UPDATES
7/26/23 - It’s worse than we thought. There is an entire Climate Litigation-Industrial Complex, with numerous left-wing advocacy groups training judges (who are supposed to be impartial), funding Democrat state attorneys general who bring climate suits, and coordinating with each other on which lawsuits to bring. Millions of dollars from left-wing donors are sloshing around. For a fact-filled synopsis, read more here. Follow the money.
7/13/23 - Climate lawsuits are big business: Soros-Backed Climate Lawsuit Group Looks To Give Investors Huge Paydays. The article states, “Aristata’s business model of litigation funding is a $13 billion industry in which investors back money into lawsuits in exchange for a percentage of the award if the case is won.” Aristata is bankrolled by George Soros. Our research did not find a direct link between Aristata and Our Children’s Trust, which brought the Montana youth climate suit, but it did uncover the fact that Our Children’s Trust received a grant from the Soros Open Society Foundation in 2017. Thus, there is plenty of reason to be suspicious of climate litigation in general and Our Children’s Trust in particular. Follow the money.
7/26/23 - It’s worse than we thought. There is an entire Climate Litigation-Industrial Complex, with numerous left-wing advocacy groups training judges (who are supposed to be impartial), funding Democrat state attorneys general who bring climate suits, and coordinating with each other on which lawsuits to bring. Millions of dollars from left-wing donors are sloshing around. For a fact-filled synopsis, read more here. Follow the money.
7/13/23 - Climate lawsuits are big business: Soros-Backed Climate Lawsuit Group Looks To Give Investors Huge Paydays. The article states, “Aristata’s business model of litigation funding is a $13 billion industry in which investors back money into lawsuits in exchange for a percentage of the award if the case is won.” Aristata is bankrolled by George Soros. Our research did not find a direct link between Aristata and Our Children’s Trust, which brought the Montana youth climate suit, but it did uncover the fact that Our Children’s Trust received a grant from the Soros Open Society Foundation in 2017. Thus, there is plenty of reason to be suspicious of climate litigation in general and Our Children’s Trust in particular. Follow the money.
Out-of-State Money Fueling Montana Youth Climate Suit
July 2023
July 2023
The big out-of-state money behind the Montana youth climate suit (Held v. State of Montana) does not represent Montana youth or their best interests. We, the undersigned, object to out-of-state special interest groups from New York and California duping Montana youth and using them as human shields to deflect attention away from the movers and shakers behind the radical environmental movement. These special interests are the driving force behind the youth climate suit brought in Helena, even to the point of providing the legal representation for the plaintiffs.
Montana youth grounded in reality understand the fossil fuel industry is essential for wealth creation, affordable and reliable energy, and the goods and services necessary to maintain a clean and healthful environment. Fossil fuels comprise part of the domestic mineral estate which is in law one of the principal and major uses of our public lands, to be made accessible for development by private enterprise for the benefit of all Montanans and the American people.
The right to self-government guaranteed in the Montana Constitution implies a free-market economy and the right of the free people of Montana to self-determination. Litigation funded from out of state infringes on the constitutional right to self-government and, therefore, on the capacity for local self-determination.
Despite the propaganda of the radical environmental Left, natural disasters are in law considered an "act of God" and cannot be directly attributed to targeted industries. It is well-documented within IPCC (U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) assessment reports that the climate has warmed and cooled throughout history prior to the modern industrial development of fossil fuels. Therefore, the moderate warming over the last 150 years cannot be directly attributed to human activities without deviating from federal Data Quality Act standards for scientific information which is supposed to be objective, not ideological.
Fossil fuels enable us to better fight fires through the use of fossil-fueled trucks and aircraft for transporting water, thereby mitigating gigatons of natural carbon emissions when fires are extinguished.
One provision of a constitution cannot be used to eradicate another provision without dismantling the overall structure to the ruin of public liberty. Weaponizing the clean and healthful environment clause in the Montana Constitution against the fossil fuel industry would set a dangerous unconstitutional precedent that could also be applied to the agriculture industry in the state, as is already happening in Europe.
Environmental policies stamped by the judiciary have already destroyed the wood products industry in Montana and elsewhere, and have devastated the goods and services, taxable revenue, and jobs of rural resource-dependent timber communities. Whatever the clean and healthful environmental clause means, it surely cannot mean the destruction of wealth, reliable energy, free enterprise, or local self-determination. As has been noted in other contexts, the Constitution is not a suicide pact.
The undersigned thereby oppose the use of out-of-state money through special interest groups to exploit children in Montana and pervert the judiciary against responsible development of Montana’s resources. Montana’s resource endowment is essential for prosperity and liberty and is, therefore, indispensable to the guarantees of self-government and self-determination in the Montana Constitution. Outsiders should not be dictating to Montanans what Montana’s state Constitution means.
We strongly object to monied elites coming into Montana and telling Montanans they can’t use their resources, and that they have no choice but to accept the impoverished primitive conditions those elites wish to foist upon Montana and the world.
