Misha Tseytlin

===

Schimel has also brought a compatriot of C. Boyden Gray straight out of coal country to work here in Wisconsin. In December 2015, he announced that <a href="http://www.fed-soc.org/experts/detail/misha-tseytlin" target="blank" times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" text-decoration="text-decoration" none="none" style=" font-family: ;">Misha Tseytlin</a> would serve as Wisconsin's first "Solicitor General" with a $1 million dollar budget. Tseytlin is a leader in the national game plan to derail the Clean Power Plan. He was the <a href="http://www.ago.wv.gov/pressroom/2015/Documents/File-stamped%20petition%2015-1363%20%28M0108546xCECC6%29-c1.pdf" target="blank" times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" text-decoration="text-decoration" none="none" style=" font-family: ;">General Counsel</a> to the West Virginia Attorney General who lead the charge against the Clean Power Plan. Tseytlin is also a <a href="http://www.watchblog.com/thirdparty/archives/002505.html" target="_blank" times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" text-decoration="text-decoration" none="none" style=" font-family: ;">"proud member"</a> of the Koch-funded Federalist Society.

===

<h3 class="title" style=" margin: 10px 0px 5px; padding: 0px; color: rgb(0, 51, 102); font-family: verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 17px;">Are You, or Have You Ever Been a Member of the Federalist Society?</h3>

Frustrated by the lack of embarrassing personal details and quotes that are outrageous when repeated out of context, the press has decided that the question of Supreme Court nominee <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/24/AR2005072401201_pf.html" style=" color: rgb(153, 51, 0);">John Roberts Federalist Society membership</a> is incredibly important. The suggestion, of course, is that membership in the Society portends some extremists positions that are unacceptable for a Supreme Court justice. As president of the Georgetown Law Center Federalist Society, I can tell you that those who attempt to characterize the Society and its member with a broad, extremist brush show only their own ignorance and agenda.

As an excellent <a href="http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/fedsoc.htm" style=" color: rgb(153, 51, 0);">op-ed article</a> by Federalist Society member Eugene Volohk explains, the Federalist Society embraces a wide variety of conservative and libertarian viewpoints. The Federalist Society was founded by libertarians and conservatives who felt marginalized by the left wing domination of the legal academia. It has certain founding principles- including broad statements about individual rights and the courts saying what the law is, not what they wish it to be- but those principles are so broad as to encompass the views of most Americans.

My personal experience illustrates the diversity of viewpoints of the people who are both members of the Federalist Society and speak at our events. I have argued with our previous chapter president about military tribunals in Guantanamo (I am against them, she is for them); I have debated with other members about abortion (I am against abortion, they were for it); I have argued with one of my current officers about the Bush Medicare plan (I am against it, he is for it). At our National Student Symposium, noted liberal Alan Dershowitz debated the use of pre-emption and often took more hawkish views than the Federalist Society member who was debating him. On the panel before that, ACLU leader Nadine Strossen explained that the Society founding principles of protecting individual rights are in line with the ACLUs mission.

I am a proud member of the Federalist Society- but that tells you little about me. You would not know my opinions on any particular issue, or my view of what the Constitution requires. All you would know is that I belong to a Society that believes that the liberal domination of the legal academy does not adequately represent my viewpoint. There are a lot of more controversial aspects to my views- but like with John Roberts- you will not know them by finding out if I paid my 5 dollar yearly dues to the Federalist Society.

<a id="more" name="more" style=" color: rgb(153, 51, 0); text-decoration: underline; font-family: verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;"> </a>Posted by <a href="http://www.watchblog.com/thirdparty/profile/misha_tseytlin.html" style=" color: rgb(0, 51, 102);">Misha Tseytlin</a> at July 27, 2005 1:58 AM

==

http://www.fed-soc.org/experts/detail/misha-tseytlin

BS

Tseytlin is the first Solicitor General of the State of Wisconsin. Previously, he was General Counsel in the West Virginia Attorney General’s Office, where he specialized in litigation challenging unconstitutional and otherwise unlawful overreach by the Federal Government. He has also published articles relating to such litigation, including arguing in favor of reinvigorating as-applied challenges to federal actions under the Commerce Clause.

