Rob Bonta rep Atty Gen

climatehaWK ON LAWSUIT SUPERFUND

SEE TRUMP SUE

SEE NEWSOM

:===

-=-=

bonta sue 100x 10 26

-=-=

an 10 26 thumb dr sticky note pw

President Donald Trump's first assistant U.S. attorney keeps getting caught in lies, according to one keen observer.

National security expert Marcy Wheeler pointed to a recent tweet from Bill Essayli listing details about the case against California and Los Angeles County over a conspiracy theory about mail ballots. According to the federal government, 20,000 of the people who got ballots were "likely noncitizens."

The administration has been caught in this fight before. In Nevada, the administration used this same system and claimed that as many as 15,903 noncitizens might be on the state’s voter rolls. The state demanded evidence, and Homeland Security whittled the list down to 185 names, claiming it had "manually" verified they were noncitizens.

Nevada officials then checked the 185 names against state records and concluded every one was a U.S. citizen.

In a letter to DHS, Deputy Attorney General Greg Ott wrote: “As for the 185 individuals, our records indicate that they were citizens,” adding that the federal government had “provided nothing of substance to suggest otherwise.”

Now California must use the same system and face the same allegations. So, the parties asked the judge to block the federal government's demand.

The Justice Department argued that California must segregate those ballots until their citizenship status can be verified, and Attorney General Todd Blanche accused the state of refusing to comply with federal law.

Essayli falsely claimed on X, "Make no mistake: California has no interest in protecting the integrity of its elections. We presented the evidence. Their answers: "It's not widespread fraud." "It's too late we already mailed the ballots." "It's already illegal to vote illegally." "We can't trust your evidence." A law that isn't enforced is meaningless. Today we are asking a court to require California to follow the law and not count ballots cast by noncitizens," he claimed.

Wheeler said that in this case, Essayli was "outright lying here."

She cited, "The same untested garbage that has been shown to be fraudulent in other states. He is confessing to a conspiracy to deprive naturalized citizens, like Harmeet Dhillon, of their right to vote," Wheeler bashed.

Indeed, Essayli's claims still have not been independently verified and resemble a system that failed in Nevada.

His problem is that the lawsuit itself describes the people as “likely noncitizens,” not confirmed noncitizens. California officials say the federal government has not explained the basis for the suspicion or provided enough identifying information to verify the list.

-=-=

trump allies warn California leaders they could go to prison...

Sacramento News & Review

https://sacramento.newsreview.com › News

By Wendy Fry and Jeanne Kuang for CalMatters

California's southern border, long ‘ground zero' in the fight between federal and local officials over immigration policy, is now at the center of renewed controversy over how far local leaders can go to protect people from deportation.

After San Diego County took steps earlier this month to strengthen safeguards for undocumented residents, an organization led by President-elect Donald Trump's adviser Stephen Miller sent a letter warning that elected leaders and employees of “sanctuary” jurisdictions could be “criminally liable” if they impede federal immigration enforcement.

In the Dec. 23 letter, America First Legal Foundation wrote: “We have identified San Diego County as a sanctuary jurisdiction that is violating federal law.”

The conservative legal nonprofit that day announced that it had identified 249 elected officials in sanctuary jurisdictions who it said could face “legal consequences” over immigration policies. The California Attorney General's office and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass were sent similar letters.

The letter also suggests sanctuary city officials could be civilly liable under federal anti-racketeering laws.

With Trump pledging to carry out the “largest mass deportation campaign in U.S. history,” San Diego's board of supervisors enacted a policy on Dec. 12 prohibiting local law enforcement from communicating with immigration authorities about undocumented people in local jails without a judicial warrant.

San Diego's newly enacted ordinance goes a step further than California's existing state “sanctuary” law, which only limits cooperation between local law enforcement and the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The law prevents jailers from notifying ICE about non-citizen inmates who are about to be released from local criminal custody unless they committed one of about 800 serious crimes. State prison officials regularly communicate with ICE about people in their custody, including U.S. citizens, public records show.

San Diego County's action faced immediate pushback, with the county's top law enforcement official, Sheriff Kelly Martinez, saying she would not follow the new policy and would continue allowing immigration authorities access to the jail inmates.

American First Legal Foundation sent its letter to the chair of San Diego County's Board of Supervisors, Nora Vargas, who stepped down from her position on Friday citing security concerns just weeks after being elected to a second term.

“Federal law is clear: aliens unlawfully present in the United States are subject to removal from the country, and it is a crime to conceal, harbor, or shield them. It is also a crime to prevent federal officials from enforcing immigration law,” states the letter, dated three days after the resignation.

Vargas, who was born in Tijuana, has long championed rights for asylum seekers and immigrants. She was the first immigrant and Latina to serve on San Diego's board of supervisors. She was elected to the board in 2020, flipping the seat from Republican to Democrat for the first time in decades.

Vargas said the new board policy was developed through “rigorous legal review and stands in full compliance with federal, state and local laws.”

“This nation's foundation was built on the strength and contributions of immigrants,” she posted on social media. “Now it's time to turn our focus to honoring the humanity of those who help make this country the beacon of hope it continues to be.”

Spokespersons for Trump's transition team did not immediately respond to inquiries about whether the administration plans to prosecute local officials in sanctuary cities. Trump has named Miller to be his deputy chief of staff for policy and homeland security advisor.

California preparing legal battles with Trump administration

State officials have asked the Legislature, in a special session called by Gov. Gavin Newsom last month, for $25 million for legal fights with the incoming administration on issues including immigration.

“This is a scare tactic, plain and simple,” read a statement from the Attorney General Rob Bonta's office, in response to the America First letter. “While we are unable to comment on the specifics of the letter, we want to be clear: SB 54 was upheld by the courts during the first Trump administration, and it prevents the use of state and local resources for federal immigration enforcement with certain narrow exceptions. SB 54 does nothing, however, to block federal agencies from conducting immigration enforcement themselves. California will continue to comply with all applicable state and federal laws, and we expect all local law enforcement agencies to do the same.”

Democratic state Senate leader Mike McGuire, of Healdsburg, in response to the letters called the incoming administration's proposed immigration policies “draconian” and damaging to California's economy.

“The previous Trump administration came at California before on a variety of legal fronts and the majority of the time, lost,” said McGuire, whose office did not receive a letter. “Mark my word, we'll be prepared again.”

The state is home to several major cities with policies limiting cooperation between local police and federal immigration authorities. Proponents say such policies make immigrants less fearful of deportation when reporting crimes to or cooperating with the police. Los Angeles adopted a sanctuary city ordinance in November, fast-tracking the policy after Trump's election.

Asked for comment on the America First letter, Zach Seidl, a spokesperson for Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, called it “wrong on public safety and wrong on the law.”

“Sanctuary policies are against the law, make a mockery of America's democratic principles, and demonstrate a shocking disrespect for our Constitution and our citizens. The officials in charge of sanctuary jurisdictions have no excuse and must be held accountable,” read a statement from James Rogers, a senior counsel with America First Legal.

Trump targeted California sanctuary cities before

The state's own sanctuary law, signed by then-Gov. Jerry Brown in 2017, curbs local sheriffs' transfers of detainees to federal immigration custody and also prohibits police from asking people about their immigration status. That law, Senate Bill 54, contains an exception for state prisons, which regularly transfer ex-inmates who have completed their sentences to Immigration and Customs Enforcement for deportation proceedings.

Trump advisers, including Miller, have been considering using federal pressure, such as withholding federal funds, against jurisdictions that won't cooperate with federal immigration authorities. The last Trump administration tried to get the California sanctuary law overturned in federal court, but the Supreme Court in 2020 declined to hear its petition. And in 2018, Trump's Department of Homeland Security floated criminal charges against politicians of cities that enact sanctuary policies. It did not file charges.

“So-called ‘sanctuary' jurisdictions that forbid compliance with federal immigration law and cooperation with the officials who enforce it are, therefore, breaking the law. Moreover, sanctuary jurisdictions are strictly prohibited from requiring their employees to violate federal immigration law,” the America First letter states.

But Ahilan Arulanantham, co-director of the Center for Immigration Law and Policy at the UCLA School of Law, said the letter's reasoning that sanctuary policies amount to “harboring” or concealing federal fugitives is flawed.

“Not inquiring about someone's status is not harboring. Neither is declining to share such information,” Arulanantham said in a text message Friday. “I'm not aware of any criminal protections based on such conduct, and the letter fails to cite any.”

To carry out his plan to deport more people than any other president, Trump will need the cooperation of local officials. Immigrant Legal Resource Center, a national nonprofit that provides legal training and does pro-immigrant policy work in California and Texas, estimates 70 to 75% of ICE arrests in the interior of the U.S. are handoffs from another law enforcement agency, such as local jails or state or federal prisons. Since 2019, California's state prison system has delivered more than 5,700 formerly incarcerated immigrants to ICE, federal data shows.

San Diego was the epicenter of a surge of unauthorized crossings earlier this year, straining local resources. In April, 37,370 people crossed between ports of entry in the San Diego sector, with the majority surrendering to Border Patrol to claim asylum. This made it the top spot for crossings in the country for a few weeks in 2024, according to federal data. The number of unauthorized crossings dropped sharply after the Biden administration implemented new asylum restrictions in June.

