Schneiderman, Eric

===

oops see main E

=see case node
<p class="docDate" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 1rem; color: rgb(33, 37, 41); font-family: freight-text-pro, serif; font-size: 18px; background-color: rgb(250, 250, 250);">2018-03-29<p class="caption" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 1rem; color: rgb(33, 37, 41); font-family: freight-text-pro, serif; font-size: 18px; background-color: rgb(250, 250, 250);">EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. Eric Tradd SCHNEIDERMAN, Attorney General of New York, in his official capacity, and Maura Tracy Healey, Attorney General of Massachusetts, in her official capacity, Defendants.<a href="https://casetext.com/case/exxon-mobil-corp-v-schneiderman">https://casetext.com/case/exxon-mobil-corp-v-schneiderman</a><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">=</div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="https://www.climatedocket.com/2019/02/26/national-association-manufacturers-oil-climate-liability/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">https://www.climatedocket.com/2019/02/26/national-association-manufacturers-oil-climate-liability/</a></div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="font-size: small;"> Karen Savage In its fight to stave off a wave of climate change-related lawsuits, the fossil fuel industry has found a vocal and unapologetic ally in the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM). The 123-year old trade group represents a wide range of the nation’s manufacturing companies, but it has frequently gone to bat for select segments of its membership during major liability battles. Currently, it is Big Oil’s staunchest defender. The group has filed briefs defending oil companies in liability lawsuits, launched campaigns to discredit the communities filing them, and has worked to stop shareholders from pressing the oil companies to disclose climate risks. In these roles, NAM has put itself front and center in the effort to keep fossil fuel companies from being held liable for their role in climate change, and from paying for the related damages that will run in the hundreds of billions of dollars to communities across the country. “Taxpayer resources should not be used for baseless lawsuits that are designed to enrich trial lawyers and grab headlines for politicians,” Lindsey de la Torre, executive director of NAM’s spinoff group, the Manufacturers’ Accountability Project (MAP), <a href="https://mfgaccountabilityproject.org/2018/07/02/manufacturers-denounce-rhode-island-attorney-general-lawsuit/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out 0s;">said in a statement</a> after Rhode Island filed one of the climate liability lawsuits last year. NAM launched MAP in 2017 as a response to the increasing number of climate liability suits. Those suits, according to NAM, are a result of a coordinated campaign by activists “to disparage U.S. manufacturers with a focus on America’s largest energy manufacturers.” MAP is now attempting to convince the American public—as well as judges who might hear those liability cases—that attempts to hold companies accountable for their role in climate change will harm business, said Richard Daynard, president of Northeastern University Law School’s<a href="https://www.northeastern.edu/law/academics/institutes/phai.html" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out 0s;"> Public Health Advocacy Institute</a> and chair of its Tobacco Products Liability Project.“This is essentially the PR front for the defendants in climate litigation,” Daynard said, adding that MAP is also working to discourage municipalities from filing future suits.“This is all part of a long history of tort reform propaganda,” he said, adding that NAM has worked for decades to reign in all types of liability litigation, including against the tobacco industry. So perhaps it’s not surprising that NAM’s defense of fossil fuel companies has begun to look increasingly like its <a href="https://www.industrydocumentslibrary.ucsf.edu/tobacco/results/#q=%22national%20association%20of%20manufacturers%0A%22&h=%7B%22hideDuplicates%22%3Atrue%2C%22hideFolders%22%3Atrue%7D&subsite=tobacco&cache=true&count=6053" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out 0s;">support for the tobacco industry</a> in the 1980s. Similar tactics were used when tobacco companies were facing hundreds of lawsuits and were charged with racketeering by the federal government for deceiving the public about the catastrophic health hazards of smoking. NAM has even hired the same law firm that defended the tobacco industry to launch an assault on the climate liability lawsuits.NAM <a href="https://www.law.com/corpcounsel/2019/01/23/national-association-of-manufacturers-hires-special-counsel-to-handle-growing-climate-change-lawsuits/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out 0s;">recently named</a> Phil Goldberg, a former <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/induscode_lobs.php?id=e1210&year=2011" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out 0s;">coal lobbyist</a> as special counsel for MAP. Goldberg is a managing partner in the Washington office of Shook, Hardy & Bacon, which <a href="http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/shook_hardy_smokes_em/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out 0s;">gained notoriety</a> for defending the tobacco industry, and is the co-chair of the firm’s  public policy group. Some say Shook, Hardy & Bacon went <a href="https://www.thepitchkc.com/news/article/20603947/devils-advocates" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out 0s;">beyond</a> defending tobacco companies, actively coordinating efforts by its clients to deliberately deceive the public about the ruinous health effects of smoking. Judge Gladys Kessler, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, who found 10 tobacco companies guilty of violating racketeering laws in 2006, <a href="https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/civil/legacy/2014/09/11/amended%20opinion_0.pdf" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out 0s;">said the company’s lawyers</a> “played an absolute central role in the creation and perpetuation” of the companies’ “fraudulent schemes,” calling it a “sad and disquieting chapter” in the legal profession. Even before Goldberg was hired, MAP had launched an offensive against climate suits, filing friend-of-the-court briefs and intervening in a landmark constitutional suit brought by 21 young people against the U.S. government. MAP has also submitted public records<a href="https://mfgaccountabilityproject.org/category/press-statements/page/3/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out 0s;"> requests</a> and coordinated a<a href="https://mfgaccountabilityproject.org/2018/02/12/map-launches-ad-campaign-expose-mayor-de-blasios-attack-manufacturers/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out 0s;"> public relations</a><a href="https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/364125-activist-litigation-against-manufacturers-has-gone-too-far" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out 0s;"> campaign</a> to<a href="https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/417416-suing-americas-manufacturers-calling-them-a-public-nuisance-wont" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out 0s;"> discredit</a> the municipalities behind the liability lawsuits. Sharon Eubanks, a former Department of Justice lawyer who led the government’s racketeering case against the tobacco industry, said MAP is launching a direct attack on climate litigation suits. “It’s very similar what they’re doing, only the tobacco industry at least didn’t come right out and say ‘We’re going to target these lawsuits directly,’” Eubanks said. “They did so indirectly. But NAM and MAP, they’re like, ‘We’re