Mr. Tseytlin has severed as law clerk for the Honorable Anthony M. Kennedy of the United States Supreme Court, the Honorable Janice Rogers Brown of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, and the Honorable Alex Kozinski of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. He graduated the Georgetown University Law Center and worked as an associate in the Washington, D.C. Office of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP.

</div>

The Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues. The people listed as Experts have spoken or otherwise participated in Federalist Society events, publications, or multimedia presentations. A person's appearance on this list does not imply any other endorsement or relationship between the person and the Federalist Society. All expressions of opinion by an expert are those of the expert.

</div>

<div class="authorContent" style=" margin-top: 25px;">Publications and Multimedia

<div class="authorItem" style=" margin-bottom: 15px;"><a href="http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/the-clean-power-plan-a-bridge-too-far-audiovideo" style=" text-decoration: none;">The Clean Power Plan: A Bridge too Far? - Audio/Video</a>

Third Annual Executive Branch Review Conference

June 23, 2015</div>

<div class="authorItem" style=" margin-bottom: 15px;"><a href="http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/regulating-the-regulators-north-carolina-board-of-dental-examiners-v-federal-trade-commission-podcast" style=" text-decoration: none;">Regulating the Regulators: North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission - Podcast</a>

Litigation Practice Group Podcast

October 20, 2014</div>

</div>

==

<div>

By Mark J. Fitzgibbons American Thinker

June 13, 2016

Donors to nonprofit organizations of all stripes are at risk of harassment, unless a bill to be introduced this week by Rep. Peter Roskam is by passed by both houses of Congress and signed into law. If you have the means and are generous enough to contribute $5,000 or more to a homeless shelter or food bank, a charity to help abused spouses and children, an animal rescue, an organization protecting life, a group advocating for constitutional rights, or any other charity or social welfare nonprofit organization, your contribution, name, and address currently must be reported by the recipient organization to the IRS — even if the donation is not tax-deductible.

By law, this contribution information is supposed to be treated and guarded by the IRS as confidential. Unauthorized access to and use of that information by government officials is prohibited under post-Watergate reforms to the tax code. Its unintentional disclosure is subject to civil remedies, albeit ones without enough teeth in an age of careless bureaucrats. Criminal penalties are supposed to apply to officials who willfully disclose or review your private information unless expressly authorized under a rigid privacy regime in the tax code.

Information about Americans’ private generosity, however, is not safe with the IRS. And, there are those people who attribute sinister motives to generosity, calling beneficence for even deeply held convictions of conscience “dark money.”

Worse, even, two highly partisan state attorneys general with proven track records of using government power to try to silence the speech of those who don’t share their leftwing views — Kamala Harris of California and Eric Schneiderman of New York — are using dragnet licensing methods to evade the tax code by obtaining directly from charities what was reported to the IRS under laws and expectations of confidentially. Harris and Schneiderman are in the news this year for targeting climate speech for investigation and possible prosecution. They not only disrespect First Amendment rights of those with opposing views, they are lawless and arrogant enough to believe the federal tax confidentiality laws don’t apply to them.

This week the U.S. House of Representatives will consider a bill introduced by Congressman Peter Roskam that would end the collection of most private contribution information by the IRS. HR 5053 does more than end the IRS’s collection of this private information currently reported on Schedule B to Form 990, the tax return filed by charities and social welfare organizations; it corrects a mistake by a prior Congress that created a federal exception to the right of private association expressed in the landmark civil rights case from 1958, NAACP v. Alabama.

In the 1950s, Ku Klux Klan-backed Democrat Alabama Attorney General John Patterson sought to obtain the list of financial supporters of the NAACP in his state. His objective was to shut down the civil rights movement there through intimidation that would dry up the organization’s funds. In holding against Patterson, the court said:

“It is hardly a novel perception that compelled disclosure of affiliation with groups engaged in advocacy may constitute as effective a restraint on freedom of association as the forms of governmental action in the cases above were thought likely to produce upon the particular constitutional rights there involved. This Court has recognized the vital relationship between freedom to associate and privacy in one’s associations.”

Unlike liberals such as Harris and Schneiderman, who wish to use government power to impose their personal intolerance of dissent, others such as my friend and liberal activist legend Roger Craver know history and how the power pendulum swings both ways. Roger is in the American Association of Political Consultants Hall of Fame, and was described by The Wall Street Journal as “an assassin of all things right-wing.”

