united states district court for the …...2017/02/21 · defendant rbf together with its alter...

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

LUBBOCK DIVISION

LEONID GOLDSTEIN

Plaintiff

v.

CLIMATE ACTION NETWORK, CERES INC.,

ROCKEFELLER BROTHERS FUND INC., GENERATION

INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT LLP, FORD FOUNDATION, THE

PEW CHARITABLE TRUSTS, GREENPEACE INTERNATIONAL

CORP., ENVIRONMENTAL GRANTMAKERS ASSOCIATION CORP.,

THE CONSULTATIVE GROUP ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY CORP.,

THE SIERRA CLUB FOUNDATION CORP., WORLD WIDE FUND

FOR NATURE TRUST, US CLIMATE ACTION NETWORK CORP.,

GLOBAL CALL FOR CLIMATE ACTION CORP., GENERATION

INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT US LLP, ALLIANCE FOR CLIMATE

PROTECTION CORP., FENTON COMMUNICATIONS CORP.,

WORLD WILDLIFE FUND INC., GREENPEACE INC., GREENPEACE

FUND INC., FRIENDS OF THE EARTH INTERNATIONAL CORP.,

FRIENDS OF THE EARTH US CORP., FRIENDS OF THE EARTH

(ACTION) INC., ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND INC.,

ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE ACTION FUND CORP., NATURAL

RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL INC., NRDC ACTION FUND

CORP., SIERRA CLUB CORP., EARTHJUSTICE CORP., THE UNION

OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS INC., THE PEW MEMORIAL TRUST,

J. HOWARD PEW FREEDOM TRUST, MABEL PEW MYRIN TRUST,

J.N. PEW JR. CHARITABLE TRUST, THE JOHN D. AND CATHERINE

T. MACARTHUR FOUNDATION, THE WILLIAM & FLORA

HEWLETT FOUNDATION, THE DAVID AND LUCILE PACKARD

FOUNDATION, TIDES FOUNDATION CORPORATION, TIDES

CENTER CORPORATION, CLIMATEWORKS FOUNDATION, THE

ENERGY FOUNDATION, and JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-99

Defendants

: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

CIVIL CASE NO.

5:16-cv-211-C

Case 5:16-cv-00211-C Document 133-2 Filed 02/21/17 of 14 PageID 964

2

First Supplemental Complaint

Definitions

1. As used here, a “corporate official” means a board member, a high-ranking officer, a

member of an advisory board, or another person associated with a corporation and capable of

exerting comparable influence on it.

2. Unless otherwise specified, the events described below took place in the period after

the original Complaint was filed (September 12, 2016) and before the date of this First

Supplemental Complaint.

My Job Loss & Additional Damages

3. Due to the Defendants’ actions, especially actions they committed after I filed the

Original Complaint, I lost my job as a software engineer in an established company. That job

was my only source of income and health insurance. My last pay day was October 5, 2016. I

have had no job and no income since that day through the date of this filing.

4. From October 5, 2016 to February 21, 2017 I suffered $59,400 in lost wages and loss of

health insurance benefits caused by the Defendants’ actions, and this figure is growing daily.

5. The continuing actions by the Defendants prevent me from finding a new job or

obtaining another income.

Tampering and Harassment after the Original Complaint

6. The Defendants regularly use journalists with respectable affiliations to do their bidding,

and keep these relations secret, as shown in the next section.

7. On September 13, 2016, just a few hours after the Original Complaint appeared in the

ECF, I was called by Wes Rapaport, a journalist at the local affiliate of ABC News. The caller

acted weirdly. He claimed he had read the complaint and was preparing a radio broadcast

about it. Then he asked me how I had been injured in Lubbock. He asked this question at least

four times and attempted to record my answers. He asked no other questions about the

complaint, as a journalist who was really working on a report about this lawsuit would have


3

done. His intonations and pauses in speech were also indicative of deceit. When I called Mr.

Rapaport next day and asked what or who prompted him to call me, he gave contradictory

answers.