===

ref

https://www.exxonknews.org/p/exxon-uses-free-speech-argument-to

exxon uses free speech argument to fight climate laws

It’s not the first time the oil giant has tried to ward off accountability using the First Amendment.

Emily Sanders

Oct 29, 2025

ExxonMobil has sued California over a pair of state laws that force big companies to disclose financial climate risks to shareholders and the full greenhouse gas emissions resulting from their businesses — arguing that the measures violate the company’s free speech. It’s the latest example of Exxon, the biggest U.S. oil company, wielding the First Amendment as both a shield and sword in court.

The California Climate Accountability Package, which passed in 2023, would make companies doing business in California disclose emissions that result from the use of their products — also known as “Scope 3” emissions. That category makes up the vast majority of emissions from the oil and gas industry, but companies including Exxon have fought to avoid making them transparent.

Exxon’s new lawsuit argues that by requiring it to account for the entirety of its emissions, the laws would force it to “espouse California’s preferred framing for issues of immense public concern” and to “describe its emissions and climate-related risks in terms the company fundamentally disagrees with.” The lawsuit asks a U.S. District Court to stop California from enforcing the laws.

The case targets the country’s only existing disclosure laws for greenhouse gas emissions, even as the federal government ends emissions reporting and required climate disclosures at the federal level. But it’s also part of a years-long trend of corporations using First Amendment arguments in an attempt to shield themselves from scrutiny and regulation, experts say.

“This is part of a long history of companies including Exxon trying to use the First Amendment to block regulation that they dislike,” said Amanda Shanor, an associate professor of legal studies and business ethics at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, who has chronicled some of those high-stakes efforts. “That’s not really how the First Amendment works or is supposed to work.”

The fossil fuel industry, in particular, has leveraged First Amendment arguments to repel criticism over their role in the climate crisis. In recent years, oil companies have claimed that lawsuits across the country accusing them of misleading the public about climate change violate their free speech rights. From Oregon to Massachusetts, the District of Columbia to California, Exxon has brought motions to dismiss states’ and municipalities’ climate deception lawsuits under anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) statutes — laws that were developed to protect the free speech of press and civil society groups.

One of those motions, responding to lawsuits filed by the state of California and eight California municipalities, argues that oil companies “have long exercised their rights to participate in the public debate over which policies best balance the challenges posed by a changing climate and the world’s increasing need for energy,” and that “This lawsuit threatens Defendants’ continued participation in those debates.”

The law firm representing Exxon in that motion, O’Melveny and Myers, is the same as in the latest First Amendment lawsuit against California. The argument seeks to cast Exxon’s public statements on climate change as political speech, which concerns public policy and has stringent First Amendment protections, rather than commercial speech, which does not enjoy the same level of protections.

“We’ve seen this movie before,” said Robert Brulle, an environmental sociologist and professor at Brown University and director of research at the Climate Social Science Network, who has co-authored briefs in support of climate deception lawsuits. “Their fallback defense is freedom of speech — ‘nobody ever said we have to be truthful.’”

Mobil Oil, now part of ExxonMobil, helped pioneer the idea of corporations as citizen-like entities with free speech rights in an effort to revive their reputation back in the 1970s. Exxon and Mobil backed other corporations’ First Amendment lawsuits, arguing that companies should be free to express their views on “matters of public concern,” including climate change. In Supreme Court cases like First National Bank v. Bellotti and Citizens United v. FEC, the idea of corporate free speech was expanded to usher in nearly unlimited corporate money in politics.

Still, none of oil companies’ anti-SLAPP arguments has been validated by judges. Under existing First Amendment law, Shanor explained, Exxon’s lawsuit against California’s disclosure laws should be very unlikely to succeed, too.

“Exxon is grasping at straws,” said Maggie Coulter, a senior attorney for the Climate Law Institute at the Center for Biological Diversity. “Courts have already rejected companies’ weak arguments rebranding their greenwashing and misinformation as free speech.”

Exxon and other corporations could be hoping that the U.S. Supreme Court might eventually use such a case to alter the boundaries between political and commercial speech — or “change what the rules are in a way that will favor them,” Shanor said.

“You just keep throwing the same basic core argument up there, wave the flag of the First Amendment and say, ‘leave us alone.’ Kind of like holding up a cross to a vampire,” said Brulle. “Now they’re playing it out in California to try to build a record in the court.”

‘Disproportionate blame’ on Exxon

According to Exxon’s lawyers, California’s disclosure framework would place “disproportionate blame on large companies like ExxonMobil for being large.”

“ExxonMobil understands the very real risks associated with climate change and supports continued efforts to address those risks,” reads the complaint. Such frameworks “send the counterproductive message that large companies are uniquely responsible for climate change no matter how efficiently they satisfy societal demand for energy, goods, and services.”

Michael Gerrard, director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University, said that Exxon should “let the readers decide.”

“If Exxon doesn’t like California’s framing, it’s free to supplement it with its own framing and offer an explanation of why it thinks that one is better,” he said.

The company’s own framing hasn’t gone over well so far, at least with climate experts. Exxon is the top investor-owned carbon emitter in the world, according to the latest Carbon Majors database by researchers at the nonprofit think tank InfluenceMap, and one of the most profitable. But Exxon officials have often blamed the company’s emissions largely on the habits of consumers. In an interviewwith Fortune last year, ExxonMobil CEO Darren Woods said that “the people who are generating the emissions need to be aware of and pay the price … for generating those emissions,” and referred to Scope 3 emissions as “essentially the emissions of our customers.”

Just before that interview, Exxon sued its own shareholders in an effort to block a proposal for the oil giant to limit its Scope 3 emissions. The lawsuit was dismissed, but not before shareholders revoked their proposal.

“What Exxon is asking for in this case is to say that shareholders should have no right to question companies on climate-related issues,” Danielle Fugere, president & chief counsel of shareholder advocacy group As You Sow, told ExxonKnewsat the time.

Both that lawsuit and another last year brought by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce against the California Air Resources Board, which also alleged California’s climate disclosure laws violated the First Amendment, were argued by law firm Gibson Dunn — a favorite of fossil fuel companies. The industry has also used the firm to pursue massive legal damages from their opponents, including this year’s nearly $667 million verdict against Greenpeace for its role in the protests against Energy Transfer’s Dakota Access pipeline.

Earlier this year, after California Attorney General Rob Bonta and a group of nonprofits sued Exxon for a “decades-long campaign of deception” about the efficacy of plastic recycling, Exxon sued them back under defamation laws — a clear example of a SLAPP, legal experts said.

Though climate deception lawsuits face growing attacks from fossil fuel allies and the Trump administration in the United States, they have seen recent successes abroad — a Paris Court just ruled that French oil giant Total’s advertising about “net zero” and leading the energy transition was misleading consumers. And over the last week, two new lawsuits have been brought against major polluters in the UK and Germany by victims of climate disasters. “I think that the evidence is pretty solid that Exxon and Mobil and all sorts of other folks knew all about climate damages and lied about it, and it’s just going to get more solid the more information we get,” said Brulle.

California officials said they would fight to uphold the disclosure laws, which could soon show up in other states, too. “These laws are about transparency,” said Christine Lee, a spokesperson for the California Department of Justice, in a statement.“ExxonMobil might want to continue keeping the public in the dark, but we’re ready to litigate vigorously in court to ensure the public’s access to these important facts.”

---

AN 6 25

In a high-stakes emergency hearing Thursday in the case of Newsom v. Trump, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer raised sharp constitutional questions about President Donald Trump’s deployment of the National Guard and potential activation of U.S. Marines in response to unrest in California.

The hearing, held under expedited circumstances, addressed California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s (D) challenge to Trump’s recent order deploying military forces without what the state argues was the legally required coordination with the governor.

Breyer opened the session with pointed observations about the constitutional stakes of the dispute, according to Politico reporter Kyle Cheney, who detailed the proceedings in a thread on the social platform X.

"How is that different than what a monarchist does?" he asked.

IFrame Content

"He says certain things, he finds certain things, he does certain things. That’s not where we live. We live in response to a monarchy … the Constitution is a document of limitations."

Breyer expressed appreciation for the expedited briefings from both parties, calling the matter “very serious” and “weighty,” and said he intends to act quickly given the urgency.

Central to the hearing was the Department of Justice’s argument that the president’s determination of a “rebellion” or “danger of rebellion” is not subject to judicial review. Breyer appeared skeptical of that claim."That’s the difference between a Constitutional government and King George,” the judge said.

“It’s not that a leader can simply say something and it becomes it."He also focused on the statutory requirement that any order federalizing the National Guard “shall” be issued “through” the governor of the affected state.

Breyer questioned whether Trump met that requirement."I'm trying to figure out how something is ‘through’ somebody if in fact you didn’t give it to him," he said, signaling doubts that the administration followed proper legal channels in bypassing Newsom.

However, Breyer also raised questions for the state. While California attorneys warned that U.S. Marines are expected to arrive in Los Angeles within 24 hours, Breyer noted that, at present, no such deployment had occurred."I just sort of don’t think that’s my business," he said, referring to the Marines’ involvement, but added that it might become relevant if and when troops are deployed.

---

calif sue on tariffs 4 17 25

almonds wine marvel movies china?

===

an 1 25

Two anti-abortion activists who made sensational videos of Planned Parenthood officials nearly a decade ago pleaded no contest this week to a felony count of illegally recording someone without consent.

