David Schnare Forced to Disgorge Dark Money From 'Free Market' Piggy Bank

authordefault
on

Lawyer David Schnare has made a career of suing and harassing climate scientists, abusing the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to demand masses of scientistsโ€™ emails and wasting peopleโ€™sย time.

Much of this work has been executed via a dark money-funded 501(c)(3) โ€œpublic charityโ€ called the Energy & Environment Legal Institute (EELI), where he was General Counsel among otherย roles.ย 

Schnareโ€™s work at EELI was often in conjunction with another shadowy group he founded, the Free Market Environmental Law Clinic (FMELC), which he co-founded in 2011 with long-time associate Chris Horner. These two groups dispute the scientific reality of climate change, and have made a business of targeting climate scientists with invasive and harassingย lawsuits.

FMELC recently imploded in spectacular fashion. Embroiled in multiple lawsuits and mired in infighting, the operation and legality of the โ€œpublic charityโ€ FMELC have been in heatedย dispute.

Recently, Schnare was ordered to disgorge $630,000 from FMELC, whose bank account he is alleged to have used as his own personalย bank.

While the source of all this money is unknown, Schnare and his groups have historically been bankrolled by fossil fuel interests, including Alpha Natural Resources, Arch Coal, Peabody Energy, and others undisclosed via the โ€œdark money ATMโ€ Donors Trust. (More on what we know about the funding sources isย below.)

What did they need all this money for? As part of their campaign of harassment, for many years, Schnare,ย EELI, and FMELC have pursued a court case against the University of Arizona and climate scientists Malcolm Hughes and Jonathan Overpeck, seeking the release of the scientists’ emails regarding their involvement in the development of peer-reviewed papers regarding the climate โ€œhockey stickโ€ circa 1999. This lawsuit is yet one more in an endless stream of denier attacks on the well-established temperature recordย science.

Now, FMELC has been consumed in its own litigation, a voluminous, mind-numbing legal battle between Schnare and another lawyer, Matthew Hardin, over the legal control of FMELC and its financial assets.ย The court filings were first summarizedย by:

Lachlan Markey, Daily Beast, Ex-EPA Officialโ€™s Legal Advocacy Outfit Embroiled in Vicious Leadership Struggleย 

and John Schwartz, NY Times, He Sues to Discredit Climate Scientists. Now Heโ€™s Being Sued by His Allies. Schwartz’s articleย begins:

โ€œDavid Schnareโ€™s conservative legal group seeks to expose science fraud. But it appears to be imploding amid allegations of financial mismanagement, attempted extortion and faked documents.
โ€ฆย 
The legal battle sprawls across three civil lawsuits filed against Mr. Schnare by Matthew Hardin, 28, the chairman of Free Marketโ€™s board. Neither side recognized the otherโ€™s claim of control, so the fight began with Free Market essentially suing itself.
If that sounds confusing, it certainly was to Chief Judge Bruce D. White of Fairfax County Circuit Court. โ€œWe have a plaintiff and defendant who are the same party,โ€ he said at a brief hearing here last month. โ€œThatโ€™s not something I see everyย day.โ€โ€

Below is a timeline of the development of FMELC โ€” originally called the George Mason Environmental Law Clinic (GMELC) โ€” in which I note the confusing course of events. As far as I can surmise, Schnare was essentially the sole practitioner behind FMELC, and effectively subcontracting to EELI in various roles, presumably getting paid, but also transferring money from FMELC to EELI.

The money flows are murky, and many questions remain about this activity. Schnare repeatedly obfuscated FMELC‘s financial information, but some clarity can be obtained by reviewing the court filings and IRS Formย 990s.

Hardinโ€™s April 2018 civil complaint suggests that Schnare acted as if FMELC was his personal piggy bank, p. 43 (emphasisย added):

โ€œ217. At the January 27, 2018 meeting, Schnare stated a willingness, should all of his conditions be met, to turn over โ€œ$600,000 or soโ€ of the, at the time, claimed $877,270.20.ย โ€ฆโ€โ€œ

218. At this January 27, 2018 meeting, Schnare informed Hardin that if the urge strikes him, after seeing how his demands are received, Schnare could make himself sole member, and,
โ€œIf l did; all that money in the bank, is mine,ย personally.โ€

219. Schnare already confessed, moments before, that โ€œit has never beenย mine.โ€

220. Schnare stated later, despite that ”I could do any fricking thing I wantedโ€, he did not want to do this, as ”That is not what I want to have to go in front of a judge and have to dealย with.โ€

221. One consistent thread running between these threats and demands is Schnare’s refusal to allow any party to review Free Market’s financialย history

222. Schnare’s self-created troubles with Free Market’s finances have, like his fear of exposure for his original errors in Free Market’s legal organization, proved to be compounding factors in the original malpractice, and drivers of the recent behavior further compounding hisย malpractice.โ€

End of the cases โ€” Schnare forced to give back his piggyย bank

On August 27, 2018, a Virginia state judge entered an order (view excerpts) declaring that the โ€œParties have entered into a Settlement Agreementโ€ under which Schnare and his co-defendant Chaim Mandelbaum, another attorney who joined FMELC, would returnย $630,000.