targeting the lawsuits.’” Michael Barnett, a professor of management & global business at <a href="http://www.business.rutgers.edu/faculty/michael-barnett" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out 0s;">Rutgers Business School</a> who has studied trade associations, said groups like NAM exist to defend the interests of their industry. “It’s sort of an outsourced arm of those firms, rather than doing it all on their own, there’s strength in numbers,” Barnett said. “There’s some efficiency to having one centralized legal defense that attacks on behalf of the whole industry in addition to each of the individual firms taking on these issues.” <h4 style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.2; margin: 0px 0px 16px; padding: 0px;">No Stranger to the Liability Battlefield </h4>The addition of Goldberg to MAP’s legal team indicates a continuing commitment to defending NAM’s fossil fuel defendants. In addition to being the go-to law firm for tobacco companies, <a href="https://www.shb.com/services#?service=energy" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out 0s;">Shook, Hardy & Bacon</a> has a long history with NAM, <a href="http://ccbjournal.com/articles/9045/shook-hardy-bacons-civil-justice-reform-initiatives" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out 0s;">partnering</a> as far back as 2007 to support firms facing product liability suits. The firm <a href="https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/civil/legacy/2014/09/11/amended%20opinion_0.pdf" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out 0s;">worked so closely</a> with the tobacco industry to <a href="https://www.thepitchkc.com/news/article/20603947/devils-advocates" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out 0s;">attack the science</a> showing the dangers of smoking it was <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/1996-12-15/business/fi-9180_1_tobacco-industry" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out 0s;">named</a> in several cases along with their clients, charging them with deceiving the public by fraudulently concealing the health effects of smoking. Oklahoma’s attorney general called Shook, Hardy & Bacon an “aider and abettor” of fraud in one suit. “[The Department of Justice] considered suing them and making them defendants because they were so much a part of the RICO violations we alleged,” Eubanks said. “They’re not even hiding from anything, they’re just saying ‘we want to influence what’s happening in these cases the best way that we can.’” She said she’s seen no evidence that MAP’s tactics are illegal, but they are similar to some of what was alleged in the tobacco cases. Goldberg did not respond to a request for comment. In a NAM press release he said, “The NAM and its Manufacturers’ Accountability Project are the tip of the spear in the fight against the wave of unfounded public nuisance lawsuits targeting America’s manufacturers.” Goldberg said climate liability suits get in the way of finding real solutions and “are more about politics than addressing the global challenge of climate change.” He did not elaborate on what the solutions are or how municipalities will pay for the infrastructure needed to protect their residents, costs that are projected to run into the hundreds of billions of dollars nationwide.<h4 style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.2; margin: 0px 0px 16px; padding: 0px;">A History of Advocating for Fossil Fuel Members</h4>NAM, which <a href="https://www.nam.org/About/History-of-the-NAM/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out 0s;">was founded</a> in 1895, describes itself as the largest manufacturing association in the United States. It doesn’t publicly disclose its membership list, but its board includes some of the oil and gas industry’s most powerful executives. Exxon senior vice president and management committee member <a href="https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/Company/Who-we-are/Management-Committee#darrenWWoods" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out 0s;">Neil Chapman</a> joined NAM’s executive committee in 2015, taking over the position vacated by current Exxon chief executive Darren Woods. Chapman, who <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgave2.php?cycle=2018&cmte=C00541169" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out 0s;">donated</a> $10,000 to NAM’s political action committee during the 2018 election cycle, also serves as NAM’s southwest regional vice chair.   Chapman and Exxon did not respond to a request for comment. For decades, the association has promoted climate denial, <a href="https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=FAC38FED2207ADEA66DBC5A0D9B29616?doi=10.1.1.25.6082&rep=rep1&type=pdf" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out 0s;">founding</a> the <a href="http://www.climatefiles.com/denial-groups/global-climate-coalition-collection/1996-global-climate-coalition-overview/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out 0s;">Global Climate Coalition</a> in 1989 and sharing offices until 1992 while the Global Climate Coalition and its <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/documents/global-climate-coalition-aiam-climate-change-primer#p=1%20" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out 0s;">members</a>—primarily energy companies and automobile manufacturers—worked to cast doubt on what was fast becoming overwhelming scientific evidence that the burning of fossil fuels drives climate change. The goal was to change the public’s perception and cast doubt on climate science.The Global Climate Coalition was disbanded in 2002 after several of its largest corporate members pulled out under public pressure to accept that climate change—and the projected catastrophic effects—was an undeniable global threat. More recently, NAM’s focus has shifted from promoting climate deception to defending member companies from efforts to hold them accountable for years of deceiving the public and damaging the climate. Along with the American Petroleum Institute and American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, NAM in 2015 joined the landmark youth climate lawsuit <a href="https://www.climatedocket.com/2017/07/13/the-kids-climate-case-against-the-u-s-government-a-timeline/" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out 0s;">Juliana v. United States</a> as an intervenor on side of the federal government. Calling the suit a “direct threat to businesses,” the trade associations said the “significant reduction in [greenhouse gas] emissions would cause a significant negative effect on [their] members by constraining the sale of the product they have specialized in developing and selling.” When the court asked intervenors to explain their views on climate change, NAM quickly <a href="https://www.climatedocket.com/2017/07/13/the-kids-climate-case-against-the-u-s-government-a-timeline/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out 0s;">backed out</a>. When the liability lawsuits began—and now total more than a dozen from communities across the country and one state (Rhode Island)—NAM responded by <a href="https://www.climatedocket.com/2017/12/15/nam-climate-liability-industry/" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out 0s;">launching</a> MAP to “set the record straight and highlight foundations and other activists who have sought to undermine and weaken manufacturing in the United States” by engaging in climate change-related litigation. MAP came out swinging, <a href="https://mfgaccountabilityproject.org/2017/11/27/martin-act-mayhem/" style="background-color: rgb(255, 153, 0); text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out 0s;">claiming</a> that then-New York attorney general Eric Schneiderman’s use of the Martin Act to investigate Exxon for possible climate change-related