*This story first appeared at Cal Matters.

David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt secretly filmed Planned Parenthood executives in California and edited the clips in a way that purported to show them selling fetal remains. Monday’s plea deal and felony conviction ends a criminal case that has dragged through the court system since 2017.

Their explosive videos triggered multiple state investigations into the allegations, some of which were led by Republican attorneys general. Those inquiries cleared Planned Parenthood of any wrongdoing, but court cases related to the videos are ongoing.

Daleiden and Merritt pleaded no contest in San Francisco Superior Court and waived any right to appeal. A sentencing hearing will happen roughly a year from now.

Attorney General Rob Bonta, who has taken a firm stance supporting abortion access, said in a statement that the conviction helps ensure California residents can exercise their state constitutional rights to reproductive health care.

“We will not hesitate to continue taking action against those who threaten access to abortion care — whether by recording confidential conversations or other means,” Bonta said.

The conviction comes less than a week after President Donald Trump limited federal enforcement of a law meant to protect abortion clinic workers and pardoned 23 anti-abortion activists convicted of harassing abortion clinic workers.

The terms of the plea agreement prohibit Daleiden and Merritt from contacting or naming any of the victims of the illegal recordings. They must also obey all laws.

Daleiden downplayed the felony conviction in a statement on his website, Center for Medical Progress, saying that the conviction comes with “zero punishment.”

“After enduring 9 years of weaponized political prosecution, putting an end to the lawfare launched by Kamala Harris is a huge victory for my investigative reporting and for the public’s right to know the truth about Planned Parenthood’s sale of aborted baby body parts,” Daleiden said.

At the time, then-California Attorney General Kamala Harris launched an investigation into Daleiden and Merritt’s actions after they published a series of videos showing covertly filmed conversations of Planned Parenthood executives discussing abortion procedures and how tissue is collected and exchanged with research companies.

Donating fetal tissue to researchers and recouping expenses is legal under U.S. law and states may impose additional regulations.

The recordings sparked a firestorm of national outrage, particularly from conservative activists and lawmakers who oppose abortion, fueling calls to defund Planned Parenthood. The subjects of the recordings received death threats in the aftermath.

Planned Parenthood won a $2.2 million civil lawsuit in San Francisco against Daleiden and Merritt for violating fraud, trespassing and recording laws.

In an unsigned statement, Bonta’s office said it disagreed with Daleiden’s characterization of the plea deal.

“Make no mistake: the defendants are now convicted felons. They are guilty of feloniously recording private communications.”

Under California law, Daleiden and Merritt are eligible to ask a judge to reduce the conviction to a misdemeanor in 12 months if they adhere to the terms of the plea deal.

===

Sierra Club’s Response to ExxonMobil’s Countersuit

January 7, 2025

Contact

Jonathon Berman, jonathon.berman@sierraclub.org

Beaumont, Texas – On Monday, ExxonMobil filed a countersuit against the Sierra Club, California Attorney General Robert Bonta, and others in the Eastern District of Texas. This comes in response to a lawsuit the groups filed in September against the company, which is the world’s largest producer of single-use plastic polymers. The original complaint, which was filed in San Francisco County Superior Court, alleges violations of California nuisance law and California unfair competition law and alleges ExxonMobil concealed the harms caused by plastics.

In response, Sierra Club spokesperson Jonathon Berman issued the following statement:

“Exxon is clearly confused about the difference between defamation and accountability. This lawsuit is a shameless attempt at intimidation by a multibillion dollar polluter corporation that covered up its climate change denial for decades. The Sierra Club will not sit back as ExxonMobil attempts to use their billions to bully those standing up for the health of working families.”

===

[### Profit Over Planet: Exxon Sued for Hiding the Truth About ...

Sierra Club

https://www.sierraclub.org › press-releases › 2024/09 › p...](https://www.sierraclub.org/press-releases/2024/09/profit-over-planet-exxon-sued-hiding-truth-about-plastic-harms)

Sep 23, 2024 — ... Sierra Club, Surfrider Foundation, Heal the Bay, and San Francisco Baykeeper, filed a lawsuit against ExxonMobil (“Exxon”), the world's ...

Sierra Club's Response to ExxonMobil's Countersuit

Sierra Club

https://www.sierraclub.org › press-releases › 2025/01 › si...](https://www.sierraclub.org/press-releases/2025/01/sierra-club-s-response-exxonmobil-s-countersuit)

Jan 7, 2025 — The Sierra Club will not sit back as ExxonMobil attempts to use their billions to bully those standing up for the health of working families.”.

[### ExxonMobil Lied About Plastics Recycling, Lawsuits Claim

Sierra Club

https://www.sierraclub.org › sierra › exxonmobil-lied-ab...](https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/exxonmobil-lied-about-plastics-recycling-lawsuits-california-sierra-club-claim)

Sep 24, 2024 — The State of California and environmental groups including the Sierra Club say the petrochemical giant always knew recycling wouldn't work.

[### Sierra Club v. ExxonMobil Corp.

Climate Change Litigation Databases

https://climatecasechart.com › Case Bundles](https://climatecasechart.com/case/sierra-club-v-exxon-mobil-corp/)

Environmental organizations filed a complaint against Exxon Mobil Corporation asserting nuisance and violation of California's Unfair Competition Law in ...

[### Surfrider, the Sierra Club, Heal the Bay, and San Francisco ...

Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP

https://www.cpmlegal.com › news-Surfrider-the-Sierra-...](https://www.cpmlegal.com/news-Surfrider-the-Sierra-Club-Heal-the-Bay-and-San-Francisco-Baykeeper-Sue-Exxon-for-Hiding-the-Truth-About-Plastic-Harms)

Sep 23, 2024 — Surfrider, the Sierra Club, Heal the Bay, and San Francisco Baykeeper Sue Exxon for Hiding the Truth About Plastic Harms.

[### Environment Texas, Sierra Club v. ExxonMobil

National Environmental Law Center

https://www.nelc.org › Cases](https://www.nelc.org/cases/environment-texas-sierra-club-v-exxonmobil/)

Following trial and appeal, ExxonMobil ordered to pay record $19.95 million civil penalty; penalty provisionally reduced to $14.25 million, pending final ...

[### CalPERS must hold ExxonMobil accountable

Sierra Club

https://www.sierraclub.org › articles › 2024/03 › calpers-...](https://www.sierraclub.org/articles/2024/03/calpers-must-hold-exxonmobil-accountable)

Mar 22, 2024 — Investors who want to preserve their shareholder rights must hold the oil major accountable. And we need CalPERS to lead the way.

---

1 15

e xxon resorts to “intimidation” in legal battle over plastics recycling

The oil giant is accusing its opponents of engaging in a “deliberate smear campaign” at the cost of Exxon’s reputation and business prospects.

Months after California Attorney General Rob Bonta and a group of nonprofits separately sued ExxonMobil for a “decades-long campaign of deception” about the viability of plastic recycling, Exxon is suing them back, accusing Bonta and the nonprofits of defaming the oil giant and intentionally harming its efforts to develop new “advanced” recycling technologies.

Bonta’s lawsuit argues that despite knowing that recycling couldn’t effectively handle significant amounts of plastic waste, Exxon marketed it to the public to assuage environmental concerns and delay limits on plastic production. Now that it’s clear traditional recycling methods are insufficient, California’s lawsuit says, Exxon is once again deliberately misleading the public to believe that “advanced” or chemical recycling technologies are a safe and effective solution to plastic waste. A group of environmental nonprofits — including Sierra Club, Surfrider, Heal the Bay, and Baykeeper — filed a similar lawsuit against Exxon on the same day in September.

Exxon’s new complaint says those cases and accompanying public statements amount to a conspiracy between Bonta, advocates, and “foreign interests” to falsely “attack and defame ExxonMobil’s integrity and reputation.” But others say Exxon’s case is a textbook SLAPP — or strategic lawsuit against public participation — intended to ensnare its opponents in lengthy legal battles and prevent them from speaking out.

“This is a classic lawfare and SLAPP suit,” said Pat Parenteau, an environmental law professor and senior fellow at Vermont Law School. “Intimidation is the whole point of lawsuits like this.”

Exxon’s chemical recycling claims have come under sharp scrutiny in recent years, with government and nonprofit reports and Exxon’s own internal documents obtained by California’s attorney general revealing a widening gap between the company’s promotion of chemical recycling and the technology’s capacity to work as promised, even in the future. Those reports also documented the harm caused by the process of chemical recycling, which involves releasing toxic and carcinogenic pollutants, in close proximity to people — and how these facilities have been most often sited in low-income communities and communities of color.

According to Exxon’s complaint, such criticism — and the legal actions that followed — have derailed Exxon’s existing and prospective business deals, and “further threaten to derail advanced recycling by preventing it from achieving the scale necessary to ensure effective and efficient recycling.” But advocates say that’s a diversion from the fact that chemical recycling doesn’t work to significantly reduce plastic waste, and would only perpetuate the increased production of plastic.

"There is consistent data showing that plastics recycling does not achieve a high level of recycling and that chemical recycling is not a real solution to the growing problem of plastic waste,” said Judith Enck, president of U.S. nonprofit Beyond Plastics and former EPA regional administrator. “It would be so much more productive if ExxonMobil simply told the truth and refrained from attempting to intimidate elected officials and advocates who are working to actually solve the problem."