SEEN AND AGREED:
American Property Rights Coalition
Chouteau County Homeschoolers (Montana)
Coalition of Arizona/New Mexico Counties
Dr. Dan’s Freedom Forum
Potomac Tea Party
Redlands Tea Party Patriots
N.B. - A number of the individual signers below are group leaders, activists, writers, media hosts, and influencers.
Montana
Nathan Descheemaeker - Supervisor, Petroleum County Conservation District
Ed Regan
California
Steve A.
Greg Brittain
Florida
Karen Schoen
Georgia
Diane S. Vann
Mary Wierbicki (Social Media Director, The United West)
Maine
Victoria Bucklin
Maryland
Jim Simpson
Minnesota
Susan Erickson
New Jersey
Rick Trader (the “Conservative Commando” / AUN-TV)
North Carolina
Dr. Dan Eichenbaum (Freedom Forum and Radio Show)
Ohio
Tony S.
Oklahoma
Don M. Powers, Esq.
Pennsylvania
Donna Elligsen
Texas
Mike Ramirez
Virginia
Thomas Blau
Christine Brim
Phong Nguyen
Vic Nicholls
Ron Quasebarth
Chris Wright
Washington
Peggy H.
Montana youth grounded in reality understand the fossil fuel industry is essential for wealth creation, affordable and reliable energy, and the goods and services necessary to maintain a clean and healthful environment. Fossil fuels comprise part of the domestic mineral estate which is in law one of the principal and major uses of our public lands, to be made accessible for development by private enterprise for the benefit of all Montanans and the American people.
The right to self-government guaranteed in the Montana Constitution implies a free-market economy and the right of the free people of Montana to self-determination. Litigation funded from out of state infringes on the constitutional right to self-government and, therefore, on the capacity for local self-determination.
Despite the propaganda of the radical environmental Left, natural disasters are in law considered an "act of God" and cannot be directly attributed to targeted industries. It is well-documented within IPCC (U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) assessment reports that the climate has warmed and cooled throughout history prior to the modern industrial development of fossil fuels. Therefore, the moderate warming over the last 150 years cannot be directly attributed to human activities without deviating from federal Data Quality Act standards for scientific information which is supposed to be objective, not ideological.
Fossil fuels enable us to better fight fires through the use of fossil-fueled trucks and aircraft for transporting water, thereby mitigating gigatons of natural carbon emissions when fires are extinguished.
One provision of a constitution cannot be used to eradicate another provision without dismantling the overall structure to the ruin of public liberty. Weaponizing the clean and healthful environment clause in the Montana Constitution against the fossil fuel industry would set a dangerous unconstitutional precedent that could also be applied to the agriculture industry in the state, as is already happening in Europe.
Environmental policies stamped by the judiciary have already destroyed the wood products industry in Montana and elsewhere, and have devastated the goods and services, taxable revenue, and jobs of rural resource-dependent timber communities. Whatever the clean and healthful environmental clause means, it surely cannot mean the destruction of wealth, reliable energy, free enterprise, or local self-determination. As has been noted in other contexts, the Constitution is not a suicide pact.
The undersigned thereby oppose the use of out-of-state money through special interest groups to exploit children in Montana and pervert the judiciary against responsible development of Montana’s resources. Montana’s resource endowment is essential for prosperity and liberty and is, therefore, indispensable to the guarantees of self-government and self-determination in the Montana Constitution. Outsiders should not be dictating to Montanans what Montana’s state Constitution means.
We strongly object to monied elites coming into Montana and telling Montanans they can’t use their resources, and that they have no choice but to accept the impoverished primitive conditions those elites wish to foist upon Montana and the world.
SEEN AND AGREED:
American Property Rights Coalition
Chouteau County Homeschoolers (Montana)
Coalition of Arizona/New Mexico Counties
Dr. Dan’s Freedom Forum
Potomac Tea Party
Redlands Tea Party Patriots
N.B. - A number of the individual signers below are group leaders, activists, writers, media hosts, and influencers.
Montana
Nathan Descheemaeker - Supervisor, Petroleum County Conservation District
Ed Regan
California
Steve A.
Greg Brittain
Florida
Karen Schoen
Georgia
Diane S. Vann
Mary Wierbicki (Social Media Director, The United West)
Maine
Victoria Bucklin
Maryland
Jim Simpson
Minnesota
Susan Erickson
New Jersey
Rick Trader (the “Conservative Commando” / AUN-TV)
North Carolina
Dr. Dan Eichenbaum (Freedom Forum and Radio Show)
Ohio
Tony S.
Oklahoma
Don M. Powers, Esq.
Pennsylvania
Donna Elligsen
Texas
Mike Ramirez
Virginia
Thomas Blau
Christine Brim
Phong Nguyen
Vic Nicholls
Ron Quasebarth
Chris Wright
Washington
Peggy H.