It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Report: Climate Provision Would Allow Global Warming 'Victims' to Sue

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 11 2009 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Report: Climate Provision Would Allow Global Warming 'Victims' to Sue


www.foxnews.com

An under-the-radar provision in a House climate bill would give plaintiffs who claim to be victims of global warming a way to sue the federal government or businesses, according to a report Friday in The Washington Times.
(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit on 11-4-2009 by TheAssociate]

Edit to fix the title

[edit on 11-4-2009 by TheAssociate]




posted on Apr, 11 2009 @ 05:52 PM
link   
This is interesting. If this passes, the floodgate for frivolous law suits would swing wide open. Why is this even being considered? Global warming has yet to be proven and yet, someone, somewhere decided that people should be allowed to sue if they feel it has affected them. Ridiculous. (i did a search and didn't see this anywhere, and breaking news was the only place it seemed appropriate to put it, please correct me if i'm wrong).


TheAssociate

www.foxnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Apr, 11 2009 @ 05:54 PM
link   
Oh dear god. I burned my finger on the hot metal outside because the sun is too hot.

Mr. President, I want compensation for my physical and psychological trauma!

Seriously though, what are they thinking... This is a horrible Idea.



posted on Apr, 11 2009 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by TheAssociate
 


Just what we need, more lawsuits. Well, it's to be expected. Obama and the Democrats owe much of their success to the American Bar Association and the Trial Lawyers Association, that contributed heavily to their campaigns. This is just payback for that support.

[edit on 11-4-2009 by ProfEmeritus]



posted on Apr, 11 2009 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Tentickles
 


Exactly! It's this kind of (for lack of a better term) dumbassery that's causing our taxes and the prices of things we need to skyrocket. How the heck do you prove that a theory has negatively affected you?


TheAssociate



posted on Apr, 11 2009 @ 06:08 PM
link   
Where would they draw the line?
For example: my electric bill is huge, and increasing, so anything over the stardard cost of living in increases, technically could be from "global warming"
I really hope they understand how BIG these implications are, and how far they could be taken!



posted on Apr, 11 2009 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Doc Holiday
 





Where would they draw the line?


Another good point. I'm wondering if this is going to be used to extort companies into "going green" in the event that the cap and trade scheme doesn't go through. Isn't there a law against suing the government? If so, that would mean that this legislation is directed ONLY at companies, and that the "sue the government" part is just there to make it look pretty.

[edit on 11-4-2009 by TheAssociate]



posted on Apr, 11 2009 @ 06:22 PM
link   
here are some more links on the topic, i'm still reading them but i though i'd post them for everyone:

Washington Times

newsreleasewire.com

myfox dallas/fortworth

Red Green and Blue


TheAssociate

edit to add a link

[edit on 11-4-2009 by TheAssociate]



posted on Apr, 11 2009 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Environmentalists say the measure was narrowly crafted to give citizens the unusual standing to sue the U.S. government as a way to force action on curbing emissions.

source

So, the greenies are planning to use this to extort tax payers into joining their cause...classy



Under the House bill, if a judge rules against the government, new rules would have to be drafted to alleviate the problems associated with climate change. If a judge rules against a company, the company would have to purchase additional "carbon emission allowances" through a cap-and-trade program that is to be created by Congress.

source

And, not only are they going to extort us by causing an increase in taxes, they're going to force businesses to purchase "carbon credits," thus raising the prices of goods and services...classier still


The "citizen suit" would allow people to force government action on climate change

source

What happened to putting these things to a vote? I suppose democracy just isn't enough to appease these people. This is getting ludicrous.


TheAssociate



posted on Apr, 11 2009 @ 08:15 PM
link   
It shows that the whole MMGW is complete BS if they are having to resort to these bully tactics to get what they want.

If it was legit, they'd need proof before they could legislate, but they don't have any because it isn't, so they have to resort to this.


When will people wake up and realize this is all a complete fabrication in the name of $$$$$$$ ??????

[edit on 11-4-2009 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on Apr, 11 2009 @ 08:18 PM
link   
I sure hope Al Gore is contacting his lawyers 'cause this is going to get ugly.
To all the young folks out there that haven't chosen a career yet, consider becoming a lawyer.



posted on Apr, 11 2009 @ 08:20 PM
link   
Two thoughts occur to me;

One

Is it that the oft-quoted 'problem, reaction, solution' could be applied to this scenario? It is possible that the entire point of this is to allow dozens of overlapping and superfluous lawsuit to be brought just to instigate the impetus for new legislation, further protecting the Federal government (as a corporate entity) from being accountable for actions they take that damage - not only the environment - but people?