In the complaint against Bonta, Exxon reports having recycled 70 million pounds of plastic waste to date — just 7% total of its goal of recycling one billion pounds per year via chemical recycling by year-end 2026, which appeared on its website as recently as October 31, 2024. Their website now says that goal will be reached by 2027.

A history of retaliation

The new lawsuit was filed Monday in a federal court in Texas, where Exxon’s chemical recycling operations are focused and where the company says defendants’ “disparaging and defamatory conduct” was targeted. According to law professor Parenteau, the venue was more likely seen as a friendlier court than where the original cases were filed, as “California has one of the strongest anti-SLAPP laws in the country to protect constitutional rights of free speech and access to justice.”

It isn’t the first time that Exxon has dragged its critics into a Texas court. In 2016, the company asked a federal court in Dallas to block investigations by New York and Massachusetts attorneys general into whether Exxon deceived investors and the public about climate change. That case was eventually transferred to New York, where it was dismissed.

After California municipalities sued Exxon for climate deception in 2017, the company requested that a Texas state court allow pre-suit depositions of municipal officials and lawyers involved in the case to determine whether they were aiming “to suppress the Texas energy sector’s Texas-based speech.” Their request was ultimately denied.

Since California brought its plastics suit against Exxon, the oil giant has been named in two separate class-action suits that focus on plastic recycling deception, one filed by Ford County, Kansas, and the other by four individuals in a federal court in Missouri. By Exxon’s own admission, the oil giant “is likely to become involved in additional legal matters bringing similar allegations against ExxonMobil in the near future.” To protect the company from facing “a multiplicity of suits in various forums throughout the country,” Exxon is asking the Texas court to issue a declaratory judgement making clear that the company has a legal right to “engage in and promote advanced recycling.”

That may be an unusual request. “Courts do not normally issue that kind of blanket declaration on an emerging technology with all kinds of technical, economic and environmental considerations that are better left to the legislative and executive branches,” said Parenteau.

The case could be part of a growing trend — by Exxon and other fossil fuel majors including Chevron, Italian oil giant Eni, and oil pipeline company Energy Transfer — to use SLAPPs, and defamation claims in particular, as a way to silence opposition and dodge accountability.

Rebecca Tushnet, a First Amendment professor at Harvard Law School, said Exxon’s lawsuit against Bonta and advocates should be considered a SLAPP. “Under current doctrine, the First Amendment strongly protects the speech at issue,” she said. “Even though we're in a period of rapid constitutional change, speech in connection with a lawsuit is really at the core of First Amendment protection, and this is pretty appalling (though perhaps not surprising).”

A matter of public concern

In its complaint, Exxon argues that chemical recycling is in fact “part of the solution to plastic waste,” and that the company “has not engaged in a decades-long secret mission to brainwash or deceive the public.” But the complaint hinges on another central point: that criticisms about chemical recycling have gotten in the way of Exxon’s business deals.

“As a result of Defendants’ false statements, major international brands have refused to jointly promote advanced recycling with ExxonMobil,” the complaint reads. “Potential customers have expressed concern and hesitancy to work with ExxonMobil and explicitly referenced statements by Bonta and the US Proxies as the cause of that concern. And, a number of companies have backed out of proposed transactions with ExxonMobil for advanced recycling.”

Exxon claims Attorney General Bonta worked in concert with U.S. nonprofits and Australian-based Intergenerational Environmental Justice Fund (IEJF) — a charity initiative of nonprofit group Minderoo, funded by Australian mining company Fortescue, a competitor of Exxon’s in the “low carbon solution” sector — to falsely malign Exxon’s chemical recycling business and file their lawsuits as “proxies.” Exxon also accuses IEJF of hiring the nonprofits’ law firm, Cotchett, Pitre, & McCarthy, LLP, to “recruit and enlist willing plaintiffs to stand in for the foreign interests’ agenda.” Bonta, IEJF, Minderoo, Fortescue, and the law firm have refuted Exxon’s descriptions of their connections and work

The company is now asking for an injunction requiring the named parties to “take down and retract defamatory statements and to cease interfering with existing and prospective business relationships.”

Michael Gerrard, director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University, suggested that the case could face challenges for its attempts to rein in public debate — even in Texas. “The anti-SLAPP laws adopted by almost every state, including Texas, are designed to protect citizens from defamation and similar claims over matters of public concern,” he said. “The viability of plastics recycling is certainly a matter of public concern.”

===

nyt viA 350 NO LNX

California Tries ‘Trump-Proofing’ Its Climate Policies

A second Trump administration would be expected to shred climate policies. California officials are devising ways to insulate its environmental regulations.

By Coral Davenport

Published Oct. 12, 2024

Updated Oct. 15, 2024

California officials have been working for months on a plan to “Trump proof” the state’s leading edge environmental and climate policies, in the event that former President Donald J. Trump returns to the White House and follows through on his promise to gut them.

Whether California succeeds could affect more than a dozen other states that follow its emissions rules, and could have global impact because the state’s market muscle compels auto makers and other companies to conform to California standards.

The strategy now being crafted in Sacramento includes lawsuits designed to reach wide-ranging settlements with industries that generate greenhouse gases, and new rules and laws that rely on state authority and would be beyond the reach of the administration.

Mr. Trump, who considers climate change a “hoax,” has promised to weaken every major federal climate regulation, as he did in his first term.

But he is also expected to try to blow up California’s climate policies, which have set the pace for the rest of the nation and the world. The state is requiring about three-quarters of new trucks sold there after 2035 to be zero emissions. And in a request that is pending, California wants permission from the Biden administration to enact one of the most ambitious climate rules of any nation: a ban on the sale of new gas-powered passenger vehicles in the state after 2035.

Both rules are far tougher than federal policy and could have influence beyond the United States, given California’s standing as the world’s fifth-largest economy. China and the European Union have already adopted parts of California’s car and truck tailpipe emissions reduction programs.

The Democratic-controlled state legislature has also passed a first-in-the-nation law requiring major companies to disclose their greenhouse emissions. And it has strengthened the authority of local governments to shut down oil and gas projects in their communities. Next month, Californians will be asked to approve a ballot measure to create a $10 billion “climate bond” to pay for climate and environmental projects.

The California State Capitol in Sacramento.Credit...Juliana Yamada/Associated Press

Under a provision of the 1970 Clean Air Act, the Environmental Protection Agency has for decades given California a waiver that allows it to enact pollution controls that are stricter than federal regulations. Federal law also allows other states under certain circumstances to adopt California’s standards as their own.

Sixteen states have pledged to follow the California car rule and 10 states have adopted the truck rule, meaning that the California regulations would apply to about 40 percent the United States auto market.

Mr. Trump has promised to revoke the waiver. “California has imposed the most ridiculous car regulations anywhere in the world, with mandates to move to all electric cars,” Mr. Trump has said. “I will terminate that.”

At the same time, the legality of the waiver is being challenged by 17 Republican attorneys general and several oil groups in a lawsuit that may head to the United States Supreme Court.

On the campaign trail, Mr. Trump has continued his long-running feud with California’s Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom. Mr. Trump has called him an “environmental maniac” who is “crushing our great automakers in Michigan, Wisconsin, Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina, crushing them under his leadership.”

A spokeswoman for the Trump campaign, Karoline Leavitt, declined to comment on California’s plans.

Mr. Newsom, who is seen as having White House ambitions of his own, has made clear that he intends to forge ahead on environmental regulation regardless of whether Mr. Trump returns to the presidency.

“California has long led the nation in pioneering climate policies and innovation,” said Mr. Newsom in a statement. “Those efforts will continue for years to come. That includes partnerships with private companies, such as automakers, and agreements with other countries — everywhere from China to Norway to Canada — to combat the climate crisis together.”

Mr. Trump has called Gavin Newsom, the California governor, an “environmental maniac” on the campaign trail.Credit...Graham Dickie/The New York Times

Other top Democrats in the state, including Attorney General Rob Bonta, are working with the state’s climate regulator, the California Air Resources Board, on the “Trump-proofing” strategy. Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas said the state legislature will be ready to meet in a special session after the November election if necessary.

When Mr. Trump became president in 2017, California officials were caught flat-footed, said Mary Nichols, who was the state’s top climate regulator from 2007 to 2020 and now informally advises state policymakers. “It came as a shock,” she said.

As the Trump administration dismantled Obama-era environmental rules and then took aim at California’s policies, the state fought back, Ms. Nichols said. California filed more than 70 climate and environmental lawsuits against the Trump administration, prevailing in more than half of them.

That kind of record is not assured in the future, in part because Mr. Trump reshaped the nation’s courts, appointing more than 200 federal judges. Those appointments include three Supreme Court justices, who helped form a conservative supermajority that delivered decisions to restrict the government’s authority to regulate climate, air and water pollution. As soon as January, the court could hear the case that is challenging California’s waiver under the Clean Air Act.

Gavin Newsom Wants to Export California’s Climate Laws to the World

Oct. 23, 2023

State officials and lawmakers are working to try to protect California’s policies even if it loses its waiver.