fraud was “politically motivated.” It <a href="https://mfgaccountabilityproject.org/2018/02/13/timmons-mayor-de-blasio-owes-new-yorkers-apology/" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out 0s;">demanded</a> New York Mayor Bill de Blasio apologize to New Yorkers for using an outside firm to file its suit against five major oil companies and launched a campaign to highlight what it called de Blasio’s “politically-motivated attacks on manufacturers.” Eubanks said that rhetoric doesn’t add up. “Lawsuits are to enforce the law, to ensure that people are following the law and it takes you out of a political process and puts you before a neutral person, a judge,” she said, adding that Shook, Hardy & Bacon also does a good bit of political lobbying. “They say, ‘We think these matters should be handled by legislation, not litigation, and by regulations that will come out of any statutes that are enacted,” she said. “Then they fight real hard to make sure there are no statutes that come down the pike because regulations come out of regulatory authority, so it sounds real good, but that’s wholly inconsistent with their approach.” NAM and MAP have made a big deal out of the potential for future RICO charges against the fossil fuel industry—the same racketeering laws that ultimately ensnared the tobacco industry—and contend that a conspiracy is being waged on the other side by a “group of politically motivated activists” who are “trying to take down America’s energy manufacturers.” “Right now, there are groups of trial lawyers slinking around the country tantalizing elected officials in cities and states with unrealistic promises of jackpot justice if they will only agree to sue energy manufacturers over climate change,” <a href="https://www.facebook.com/NAMpage/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out 0s;">said</a> NAM president and chief executive Jay Timmons in NAM’s State of Manufacturing Address last week in Houston. “These lawyers—they want to get rich at the expense of manufacturing workers.”Daynard said this type of messaging is used in an effort to control the narrative around— and media coverage of—climate litigation.“They have this notion that if they can get continue to get news coverage and establish themselves, they can make sure when cases are filed journalists will look go to them and they can then get in some comment on how this is all worthless crazy stuff stirred up by ‘greedy lawyers’ or ‘ideologically driven NGO’s,’” Daynard said. To try and substantiate its view that litigation is part of a vast conspiracy—and in what some say is an attempt to have a chilling effect on municipalities that file lawsuits—MAP has also submitted extensive public record requests to plaintiffs in the suits, seeking documents and communication between the municipalities and their attorneys, prior records requests that include those attorneys, certain communication regarding the defendant companies and communication between the municipalities and billionaire Tom Steyer, founder of NextGen, a progressive organization working to stem the risks of climate change for future generations. When Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Kilmartin <a href="https://www.climatedocket.com/2018/07/02/rhode-island-climate-liability-suit/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out 0s;">filed the first state-level suit</a> last July, MAP denounced it. Eubanks said ensuring manufacturers abide by state law is exactly what attorneys general should do.“We have consumer protection statutes, we have consumer protection agencies, that’s part of what makes this country great,” Eubanks said. “You can’t just come in and roll over people with deceptive and unfair methods of competition, you can’t just lie about things without consequences and we have organizations to protect that. That’s what I find so alarming about this—the whole idea that there’s something wrong with enforcing the law.” NAM did not respond to a request for comment. De la Torre, could not be reached for comment. Perhaps NAM’s biggest attack on liability suits thus far has been its accusations against several California municipalities.   Not long after the suits were filed, Exxon went on the <a href="https://www.climatedocket.com/2018/01/10/exxon-california-climate-lawsuits/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out 0s;">offensive</a>, <a href="https://www.climatedocket.com/2018/04/13/nam-sec-climate-lawsuits-liability/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out 0s;">accusing</a> plaintiffs of failing to disclose climate risks to their bond investors. To try to bolster that allegation, NAM—along with the industry ally <a href="https://cei.org/sites/default/files/Final%20SEC%20Tip%20Clean.pdf" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out 0s;">Competitive Enterprise Institute</a>—asked the Securities and Exchange Commission to <a href="https://mfgaccountabilityproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/SEC-Letter_3.27.18-3.pdf" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out 0s;">investigate</a> whether several cities and counties that filed climate suits misled investors when they stated in bond offerings that they couldn’t predict the impacts of climate change. A <a href="https://www.climatedocket.com/2018/04/30/california-climate-lawsuits-municipal-bond-sec/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out 0s;">report</a> by the former chief of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s municipal bonds division later found the municipalities did not mislead potential investors.In another instance, NAM partnered with the Chamber of Commerce to back Exxon, <a href="https://www.nam.org/uploadedFiles/NAM/Site_Content/Advocacy/The-Center-for-Legal-Action/Briefs-Online/2018/ExxonMobil%20v.%20Healey%202nd%20Cir%2008102018.pdf" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out 0s;">filing</a> a friend-of-the-court brief in the oil giant’s quest to stop investigations by the attorneys general of Massachusetts and New York. New York has since filed a lawsuit against Exxon based on that investigation, <a href="https://www.climatedocket.com/2018/10/24/new-york-attorney-general-exxon-climate-fraud/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out 0s;">alleging</a> the oil giant for years deceived investors by deliberately downplaying the climate risks to its business and long-term financial health. The Supreme Court recently <a href="https://www.climatedocket.com/2019/01/07/supreme-court-exxon-climate-massachusetts-healey/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out 0s;">ruled</a> against Exxon’s attempt to stop Massachusetts’ investigation, which now continues.This is the first in a series of articles on the trade group coordinating opposition to climate liability suits.This story has been update to more accurately describe the review which found California municipalities did not mislead potential investors.</div>=2016 500 pp docsalso healey<a href="https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2016/11/vn/exxon-first-amended-complaint-appendix.pdf">https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2016/11/vn/exxon-first-amended-complaint-appendix.pdf</a>=Los Angeles Times
OPINIONColumn: Eric Schneiderman accuser shows us we’re all victims of men taught to dominate the worldTanya Selvaratnam at the Glamour Women of the Year Summit, Nov. 10 in New York.Tanya Selvaratnam speaks at the 2019 Glamour Women of the Year Summit on Nov. 10 in New York.(Craig Barritt / Getty Images)By VIRGINIA HEFFERNANJAN. 31, 20203 AMTanya Selvaratnam is a tireless advocate for women’s rights. Her accomplishments and awards — as an actor, artist, film producer (including of the Emmy-nominated “Born to Fly”) and book author (“The Big Lie: Motherhood, Feminism and the Reality of the Biological Clock”) — are too numerous to count. (I tried.)
