Trumplandia legal sagas: Attorneys suing attorneys

It's getting ugly out there ladies and germs. Rudi's attorneys are suing him for failure to pay his $1,360,196.10 bill. Naughty Rudi the Tooti Frutti. Here's some of the 8 page filing.

The summons

The heart of the matter

The signature page

It won't be long before we are all familiar with lawsuit filings. FYI, this case was filed in a New York Supreme Court. In New York, the Supreme Court is the lowest court. Trial courts include the Supreme Courts (unlike in the federal system), the Appellate Divisions of the Supreme Court, and the Court of Appeals, which is the court of last resort (similar to the Supreme Court in the federal system). That's ass backwards, but whatever.

Jeez, talk about a cheap law school with a crappy professor.

On the Meaning of the Post-Truth Concept and Its Effects

I originally posted this in April 2021, but the deafening clamor for it to be reposted has forced my hand. 😮

_________________________________________

A 2019 research paper, The Upsurge of Irrationality; Post-truth politics for a polarized world, discusses how researchers see the recent descent of political discourse into the mess it is today for tens of millions of Americans. It nicely describes what concepts such as post-truth mean and how they can influence thinking and political and social policy. The following are some quotes from the paper.

Truthiness

.... the term “truthiness”, coined in 2005 by the comedian Stephen Colbert and defined as “the quality of seeming or being felt to be true, even if not necessarily true.” So, truthiness is not necessarily falsehood or propaganda: it can be mere ignorance shaped by emotion, “gut feeling” and overreliance on intuitive thinking. Nevertheless, while truthiness was used primarily for political satire .... post-truth is not a joke any more.

Post-truth

Current social polarization has led to an upsurge of collective irrationality in which formerly underground unwarranted beliefs and radical discourses have become mainstream. .... controverted shared values have been replaced by alternative epistemologies shaped by identity-related empirical misconceptions that are at the core of current cases of “culture war.” This state of affairs has recently been called “post-truth.”

There are several interconnected concepts considered as major forms of collective irrationalism, such as pseudoscience, science denialism, fact  resistance, and alternative facts. Post-truth has emerged as a higher-order concept that describes the current sociological state of affairs in which all these forms of irrationality thrive. This recent term is defined as “relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.”

The meaning of post-truth goes beyond being a fool or a liar — “in its purest form, post-truth is when one thinks that the crowd's reaction actually does change the facts about the lie (...) what seem to be new in the post-truth era is a challenge not just to the idea of knowing reality but to the existence of reality itself.” In this regard, although political lies have always existed, “post-truth relationship to facts occurs only when we are seeking to assert something that is more important to us than truth itself. Thus, post-truth amounts to a form of ideological supremacy, whereby its practitioners are trying to compel someone to believe in something whether there is good evidence for it or not.” So, while truthiness locates the responsibility for lying, post-truth is more vague and collectivist in this regard, providing no clear way to define who is responsible, when, and to what extent. Hence, post-truth gives rise to “a world in which politicians can challenge the facts and pay no political price whatsoever.” 

Comments

The paper’s author points out that there is reliable evidence to believe that unfounded beliefs in post-truth rhetoric is not just innocuous folklore. Adverse effects on political campaigns and regressive cultural backlashes have been documented, but the full ramifications are still playing out and thus unknowable. Counterproductive effects of motivated reasoning and false public opinion significantly adversely affect attitudes toward vaccination and climate change. Solid evidence also indicates that conspiracy theories containing post-truth content are also damaging.[1]

The paper’s concluding comments include these: “Post-truth is not an urban legend: it is a harmful collection of alternative epistemologies with a postmodern background that arises from the kind of intergroup struggles that shape the current polarized socio-political landscape. So, post-truth can be interpreted as a result of self-defensive cognition regarding social identity — a process that is fostered by social networks, perceived moral superiority, and partisan media that generate affective [emotion-based] feedback loops, strong perceived threats, and boost against ethical dissonance.” 

Footnote: 

1. The author writes: “The amount of negative social attitudes and outcomes associated with conspiracy theories is overwhelming. For example, they are associated with less pro-social behavior, science denial and misunderstanding, collective narcissism, moral absolutism, partisanship, Machiavellianism and personal willingness to conspire, political cynicism, unhealthy behaviors — such as the use of alternative medicine, anti-vaccination and unsafe sex —, prejudices, political extremism, and reduced intentions to decrease carbon footprint.” (citations removed)

Belief in false conspiracy theories can be downright dangerous to one’s health and to the health of democracy.

