikes me as unlikely that the IRS would strip the NRA of its tax-exempt status.

At the same time, I think it’s possible that the New York authorities investigating the group might remove officers and members of its 76-member board of directors. There is even a slight possibility, as NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre warned in a fundraising letter, that New York authorities could cause the NRA “to shut down forever.” But I doubt it.

The NRA and the IRS

The NRA consists of multiple kinds of entities, including a political action committee and four affiliated charities.

But its mainstay, which North led until this leadership showdown, is what’s known as a social welfare organization under section 501(c)(4) of the tax code.

There is no charitable contribution deduction for paying NRA membership dues or donating to the social welfare organization.

What does tax-exemption do for the NRA then? Just like a charity, it generally doesn’t pay taxes on the money it raises or earns.

In exchange for that special status, the NRA must benefit the public according to a very broad definition. Advocacy and education, including about gun safety and gun ownership qualifies. The NRA must also submit mandatory paperwork to the IRS every year.

There are a few things the NRA can’t do as a nonprofit, too. It can’t primarily benefit private individuals through excessive compensation or companies rather than the public. It can’t make engaging in politics its main purpose. And it can’t break laws, including campaign finance laws.

Retaining tax-exempt status

North’s vague allegations could point to two primary matters that could run afoul of federal tax law.

First, instead of being run to advance NRA missions like to “defend and foster the Second Amendment rights of all law-abiding Americans,” he asserts that the group mainly enriches NRA executives and boosts the bottom line of Ackerman McQueen, an advertising company that runs the NRA TV video channel. The second is admittedly odd given that North was paid by Ackerman McQueen through a contractual relationship.

Second, perhaps North is raising concerns related to media reports of allegations that the NRA illegally funneled millions of dollars in Russian money to Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.

In the first instance, the IRS or the Tax Court – a forum that decides disputes between taxpayers and the IRS – could theoretically determine that the NRA overcompensated Ackerman McQueen or any of the group’s top officials. In that case, the group or its officials might have to pay fines known as excise taxes for having received improper benefits or knowingly wasted or misdirected money.

In the second, the IRS could theoretically determine the NRA was operated for an illegal purpose and revoke its tax exempt status. But, more likely, the IRS would seek assurances from the NRA to take appropriate corrective actions to ensure it doesn’t serve as a conduit for foreign campaign cash again.

The NY Attorney General’s office has launched an investigation into the National Rifle Association. Earlier this month, we filed an IRS complaint against the NRA about whether the organization was violating tax laws surrounding charitable organizations. https://t.co/lYdEJWzuko

— Everytown (@Everytown) April 29, 2019

New York probe

The NRA is headquartered in Northern Virginia but it has been incorporated as a charitable nonprofit in New York state since 1871. That empowers the state’s authorities to oversee its operations.

Its attorney general can remove nonprofit officers and directors found to have failed to ensure that their organizations follow the rules and behave in a financially sound manner. The state’s attorney general can even shut down nonprofits that operate for improper or illegal purposes.

The IRS hasn’t indicated that it’s investigating the NRA. But New York Attorney General Letitia James has said her office is – without disclosing any details. While campaigning for her office in 2018, James vowed to scrutinize the gun group, saying “I will use the constitutional power as an attorney general to regulate charities, that includes the

---

NY AG james after trump?

3/19

NY Sues Sackler Family, Purdue & Other Drug Cos. for Profiting from Opioid Crisis

New York state announced a sweeping lawsuit against members of the Sackler family, the owner of Purdue Pharma, which makes OxyContin, the highly addictive drug at the center of the opioid epidemic. New York Attorney General Letitia James accused the Sacklers of masterminding a scheme that “literally profited off of … suffering and death.” This is Letitia James speaking at a press conference Thursday.

Attorney General Letitia James: “And as Purdue sold more and more opioids, the Sackler family transferred more and more and more wealth to their personal accounts. And as the lawsuits have piled up against the Sackler family and Purdue for their roles in this crisis, they continue to move funds into trusts and, yes, offshore accounts.”

Purdue Pharma and the Sackler family are facing multiple lawsuits. A group of over 500 cities, counties and Native American tribes filed a lawsuit against the Sacklers last week, accusing them of lying about the dangers of OxyContin and deceitful marketing of the drug. The New York suit names five other opioid manufacturers, including Johnson & Johnson and Israeli company Teva.

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/14092018/letitia-james-new-york-attorney-general-primary-exxon-investigation-divestment-fossil-fuels-climate-change

Letitia James, who led a fossil fuel divestment campaign as New York City's public advocate and has a history of speaking out on environmental justice issues, won the Democratic nomination for state attorney general, making her the favorite to win New York's top law enforcement job.

In her victory speech, James, who is a lawyer and the first African-American woman to win a statewide primary contest in New York, vowed to continue the multi-front litigation agenda. The winner will take charge of the office's high-profile investigation into whether ExxonMobil misled investors about climate change risks. It also has been at the vanguard of blue-state challenges to the Trump Administration's attempts to roll back environmental protections and favor fossil fuel development.