Now she’s famous for something else: Selvaratnam is one of several women who in May 2018 went public with allegations of physical abuse by Eric Schneiderman, who was then attorney general of New York.
Three hours after the New Yorker published the women’s accusations, Schneiderman, who denied the allegations and then later apologized, resigned his post.
Selvaratnam’s enlightening memoir, “Assume Nothing: A Memoir of Intimate Violence,” will be published in the spring. It’s a significant entry in the growing literature of the #MeToo movement. The book spells out why a self-possessed feminist might stay with a man who’s done what Schneiderman is accused of. More striking: “Assume Nothing” demonstrates how the promises and threats of our patriarchal society corrode not just the lives of its victims but the consciences of perpetrators as well.
ADVERTISEMENTIn Selvaratnam’s telling, Schneiderman, who by many reports was psychologically domineering under the best of circumstances, turned vicious in bed. She claims he called her his “brown slave” and asked her to address him as “master.” She confided to a friend, who showed the New Yorker the notes she kept about the conversation. Alcohol made matters exponentially worse.
So why didn’t Selvaratnam head for the authorities immediately? Why was Schneiderman her partner for nearly a year?...617IRS audit used with wild abandon by nixon admin (we have it on tape?) leverage?Has never been used since (lbj?) but a sort of nuclear option is to go after tax exempt status of enemy  Chamberwatch?<a href="http://www.politico.com/states/new-york/city-hall/story/2012/08/eric-schneidermans-mission-to-expose-americas-most-influential-donors-004851" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">http://www.politico.com/states/new-york/city-hall/story/</a><a href="http://www.politico.com/states/new-york/city-hall/story/2012/08/eric-schneidermans-mission-to-expose-americas-most-influential-donors-004851" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">2012/</a><a href="http://www.politico.com/states/new-york/city-hall/story/2012/08/eric-schneidermans-mission-to-expose-americas-most-influential-donors-004851" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">08/eric-schneidermans-mission-to-expose-americas-most-influential-donors-004851</a>pillifant
Eric Schneiderman, New York's Democratic attorney general, is trying to win a fight over independent campaign expenditures that his party, for the moment, is losing badly. In particular, he is using his subpoena power to dredge up the details of a series of donations made by a New York nonprofit to an affiliate of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in the early 2000s, when the Chamber was engaging in an aggressive push to enact tort reform—a push that helped oust a handful of longtime incumbents, most notably Senate minority leader Tom Daschle in South Dakota.
Sources close to the investigation said it's just the first part of a larger push by Schneiderman to fill an oversight void in Washington that was created by the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United and, possibly, to compel broader action by other regulatory bodies.  Schneiderman's action comes in response to complaints from <a href="http://www.fixtheuschamber.org/" style="box-sizing: border-box; transition: all 0.25s ease; text-decoration-line: none;">ChamberWatch</a>, a labor-backed group that alleges that the Starr Foundation, a New York-based nonprofit controlled by former AIG C.E.O. Hank Greenberg—who was, personally, a highly public supporter of tort reform—funneled $18 million to the Chamber's effort through a sister nonprofit, the National Chamber Foundation."If he can make an example of somebody, I think that can really have some consequences," said Daniel Kurtz, former head of the charities bureau in the New York State attorney general's office. "And other agencies will feel, 'Gee, how did he do this? We gotta get on this.'"That the push just happens to be commencing at the height of a presidential cycle in which unprecedented amounts of corporate and outside money are being spent to affect the outcome, the vast majority in the service of Mitt Romney and Republican candidates for Congress, is clearly something that the <a href="http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/politics/2012/06/6007142/introducing-clinton-schneiderman-once-again-plays-obamas-top-state-" style="box-sizing: border-box; transition: all 0.25s ease; text-decoration-line: none;">unabashedly partisan attorney general</a> can live with."As the chief regulator of charities and non-profits in the State of New York, I am committed to restoring accountability and transparency by shining a light on the new role that these organizations are now playing in our political process," Schneiderman said, through a spokesman.Schneiderman's role as a regulator of these outside political groups, much like the groups themselves, is made possible by a loophole: The outside organizations that are <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76849.html" style="box-sizing: border-box; transition: all 0.25s ease; text-decoration-line: none;">expected to spend more than $1 billion</a> during the 2012 campaigns have most of their contributions shrouded from public view by I.R.S. rules that classify the groups as "social welfare" organizations. That status allows donors who might otherwise shy from public contributions to fund pet causes and candidates without having their names in the news.It is that I.R.S. classification that brings the organizations under the jurisdiction of Schneiderman, whose office is entrusted to oversee any charities that maintain an office, or so much as raise money, in New York State. That mandate in turn gives Schneiderman—<a href="http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/politics/2012/06/6007142/introducing-clinton-schneiderman-once-again-plays-obamas-top-state-" style="box-sizing: border-box; transition: all 0.25s ease; text-decoration-line: none;">who has emerged as one of Obama's steadiest allies in New York</a>—broad powers to examine the way in which nonprofits raise and spend money for political purposes.For many of these groups, Schneiderman's prying actually poses an existential threat. Any evidence to suggest that the "primary purpose" of such organizations—known as 501C4s—is actually political could undermine their standing with the I.R.S. If those organizations were to lose their preferred tax exempt status, they would be forced to pay onerous taxes on their contributions, or register as political entities and then disclose the sources of their funding, either of which would presumably have a chilling effect on other big individual donors and corporations who were