The judge dismissed the three related cases โ€œwith prejudice,โ€ meaning do not come back, but it is worth examining the cases to get more insight into Schnare’sย behavior.

Schnare wastes scientistsโ€™ time, but calls requests to himย โ€œburdensomeโ€

In the University of Arizona case mentioned above, Schnare sought to use open records laws to obtain 13 years of emails from two climate scientists at the University of Arizona.ย The case has been cited by legal scholars as a prime example of legal abuse, and it has been a massive time suck for the university and itsย scientists.

Dr. Hughes testified it took him ten weeks to go through all the emails, and he lost an entire research summer to reviewing old emails as well as losing a grant that expired. Dr. Overpeck testified it took him six weeks to go through everything and he was unable to use his sabbatical. Recent Arizona court filings in this case show that document review is still ongoing; a court has ordered that the university produce the first set of emails by Novemberย 30.ย 

(In the course of this University of Arizona litigation, Schnare also filed falsified documents with the court, as part of his typical strategy that imposes huge timewasting efforts and expense onย scientists.)

Meanwhile, in the Virginia litigation over FMELC, in filing-2, EXHIBIT B, Schnare responded to 46 requests for documents, denying almost all. Some of these may be fair, but basically, he tried to reject almost all discovery, despite his own career of trying to force far less relevant disclosures from climate scientists.ย  A rundown of hisย objections:ย 

ย  5ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย overly broad and unduly burdensome
15ย  ย  ย  ย  ย more convenient, less burdensome, and less expensive effort (to get from Plaintiff)
ย  9ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย  unreasonably cumulative and duplicative, plaintiff already has or will have them.
ย  2ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย  discovery of electronically stored information is not reasonably accessible because of undue burden of cost
ย  1ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย  vague and ambiguous
ย  1ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย  personal income tax returns are protected by a qualified privilege
12ย  ย  ย  ย  ย  has none
ย  1ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย  Document attached
46ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย Total

Schnare’s opponent in the Virginia case, Matthew Hardin, wrote, in filing-2:

โ€œThese discovery responses were almost entirely evasive andย non-responsive.โ€ย 

Governance,ย none?

The IRS actually expects real 501(c)(3) public charities to have real Boards, not shams.ย Schnare’s Form 990s listed Steven Gold and Michael Thompson as board members every year, not proof that the board was a fake, but a suggestion that board activity was less than robust.

In his own legal briefs in the Virginia case, Schnare himselfย asserted:

โ€œIn the instant case, the Law Clinic was never incorporated. It never had a Board of Directors that was qualified to supervise or direct the Law Clinic. Regardless of the lack of qualification, the Board never took any action to direct or manage the Law Clinic for the first 6 years of the Law Clinic’s existence. Indeed, from 2011 until late in 2017, the Board never evenย met.โ€

GMELC/FMELC IRS Form 990s were at best misleading, as in 2015 & 2016 Part VI had โ€œYesโ€ boxes checked:
Reading this, one might think there actually was a governing body that had meetings.

Dark money โ€” $ to both FMELC and EELI, but also FMELC => EELI

As usual, such โ€œcharitiesโ€ do not identify the sources of their funds, but the Kochs’ and their alliesโ€™ primary โ€œanonymizersโ€ย Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund were used. The IRS Form 990s are rather opaque, since Schnare is a key person in both FMELC and EELI.

Donors Trust supplied $750K to FMELC, 30% of its total income, most of which went to the vague โ€œLegalโ€ category, but $245,593ย got transferred to EELI, almost 10% of its income. FMELC (Schnare) acted as legal counsel for EELI, which spent 50+% on Legal and Management.

With poor governance and money sloshing back and forth, it is hard to know how much landed in Schnareโ€™s pockets โ€” perhaps why Hardin asked for his taxย returns.

ย โ€œFalsus in uno, falsus inย omnibusโ€

This legal principle says that a witness who testifies falsely on one thing is not credible on others. Schnare submitted a court filing with false words attributed to Steve Schneider, the FMELC court cases are filled with allegations of misbehavior, and he had to return the money he claimed he couldย keep.

The University of Arizona will soon release scientists’ emails (per the EELI open records lawsuit), and should Schnare comment on them, bear this history inย mind.

Related Posts

The EU and many member states have set limits for how much manure farmers are allowed to apply in their fields, but crucial oversight is lacking.

The EU and many member states have set limits for how much manure farmers are allowed to apply in their fields, but crucial oversight is lacking.
on

Robert Wilkie was speaking at a conference co-hosted by the group behind the radical Project 2025 agenda.

Robert Wilkie was speaking at a conference co-hosted by the group behind the radical Project 2025 agenda.
on

Scope of corporate influence underscores concerns the technology will be used to prolong demand for planet-heating natural gas.

Scope of corporate influence underscores concerns the technology will be used to prolong demand for planet-heating natural gas.
on

A 1961 oil and gas well is the suspected source of a geyser eruption in the region where Permian wastewater disposal is causing a flurry of earthquakes.

A 1961 oil and gas well is the suspected source of a geyser eruption in the region where Permian wastewater disposal is causing a flurry of earthquakes.