Writing at his blog The Agitator, Roger says, “[w]hen it comes to protecting the privacy of members and donors, all nonprofits should be fighting mad regardless of ideology. Michael Moore and the Koch brothers. We’re all in this together.”

A who’s who of over 100 top conservative leaders and lawyers recently sent members of Congress a letter about the need to conduct hearings into whether the IRS was derelict by not protecting confidential donor information from the unseemly clutches of Harris and Schneiderman, and to inquire whether these two AGs violated the criminal laws about donor privacy in the tax code. Meanwhile, the IRS has been asked in private correspondence to explain why it did not enforce the unauthorized access laws and protocols, called “UNAX,” against Harris and Schneiderman.

The Roskam bill is an important step in protecting the right of private association. A group of state charity regulators whose ranks include members of the offices of Harris and Schneiderman, however, are protesting the Roskam bill. One of the more vocal charity regulators once claimed now-disgraced former IRS official Lois Lerner as their “partner in the regulation of charities.” Their poor judgment goes beyond keeping bad company. Four times since 1980 these state bureaucrats have been scuttled at the U.S. Supreme Court for their attempts to violate the First Amendment under their loose theories of “consumer protection” and fraud.

Like recalcitrant and habitual offenders often do, Harris and Schneiderman have continued looking for ways to violate laws and constitutional guarantees so they may intimidate and silence speakers. For now we can only wonder whether the IRS’s failure to stop them was a matter of turning its head the other way for Lois Lerner’s “partners.”

The Roskam bill restores certain important protections articulated in NAACP v. Alabama. The key is that government officials not insert themselves into our right to associate privately with causes. Too many of these officials simply cannot be trusted with routinely possessing such private information.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/06/protecting_the_privacy_of_nonprofit_donors_from_abuse.html

</div>

<div>

<div>To: Misha Tseytlin, Solicitor General State of Wisconsin </div>

<div>From: Jason Heath, RLDF Director of Operations </div>

<div>Date: April 19, 2016 </div>

<div>Re: RLDF Senior Staff Retreat ....Salt Lake City, Utah </div>

<div>

</div>

<div>Dravis sic</div>

</div>

==

</div>

As world leaders meet in Paris in an urgent effort to reach an international accord to prevent catastrophic climate change, the Wisconsin Attorney General is working on a plan to undercut President Obama's ability to deliver on any such agreement.

Earlier this year, with the blessing of Governor Scott Walker, Wisconsin Attorney General Brad Schimel signed onto a lawsuit aimed at stopping the Obama Administration's Clean Power Plan (CPP), the first national standards for limiting dirty carbon emissions from coal-fired power plants.

The lawsuit is spearheaded by Murray Energy, the largest privately-held coal company in America, and the West Virginia Attorney General, who argue that the new rules are a costly overreach by the federal government.

But the American public has a different view. With <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/asthma.htm" target="blank" style=" text-decoration: none;">6.8 million kids</a> suffering from asthma, the public is increasingly aware of the health impacts of burning dirty fuels and strongly supports alternatives. Polling shows <a href="http://www.lcv.org/issues/polling/clean-power-plan-poll.pdf" target="blank" style=" text-decoration: none;">60% of voters</a> support the CPP, while just 31% oppose it. 70% of voters want their states to cooperate with these federal efforts (including 58% of Republicans), while just 17% do not. 75% of Americans know that climate change is already having a severe impact, including 58% of Republicans.

While Schimel says he is protecting Wisconsin businesses and rate payers, the lawsuits are a strategy in a national playbook written by the fossil fuel industry and anti-government ideologues like the Koch's <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Americans_for_Prosperity" target="blank" style=" text-decoration: none;">Americans for Prosperity</a> and the Koch-funded <a href="http://www.prwatch.org/news/2015/12/12984/alec-works-scuttle-global-climate-agreement" target="blank" style=" text-decoration: none;">American Legislative Exchange Council</a> (ALEC). In addition to urging the AGs to sue, ALEC is pushing one cookie-cutter "model" bill designed to block implementation of the power plan and another <a href="http://www.prwatch.org/news/2015/12/12984/alec-works-scuttle-global-climate-agreement" target="_blank" style=" text-decoration: none;">to allow industry to bankroll the state litigation</a>. Apparently, ALEC is worried that state taxpayers might get riled when they learn about their AG's efforts to attack the CPP.

