My list of “ExxonKnew” lawsuits I’ve dissected<\/a> mentions at the top how it excludes American filings which never bring up the accusation about ‘liars-for-hire<\/a> scientists on the payroll of Big Oil<\/em>.’ Same actually applies to lawsuits filed outside of the U.S., such as the Peruvian Farmer’s one against a German energy company<\/a> and Greenpeace’s one against an Italian energy company<\/a>. Regarding this one filed in the UK on Dec 9th, a.k.a. “Casquejo and others v Shell plc<\/em><\/a>” I cannot yet find the actual document that was filed. When I do, I will either amend this post to say there’s no “crooked skeptic scientists” accusation within it … or else I’ll dissect it as Part 2. What I have spotted – almost immediately in news reports after being alerted to it – are tell-tale indicators which prompts me to wager it will<\/em> mimic the U.S. ones. Observe the following: <\/p>\n \u2022 Wall Street Journal<\/em>\u2019s report<\/a>, which has this in paragraph 6<\/a>: [Shell] received a letter before court action in October from London<\/em>*<\/strong>*<\/strong> law firm Hausfeld and Co., on behalf of the claimants<\/em> … \u00a0**<\/strong>Hausfeld LLP is actually an American law firm<\/a> that happens to have additional offices in London and elsewhere around the world (BTW, attorney Matt Pawa worked at Michael Hausfeld’s prior law firm<\/a> – hold that thought about the “Pawa” name for just a few moments).<\/p>\n The Hausfeld LLP law firm name in direct connection with this Casquejo<\/em> filing is a big trouble sign.<\/strong> I first mentioned the firm as a questionable entrant into the climate litigation lawfare arena in the update section at the top of my May 2024 blog post<\/a> about the Michigan Attorney General selecting that firm as one of the three firms (they got 3rd billing<\/a>) she wants to assist her in her still-to-be-filed state lawsuit against energy companies. Not helping either the Hausfeld firm or Michigan AG Dana Nessel is her other choice of assisting law firms, namely Sher Edling. That<\/em> Sher Edling, of boilerplate copy lawsuit<\/a> fame where their repetitions routinely contain four totally false accusation elements<\/a> to support their claims that the fossil fuel industry ran ‘disinformation campaigns.’ If AG Nessel does eventually file an “ExxonKnew”-style lawsuit, it’s a sure bet it’ll be another predictable Sher Edling copy. Why AG Nessel would need anyone else to assist besides Sher Edling is itself a question that should warrant deep investigation by major authorities. Hausfeld had no prior experience at that time with global warming lawsuits, while Sher Edling was already up to their 19th boilerplate copy – or their 20th, if the Pennsylvania Bucks County v. BP<\/em> filing counts, from it being essentially a plagiarized copy<\/a> of Sher Edling’s 19th. I’ve already detailed how the climate litigation lawfare effort is plagued with apparent instances of unexplained plagiarism<\/a>.<\/p>\n Things get one increment more questionable surrounding Hausfeld’s top-billing foray into climate lawfare via this brand new UK lawsuit. I mentioned them a second time at the end of my dissection of Sher Edling’s Nov 2024 Maine v BP<\/em><\/a> boilerplate copy filing – assisting Maine AG Aaron Frey at the third billing level<\/a> on the very last<\/em><\/strong> page of the lawsuit (after<\/em> DiCello Levitt<\/a>, the alleged\u00a0‘main handlers<\/a>\u2019 of Bucks County<\/em>). At Hausfeld’s own website – the same website as the one about their UK Shell filing – they imply they<\/em> represent the state of Maine as though no other firm is involved<\/a>. As showed at the bottom of my dissection of Kennedy v Exxon<\/em><\/a> (which is apparently a quite obvious plagiarized copy of Sher Edling filings) the three attorney figures who figure into that Kennedy<\/em> filing situation – including Matt ‘the legal brains<\/a> behind climate lawfare litigation<\/em>\u2019 Pawa – pretend like they never talk<\/a> to each other. Seemingly in a breach about keeping behind-the-scenes associations quiet, Hausfeld does dare to mention another firm associated with these lawsuits in a single instance — but with guess who that is? Sher Edling<\/a>.<\/strong><\/p>\n Now, observe the other potential tell-tale indicator that this UK lawsuit against Shell has the “crooked skeptics” accusation:<\/p>\n \u2022 From the “EnergyVoice” website, we see this<\/a>, “Hausfeld said Shell\u2019s own records show it had known<\/strong> about the risks of climate change for decades …It also alleges the company engaged in \u201cclimate misinformation<\/strong> and denial\u201d that delayed action to curb global emissions<\/em>.” See how this all stacks up in a way that’s not helpful for the folks pushing climate litigation lawsuits? If Greenpeace Philippines put out that ‘Franta bit’ because it is in the actual Hausfeld UK lawsuit document where they cite him as one of their ‘evidence’ sources, it doesn’t look good in the least how this newest of all climate damages lawsuits may plunge off a precipitous credibility cliff even higher that what the current U.S. “ExxonKnew” lawsuits have flown off, … whereupon those with then crash right after it, exposing where the real disinformation has been in the climate issue for the last nearly thirty years.<\/p>\n Stay tuned for when the actual Casquejo<\/em> lawsuit document is finally seen in public view ……<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" My list of “ExxonKnew” lawsuits I’ve dissected mentions at the top how it excludes American filings which never bring up the accusation about ‘liars-for-hire scientists on the payroll of Big Oil.’ Same actually applies to lawsuits filed outside of the … Continue reading
\n\u2022 Philstar Global<\/a><\/em> (Philippines online news site, paragraph 3<\/a>): The lawsuit, brought by British<\/em>*<\/strong>*<\/strong> law firm Hausfeld on behalf of 103 survivors<\/em> …
\n\u2022 Hausfeld LLP’s own website<\/a> confirms the bit in the WSJ<\/em> article about their pre-action letter<\/a> submitted to Shell.<\/p>\n
\n\u2022 From the Guardian<\/em> newspaper<\/a>, the clickable link<\/a> for its “Leaked internal documents<\/em>” words goes to Kert Davies’ Climate Investigations Center<\/a> (CIC) website. Davies, as I compiled at my Background post on him here<\/a>, is one of the central-most enviro-activist figures who’ve been promulgating false accusations against skeptic climate scientists since the late 1990s.
\n\u2022 From the Greenpeace Philippines website<\/a> specifically set up to promote this UK lawsuit, the clickable link for its words<\/a> “The case also argues that “Shell has known since 1965<\/em>” goes to Ben Franta’s PhD thesis<\/a> written for the degree fulfillment of – not a climate science degree, but instead a Philosophy<\/em> degree<\/a>. It’s the very same Franta thesis I took apart in my March 2024 “Reposition Graduate Degrees as Theory rather than Fact \u2014 the Climate Homicide Litigation version<\/a>” blog post. Franta’s PhD paper was a principal citation source<\/a> for an enviro-activist who’s trying to float the idea that fossil fuel industry executives are guilty of ‘climate homicide.’ That<\/em> Franta, as I’ve detailed in several of my blog posts, who is only separated by a degree<\/a> or three from all the other promulgators of the false accusations<\/a> about industry-corrupted skeptic climate scientists. He seems to be a bit careless<\/a> over that appearance<\/a>. Oblivious to his own carelessness<\/a>. This is the same Ben Franta who I suggested<\/a> in my April 2022 blog post<\/a> was one of the weaker links in the chain of accusers who claim fossil fuel industry disinformation campaigns happened.<\/p>\n