8. These facts indicate that this call was initiated by one or more Defendants. These

Defendants probably learnt of the lawsuit, studied the Original Complaint, and decided on a

strategy to get it dismissed for improper forum or venue. Prior to that they might have illegally

obtained my privileged communication with one or more attorneys whom I contacted to obtain

legal advice. At least some of these attorneys were affiliated with the political associations,

targeted by an illegal investigation by certain Attorneys Generals acting in collusion with

Defendants, as described in the following section. Among other things, these Attorneys

General sent subpoenas and/or investigating requests to multiple organizations. The

subpoenas that became publicly known explicitly demanded my privileged communication with

the attorneys. Defendants and/or their accessories are also known to have illegally obtained

and made use of confidential, privileged, and/or classified information through theft or

computer hacking in the past. Thus, Defendants might have known content of the Original

Complaint before the date of filing.

9. Thus, one or more Defendants, unknown to me, devised and attempted to execute a

frame-up/intimidation/tampering scheme. They hired the local ABC News affiliate, or some of

its journalists, to contact me with the double purpose of intimidation and manufacturing a

recording that could be later used against me in this lawsuit. Defendants Greenpeace were

caught in a more serious frame-up/intimidation/tampering attempt against Prof. William

Happer on the eve of his testimony before Congress in December 2015.

10. None of the Defendants maintain headquarters in Texas, or even any neighboring state.

Nevertheless, one or more of the Defendants arranged to call me with questions regarding the

lawsuit from only a mile from where I was staying at the time. Even more disturbing was the

inhuman speed with which the Climate Alarmism Enterprise observed, oriented, decided, and

acted on my filing of the Original Complaint.


4

11. Causing this kind of contact under these circumstances is intimidation, harassment, and

a threat of physical harm against a witness and a victim in violation of 18 U.S. Code § 1512,

subsections (a)(2), (b) and (d). I do not know which Defendants caused this call, but the

Defendants regularly act together, fund each other, promote each other, cover each other’s

actions, and reap the benefits of each other’s actions. Thus, this violation of § 1512 is hereby

alleged against all the Defendants.

12. The conduct of the caller during the call was also an attempt to corruptly influence this

trial in violation of 18 U.S. Code § 1512(c). I do not know which Defendants caused this call, but

the Defendants regularly act together, fund each other, promote each other, cover each other’s

actions, and reap the benefits of each other’s actions. Thus, this violation of § 1512(c) is hereby

alleged against all the Defendants.

13. These two separate acts of violation of § 1512, committed against me in Lubbock, Texas,

on September 13, 2016, between 8am and 4pm, are sufficient to establish a pattern of

racketeering activity by all the Defendants, and likewise establish that this Court is a proper

forum and venue.

14. The Defendants fund, teach, counsel, inflame, threaten, and organize politically

motivated violence all over the country on a rapidly escalating scale. I see these activities by

the Defendants as threatening my personal safety and security.

Recent Events Revealed More Violations by the Defendants

15. Defendant RBF together with its alter ego, non-defendant Rockefeller Family Fund (RFF),

funded writing and publication of a series of articles, supposedly “investigative reports,” by

journalists of the Columbia Journalism School of the once respectable Columbia University.

These reports were published in InsideClimate News, a covert PR department of Climate

Alarmism Enterprise, and in the Los Angeles Times, in late 2015 or early 2016. Defendant RBF

and the journalists in its hire publicly denied that these “reports” had been directly funded by

RBF/RFF. Defendants RBF, Greenpeace, UCS, GIM, CAN, and Energy Foundation then used

these publications to convince Attorney General of Massachusetts Maura Healey, Attorney

General of New York Eric Schneiderman, and Claude Walker, the putative Attorney General of


5

the US Virgin Islands (“the investigating AGs”), to start a patently illegal and anti-Constitutional

investigation against ExxonMobil, the largest Texas company. ExxonMobil is headquartered in

the Northern District of Texas. This investigation also targeted political associations and

multiple individuals who opposed or were perceived as opposing climate alarmism and the

Climate Alarmism Enterprise.