Schimel's decision to go to bat for polluters comes as no surprise. While running for office in 2014, Schimel said he would sue and was promptly backed by a mysterious group called the "Rule of Law Project." <a href="http://www.prwatch.org/news/2014/10/12649/dirty-energy-barons-go-bat-wi-ag-candidate-schimel" target="blank" style=" text-decoration: none;">CMD traced the group</a> to the law firm of C. Boyden Gray. A key founder of the Federalist Society and former White House Counsel, Gray is the chief architect of the 40-year attack on regulations protecting public health and the environment. Gray's firm has been representing big business and utility coalition <a href="http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF03/20150317/103073/HHRG-114-IF03-Wstate-WoodA-20150317-SD001.pdf" target="blank" style=" text-decoration: none;">in the fight against the CPP</a>.

Now Schimel is bringing in a compatriot of Gray's straight out of coal country. He announced that <a href="http://www.fed-soc.org/experts/detail/misha-tseytlin" target="_blank" style=" text-decoration: none;">Misha Tseytlin</a> was to serve as Wisconsin's first "Solicitor General" with a $1 million dollar budget.

Tseytlin is a key player in the national game plan to derail the effort to rein in carbon emissions. Tseytlin may not have yet taken the <a href="http://www.wisbar.org/Pages/BasicLawyerSearch.aspx?a=1&firstName=Misha&lastName=Tseytlin" target="blank" style=" text-decoration: none;">Wisconsin bar</a>, but he is listed as <a href="http://www.ago.wv.gov/pressroom/2015/Documents/File-stamped%20petition%2015-1363%20%28M0108546xCECC6%29-c1.pdf" target="blank" style=" text-decoration: none;">General Counsel</a> on the West Virginia lawsuit challenging the CPP. He also battled an EPA rule which restored Clean Water Act protections to wetlands and streams. In private practice, he worked for Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, a major law firm representing energy clients like Chevron in its fight against a $19 billion dollar judgement for polluting the Ecuadorian rainforest. Tseytlin is a <a href="http://www.watchblog.com/thirdparty/archives/002505.html" target="_blank" style=" text-decoration: none;">"proud member"</a> of the Koch-funded Federalist Society.

For Schimel and Tseytlin apparently, clean air and clean water are not something to celebrate, but a regulatory burden for polluters.

<div class="adv">Schimel argues that the CPP will hit Wisconsin harder because it is more reliant than other states on coal, but the argument relies on smoke and mirrors say utility and energy experts.</div>

</div>

"Wisconsin is in a relatively good position to meet CPP standards compared to states like West Virginia and North Dakota," said Keith Reopelle Senior Policy Director for Wisconsin Environment. "But we would be in an even better position had the state revisited renewable portfolio standards or invested more in energy efficiency as neighboring states have done."

Wisconsin utilities have met renewable portfolio standards two years ahead of schedule, but no effort has gone into expanding them and setting new targets.

Schimel also argues that the CPP will cost the state <a href="http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/why-wisconsin-is-suing-the-epa-b99622927z1-357272251.html" target="_blank" style=" text-decoration: none;">$13 billion</a>, but that number is bunk, reports Reopelle, who says that was based on incorrect assumptions regarding the proposed rule and never adjusted for the final published rule.

Schimel <a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct--global-warming-work-ban-20150616-story.html" target="blank" style=" text-decoration: none;">once voted to bar</a> state employees from talking about and working on climate change. Now he<a href="https://soundcloud.com/620-wtmj/ag-brad-schimel-on-bloomberg-attacks-1192015" target="blank" style=" text-decoration: none;"> claims</a> "this is not about pollution" and carbon "isn't the traditional thing that most people think about as pollution." This leaves Reopelle shaking his head. "Carbon dioxide is certainly a pollutant, accumulating in our atmosphere and causing global warming," he said. It was found to be a pollutant actionable under the Clean Air Act by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2007.

</div>

==