DISHONEST LAWFARE? Is Rhode Island’s Lawsuit vs Energy Producers Based on Deceitful Assertions?
“Lawfare” is generally defined as the use of law to attack an opponent. It was assumed such attacks were fully legal and we trusted that related legal arguments would fall within generally accepted ethical and judicial guidelines.
But “political warfare” has no regard for such guidelines or ethics … either by the plaintiffs and their attorneys or by biased judges. It’s all about winning and advancing a political agenda … no matter the truth, no matter the ethics, no matter historical jurisprudence.
One such battle in the now ever-present political warfare waged by the Left involves our State of Rhode, which in 2018 initiated legal action against energy producers across America. Rhode Island, alongside several other blue states and jurisdictions of California, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Minnesota, and New Jersey, is pursuing individual lawsuits against American and Western energy companies in their respective state courts and under state laws, with efforts spearheaded by both its former and current Attorneys General. All lawsuits commonly allege damages from a contrived “climate crisis” and seek to extract enormous payouts … payouts that would lead to increased energy prices on a nationwide basis.
I wrote last year how the goal of these lawfare lawsuits was purely political and monetary … a blatant effort to manipulate the justice system and the courts to drive a national policy agenda away from fossil fuels … by punishing energy producers in a similar way that cigarette companies and Google were ordered to make massive payouts.
But now, a new development raises serious questions about the integrity – and legality – of Rhode Island’s lawsuit.
Some of Rhode Island’s claims in its climate lawsuit may be dishonest. If so, it would be a betrayal of the public’s trust in our state’s chief legal officer since he likely carried out a lawsuit in bad faith. The complaint, originally filed by former RI AG Peter Kilmartin, notes that a substantial portion of defendants’ fossil fuel products are or have been allegedly extracted, refined, and/or manufactured in Rhode Island.
Even ordinary Rhode Islanders understand that our state lacks crude oil reserves, oil and gas production, or refineries, relying entirely on marine terminals and pipelines to import all oil and natural gas consumed here. Why did the former Attorney General suggest the opposite in his lawsuit?
Specifically, Rhode Island’s lawsuit contends that defendants’ products were extracted, refined, “and/or” consumed within Rhode Island. These inaccurate statements, submitted by the former Attorney General in the original complaint, clearly violate Rule 11 of the Rhode Island Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure, which necessitate a factual grounding as legal basis for any lawsuit.
The official website of RI’s Office of Energy Resources, in its “frequently asked questions” section, clearly notes states that petroleum products are not produced in Rhode Island: “Petroleum-based fuels such as heating oil and propane are not locally produced in Rhode Island. The state receives shipments of refined petroleum product via six marine import terminals in East Providence, Providence, and Tiverton.”
Further, the profile page for Rhode Island the on the U.S. Energy and Information Administration (EIA) website also underscores AG Kilmartin’s dishonesty. The EIA states “Rhode Island has no crude oil reserves and does not produce or refine petroleum.”
When challenged by the defendants while the case persisted, the state refused to provide clear evidence, relying instead on oversimplified “and/or” phrasing. However, courts have consistently held that inadequate due diligence and false assertions in a complaint may merit sanctions. Rhode Island’s refusal to amend these assertions could invite legal punishment. Wow – talk about a legal boomerang.
Further undermining the lawsuit is its reliance on improper “group pleading,” broadly accusing multiple defendants without distinguishing their individual roles. Rather than offering concrete, evidence-based allegations, the complaint lumps all defendants together, failing to specify who did what.
Rhode Island’s lawsuit was already on shaky ethical and legal ground. Lawsuits such as these are supposed to be filed only when some law or right has been violated … not when the primary goal is to advance a political agenda or to obtain cash.
As I wrote last year, the transparency group Energy Policy Advocates exposed nationally, which our Center then publicized locally, how in July 2019, state officials joined climate change activists and funders in Pocantico, NY at a secret forum hosted by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. The purpose of the cabal’s meet-up was “to strategize together on the most promising ways to accelerate the pace of implementation” of “increasingly ambitious climate goals,” as the draft agenda promised. “The group will also discuss how state (legal) action can influence and underpin future federal action.”
The conclusion of this “State Action on Climate Change” meeting was to follow Rhode Island’s lead and to abuse court systems across America, because their legislative attempts to fund their radical green agenda and other pet government projects had largely failed in their states.
“Bought?” Law Enforcement for Rent? These schemes to subvert democracy are often paid for by deep-pocket donors who want to advance an extreme climate change agenda. This is not how public policy and the courts are supposed to work. In many states, donors even privately fund special assistant attorneys who are actually placed in the offices of state Attorneys General.
Another false narrative. The deception of it all is that the massive amount of money our state is seeking is not intended to be used to mitigate the effects of a forever-changing climate. It’s not about climate change … it’s about money! And corrupt former state officials relied upon untrue assertions and false pretenses when filing their lawsuit.
Current state officials should right the ship.
Will Rhode Island face reprimands? Adjudicating the dishonest information in the complaint, as well as the other issues described above, will likely be a central theme of an upcoming mid-April hearing in front of Judge William Carnes, Associate Justice of the Rhode Island Superior Court, who was appointed by Republican Governor Donald Carcieri in 2007.
There’s still time to save face. Given such illegitimate motives and dishonest tactics, Rhode Island’s current Attorneys General – Peter Neronha – should immediately seek to save Rhode Island from the national embarrassment of being publicly reprimanded by either our own state Superior Court or some future federal appeals. Withdrawing the case would save the money it would cost taxpayers to continue with this bogus lawsuit or to pay for whatever legal punishment the courts might impose.
The 2018 Rhode Island lawsuit was announced by former Governor Gina Raimondo, former Attorney General Peter Kilmartin, and out-of-touch US Senator Sheldon Whitehouse. Neither of these two state officials are still in office, so and I also call upon Senator Whitehouse and our current Governor – Dan McKee – to ask AG Neronha to pull Rhode Island out of this lawsuit.
RI Attorney General Neronha, with a stroke of his pen, can immediately curb this shameless – and likely dishonest and unconstitutional – attempt by his predecessor to use the court system to enact costly green policies, while filling state coffers with illicitly obtained funds.
It’s not just corrupt prosecutors in New York City and the former US Department of Justice who are waging illicit lawfare – now it is our own Ocean State officials who are guilty of numerous ethical and rules violations – in their dishonest judicial attack on their political opponents.
Mike Stenhouse is CEO of Rhode Island’s only conservative think tank, the RI Center for Freedom & Prosperity. He earned an economics degree from Harvard University and is a former major league baseball player for the Red Sox, Twins, and Expos.