This campaign was never really about me or any of the candidates who ran," she said. "It was about the people, but mostly it was about that man in the White House who can't go a day without threatening our fundamental rights." Aside from climate and environmental issues, New York has led lawsuits against the Trump administration over immigration policy, and health care.

Her opponent in November will be Republican Keith Wofford, managing partner of the New York office of an international law firm focused on business and finance, who has the handicap of the Democrats' 2-to-1 registration edge over the GOP in New York. Wofford has been critical of the Exxon case and said he couldn't imagine why he would pursue it as attorney general.

Divestment, Exxon and 'Sheriff on Wall Street'

James came out in support of divesting the city's pension funds from fossil fuel businesses in 2015 and helped organize a public hearing on the issue in New York City last November. After New York Mayor Bill de Blasio won re-election, he announced a commitment to move forward with divestment,a process expected to take years.

But alongside her bona fides with the climate movement, James also has garnered support with the Democratic party establishment. With a campaign war chest of more than $1 million, she was the top fundraiser in the four-way primary race and had the endorsement of Gov. Andrew Cuomo. Her opponents tried to paint her as too close to the party establishment, but she was able to capture more than 40 percent of the vote. Cuomo bested his primary challenger, actor-turned-progressive activist Cynthia Nixon, by more than 30 points.

How she would handle the Exxon case is also unclear. James' office did not immediately answer a request for comment on her position on the case. Neither she nor her opponents were pressed on the issue during the campaign, although James' closest rival, law professor Zephyr Teachout, pledged to continue the case at one of the candidates' debates.

James drew harsh criticism from her opponents during the campaign when she told The New York Times that it was "critically important" that she "not be known as the 'Sheriff on Wall Street,'" a moniker that former New York Attorney General and Gov. Eliot Spitzer had embraced. Wall Street firms have been urging lawmakers to weaken New York's tough shareholder protection law, the Martin Act, which is an important weapon in the state's securities fraud case against Exxon.

Future of the Exxon Investigations

New York launched its probe of Exxon in 2015 under then-Attorney General Eric Schneiderman. After Schneiderman resigned earlier this year in a sexual harassment scandal, acting Attorney General Barbara Underwood pushed forward with the investigation, and in October filed a lawsuit.

The Massachusetts Attorney General's Office has a similar investigation into Exxon underway.

The political action committee 350 Action, which did not endorse a candidate for attorney general but backed Nixon in the governor's race, saying Nixon embraced a more ambitious climate plan, was measured in its response to James' victory.

"As attorney general, she would have an immense responsibility to ratchet up investigations into all that Exxon knew about climate change," said Lindsay Meiman, a spokesperson for the grassroots activism group and native New Yorker. "As hurricanes batter the east coast, New Yorkers need an attorney general who will make sure it's fossil fuel billionaires—not our communities—who bear the costs of climate destruction."

PUBLISHED UNDER:

POLITICS

CLIMATE CHANGE EXXON CLIMATE ELECTION 2018

interim AG pretty good but

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/14092018/letitia-james-new-york-attorney-general-primary-exxon-investigation-divestment-fossil-fuels-climate-change

The victory makes her the favorite in November to win New York's top law enforcement job, where she would take charge of the office's high-profile investigation into whether ExxonMobil misled investors about climate change risks.

The office, under her predecessors, has also been at the vanguard of blue-state challenges to the Trump Administration's attempts to roll back environmental protections and favor fossil fuel development. In her victory speech, James, who is a lawyer and the first African-American woman to win a statewide primary contest in New York, vowed to continue the multi-front litigation agenda.

"This campaign was never really about me or any of the candidates who ran," she said. "It was about the people, but mostly it was about that man in the White House who can't go a day without threatening our fundamental rights." Aside from climate and environmental issues, New York has led lawsuits against the Trump administration over immigration policy, and health care.

Divestment, Exxon and 'Sheriff on Wall Street'

How she would handle the Exxon investigation is also unclear. James' office did not immediately answer a request for comment on her position on the Exxon case. Neither she nor her opponents were pressed on the issue during the campaign, although James' closest rival, law professor Zephyr Teachout, pledged to continue the case at one of the candidates' debates.

James drew harsh criticism from her opponents during the campaign when she told The New York Times that it was "critically important" that she "not be known as the 'Sheriff on Wall Street,'" a moniker that former New York Attorney General and Gov. Eliot Spitzer had embraced. Wall Street firms have been urginglawmakers to weaken New York's tough shareholder protection law, the Martin Act, which is an important weapon in the state's securities fraud case against Exxon.

Future of the Exxon Investigations

Last month, Underwood's office said it was close to wrapping up its investigation, but the question of whether to press charges against the oil giant may be in the hands of the next New York attorney general. The Massachusetts Attorney General's Office has a similar investigation into Exxon underway.