They plan to build upon their most successful legal gambit during Mr. Trump’s first term. In 2019, the Trump administration revoked California’s waiver — the first time the federal government had done so since the Clean Air Act was passed in 1970. The Biden administration would later restore it, but the lapse had limited impact because California had secretly struck legal agreements with four of the world’s largest automakers — Ford, Volkswagen, Honda and BMW — to reduce their tailpipe emissions according to limits set by the state.

The move blindsided and enraged Mr. Trump, and his administration in turn threatened to withhold federal highway funds from California, unsuccessfully sued the state for partnering with Quebec on its emissions reduction program, and opened an antitrust investigation into the automakers that signed on to the deal.

But the deal with automakers, which expires in 2026, endured and grew: Volvo and Stellantis have since signed on. California regulators are now talking to the companies about even stricter emissions limits, and expanding the agreement to include other automakers and possibly other states.

“We are going to fight back hard,” said Phil Weiser, the Democratic attorney general of Colorado. “We are going to coordinate.”

Ms. Nichols, the architect of the automaker deal, also said that “back channel” conversations are happening about ways to forge legal agreements to reduce emissions from other industries, including electric utilities, oil companies and global corporations that have business in California.

The state is betting that companies would prefer to enter into a legal agreement that requires them to cut emissions or pay for environmental remediation rather than gamble on a court decision that could result in much higher sums. Many companies would also like to avoid the uncertainty of federal rules that change with each administration.

“When you have a settlement with private industry, it doesn’t matter if there is a change in administration,” said Paul Nolette, a professor of political science at Marquette University who is familiar with California’s strategy.

Mr. Nolette and others said the $206 billion settlement reached in 1998 between 46 states and tobacco companies offered lessons for how a climate deal between several states and industries could be structured.

The California attorney general’s office hopes to create a foundation for such deals following its lawsuit last year accusing five of the world’s largest oil companies of knowingly contributing to climate damage, and its lawsuit last month alleging that Exxon Mobil misled consumers into believing that many plastic products were recyclable when they were not.

The discovery documents and financial disclosures emerging from those complaints could lead to settlements under which companies might agree to emissions reductions, said Ms. Nichols and Mr. Nolette.

Legal settlements would likely be just one part of the state’s “Trump-proofing.”

“California has lots of other tools, including the power of the purse — particularly when it comes to procurement,” said Craig Segall, the former assistant chief counsel at the California Air Resources Board, who is now senior vice president at Evergreen Action, an environmental advocacy group.

For example, during the Trump administration, California banned the purchase of state vehicles made by companies that backed Mr. Trump’s efforts to roll back the state’s fuel-efficiency rules, including General Motors and Fiat Chrysler, which later became Stellantis. Eventually, those companies reversed course and sided with California.

Other leverage is under consideration, said Mr. Segall and others familiar with the planning.

State regulators could impose penalties on the use or purchase of vehicles that burn gasoline while California lawmakers could require that the resulting revenue be used to subsidize the purchase of electric vehicles.

Regulators could also limit emissions stemming from vehicles that are linked to enormous facilities like warehouses that are a hub for diesel trucks. A similar rule recently took effect in Los Angeles.

“Any state can have that,” said Mr. Segall. “It doesn’t need the federal waiver. These kinds of things are not popular, but in a world where there is destruction of the other climate tools, states can take these defensive measures.”

More than a decade ago, California launched a “climate diplomacy” relationship with China that endures. Delegations of Chinese officials have met multiple times with California Air Resources Board officials to share information and research. The meetings have borne fruit: China essentially cut-and-pasted portions of the California clean car rules — a policy move that helped drive China to the cutting edge of electric vehicle development.

California’s outreach to other countries will continue, state officials said. In addition to China, the state has influenced the European Union, which is mandating EV-only auto sales after 2035 and truck sales after 2040.

The state has served as co-chair of the International Carbon Action Partnership, an organization of economies that have established “cap-and-trade” programs, in which industrial polluters buy and sell emissions credits. Among those economies is Quebec, which has linked its carbon dioxide cap-and-trade market with California’s.

The Canadian province has used revenues of the program to help pay for incentives and chargers for electric vehicles, which now make up nearly 30 percent of new car sales in the region, compared with 8 percent in the U.S.

“Without the carbon market and the linkage with California, we wouldn’t be able to achieve this in Quebec,” said Benoit Charette, Quebec’s environment minister. “No matter the result of the federal election, California is our partner.”

Coral Davenport covers energy and environment policy, with a focus on climate change, for The Times. More about Coral Davenport

A version of this article appears in print on Oct. 14, 2024,

---

Faced with the return of a President of the United States who is now unchained by the law and unhinged by mental decline, California's Attorney General is once again prepared to resist.

---

context

an 11 24

California’s Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom is preparing on multiple fronts to protect his state from the impending Donald Trump presidency.

“The freedoms we hold dear in California are under attack — and we won’t sit idle,” Newsom said in a statement, the LA Times reports. “California has faced this challenge before, and we know how to respond. We are prepared to fight in the courts, and we will do everything necessary to ensure Californians have the support and resources they need to thrive.”

“California is ready to fight,” Newsom added, via social media. “Whether it be our fundamental civil rights, reproductive freedom, or climate action — we refuse to turn back the clock and allow our values and laws to be attacked.”

The 57-year old with reported presidential aspirations has called the state legislature back into session to provide additional funding for litigation against the Trump administration.

“California anticipates that Trump could seek to limit access to abortion, dismantle environmental protections and withhold federal disaster response funding,” The Times adds, along with repealing the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.

“The new special session provides an early look at the governor’s plan to wage an aggressive and highly visible campaign to shield California from the Trump White House.”

The governor sees the need “to increase legal funding to defend civil rights, climate change, access to abortion, disaster funding and other California policies from a conservative federal agenda before the inauguration in January.”

“Newsom’s preemptive strike signals the return of the hostile relationship between Democratic-controlled California and the Trump administration that was a hallmark of the Republican’s first term.”

The governor’s additional preparations for the impending Trump presidency include having performed an analysis of Project 2025, the extremist playbook created by the far-right Heritage Foundation, and a review of the more than 100 lawsuits California filed against the first Trump administration.

Ezra Levin, who co-founded the progressive organization Indivisible in response to the first Trump presidency, commented on Newsom’s actions: “This is a good move and Dem leaders in trifecta states across the country should be taking similar action. If you’re a leader in this moment, go lead.”

---

11 24

Faced with the return of a President of the United States who is now unchained by the law and unhinged by mental decline, California's Attorney General is once again prepared to resist.

Faced with four more years of a Trump administration and a more aggressive attack on the rights and peoples of the United States, California is once again poised to be a center of resistance. While the hellscape brought about by the election of Trump barrels toward us, the last days of sanity in our Federal government wind down, California Attorney General Rob Bonta had this to say:

"The best way to protect California, its values, the rights of our people, is to be prepared, so we won't be flat-footed," said Attorney General Rob Bonta, whose team has been working with advocacy organizations and attorneys general in other states on how they would answer another Trump administration. "We will fight as we did in the past if that scenario unfolds."

During Trump's first term, California sued more than 100 times over his rules and regulatory rollbacks. Bonta said his team has preemptively written briefs and tested arguments to challenge many of the policies they expect the former president to pursue over the next four years: passing a national abortion ban and restricting access to abortion medication; revoking California's waiver to regulate its own automobile tailpipe emissions and overruling its commitment to transition to zero-emission vehicles; ending protections for immigrants brought to the country illegally as children; undermining the state's extensive gun control laws, including for assault weapons, 3D-printed firearms and ghost guns; implementing voter identification requirements; and attacking civil rights for transgender youth.

"Unfortunately, it's a long list," Bonta told CalMatters days before the election. "We are and have been for months developing strategies for all of those things."

CalMatters

---

10 24 master class scotus? CU did not get --> AFP lawsuit camp finance disclosure?

Americans for Prosperity v. Bonta - Ballotpedia

Americans for Prosperity v. Bonta is a case that was argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on April 26, 2021, during the court's October 2020-2021 term. It was consolidated with Thomas More Law Center v. Bonta (formerly Thomas More Law Center v. Becerra).

In a 6-3 opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit's ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that the district court was correct in entering judgment in favor of the petitioners and permanently enjoining the California Attorney General from collecting their Schedule B forms, and that the Ninth Circuit erred when it vacated those injunctions and directed the entry of judgment for the attorney general. Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the majority opinion of the court. Justice Clarence Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Justice Samuel Alito filed a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch. Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan.^[1] Click here for more information about the ruling.

HIGHLIGHTS

The case: Two conservative advocacy groups, the Thomas More Law Center and Americans for Prosperity, challenged a California policy requirement that tax-exempt §501(c)(3) charitable organizations must disclose the names and addresses of major donors. The groups argued that the policy violated the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled in favor of the state. Click here to learn more about the cases' background.

The issues: The cases concerned governmental disclosure requirements for charitable organizations' donor lists and the Supreme Court's decision in NAACP v. Alabama.

The questions presented: "Whether the exacting scrutiny this Court has long required of laws that abridge the freedoms of speech and association outside the election context—as called for by NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 (1958), and its progeny—can be satisfied absent any showing that a blanket governmental demand for the individual identities and addresses of major donors to private nonprofit organizations is narrowly tailored to an asserted law-enforcement interest."^[2]

The outcome: The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit's ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings.

The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. To review the lower court's opinion in the consolidated cases, click here.^[3]

Timeline...