16. The fact of direct funding by RBF/RFF of the articles that had been used as a pretext for

this investigation against ExxonMobil came into public knowledge only after the Original

Complaint was filed.

17. Some Defendants’ officials, employees, and/or agents met in person with at least some

of the investigating AGs in the last ten years. Notably, Claude Walker was an environmental

attorney with the federal Environmental Protection Agency for about eight years before

becoming the putative Attorney General of the US Virgin Islands.

18. The investigating AGs harassed ExxonMobil and non-profit think tanks, including the

Competitive Enterprise Institute, demanding information about some of the most prominent

conservative, libertarian, and defense-oriented think tanks, along with information about all

“persons conducting research or advocacy concerning Climate Change,” including me, the

Plaintiff.

19. Defendants used the investigating AGs as their pawns, and there is evidence they have

been planning such use since at least 2012.

20. Since 2004, Defendants Greenpeace have been publishing lists and databases of

American political associations and individuals whom Greenpeace considered its enemies.

These lists and databases were prepared in consultation with other Defendants. Greenpeace

deceitfully labeled these persons with environmentalist smears (such as “polluters”), although

most of them had been targeted solely based on their conservative and patriotic views, had no

substantial links to potentially polluting industries, and were supportive of environmental

protection. One of such lists was published on the Greenpeace website www.exxonsecrets.org

(“The Greenpeace Enemies List #1”). The investigative request, sent by Claude Walker to


6

ExxonMobil, demanded information about dozens of political organizations from The

Greenpeace Enemies List #1, in the exact order in which they appeared in the list.

21. The information sought by the investigating AGs for the benefit of the Defendants and

their accomplices included the history of my visits and purchases at ExxonMobil affiliated gas

stations, my travelling patterns, my photos and gesticulation samples, my license plate number

and photos of my car, and video recordings. The request demanded this information from 1977

to the date of the request.

22. In this and other ways, Defendants were actively collecting information about

individuals opposing climate alarmism, including myself, prior to their actions described in the

previous section, which might help to explain the speed with which they reacted to my Original

Complaint.

23. Attorneys General and Congresspersons that participated in the Defendants’ schemes in

the last three years received money (including campaign contributions) or valuable services

(including ads, advertorials, or infomercials, or similar promotional services) from the

Defendants, sometimes through intermediaries or front groups. These actions constitute

multiple acts of bribery in violation of 18 U.S. Code § 201 and the anti-bribery laws of Texas and

of the District of Columbia, which are hereby alleged against all the Defendants.

Defendants’ Increasingly Violent Behavior

24. Since filing the Original Complaint, and especially after the elections, Defendants have

been acting in increasingly aggressive, violent, and desperate ways.

25. Defendants Sierra Club declared that they and unspecified accomplices would fight the

President and the Congress on the streets.

26. On January 25, 2017, Defendants Greenpeace sent a commando team to climb a 270-ft

crane within hundreds of yards of the White House, possibly with the intent of reconnoitering

shooting positions and desensitizing the security. Having climbed, the Greenpeace commandos

unfurled a banner with the Greenpeace logo and a single word “RESIST”. Outrageously, the


7

Defendant Greenpeace International, a foreign political entity, placed its dirty sign above the

American Flag flying above the White House.

27. This repulsive act was directed against the whole country, including Texas and its

residents. Nevertheless, the Defendants’ media accessories and front groups praised it and

held it up as an example for others.

28. As stated in para 41 of the Original Complaint, the Defendants are accustomed to

breaking the law with impunity. Of note, Greenpeace International controls paramilitary units

and participates in the operations of the United Nations agencies, attempting to subject

America to their control.

29. The Defendants pursue common goals, and distribute tasks among themselves mostly in

accordance with clearly defined roles in the criminal enterprise. The Defendants have publicly

acknowledged:

a) their collaboration

b) their submission to a central authority, based outside of the United States, an

authority that includes the Defendants Greenpeace, WWF, and, possibly, FOE

c) their differentiated roles in the criminal enterprise, set in accordance with the brand

image of individual Defendants.