willing to give on the condition of anonymity.The combined effect could be devastating to the current system."Traditionally, the I.R.S. is a very slow actor, which is why it's very good to see the A.G. get involved, because they tend to move a bit more quickly," said Susan Lerner of the good government group Common Cause New York. "But when the I.R.S. does move, wow, it's like a guillotine coming down."TO THE EXTENT THAT THE DEMOCRATS HAVE TRIED to mitigate the now-unbridled involvement of wealthy Republican-friendly funders in federal elections by requiring more transparency, they have failed.Last month, for example, Democrats were unable to overcome a Republican filibuster of the DISCLOSE Act, a bill sponsored by Chuck Schumer that would have required more disclosure from certain political donors. The bill has gotten only minimal support from Republicans in the House.Meanwhile, the Federal Election Commission remains deadlocked over a number of rules that would mandate more disclosure. (The F.E.C. is composed of three members of each political party, but requires four votes to take any official action.)"Clearly they've handcuffed themselves, it's deadlocked" said Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, who sponsored the DISCLOSE Act in the House, and scored one of the few disclosure-related victories for Democrats in Washington in March, with a <a href="http://fec.gov/law/litigation/van_hollen.shtml" style="box-sizing: border-box; transition: all 0.25s ease; text-decoration-line: none;">district court ruling that even 501c4 groups must disclose donors to certain "electioneering communications."</a> That decision has forced some super PACs to <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-crossroads-avoids-spending-disclosure-20120731,0,6044163.story" style="box-sizing: border-box; transition: all 0.25s ease; text-decoration-line: none;">readjust their advertising in advance of an appellate hearing next month</a>, but Van Hollen said there's still a glaring need for an aggressive regulator."A lot of people think they can act with impunity because there's not a federal cop on the beat," he said.At the very least, Schneiderman is hoping to dispel that sense of impunity.Sources said the attorney general's Charities Bureau is proactively reviewing the 990 forms filed by a number of nonprofits, which detail where the organizations' money is spent."He seems to have figured out what Eliot figured out: how important the sector is, how enormous it is, and how many problems it has," said Bill Josephson, a former head of the Charities Bureau under Eliot Spitzer.In doing so, Schneiderman is treading on turf which has traditionally belonged to the Internal Revenue Service. The I.R.S. has the final say over an organization's tax-exempt status, though it's unclear how actively the agency wants to police the issue.Last year, the I.R.S. publicly abandoned an effort to impose taxes on five wealthy donors who gave to non-profits that were heavily involved in political activity."Until further notice, examination resources should  not be expended on this issue," wrote Steven Miller, the I.R.S.'s deputy commissioner in charge of enforcement, in a memo on July 7, 2011.Advocates for greater disclosure hope Schneiderman's efforts will prod the I.R.S. into more public action.The day after the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/01/opinion/sunday/a-window-on-campaign-abuse.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss" style="box-sizing: border-box; transition: all 0.25s ease; text-decoration-line: none;">New York Times reported that Schneiderman was issuing subpoenas</a>, a spokesperson for the I.R.S. <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304830704577493054251481454.html" style="box-sizing: border-box; transition: all 0.25s ease; text-decoration-line: none;">told the Wall Street Journal that the agency had prepared a questionnaire to be circulated to some of the largest quasi-political nonprofit groups</a>, which would be the first step in any possible changes to their tax-exempt status, or a broader clarification of the agency's rules.Last week, the Campaign Legal Center, a group that has been urging the I.R.S. to consider the issue for over a year, received its first formal response from the agency, in the form of a letter saying the I.R.S. "<a href="http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/attachments/Letter_from_IRS_7_20_12.pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; transition: all 0.25s ease; text-decoration-line: none;">is aware of the current public interest in this issue</a>" and would be reviewing its rules.But the I.R.S. is legally prohibited from speaking publicly about its specific audits, leaving even some close observers to wonder how active the agency plans to be."The I.R.S. could be more forthcoming," said Marcus Owens, who previously served as director of the Exempt Organizations Division at the I.R.S."There's nothing that precludes them from saying we currently are reviewing five, ten, zero, a thousand 501c4 organizations, without identifying any particular organization, and thereby give the citizens some assurance that indeed the cop is on the beat, so to speak."But they haven't done that. So it's hard to know from the outside looking in, whether we simply have a situation where the I.R.S. is doing its job, but is somewhat muted by the disclosure rules and hasn't found its voice, and allowed it to communicate about an audit activity. Or is it just designing a questionnaire while Rome figuratively burns?"The agency's retreat in 2011 seems to have been prompted by wilting pressure from Republican members of Congress, who called the plan a political witch-hunt and questioned whether the agency was acting at the behest of the Obama administration.Conservatives have said much the same thing about Schneiderman's subpoenas. In a post for Commentary's website entitled "<a href="http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/06/27/eric-schneiderman-partisan-fishing-expedition-campaign-finance/" style="box-sizing: border-box; transition: all 0.25s ease; text-decoration-line: none;">Schneiderman's Partisan Fishing Expedition</a>," Jonathan S. Tobin wrote that the "left-wing attorney general is launching a brazenly partisan attack on the right of political speech in the guise of an investigation of alleged violations of the tax code."But Schneiderman, a former state senator for the Upper West Side who is in fact an openly partisan Democrat, is unlikely to mind the blowback, which will only further endear him to his (increasingly national) liberal base. The editorial boards for the New York Times applauded the subpoenas, saying Schneiderman's investigation would provide a necessary look at "<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/01/opinion/sunday/a-window-on-campaign-abuse.html" style="box-sizing: border-box; transition: all 0.25s ease; text-decoration-line: none;">secret world of undisclosed political contributions</a>," because "government watchdogs are dozing." A Newsday editorial said it was "<a href="http://www.newsday.com/opinion/editorial-transparency-for-donations-1.3831905" style="box-sizing: border-box; transition: all 0.25s ease; text-decoration-line: none;">watching with interest</a>" (in a good way)."I think we have a tradition here in New York, of attorney generals who are valiant champions of the people in a lot of different areas that other attorney generals have not had the vision to engage with," said Lerner of Common Cause. "And I think Attorney General Schneiderman falls well within that tradition of taking on the difficult but very real instances of lawbreaking that others have looked past or haven't been able to see."IN THE CASE OF THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, SCHNEIDERMAN IS LOOKING specifically at how money moved among the three nonprofits.Between 2003 and 2005, the Starr Foundation reported $18 million in grants to the National Chamber Foundation, which, around the same time, provided loans to the Chamber of Commerce in roughly the same amount.At the time, Greenberg, who serves as chairman of the Starr Foundation, was heavily involved in an effort to enact tort reform, for which the chamber was also lobbying. (The chamber, in an act of innovation under its new director, Thomas Donohue, had begun allowing for earmarked donations from some of its big contributors, allowing them to fund some political and lobbying campaigns through the chamber's coffers.)But any direct contributions from the Starr Foundation for that purpose would have been subject to a severe excise tax. The complaint from ChamberWatch, which was first filed with the I.R.S. in 2010, alleges that the Chamber Foundation was used as a pass-through, and that the loan was more like a gift.Schneiderman's investigation could pursue a number of outcomes, depending on what he finds. The office could file criminal or civil charges, revokes its charity status in New York, or simply make public the results of its investigation.In 2005, under Spitzer, the office <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/15/business/15insure.html?pagewanted=all" style="box-sizing: border-box; transition: all 0.25s ease; text-decoration-line: none;">published a scathing report of its investigation into the early days of the Starr Foundation</a>, which accused Greenberg and other executives of selling off some assets at a discount rate for personal gain, even though it declined to bring charges, on the grounds that the transgressions had occurred too far in the past.(Spitzer's investigators had traveled as far as Bermuda to seize files after receiving a tip that AIG was moving files out of its office. Last week, in a <a href="http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CF0QtwIwAg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.cnbc.com%2Fgallery%2F%3Fvideo%3D3000102873&ei=NfAWUKGzB-qS6gHEq4H4Cg&usg=AFQjCNF0Zlab15wJcTNwlhUAbtxcIl1qpA&sig2=AZJcdJZkobWAQrbJtPh19g" style="box-sizing: border-box; transition: all 0.25s ease; text-decoration-line: none;">heated exchange with CNBC's Maria Bartiromo</a>, Spitzer denied he was motivated by any personal animus for Greenberg.)Such a public report could have a chilling effect on other organizations, if donors and corporations who are sensitive to public scrutiny determine that their donations might not remain private in the face of investigations like Schneiderman's.The Starr Foundation did not return a call for comment.A spokesman for the chamber suggested that Schneiderman's investigation was motivated by politics."In the midst of a highly charged political season, it comes as no surprise that the New York State Attorney General would use his office to rehash a very old story about the Chamber's finances," said Tom Collamore, the Chamber's Senior Vice President of Communications and Strategy, in an emailed statement. "The subpoena they have issued closely resembles a politically motivated letter that an activist group sent to the IRS in 2010, also just before an important election."The chamber did not specify to what degree it intends to cooperate with the subpoenas."This curiously timed subpoena will play out in the appropriate legal channels.  In the meantime, the Chamber will not be distracted from its focus on issues related to jobs, growth and the nation's economic recovery, while at the same time vigorously supporting candidates we believe will help put our country on the right track."Advocates for greater disclosure hope Schneiderman's efforts will prod the I.R.S. into more public action.The day after the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/01/opinion/sunday/a-window-on-campaign-abuse.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss" style="box-sizing: border-box; transition: all 0.25s ease; text-decoration-line: none;">New York Times reported that Schneiderman was issuing subpoenas</a>, a spokesperson for the I.R.S. <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304830704577493054251481454.html" style="box-sizing: border-box; transition: all 0.25s ease; text-decoration-line: none;">told the Wall Street Journal that the agency had prepared a questionnaire to be circulated to some of the largest quasi-political nonprofit groups</a>, which would be the first step in any possible changes to their tax-exempt status, or a broader clarification of the agency's rules.Last week, the Campaign Legal Center, a group that has been urging the I.R.S. to consider the issue for over a year, received its first formal response from the agency, in the form of a letter saying the I.R.S. "<a href="http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/attachments/Letter_from_IRS_7_20_12.pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; transition: all 0.25s ease; text-decoration-line: none;">is aware of the current public interest in this issue</a>" and would be reviewing its rules.But the I.R.S. is legally prohibited from speaking publicly about its specific audits, leaving even some close observers to wonder how active the agency plans to be."The I.R.S. could be more forthcoming," said Marcus Owens, who previously served as director of the Exempt Organizations Division at the I.R.S."There's nothing that precludes them from saying we currently are reviewing five, ten, zero, a thousand 501c4 organizations, without identifying any particular organization, and thereby give the citizens some assurance that indeed the cop is on the beat, so to speak."But they haven't done that. So