---

{===}:

ymail 9 24

California Sues ExxonMobil Over Its Global Plastic Waste Pollution and Deceptive Recycling Campaign - EcoWatch

California Attorney General Rob Bonta has announced that the state has filed a lawsuit against oil major ExxonMobil for its alleged engagement in “a decades-long campaign of deception,” which led to and exacerbated the worldwide plastics pollution crisis, a press release from the California Department of Justice said.

The complaint, filed in San Francisco County Superior Court, alleges that over the past half century, ExxonMobil has been misleading Californians through public statements and “slick marketing” that promised recycling would tackle the continuously increasing plastic waste the oil company produces.

The purpose of the lawsuit is to compel ExxonMobil to stop its deceptive practices, which threaten both the public and the environment. ExxonMobil is the largest promoter and producer of polymers — the building blocks of single-use plastics — in California.

“Plastics are everywhere, from the deepest parts of our oceans, the highest peaks on earth, and even in our bodies, causing irreversible damage — in ways known and unknown — to our environment and potentially our health,” Bonta said in the press release.

Bonta is seeking an abatement fund, as well as disgorgement — a legal remedy requiring the relinquishment of profits made by illegal or unethical means — and civil penalties for harm inflicted upon the environment and California communities by plastic pollution.

“For decades, ExxonMobil has been deceiving the public to convince us that plastic recycling could solve the plastic waste and pollution crisis when they clearly knew this wasn’t possible. ExxonMobil lied to further its record-breaking profits at the expense of our planet and possibly jeopardizing our health,” Bonta said in the press release. “Today’s lawsuit shows the fullest picture to date of ExxonMobil’s decades-long deception, and we are asking the court to hold ExxonMobil fully accountable for its role in actively creating and exacerbating the plastics pollution crisis through its campaign of deception.”

Since 1970, the oil company’s trade association adapted and promoted its “chasing arrows” symbol, which has become strongly associated with recycling. It has led consumers to believe items containing the symbol are able to be and will be recycled if placed in a recycling bin. The reality is that just roughly five percent of plastic waste in the United States gets recycled, and the rate of recycling has never been more than nine percent.

“For decades, ExxonMobil, one of the most powerful companies in the world, falsely promoted all plastic as recyclable, when in fact the vast majority of plastic products are not and likely cannot be recycled, either technically or economically. This caused consumers to purchase and use more single-use plastic than they otherwise would have due to the company’s misleading public statements and advertising,” the press release said.

Recently, the company has continued to deceive the public by promoting “advanced recycling,” a plastics industry umbrella term for a variety of solvent- or heat-based technologies that are able to theoretically convert particular kinds of plastic waste to become petrochemical feedstock that is then used in the making of new plastic.

ExxonMobil promotes the “advanced recycling” program as a technological breakthrough that will result in plastics becoming sustainable while concealing important truths regarding technical limitations of the process.

One of these limitations is that most plastic waste — 92 percent — produced through “advanced recycling” technology primarily becomes fuels rather than recycled plastic. The plastics produced through the process are also essentially virgin plastics because they contain such a small amount of plastic waste, but are deceptively marketed as “circular.”

Under the company’s best case scenario, the production of plastics through the “advanced recycling” program will only make up less than a percent of its total production capacity of virgin plastic, which keeps on growing.

The program is also not able to handle large volumes of post-consumer plastics like potato chip bags without equipment safety and performance risks.

“ExxonMobil’s ‘advanced recycling’ program is nothing more than a public relations stunt meant to encourage the public to keep purchasing single-use plastics that are fueling the plastics pollution crisis,” the press release said.

ExxonMobil is the largest producer of plastic waste from single-use plastics. In excess of 26 million pounds of garbage has been collected from waterways and beaches in California since 1985, and roughly 81 percent of this waste is plastic. Most plastics collected yearly on California Coastal Cleanup Day are traceable to the polymer resins produced by ExxonMobil.

“The global plastics waste and pollution crisis has been driven by the fossil fuel and petrochemical industries. Around the world each year, an estimated 12.1 million tons of plastic waste become aquatic pollution, and 19.8 million tons are polluted to land,” the press release said. “Through its deception, ExxonMobil has caused or substantially contributed to plastic pollution that has harmed and continues to harm California’s environment, wildlife, and natural resources.”

Single-use plastics — such as those used to make plastic bags, straws, packaging, disposable utensils and plasticware and other products — make up most plastic waste that pollutes the environment. Plastic is not biodegradable, but breaks down into smaller and smaller pieces called microplastics. These tiny plastic pieces have been found in food, drinking water and the air we breathe. Most recently, they have been found in the blood, lungs and breast milk of the human body.

transcript

Amy: Today, another super wonky legal thing that I swear to God is fascinating. Amicus briefs. OrAmicus briefs. It's Latin, and I hear lawyers pronounce it both ways. If you know the correct pronunciation, please just share it with me! At any rate, an Amicus or Amicus is Latin for friend.

So these are also sometimes referred to as friend of the court briefs. And way back before the internet and before large accessible libraries, even judges and their clerks couldn't so easily look up other cases that were relevant to the case at hand. So lawyers or other experts would submit these briefs that would point out similarities between the cases they were hearing and previous cases. It evolved over the years to include expert briefs more generally, but in the last decade or so it has morphed into something else entirely, just a mountain of anonymously funded briefs, pushing particular agendas, especially since the passage of Citizens United in 2010, which enabled endless amounts of anonymous corporate funding.

There's just been an explosion. Now, as you might assume, the Supreme court does have disclosure rules about these things. Of course it does, but they're ridiculous! You only have to disclose funding if it went toward the actual hands-on manual production of the brief. So like if Charles Koch paid someone to type that brief, you have to disclose that. But if he funded an entire Amicus program at your think tank, you don't.

Just to give you a sense of how rapidly this is exploding right now amici filed 781 briefs in the 2014 Supreme court term. That was a more than 800 % increase from the 1950s and a 95% increase from 1995. And the number of filings has just continued to rise since then. In the court's 2019 term, amici filed 911 briefs. The 2020 term featured almost 940.

Some high profile cases will even draw more than a hundred amicus briefs. And there's another disturbing trend: amici showing up at the certiori stage, or cert. That's the phase when the Supreme court is being petitioned to hear a case or reject it. Between 1982 and 2014, the percentage of petitions with at least one cert stage amicus more than doubled.

When I first started looking into this, it really didn't make sense because I thought is any judge really going to be surprised or swayed by a brief from the Cato Institute that says, we don't think you should regulate business? No, but here's the thing they're not swayed by the organization.

They're swayed by the attorney representing them. And any good amicus program worth it's dark money knows which lawyers will get which judges' attention at the cert stage. These connected lawyers can improve the chances of the court viewing the case as cert-worthy. At any stage seasoned members of the Supreme court bar add credibility to Amicus briefs. The late justice, Ruth Ginsburg actually talked about this in a 2008 interview. She said, "clerks often divide the Amicus briefs into three piles. Those that you can skip entirely. Those that should be skimmed. And those that should be read in full. If the attorneys submitting the Amicus brief has significant experience before the court, it would be more likely that their brief would be placed in a higher priority pile."

So it is actually an effective strategy. And more and more Supreme court justices are actually citing Amicus briefs in their rulings. From 2008 to 2013, the Supreme court cited amicus 606 times in 417 opinions. Between the 1994 and 2003 terms, the court's majority opinion referenced an Amicus brief only 38% of the time.

And in earlier terms like 1946 to 1955, it was less than 20% of the time. So it's gone from. 18% in the fifties to more than a hundred percent today. Another tactic folks will use with an Amicus briefs is to gather so many of them that it gives the justices the sense that there's some kind of consensus behind one side or the other.

Of course what all of this points to is the ability of people with deep pockets to tilt the courts in their favor. You would think that the Supreme court would just improve its disclosure requirements and be done with it. But for some reason, it hasn't done that. So in the meantime, Sheldon Whitehouse, the Senator from the great state of Rhode Island has proposed legislation that would force the issue.

He's here today to walk us through that legislation and why the Supreme court resists transparency, and how this whole Amicus thing is really messing with democracy. That's coming up after this quick break,

Senator Whitehouse: You press on the Supreme court to take action. And their first response is to pretend that there's no problem. And then you keep pressing and, um, ultimately within the judiciary, somebody realizes, okay, there actually is a problem. And, um, they'd begin to do some work on it. I don't know whether that's quietly blessed by the Supreme court or despite the Supreme court, but it's happened twice.

It happened first on amicus disclosure where the Supreme court said nothing to see here, not a problem, go away, but then the judicial conference said, okay, this is actually a really serious question. And they set up a special committee to look into it. And judge Mollette, um, as a part of that discussion in the public, uh, meeting, I guess said, Hey, we really got to know who the power is behind the throne on these Amicus briefs.

And she's obviously a respected DC circuit court of appeals judge. So, um, despite the Supreme court's indifference that has been taken up within the federal judiciary. And then recently the, um, peculiar failure of the court to disclose, um, gifts in the form of so-called personal hospitality, which as read by the Supreme court does not require that you even know the person who's giving you personal hospitality, not exactly the customary definition of the word personal.