California files climate change lawsuit against big oil cos.

California is the 8th state to file a lawsuit claiming climate change damages arising from oil company propaganda that discredited belief in global warming. 

Some of the lawsuit:

INTRODUCTION 

1. In 2023 alone, the State of California has endured both extreme drought and widespread flooding, sprawling wildfires and historic storms, and an unusually cold spring and a record-hot summer. These extremes are devastating the State and destroying people’s lives and livelihoods, and they are accelerating. These extremes are the products of climate change, and climate change is the product of widespread combustion of fossil fuels. Oil and gas company executives have known for decades that reliance on fossil fuels would cause these catastrophic results, but they suppressed that information from the public and policymakers by actively pushing out disinformation on the topic. Their deception caused a delayed societal response to global warming. And their misconduct has resulted in tremendous costs to people, property, and natural resources, which continue to unfold each day. Californians and their families, communities, and small businesses should not have to bear all the costs of climate change alone; the companies that have polluted our air, choked our skies with smoke, wreaked havoc on our water cycle, and contaminated our lands must be made to mitigate the harms they have brought upon the State. This lawsuit seeks to hold those companies accountable for the lies they have told and the damage they have caused.

3. Defendants are large companies in the fossil fuel industry who have misled consumers and the public about climate change for decades. Defendants have known since at least the 1960s that fossil fuels produce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution that would warm the planet and change our climate. Defendants’ own scientists knew as early as the 1950s that these climate impacts would be catastrophic, and that there was only a narrow window of time in which communities and governments could take action before the consequences became catastrophic. 

4. Rather than warn consumers, the public, and governments, however, Defendants mounted a disinformation campaign beginning at least as early as the 1970s to discredit the burgeoning scientific consensus on climate change; deny their own knowledge of climate change- related threats; create doubt in the minds of consumers, the media, teachers, policymakers, and the public about the reality and consequences of the impacts of burning fossil fuels; and delay the necessary transition to a lower-carbon future.  

18. American Petroleum Institute 

a. Defendant American Petroleum Institute (API) is a nonprofit corporation based in the District of Columbia and registered to do business in California. API was created in 1919 to represent the American oil and gas industry as a whole. With more than 600 members, API is the country’s largest oil trade association. API’s purpose is to advance its members’ collective business interests, which includes increasing consumer consumption of oil and gas for the financial profit of the Fossil Fuel Defendants and other oil and gas companies. Among other functions, API also coordinates members of the petroleum industry, gathers information of interest to the industry, and disseminates that information to its members. 

b. Acting on behalf of and under the supervision and control of the Fossil Fuel Defendants, API has, since at least 1988, participated in and led several coalitions, front groups, and organizations that have promoted disinformation about the climate impacts of fossil fuel products to consumers—including, but not limited to, the Global Climate Coalition, Partnership for a Better Energy Future, Coalition for American Jobs, Alliance for Energy and Economic Growth, and Alliance for Climate Strategies. These front groups were formed to promote climate disinformation and advocacy from a purportedly objective source, when in fact these groups were financed and controlled by the Fossil Fuel Defendants and other oil and gas companies. The Fossil Fuel Defendants have benefited from the spread of this disinformation because, among other things, it has ensured a thriving consumer market for oil and gas, resulting in substantial profits for the Fossil Fuel Defendants.  

302. As a direct and proximate result of the Fossil Fuel Defendants’ failure to warn, their fossil fuel products caused the State to sustain the injuries and damages set forth in this Complaint, and will cause future injuries and damages to State as set forth in this Complaint, including, without limitation, damage to State property, State infrastructure, and natural resources. The State seeks compensatory damages for these injuries in an amount subject to proof. 

One question is whether lawsuits like this will make any difference. Another is how are damages going to be proved? This is the start of what will probably be a years long series of lawsuits and appeals. The polluters will fight tooth and claw against every allegation, probably even including denying they misled anyone about anything. This is the same game plan that the tobacco industry successfully used for decades to avoid liability for misleading people about cigarette-caused lung cancer. Eventually lawsuits took a bite, but in the meantime, profits kept rolling in while consumers remained deceived.