it's hard to know from the outside looking in, whether we simply have a situation where the I.R.S. is doing its job, but is somewhat muted by the disclosure rules and hasn't found its voice, and allowed it to communicate about an audit activity. Or is it just designing a questionnaire while Rome figuratively burns?"The agency's retreat in 2011 seems to have been prompted by wilting pressure from Republican members of Congress, who called the plan a political witch-hunt and questioned whether the agency was acting at the behest of the Obama administration.Conservatives have said much the same thing about Schneiderman's subpoenas. In a post for Commentary's website entitled "<a href="http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/06/27/eric-schneiderman-partisan-fishing-expedition-campaign-finance/" style="box-sizing: border-box; transition: all 0.25s ease; text-decoration-line: none;">Schneiderman's Partisan Fishing Expedition</a>," Jonathan S. Tobin wrote that the "left-wing attorney general is launching a brazenly partisan attack on the right of political speech in the guise of an investigation of alleged violations of the tax code."But Schneiderman, a former state senator for the Upper West Side who is in fact an openly partisan Democrat, is unlikely to mind the blowback, which will only further endear him to his (increasingly national) liberal base. The editorial boards for the New York Times applauded the subpoenas, saying Schneiderman's investigation would provide a necessary look at "<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/01/opinion/sunday/a-window-on-campaign-abuse.html" style="box-sizing: border-box; transition: all 0.25s ease; text-decoration-line: none;">secret world of undisclosed political contributions</a>," because "government watchdogs are dozing." A Newsday editorial said it was "<a href="http://www.newsday.com/opinion/editorial-transparency-for-donations-1.3831905" style="box-sizing: border-box; transition: all 0.25s ease; text-decoration-line: none;">watching with interest</a>" (in a good way)."I think we have a tradition here in New York, of attorney generals who are valiant champions of the people in a lot of different areas that other attorney generals have not had the vision to engage with," said Lerner of Common Cause. "And I think Attorney General Schneiderman falls well within that tradition of taking on the difficult but very real instances of lawbreaking that others have looked past or haven't been able to see."IN THE CASE OF THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, SCHNEIDERMAN IS LOOKING specifically at how money moved among the three nonprofits.Between 2003 and 2005, the Starr Foundation reported $18 million in grants to the National Chamber Foundation, which, around the same time, provided loans to the Chamber of Commerce in roughly the same amount.At the time, Greenberg, who serves as chairman of the Starr Foundation, was heavily involved in an effort to enact tort reform, for which the chamber was also lobbying. (The chamber, in an act of innovation under its new director, Thomas Donohue, had begun allowing for earmarked donations from some of its big contributors, allowing them to fund some political and lobbying campaigns through the chamber's coffers.)But any direct contributions from the Starr Foundation for that purpose would have been subject to a severe excise tax. The complaint from ChamberWatch, which was first filed with the I.R.S. in 2010, alleges that the Chamber Foundation was used as a pass-through, and that the loan was more like a gift.Schneiderman's investigation could pursue a number of outcomes, depending on what he finds. The office could file criminal or civil charges, revokes its charity status in New York, or simply make public the results of its investigation.In 2005, under Spitzer, the office <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/15/business/15insure.html?pagewanted=all" style="box-sizing: border-box; transition: all 0.25s ease; text-decoration-line: none;">published a scathing report of its investigation into the early days of the Starr Foundation</a>, which accused Greenberg and other executives of selling off some assets at a discount rate for personal gain, even though it declined to bring charges, on the grounds that the transgressions had occurred too far in the past.(Spitzer's investigators had traveled as far as Bermuda to seize files after receiving a tip that AIG was moving files out of its office. Last week, in a <a href="http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CF0QtwIwAg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.cnbc.com%2Fgallery%2F%3Fvideo%3D3000102873&ei=NfAWUKGzB-qS6gHEq4H4Cg&usg=AFQjCNF0Zlab15wJcTNwlhUAbtxcIl1qpA&sig2=AZJcdJZkobWAQrbJtPh19g" style="box-sizing: border-box; transition: all 0.25s ease; text-decoration-line: none;">heated exchange with CNBC's Maria Bartiromo</a>, Spitzer denied he was motivated by any personal animus for Greenberg.)Such a public report could have a chilling effect on other organizations, if donors and corporations who are sensitive to public scrutiny determine that their donations might not remain private in the face of investigations like Schneiderman's.The Starr Foundation did not return a call for comment.A spokesman for the chamber suggested that Schneiderman's investigation was motivated by politics."In the midst of a highly charged political season, it comes as no surprise that the New York State Attorney General would use his office to rehash a very old story about the Chamber's finances," said Tom Collamore, the Chamber's Senior Vice President of Communications and Strategy, in an emailed statement. "The subpoena they have issued closely resembles a politically motivated letter that an activist group sent to the IRS in 2010, also just before an important election."The chamber did not specify to what degree it intends to cooperate with the subpoenas."This curiously timed subpoena will play out in the appropriate legal channels.  In the meantime, the Chamber will not be distracted from its focus on issues related to jobs, growth and the nation's economic recovery, while at the same time vigorously supporting candidates we believe will help put our country on the right track."---CMD ~ Daily Caller fdn Tucker carlson<div></div>http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/05/20/1528932/-Republicans-write-sad-letters-saying-investigations-into-Exxon-are-First-Amendment-rights-violationsHouse Republicans on the House Science Committee sent a series of letters to 17 state attorneys general and eight climate change organizations, from Greenpeace to the<a href="https://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/05.18.16%20SST%20Letter%20to%20RFF.pdf" target="blank" title="" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">Rockefeller Family Fund</a>, that accuses them of a:<blockquote style="box-sizing: border-box; padding: 30px 60px; margin: 20px 0px; border: none; width: 660px; line-height: 24px; z-index: -1; letter-spacing: 0.125px;">[...] coordinated attempt to deprive companies, nonprofit organizations, and scientists of their First Amendment rights and ability to fund and conduct scientific research free from intimidation and threats of prosecution.