But again, I wrote a letter asking for an explanation to all the different circuit courts of appeal and after ignoring it for quite a long time on the Eve of our hearing, uh, the circuit court. Sent in a joint response. I think again, through the judicial conference saying, okay, you're right, this is serious.

And we're going to have a group of people look at it once again. I don't know if that is despite the Supreme court or because they got a quiet signal from the Supreme court saying you better, you better look into this. Whitehouse isn't going away. Now that's twice that we've been through the same routine with them, which is they pretend that everything is fine. And it's only when you persist that somebody then acknowledges no, it is not fine. It is really wrong. And now we have these ongoing reviews, but it would be far better if the court from the get go took this seriously and took it up, you know, of its own volition. And didn't put us through all these delays and prevarications.

Amy: Do you think there's a sense that the threat of Congress legislating this versus them setting their own rules kind of drives that along as well? Like makes them take it more seriously?

Senator Whitehouse: Lord knows what, what the reason is for them to be so obtuse about what seemed to be unbelievably obvious ethics and conflicts problems. But I do think that knowing that Congress isn't going away has created some faint with, of accountability, at least in the judicial conference, if not in the Supreme.

It seems to me and please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me like in a lot of these cases, the justices themselves probably do have some inkling of who's funding what, but this would provide more transparency for the public. Is that, is that accurate or do you think that judges themselves are often in the dark too?

To the extent that Supreme Court justices are in the dark about who is behind some of these, that is a case of willful blindness. Because they often, they often go and sit with these groups and with their funders at Federalist society dinner. When all the chums come together. So if, if, if you can't figure that out, as you're sitting at the Federalist society gala at the table with front group organizations and those who fund them, then you have a problem of perspicacity unbecoming of a judge.

The problem is if everybody knew, right then the story would get far worse for the court. Because what we have right now is these little flotillas of right-wing amici show up, they ask the court to do X. The court almost invariably does X or at least some part of X, and there's a stunning win rate.

And if it were public who was behind those briefs, it would make the problem of the win rate look even worse. Right. It would cross reference likely with funders of republican senators who participated in packing the court with these right wing operative judges. And it would trace back to entities funding, the selection of these very justices.

Amy: Right.

Senator Whitehouse: They know enough to know that this is a world in which they don't like, they don't want the information to get out there because of their own problem.

Amy: Right, right. I read your Yale law journal article again this morning. And I know you noted a few different groups that show up a lot. Are there any particular attorneys who, are kind of like popular picks of these groups To be counsel on these briefs?

Senator Whitehouse: Yes, there are. And I just don't have them top of mind, but there are some pretty regular frequent flyers in the legal regime around this, the most obvious one who comes to mind right now in the wake of this wretched Cruz versus federal election commission decision is Don McGahn.

Amy: Right.

Senator Whitehouse: Don McGahn who picked the last three judges or was told who to pick by the Federalist Society, White House counsel during their selection. Let's put it that way. And Mitch McConnell, who orchestrated their confirmation through extraordinary obstacles, like for instance, faking an FBI background investigation. Faking an FBI supplemental background investigation for Kavanaugh. They're on the same brief telling the court what to do, and gee, big surprise the court does as instructed.

But I mean, if you want it, if you want to look at it like quick payback loop, FEC is like the perfect. That case in general is pretty stunning on multiple levels, but also totally predictable because the Federalist society justices are absolutely determined to expand the role of dark money for very obvious, but also very unfortunate political reasons.

Amy: I'm assuming that there are various dark money funded efforts against these disclosures. Have you come up against any, I don't know, obvious kind of, um, dark money funded opposition to improving disclosure and transparency?

Senator Whitehouse: Yes. I mean, there's a whole, Right-wing media operation to try to discredit it right. And to point out that it's, hypocritical of Democrats to play by the rules. And at the same time, want to clean up the rules. That's not an actual hypocrisy, but they frame it as one as part of their narrative. So you certainly see that in action.

And of course, there's this mad rush for the court to build a constitutional right to dark money. We'll get ahead of our legislation requiring disclosure of dark money. And if you want to go to the case in which they did that, I mean, it's just a beauty of a case called Americans for prosperity foundation versus Bonta, at the end of the day. We went through a number of respondents as the officials changed in California, but Americans for prosperity foundation, which is the5 0 1 C3, three twin to the Koch brothers' 5 0 1 C4 battleship Americans for prosperity,with massive overlap between the two: same address, overlapping boards, same staff.

You could pierce the corporate veil between the two with a banana, and they pick Americans for prosperity foundation as the petitioner to try to get this dark money constitutional right. To have a foundation. And when they do that, 50, at least 50 it's actually more, but it gets harder and harder to prove as you got into these small groups with no records, but at least 50 dark money, amici showed up at the certiorari stage.

And the cert stage to push the Supreme court to take up this case. And by the way, it lurked for a very long, strange period of time at the Supreme court. And they only took it up oncethey had judge Barrett giving them six and they only took it up literally two days after the attack on the Capitol, when everybody in America was looking elsewhere.

Wow. January 8th, they took the case up. So they've got the case of the twin of the Koch brothers, political battleship supported by 50 dark money front groups that they take onto their docket in the shadow of the attack, on the Capitol. And sure enough, they created a constitutional right to dark money for this group.

Amy: Right. Right. I've been looking at this with respect to the, um, the climate cases, because the very specific argument they're making about political speech in those cases is, um, I dunno, it, it keeps jumping out to me as like a broadening of this stuff. And I think they're going to try to get it to the Supreme court and blur the line between fraud and lying.

Senator Whitehouse: Absolutely. Absolutely. I think if you look at the tobacco fraud case with the department of justice, one, it makes an extremely good template for a climate fraud case. Against the fossil fuel industry, the Supreme court never took it up, but DOJ won big and just devastating decision by the DC district court, which was powerfully upheld in a unanimous decision by the DC circuit court of appeals. And the Supreme court declined to review it. So that's floating out there as a template and a way to end corporate fraud, but just, you wait for these guys to say that, oh, well, when it's a petition in government, right, exactly then there's special protection here. And the government of all people it was in the worst possible position to police fraud against itself because they treat government as an interested party rather than as the popular summation of the public will. Right. So, yeah, you could see that you could see that coming just as clearly as you could see theAFPF case coming.

Amy: Yeah. Thank you so much for your time and I'll keep you guys posted

Senator Whitehouse: Keep on this, there's lots of good material and we haven't been getting anywhere near enough attention. So thank you.

https://oag.ca.gov/about

on April 23, 2021, Rob Bonta was sworn in as the 34th Attorney General of the State of California, the first person of Filipino descent and the second Asian-American to occupy the position.

Attorney General Bonta's passion for justice and fairness was instilled in him by his parents, who served on the frontlines of some of America's most important social justice movements. Instilling in him the lessons they learned from the United Farm Workers and the civil rights movement,Attorney General Bonta's parents lit a fire inside him to fight against injustice — to stand up for those who are taken advantage of or harmed. It's why he decided to become a lawyer — to help right historic wrongs and fight for people who have been harmed. He worked his way through college and graduated with honors from Yale University and attended Yale Law School.

In the State Assembly, Attorney General Bonta enacted nation-leading reforms to inject more justice and fairness into government and institutions. As the People's Attorney, he sees seeking accountability from those who abuse their power and harm others as one of the most important functions of the job. In elected office, he has taken on powerful interests and advanced systemic change — pursuing corporate accountability, standing up for workers, punishing big polluters, and fighting racial injustice.He has been a national leader in the fight to transform the criminal justice system, banning private prisons and detention facilities in California, as well as pushing to eliminate cash bail in the state. He has led statewide fights for racial, economic, and environmental justice and worked to further the rights of immigrant families, renters, and working Californians.

Prior to serving in the Assembly, Attorney General Bonta worked as a Deputy City Attorney for the City and County of San Francisco, where he represented the City and County and its employees, and fought to protect Californians from exploitation and racial profiling.

Born in Quezon City, Philippines, Attorney General Bonta immigrated to California with his family as an infant. He is the son of a proud native Filipino mother and a father who taught him the value of public service to his community. He is married to Mia Bonta, and they are the proud parents of three children Reina, Iliana, and Andres, as well as their dog Legolas.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/california-ag-subpoenas-exxon-details-role-plastic-waste-crisis-**2022-04-28/**

no lnx

wASHINGTON, April 28 (Reuters) - California's attorney general announced on Thursday he issued a subpoena to ExxonMobil (XOM.N) for information on its role in causing the global plastic waste crisis.

The subpoena is part of a broader investigation led by California Attorney General Rob Bonta into the fossil fuel and petrochemical industries' role in "causing and exacerbating the global plastics pollution crisis."

"For more than half a century, the plastics industry has engaged in an aggressive campaign to deceive the public, perpetuating a myth that recycling can solve the plastics crisis. The truth is: The vast majority of plastic cannot be recycled," Bonta said in a statement.

The investigation will resemble ones launched by several state attorneys general into the role that fossil fuel companies played in causing and exacerbating climate change, which focused on what the industry knew decades ago and how companies misled the public about their role.

In this investigation, the attorney general will focus on the "half-century campaign of deception and the ongoing harm caused to the State of California" by companies that produce plastics, a petroleum-based product, and how they perpetuate "myths around recycling". Exxon is the first company to receive a subpoena, but officials said they will also target other companies in the industry.

A spokesperson for Exxon was not immediately available to comment.