30. Multiple Defendants, including but not limited to Tides and Greenpeace, aided,

counseled, or directed others to commit acts of violence, including arson at the Dakota Access

Pipeline, sabotage of working pipelines, assault on Trump supporters in Washington, DC on the

Inauguration Day, and multiple threats against lawmakers and public officials.

31. These actions further confirm that the goals of the Climate Alarmism Enterprise are not

only financial, but include degrading American scientific and intellectual capacity, creating

internal polarization, establishing the Climate Cult as the state religion, and undermining the

United States’ national energy infrastructure and economy, as stated in the Original Complaint,

para 57.


8

32. A website refusefascism.org was created on or after November 29, 2016. A group

behind this website (the “RF Group”) received money from some Defendants, who channeled

funds through Defendants Tides, who channeled funds through a non-Defendant Alliance for

Global Justice, a putative non-profit corporation with an address in Tucson, Arizona.

33. Apparently upset by the outcome of the elections, the RF Group called for mass violence

with an intent to prevent inauguration, and then to overthrow the constitutionally elected

President. Having failed in that undertaking, the RF Group switched to violence against

individuals. The RF Group and others organized a riot in Berkeley, California on February 1,

2017, hours before expected appearance of Milo Yiannopoulos, a provocative political

commentator. During the riot, a group of thugs set things on fire and beaten up Trump

supporters while shouting “this is war,” leading to cancelation of the event.

34. Next day the RF Group published material, praising these actions, calling for more of the

same, and singling out a specific target: David Horowitz. David Horowitz is a mainstream

conservative, a founder and current president of the David Horowitz Freedom Center, and an

editor of the FrontPage Magazine.

35. Most importantly, David Horowitz is a director of the Discover the Networks

(www.discoverthenetworks.org) website. This is a priceless resource, collecting and publishing

information about links between radical groups in the US and their links to foreign enemies.

Almost all Defendants are covered in the website, and many interconnections between them

are revealed on it. Further, many Defendants are exposed as funders of hateful and/or violent

groups. I used the Discover the Networks when researching facts for the Original Complaint

and after that, and intend to continue using it.

36. Based on the motions filed by the Defendants in this lawsuit so far, they intend to deny

deep interconnections between them. Thus, at least some Defendants funded and supported

front groups, inciting and/or organizing violence against David Horowitz, for destroying or

otherwise tampering with evidence against them.


9

Embezzlement from Pension Funds

37. As of the date of this filing, Ceres’ website lists among the Ceres Board Members

Thomas P. DiNapoli. Mr. DiNapoli is also the Comptroller of the State of New York and the Sole

Trustee of the New York State Common Retirement Fund (NY-SCRF). He has been in these

positions since 2007.

38. Thomas DiNapoli, the Ceres Board Member and the Sole Trustee of NY-SCRF,

acknowledged in writing: “At the United Nations Paris Climate Conference in December 2015, I

announced our scalable $2 billion commitment to a low emission index and also committed an

additional $1.5 billion to the Fund’s Sustainable Investment Program, bringing our total

commitment to sustainable investments to more than $5 billion. I believe that all investment

organizations will find similar opportunities when applying the Blueprint’s guidance to their own

unique needs and policies.”

39. Some of these “commitments” led to theft/embezzlement from the NY-SCRF by the

Defendants. Theft and diversion of the fund’s money into the purchase of SolarCity and

TerraForm Power shares, described below, are just two examples.

SolarCity Shares Case

40. Between March 31, 2015 and March 30, 2016, Defendant Ceres together with NY-SCRF

insiders diverted funds from the NY-SCRF to acquire 133,900 shares of SolarCity Inc. for about

$7,485,000. By March 31, 2016, the apparent market value of these shares fell to about

$2,589,000. That is, less than 35% of the diverted funds could have been recovered on that

date. In November 2016 SolarCity was acquired by Tesla Motors Inc., a related company, in an

all-stock transaction, and ceased apparent trading on public markets. It is unknown what

happened to these shares later, but no more than 63% of the diverted funds could have been

recovered and returned to NY-SCRF, even if the shares were sold at the luckiest moment and

the proceeds were returned to the fund.

41. SolarCity was a scam. It borrowed money, and spent most of it on deceiving the public,

including but not limited to the prospective customers, into believing that solar power was a

viable or even less expensive alternative to conventional electricity sources – coal, natural gas,


10

nuclear, and hydro power plants. This deceit advanced only the goals of the Defendants and of

the whole Climate Alarmism Enterprise. SolarCity’s “Solar Ambassador Program” was one of

the way of promoting this lie. SolarCity also paid money to Defendants’ marketing accessories.

Typically, SolarCity installed Chinese-made solar panels on customers’ rooftops without

substantial upfront payments, then charged monthly fees and collected government subsidies.

Even with all the subsidies and cheap Chinese labor, the electricity generated by those solar

panels was many times more expensive than the electricity supplied by the electrical

companies. The Defendants together with their accessories and allies “convinced” (possibly

through bribery, intimidation, tampering with witnesses etc.) many state and local

governments to establish a scheme called “net metering”: the electrical companies were forced

to connect these rooftop panels to their electrical power networks, and to “buy” electricity

from SolarCity’s customers at prices many times higher than the cost at which the utilities were

purchasing or generating electricity from conventional sources. Of note, the electrical energy

“bought” from the SolarCity customers had negative value for the electrical companies,

because it strained and endangered the stability of their electrical networks.

42. Typically, SolarCity explicitly guaranteed their rooftop panels for at least 20 years

(although most panels were not known to work even for five years), and implicitly guaranteed

that the bizarre “net metering” scheme would continue indefinitely, and would save the

consumers money in the long run.

43. Further, SolarCity had financials that would deter even a freshman economics major

from buying its stock: negative cash flow, a large and growing operating loss, and huge and

mounting debt. The “Risk Factors” section in SolarCity’s 2014 Annual Report (form 10-K) spread

over 22 pages, and some of the risks listed in it were inevitable and unavoidable events.

44. The Defendants knowingly benefited from this diversion of the NY-SCRF funds.

TerraForm Power Case

45. Between March 31, 2015 and March 30, 2016, Defendant Ceres together with NY-SCRF

insiders diverted funds from the NY-SCRF to acquire 123,600 shares of Terra Power Inc. for

about $4,083,000. By March 31, 2016, the apparent market value of these shares fell to about


11

$1,069,000. That is, less than 27% of the diverted funds would have been recoverable on that

date. It is unknown what happened to these shares later, but no more than 50% of the

diverted funds could have been recovered and returned to NY-SCRF, including the dividend,

even if the shares were sold at the luckiest moment and the proceeds were returned to the

fund.

46. TerraForm Power was an investment company acquiring completed solar and wind

power projects from developers, many of whom had political connections useful to the

Defendants, at inflated prices. Some of the projects were tainted by allegations of improper

dealing. All the acquired projects relied on economically and technically unsound short-term

government incentives, such as “virtual net metering,” renewable portfolio standards, direct

subsidies, and preferential treatment in other areas. The Defendants used to promote such

projects to deceive the public into believing that solar and wind were viable or even less

expensive alternatives to conventional electrical power generated by a mix of fossil fuels,

nuclear, and hydro power plants. This deceit only advanced the goals of the Defendants and

the Climate Alarmism Enterprise.

47. TerraForm Power was structured in such a way that the shares, acquired with NY-SCRF

funds, had nearly zero value. Even in the environment of political favoritism, TerraForm Power

displayed many obvious red flags: permanent and growing loss, huge and mounting debt, and

the absence of any conceivable upside. The “Risk Factors” section in TerraForm Power’s 2014

Annual Report (form 10-K) spread over 27 pages, and some of the risks listed in it were

inevitable and unavoidable events.

48. The Defendants knowingly benefited from this theft and diversion of the NY-SCRF funds.

Common Factors

49. Thus, Defendants Ceres and its members USC, EDF, NRDC, Sierra Club, FOE, and WWF,

having acted in collusion with or having improperly influenced the trustee and/or officers of NY-

SCRF, stole millions of dollars through each of these acts of diversion of NY-SCRF funds.


12

50. The rest of the Defendants aided or knowingly benefitted from these acts, so these two

acts of embezzlement or theft from a pension fund, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 664, is alleged

against all the Defendants.

51. Many of the beneficiaries of the NY-SCRF resided and still reside in Texas, including the

Northern District of Texas, at the time of the described events.

52. As of the date of this filing, Ceres’ website lists among Ceres Board Members the

following current and/or former officials of other pension funds:

a) Anne Stausboll, Ceres Board Chair, was CEO of CalPERS from January 2009 to June 2016.

She also served as the CalPERS Chief Operating Investment Officer and as Chief Deputy

Treasurer to the California State Treasurer.

b) Jack Ehnes, current CEO of CalSTRS.

c) Scott M. Stringer, current New York City Comptroller, Chief Financial Officer, an

investment advisor, custodian, and trustee of the City’s $155 Billion pension funds.

d) Betty T. Yee, current California State Controller and a Board Member of CalPERS and

CalSTRS, having a combined portfolio of nearly $500 billion.

e) Denise L. Nappier, current Treasurer of State of Connecticut, overseeing $29 Billion in

Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds.

53. As of the date of this filing, Ceres’ website lists the following Ceres Board Members who

are current and/or former officials of the Defendants:

a) Ashok Gupta, a “Senior Energy Economist” with the Defendant NRDC.

b) Michel Gelobter, an Advisory Board Member of the Defendant GIM-ACP and a Board

Member of the Defendant NRDC.

c) Adele Simmons, a Board Member of the Defendants UCS and Environmental Defense

Action Fund, and a former President of the Defendant MacArthur Foundation.

d) Tedd Saunders, a Board Member of the Defendants UCS and NRDC’s Environmental

Entrepreneurs.

54. As of the date of this filing, Ceres’ website lists the following members of the Ceres

President’s Council who are current and/or former officials of the Defendants:


13

a) Loren Blackford, a Treasurer of the Defendant Sierra Club and a former Treasurer of the

Defendant Sierra Club Foundation.

b) Shirley Weese Young, a Vice Chair of the Defendant Sierra Club Foundation.

55. As of the date of this filing, Ceres’ website lists Silda Spitzer among the members of the

Ceres President’s Council. Silda Spitzer is the Principal & Director of NewWorld Capital Group,

LLC, which describes itself as “a private equity firm investing in environmental opportunities.”

Silda Spitzer was married to Elliot Spitzer, former Governor of New York (2007-2008) and

Attorney General of New York (1999-2007), when he held these positions.

56. On information and belief, the Defendants also embezzled or stole from the California

pension funds and other pension funds whose trustees or officers were officials of Ceres.

57. On information and belief, the Defendants committed other thefts from pension funds

and/or funds connected with them.

58. Then CA Attorney General Kamala Harris, NY Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, and

MA Attorney General Maura Healey condoned or otherwise failed to investigate these acts, in

sharp contrast with their illegal investigations of the speech of ExxonMobil that did or did not

happen decades ago.

59. This is additional evidence that the Defendants bribed Kamala Harris and Eric

Schneiderman, alleged in the Original Complaint, para 140 – 141.

Dated February 21, 2017.

/s/ Leonid Goldstein

Leonid Goldstein, pro se

12501 Tech Ridge Blvd., #1535

Austin, TX 78753

(408) 921-1110

[email protected]


14

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on February 21, 2017, I caused the foregoing document to be electronically

transmitted to the Clerk of the Court using the ECF system for filing. A Notice of Electronic Filing

was transmitted to all ECF registrants.

/s/ Leonid Goldstein

Leonid Goldstein, pro se


united states district court for the …...2017/02/21 · defendant rbf together with its alter...

Documents