Silly perhaps, but not out of the question. The "Health Care Industry" saved billion upon billions once the government instituted that 'anti-frivolous' legislation on behalf of the AMA.

Two

Why is it assumed that lawsuit brought are frivolous in the first place? Isn't the whole point for the Judicial Branch to decide their validity? I mean, are you all saying that ANY suit brought would be frivolous; if so, based on what premise?



posted on Apr, 11 2009 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by mirageofdeceit
 





If it was legit, they'd need proof before they could legislate


Exactly. All they have is computer models based on questionable input data. You put BS into a computer, you get BS out of it. This whole thing is a scam cooked up by the likes of the trilateral commission and the bilderbergers to scare the sheeple into allowing them to further their NWO agenda, while lining the pockets of the members of said groups. Most of the so-called "environmentalists" are brainwashed pawns. The rest, such as al gore realize this is a scam and are using it for monetary gain.


TheAssociate



posted on Apr, 11 2009 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 





are you all saying that ANY suit brought would be frivolous; if so, based on what premise?


Until there is concrete proof that global warming actually exists, yes, i would consider all suits in the matter frivolous on the aforementioned premise.

As for the 'problem, reaction, solution' theory, i certainly wouldn't put it past them to try something like that. Logically, there's really few other valid reasons for them to open themselves up to lawsuits in this manner.

Thanks for the replies, everyone!

TheAssociate

Edit to discuss your other point

[edit on 11-4-2009 by TheAssociate]

[edit on 11-4-2009 by TheAssociate]

[edit on 11-4-2009 by TheAssociate]



posted on Apr, 11 2009 @ 09:37 PM
link   
Just what the courts need is something else to backlog the system.

A civil suit in Calif now takes about 7 to 9 years just to get into the court room.

In Calif many of the 'victims' are likely to find the company they are suing is out of business and bankrupt before the case get to court.

I put this law as the "environmental lawyer full employment act"


If i own one of these companies i would set up a shell company and after getting a number of these cases against my company i would cook the books and file bankruptcy and move out side the US with my money.



posted on Apr, 11 2009 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by ANNED
 





If i own one of these companies i would set up a shell company and after getting a number of these cases against my company i would cook the books and file bankruptcy and move out side the US with my money.


That's exactly the sort of crooked behavior companies in this country are going to have to resort to, to remain profitable. People complain about outsourcing and then push legislation like to cause more of it. I honestly think the left has some kind of masochistic dream of ending productivity in this country.


TheAssociate



posted on Apr, 11 2009 @ 10:00 PM
link   
It sounds dirty.
I guess- they want the masses on the side of allowing weather manipulation efforts.
(it's already taking place - but the masses don't believe it yet)....
If a bunch of people say they are being affected by global warming -
then all the better -
get those planes up there and "save the people" with the geo-engineering of the weather.
Sounds dirty.



posted on Apr, 11 2009 @ 11:35 PM
link   
reply to post by spinkyboo
 


You're right, allowing lawsuits would go a long way in giving credence to the greenie's, and vicariously the NWO's cause. They need for people to believe the hype so they can further their agenda, and what better way than to make the imaginary seem true than to put it on trial?


TheAssociate



posted on Apr, 11 2009 @ 11:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheAssociate
reply to post by spinkyboo
 


You're right, allowing lawsuits would go a long way in giving credence to the green's, and vicariously the NWO's cause. They need for people to believe the hype so they can further their agenda, and what better way than to make the imaginary seem true than to put it on trial.


This may backfire. Can the Green's prove in court that global warming is real.

I believe head to head the Green's would lose in court trying to prove global warming is real.

This is why they will not and have never debated global warming.

If you add into the equation the fact that less then 50% in the US believe that global warming is caused by man. you may find it will be hard to find a jury to vote for the environmentalist.
people-press.org...
in court for a civil case you need a 75% majority to win a law suit.

I don't believe the greens can get that with any fair jury and only by using a stacked jury would they win in many cases.

That means that most lawyers would never take this type case and the few environmental lawyers that do will will work for the environmental groups and where they are getting paid to harass companies even though they can never win.



posted on Apr, 11 2009 @ 11:58 PM
link   
Legally, it is already void.

They will be sueing for GLOBAL WARMING when the technical termed is now CLIMATE CHANGE according the greenies.

Maybe we can get the cases thrown out on a technicality.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join