</blockquote>This is in response to the 17 attorneys general who announced that they will be going after ExxonMobil and others for <a href="http://insideclimatenews.org/news/30032016/climate-change-fraud-investigation-exxon-eric-shneiderman-18-attorneys-general" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">perpetuating a fraud on every single person on the planet.</a><blockquote style="box-sizing: border-box; padding: 30px 60px; margin: 20px 0px; border: none; width: 660px; line-height: 24px; z-index: -1; letter-spacing: 0.125px;">"The First Amendment, ladies and gentlemen, does not give you the right to commit fraud," said Schneiderman, who in November <a href="http://insideclimatenews.org/news/05112015/new-york-attorney-general-eric-schneiderman-subpoena-Exxon-climate-documents" title="" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">issued a subpoena to ExxonMobil</a> under the state's far-reaching securities and consumer protection statutes."Every attorney general does work on fraud cases, and we are pursuing this as we would any other fraud matter. You have to tell the truth, you can't make misrepresentations of the kinds we've seen here," he said on Tuesday. "The scope of the problem we are facing, the size of the corporate entities and their alliances, the trade associations and other groups, is massive and it requires a multistate effort."</blockquote>Schneiderman <a href="http://insideclimatenews.org/news/19052016/house-republicans-assail-climate-fraud-investigations-exxon-lamar-smith" target="blank" title="" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">had this to say about the do-nothing Congress:</a><blockquote style="box-sizing: border-box; padding: 30px 60px; margin: 20px 0px; border: none; width: 660px; line-height: 24px; z-index: -1; letter-spacing: 0.125px;">"It is remarkable that a do-nothing Congress that has refused to take any action on climate change is now attempting to disrupt this important investigation into potential corporate malfeasance," New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman's spokesman Eric Soufer said in a statement."The irony of this letter is breathtaking, as its signatories appear to be part of a multi-pronged media campaign funded by the fossil fuel industry aimed at suppressing the free exchange of ideas among scientists, academics, and responsible law enforcement. New York will continue to work with and collaborate with its colleagues across the country, and those with expertise in this area, to protect its citizens from fraud," said Soufer.</blockquote>Pathetic. The globe is burning and there is clear evidence that companies like ExxonMobil were well aware of the dangers companies like themselves posed to the climate, and not only did they hide that information for decades, they actively worked to cast doubt on the very facts they themselves suspected.You can go <a href="https://science.house.gov/news/press-releases/committee-scrutinizes-motive-green-20" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">here to find the letters and the idiots writing them.</a>

Peabody Energy, described as the largest coal company in the world, is the next coal giant <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/mar/16/coal-miner-peabody-energy-bankruptcy" target="_blank" style=" text-decoration: none;">facing bankruptcy</a>. The price of Peabody stock has dropped 97% over the past year and it recently warned its investors that it may seek bankruptcy protections from creditors.

The company had recently reached a settlement with the New York Attorney General, over <a href="http://www.climateinvestigations.org/peabody_energy_investigtion_in_late_stages_new_york_attorney_general_probe" target="_blank" style=" text-decoration: none;">allegations</a> that it had misled its investors about the risk climate change posed to its longterm business. But that investigation was about the rights of shareholders and the price of their shares, not directly about Peabody's role in funding climate change denial. If the company does file for bankruptcy then much more may soon be revealed about coal funding for climate change denial and opposition to tackling climate change.

===

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman keeps cracking down on wage theft, and around 250 workers will be sharing in a nearly $500,000 settlement from four current and former Papa John's franchisees.

"Once again, we’ve found Papa John’s franchises in New York that are ripping off their workers and violating critical state and federal laws,” New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said in a statement. "Once again, I call on Papa John’s and other fast food companies to step up and stop the widespread lawlessness plaguing your businesses and harming the workers who make and deliver your food."

Though it often isn't treated this way, it actually is illegal to fail to pay minimum wage or overtime, to make people work off the clock, to force workers being paid at the tipped worker subminimum wage to do non-tipped work, and a disturbing list of other ways businesses have found to keep money that workers have earned. And about that "once again":

In July, the attorney general's office arrested Abdul Jamil Khokhar, owner of nine Papa John's stores in New York, accusing him of breaking minimum wage and overtime laws. According to his plea agreement, Khokhar could serve up to 60 days in jail. In another case, the attorney general's office secured a judgment of nearly $3 million against two other Papa John's franchisees.

So while the workers were technically employed by—and cheated by—the franchisees, at a certain point you see a pattern and start to think maybe the parent company has something to do with it. That's one of the reasons the National Labor Relations Board pushed to treat some fast food chains as joint employers responsible for working conditions in franchise restaurants.

In 2013, a report from Fast Food Forward found 84 percent of New York City fast food workers reporting that they'd been victims of wage theft. Fully 100 percent of fast food delivery workers said the same. Schneiderman's efforts to crack down have also led to settlements at franchises of other chains, including Domino's and McDonald's.

==