Matthew Kastner, a spokesperson for the American Chemistry Council, which represents the plastics and petrochemical industry, said in response to the investigation that "America’s plastic makers are committed to a more sustainable future and have proposed comprehensive and bold actions at the state, federal, and international levels."

More than 90% of plastic waste globally ends up in landfills or is incinerated, according to a landmark study in Science Advances. The U.S. recycling rate has never gone higher than 9%, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.

There is growing momentum to tamp down plastic production as a way to address plastic waste. The UN in February outlined the blueprint of a future treaty that could seek restrictions on production. read more

Bonta said that the petrochemical industry has been aware for decades that recycling was infeasible at scale, even as plastic production skyrocketed and has pushed back against state, local and national efforts to issue plastic bans and other measures.

The industry has promoted "advanced recycling" - a method of burning plastic to convert it into fuel or other products - as a solution to the plastic waste crisis but a Reuters investigation showed that the leading projects have had little to no success.

Carroll Muffett, president of the Center for International Environmental Law, said the investigation is significant.

"Companies like Exxon have been instrumental in persuading the public we can recycle our way out of the plastic crisis even when evidence suggestions they know it is not the case," he said, adding that states bear the brunt of costs associated with plastic waste cleanup.

California has passed several bills in the last few years aimed at curbing plastic waste and attempting to crack down on deceptive recycling claims.

Last December, the California Statewide Commission on Recycling Markets and Curbside Recycling asked Bonta to crack down on what it claims is illegal labeling that is undermining the state’s efforts to tackle plastic pollution. read more

Reporting by Valerie Volcovici Editing by Diane Craft

919 supertyphoon 28 coal plants, 28 more coming, CA PP $ kpfa

https://YYY.theguardian.com/environment/2015/sep/02/california-pension-funds-divest-coal

no lnx guard uk

California passes bill forcing biggest pension funds to divest from coal

Bill targets state public employees’ and teachers’ pension plans

Governor Jerry Brown expected to sign bill into law

Anita Chabria in Sacramento

Wed 2 Sep 2015 18.48 EDT Last modified on Wed 14 Feb 2018 12.35 EST

‘Coal is the fuel of the past and it’s no longer a wise investment for our pensioners,’ said the California assemblyman who presented the bill. Photograph: Chris Ratcliffe/Bloomberg/Getty Images

California lawmakers passed a bill on Wednesday requiring the state’s two largest pension plans to divest their holdings in thermal coal as part of a push this legislative session to address climate change.

The rise and rise of the fossil fuel divestment movement]

“Coal is the fuel of the past and it’s no longer a wise investment for our pensioners,” saidassemblyman Rob Bonta, who presented the bill before the assembly, in a statement. “I’m pleased that my colleagues agree: it’s time to move on from this dirty energy source.”

SB 185, also called “Investing with Values and Responsibility”, passed the state assembly by a vote of 43-27, mostly along party lines with some Democrats abstaining. It will now head to the governor’s desk to be signed into law – Governor Jerry Brown has expressed strong support for the climate change package and will probably formalize the bill in coming days.

The measure calls for the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) and the California State Teachers’ Retirement System (CalSTRS) to begin a divestment process in any holdings of thermal coal, and to complete that divestment within 18 months of the law being applied to a particular pension system.

CalPERS and CalSTRS are the largest public pension funds in the US. CalPERS has about $292bn in assets and CalSTRS has $191bn in assets. CalPERS currently holds stock in about 30 coal companies, mostly in index funds, with a value of about $167m, according to legislative information on the bill.

CalSTRS has “approximately a $40m holding” in coal, according to a statement provided by Ricardo Duran, media relations spokesman for the plan.

CalSTRS has already begun examining the divestment issue, and expects that it will take four to eight months to complete that analysis.

“Any effort to remove thermal coal from the portfolio must first meet the board’s standard of fiduciary care,” the statement read. “CalSTRS’ first priority is, and always has been, safeguarding the financial futures of our members and their families, and tomake decisions solely in the interest of our members and their beneficiaries.”

Thermal coal is used to produce electrical power throughout the United States, but in California, natural gas is more commonly used. However, “coal plants are the nation’s top source of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, the primary cause of global warming”, according to legislative information on the bill.

“Coal is losing value quickly and investing in coal is a losing proposition for our retirees; it’s a nuisance to public health; and it’s inconsistent with our values as a state on the forefront of efforts to address global climate change,” the senate president pro tempore, Kevin de León,said in a statement. “California’s utilities are phasing out coal, and it’s time our pension funds did the same.”

:{https://www.cnbc.com:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}::{ › 2022 › 04 › 28 › california-subpoenas-exxon-for-details-on-role-in-plastic-pollution.html:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}:

:{California subpoenas Exxon for details on role in plastic ...:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:top;display:inline-block;max-width:100%;overflow:hidden;text-overflow:ellipsis;white-space:nowrap"):}:

1 day agoAttorney Gen. Rob Bonta said his office has subpoenaed Exxon Mobil for information relating to the company's alleged role in deceiving the public and worsening plastics pollution. The office ...

:{https://www.reuters.com:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}::{ › legal › litigation › california-ag-subpoenas-exxon-details-role-plastic-waste-crisis-2022-04-28:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}:

:{California AG subpoenas Exxon for details on role in ...:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:top;display:inline-block;max-width:100%;overflow:hidden;text-overflow:ellipsis;white-space:nowrap"):}:

WASHINGTON, April 28 (Reuters) - California's attorney general announced on Thursday he issued a subpoena to ExxonMobil (XOM.N) for information on its role in causing the global plastic waste...

:{https://www.bloomberg.com:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}::{ › news › articles › 2022-04-28 › exxon-gets-subpoena-from-california-over-plastics-pollution-rise:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}:

:{Exxon (XOM) Gets Subpoena From California Over Plastics ...:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:top;display:inline-block;max-width:100%;overflow:hidden;text-overflow:ellipsis;white-space:nowrap"):}:

1 day agoApril 28, 2022, 12:29 PM PDT. Exxon Mobil Corp. was issued a subpoena by California Attorney General Rob Bonta seeking information about the oil giant's role in a global plastics pollution ...

:{https://www.marketwatch.com:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}::{ › story › california-attorney-general-sends-subpoena-to-exxons-for-role-in-plastic-pollution-2022-04-28:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}:

:{California AG subpoenas Exxon for details on 'role' in ...:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:top;display:inline-block;max-width:100%;overflow:hidden;text-overflow:ellipsis;white-space:nowrap"):}:

XOM. +3.62%. California Attorney General Rob Bonta said Thursday his office has issued a subpoena to Exxon Mobil Corp. XOM, +3.62% as part of the office's investigation into the energy industry's ...

:{https://www.bloombergquint.com:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}::{ › business › exxon-gets-subpoena-from-california-over-plastics-pollution-rise:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}:

:{Exxon Gets Subpoena From California Over Plastics ...:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:top;display:inline-block;max-width:100%;overflow:hidden;text-overflow:ellipsis;white-space:nowrap"):}:

(Bloomberg) -- Exxon Mobil Corp. was issued a subpoena by California Attorney General Rob Bonta seeking information about the oil giant's role in a global plastics pollution crisis.

:{https://www.sej.org:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}::{ › headlines › california-ag-subpoenas-exxon-details-role-plastic-pollution:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}:

:{California AG Subpoenas Exxon For Details On Role In ...:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:top;display:inline-block;max-width:100%;overflow:hidden;text-overflow:ellipsis;white-space:nowrap"):}:

California AG Subpoenas Exxon For Details On Role In Plastic Pollution "WASHINGTON - California's attorney general announced on Thursday he issued a subpoena to ExxonMobil for information on its role in causing the global plastic waste crisis.

:{https://news.yahoo.com:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}::{ › exxon-rejects-california-ag-allegations-141514174.html:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}:

:{Exxon rejects California AG allegations on role in plastic ...:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:top;display:inline-block;max-width:100%;overflow:hidden;text-overflow:ellipsis;white-space:nowrap"):}:

On Thursday, California's attorney general said he would issue a subpoena to Exxon for information, part of a broader investigation led by California Attorney General Rob Bonta into the fossil fuel...

:{https://www.marketwatch.com:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}::{ › story › california-attorney-general-sends-subpoena-to-exxons-for-role-in-plastic-pollution-2022-04-28?mod=mw_latestnews:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}:

:{California Attorney General sends subpoena to Exxon's for ...:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:top;display:inline-block;max-width:100%;overflow:hidden;text-overflow:ellipsis;white-space:nowrap"):}:

California Attorney General Rob Bonta said Thursday his office has issued a subpoena to Exxon Mobil Corp. XOM, +3.61% as part of the office's investigation into the energy industry's "role" in ...

:{https://sports.yahoo.com:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}::{ › california-ag-subpoenas-exxon-details-191106732.html:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}:

:{California AG subpoenas Exxon for details on role in ...:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:top;display:inline-block;max-width:100%;overflow:hidden;text-overflow:ellipsis;white-space:nowrap"):}:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -California's attorney general announced on Thursday he issued a subpoena to ExxonMobil for information on its role in causing the global plastic waste crisis.

:{https://timesofsandiego.com:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}::{ › business › 2022 › 04 › 29 › exxon-mobil-rejects-california-ags-accu:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}: