DiCaprio Nabs Stars in Private Funding in Government ‘Climate’ Lawsuits – Are You Happy With That?

From government accountability and oversight


Is this one of the millions that organizations are giving a torture company a ‘backup fee’? Do Torture Firms Disclose to Political Clients? Do politicians disclose to legislatures and taxpayers?

In 2020, information rise in IRS Form 990 filed by the Nonprofit Resource Heritage Foundation (“RLF”) shows that the ‘climate nuisance’ and ‘consumer fraud’ lawsuits are represented by Sher Edling, LLP. radical attorney general and local government officials, were private funded for the tune of millions of dollars.

The multimillion-dollar “charity grants” to the plaintiff’s torture company are certainly unusual. This is especially curious since politicians have hired Sher Edling with contingency fee contracts that promise them tens of millions in case they prevail, because the government cannot afford to pay the company and the company took the risk of making the investment in the event of uncertainty about the payday.

Deception may make for a good story on the big screen, but this new evidence raises some very troubling questions outside of Hollywood. Are the benevolent donors secretly funding government lawsuits by lawyers who are also seeking second payday, multi-million dollars from taxpayers? ”

A law professor, Michael Krauss of George Mason University, lift up questions about the arrangement, on Indeed, if the money was given to the law firm at the same time that lawsuits began to be filed in those cases, the nonprofit covered up that fact with misleading language. Grants are officially reported to support “conservation of land or sea” (2017) ($432,129), followed by “promoting healthy communities” (2018) ($1,319,625) later. which, apparently, has run out of acronyms, is supporting “conserve the land or sea, promote education and/or healthy communities” (2019) ($1.1 million).

However, the emails obtained by the Government’s Accountability & Oversight Division in an open-file lawsuit in California following a two-year legal battle at least confirm that the private parties are in fact “serious advocates” bailed out the lawsuit (and probably still do). These include Leonardo DiCaprio, who, a review of the foundation’s IRS records show, has funneled funding to his group through at least one other organization.

So, Terry [Tamminen]team of – at the time Tamminen was the CEO of Leonardo DiCaprio Foundation – and Dan Emmett are “strong supporters” of the Sher Edling lawsuit. And their colleagues have founded several environmental businesses, major ‘green’ donors to the Republican Party. Andy Sabin were also targeted to possibly help fund the attack.

It is possible that the “serious support” for the “nuisance litigation” has turned into the $3 million RLF that has so far been reported. However, the 990s of Emmett’s fund (and his choice of words) suggest that this was personal money or, if it was money from his own fund, the money may well have been transferred. through at least one other organization. Potential sources for the latter mission, from the ’90s, include the Rockefeller Charity Advisor and the Sustainable Markets Foundation, even the University of California.

This new revelation raises deeper, serious questions about ethics as well as public policy. Among them: what happens to contingency fee arrangements that promise attorneys a substantial portion of the hundreds of millions of dollars that are allegedly lost by taxpayers in the plaintiff’s jurisdictions? when the company actually doesn’t take the proposed risk/invests in owning a lot of uncompensated time on a suit that may never pay? Are the clients and taxpayers they represent aware of this??

Notably, there is no indication from these or other similar correspondence obtained under the open records law that this “serious assistance” is Financial litigation for a shareJust need donors interested in sponsoring these cases as a cause.

Consider Minnesota. There, the company’s contract must be approved by the Legislative Advisory Committee as a good measure of the government. Minnesota AG’s contract with Sher Edling stipulates, in TOTOCompensation for work:

6. COMPENSATION AND COST. Special Counsel will be compensated for the performance of their duties pursuant to this appointment and shall be reimbursed for certain costs and disbursements (collectively, “expenses”) in the manner set forth in The Fee Agreement is attached as Appendix A and incorporated herein.

If the company is being paid from other sources, it is difficult to know how that fits in this description.

Did the law firm disclose to Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison that it was paid to proceed with this litigation?in negotiating with his Office for tens of millions of dollars in damages that Ellison claims Minnesota taxpayers suffered?

That is, did the Commission know this when it approved the contract as a good government watchdog? If not, maybe Professor Krauss can update think about these arrangements.

But if the company disclosed this about the private financing of the Minnesota lawsuitthen taxpayers (and the Legislative Advisory Committee) may wonder Will Ellison notify the Commission of the full financial arrangements as he seeks approval for his Sher Edling contingency fee contract?. Because that revelation doesn’t appear in material issued under Minnesota’s open records law (scroll down to about 70%).

Taxpayers in each of the claimant’s jurisdictions may have similar questions about the disclosure and appearance of the agreement’s filing.

Another concern arises from this most unusual funding arrangement, in which millions are quietly being paid to file lawsuits even though millions have been promised the company to pay for it. lawsuit, as a “risk premium”. This concurrent grant suggests that the goal may not be to bring the matter to trial or to a successful resolution; possibly, success is seen as achieving goals through the costs of the litigation process itself and through the burdens of civil discovery.

As it is often said: “Make the process punishable, in the form of horribly expensive public relations and legal battles (at the expense of shareholders and consumers), and reputational damage, all while supporting political movements to end targeted industries.

Note that the DiCaprio’s Foundation website prides itself on all forms of funding but makes no mention of its “serious support” in funding managed “climate nuisance” production. management to achieve wide distribution, opening in dozens of locations around the country, GAO board member Matthew Hardin commented, “Deception may make for a good story on the big screen, but this new evidence raises some very troubling questions outside of Hollywood. Kind donors have secretly funded government lawsuits by attorneys, who are also seeking a second, multi-million dollar payday from taxpayers? ”

Thanks to the records obtained after just two years of litigation in California, there are many important questions that need to be answered. Whether policymakers and the media require them.

Source link


News7g: Update the world's latest breaking news online of the day, breaking news, politics, society today, international mainstream news .Updated news 24/7: Entertainment, the World everyday world. Hot news, images, video clips that are updated quickly and reliably

Related Articles

Back to top button