NATO Secretary General states that Russia invaded Ukraine to keep NATO out

The idea that Russia's chief reason for fighting against Ukraine (since 2014, but especially 2022) is to prevent  NATO membership for that country has been called a myth, falsehood and Russian propaganda . This is the case despite warnings from policy experts, and  diplomats including a stark warning from now-CIA chief, Nicholas Burns. In a memo to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Burns wrote, 

"Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all red lines for the Russian elite (not just Russian President Vladimir Putin). In more than two-and-a-half years of conversations with key Russian players, from knuckle-draggers in the dark recesses of the Kremlin to Putin's sharpest liberal critics, I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests."

Burns also wrote a classified assessment of the Bush plan to admit Ukraine into NATO called "Nyet means Nyet" available at Wikileaks.  I've written about all this before in some detail here. I restate the denials of the importance of the NATO enlargement issue only to set up the following clip of NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg  speaking on just this subject earlier this month . It is from his opening remarks to the EU Parliament's Committee on Foreign Affairs and its Subcommittee on Security and Defense given on Sept. 2, 2023 in Brussels. The clip is from UK Declassified, and below it is a partial transcription of his remarks, and a few supplementary  documents that he mentions to make his point.

After discussing the continuing enlargement of NATO including Finland and Sweden,  Jens Stoltenberg states that:

" The background was that President Putin declared in the autumn of 2021, and actually sent a draft treaty that they wanted NATO to sign, to promise no more NATO enlargement. That was what he sent us. And was a pre-condition for not invade Ukraine. Of course we didn't sign that.

The opposite happened. He wanted us to sign that promise, never to enlarge NATO. He wanted us to remove our military infrastructure in all Allies that have joined NATO since 1997, meaning half of NATO, all the Central and Eastern Europe, we should remove NATO from that part of our Alliance, introducing some kind of B, or second class membership. We rejected that. 

So he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders. He has got the exact opposite. He has got more NATO presence in eastern part of the Alliance..."

What happened in 2021 prior to the invasion of Ukraine by Russia? This is part of the background to which Stoltenberg alludes above.

A) In November,  US and Ukraine signed a US-Ukraine Charter on Strategic Partnership. Some of the passages that the Russians found concerning are quoted below. The Charter can be read in full here.

"Guided by the April 3, 2008 Bucharest Summit Declaration of the NATO North Atlantic Council and as reaffirmed in the June 14, 2021 Brussels Summit Communique of the NATO North Atlantic Council, the United States supports Ukraine’s right to decide its own future foreign policy course free from outside interference, including with respect to Ukraine’s aspirations to join NATO.... The United States and Ukraine endorse the 2021 Strategic Defense Framework as the foundation of enhanced Ukraine-U.S. defense and security cooperation and intend to work to advance shared priorities, including implementing defense and defense industry reforms, deepening cooperation in areas such as Black Sea security, cyber defense, and intelligence sharing, and countering Russia’s aggression...The United States remains committed to assisting Ukraine with ongoing defense and security reforms and to continuing its robust training and exercises. The United States supports Ukraine’s efforts to maximize its status as a NATO Enhanced Opportunities Partner to promote interoperability."

 

The Russians had long sought guarantees that Ukraine and Georgia would not join NATO.  The US and NATO ruled out any such concessions. Russian troops Spring and then again Fall of 2021 were amassed ominously around much of Ukraine's borders signalling a possible invasion. It is in this context that the US-Ukraine Partnership was signed, sending a clear message to Moscow-- i.e.  troop buildup or no, NATO welcomes Ukraine, and the US will work with Ukraine to arm and advise them  to counter Russian aggression.

NATO membership and US-Ukraine military and intel cooperation on Russia's border have always been major drivers of the conflict, whatever US media says. Here is another clip, this one of Zelensky's former  advisor (2020-2023), Oleksii Arestovych.  He discusses candidly the fact that "[Ukraine's]price for membership in NATO is a big war with Russia"-- a "full scale war" with Russia, he says, in which Ukraine's population, cities, and infrastructure will be "devastated." (See subtitles in vid below).  When this interview was filmed in 2019,  Arestovych was an intelligence officer, and was aware of just how important it was for Russia to keep Ukraine out of NATO at all costs. He was clear-eyed about the consequence of Ukraine's  NATO aspirations being a brutal, full-scale war.  As is evident in this clip, he predicted with some prescience the course of future events.