{"id":256996,"date":"2023-05-11T21:00:27","date_gmt":"2023-05-11T19:00:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=256996"},"modified":"2023-05-11T21:00:37","modified_gmt":"2023-05-11T19:00:37","slug":"si-kinsella-vs-south-fork-wind-boem-et-al","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=256996","title":{"rendered":"SI KINSELLA vs. SOUTH FORK WIND, BOEM, et al."},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From Master<\/strong>Resource<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By Sherri Lange — May 10, 2023<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ed. Note<\/strong>: Si Kinsella is a resident of Suffolk County New York, a seaside community that is a staging area for South Fork Wind<\/a>, a 132 MW, 15-turbine project located 35 miles offshore. He is representing himself on behalf of his neighbors. While not asking for damages, Kinsella is suing to ensure that the ecological protocols are met and that the project\u2019s economics are fairly represented. Kinsella is asking Injunctive Relief: Disclose, Dismantle, Remove, and Restore.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cMr. Kinsella repeats that the case is not about the construction methods of South West Wind, but rather is about the failure of BOEM (Bureau of Ocean Energy Management), to uphold legal principles of environmental review and oversight, water quality assurance, due process, and compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Relying on fraudulent materials, the permit was granted full sway.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Citing fraudulent representations and permits to South Fork Wind by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), plaintiff Si Kinsella states:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Disturbingly, the case against BOEM concerning South Fork Wind proved beyond a reasonable doubt that BOEM acted in the interests of a private developer against <\/em>U.S. interests.  It appears the administration has handed over management of U.S. offshore resources on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf to a law firm representing foreign <\/em>offshore wind developers.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

I last wrote<\/a> about Si Kinsella\u2019s now well-known legal challenge to South Fork Wind:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cMr. Kinsella (profile in Appendix A<\/strong>) claims egregious levels of disregard for process, legalities, and public health and environmental concerns. Defendants at District Court, District of Columbia are the Department of the Interior, and Honorable Deb Haaland, US Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, and US Environmental Protection Agency, and Honorable Michael S. Regan.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Even more egregious levels of disregard for legalities and public health and environmental concerns are now evident. More hands appear in the cookie jar.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

 Si Kinsella\u2019s recent message to supporters:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

A storm is brewing in Washington, D.C. It concerns the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM)<\/a>[1]<\/sup><\/a> and its environmental review of South Fork Wind.  Since my last South Fork Wind update (November 16, 2022), the nature and extent of BOEM\u2019s fraudulent representations have been receiving more attention, especially by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Questions are being asked.  Why did BOEM fraudulently represent groundwater quality as \u201cgood\u201d and conceal harmful PFAS contamination; materially misstate the project\u2019s socioeconomic impact by excluding the single largest financial item, the cost of $2 billion; falsely state population-level effects on Atlantic Cod; leave out a viable alternative (Sunrise Wind), that intervenors did<\/em> discuss during the state review; ignore procurement irregularities; and rely on an inaccurate purpose and needs statement?  BOEM acknowledged receiving detailed information on these issues but failed to address them and did not require South Fork Wind to correct the inconsistencies.  Instead, BOEM falsified the review to cover up the project\u2019s many failings.  The case against BOEM is fraud. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit is arguably the second highest court in the land (second only to the U.S. Supreme Court).  Before the Court is a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus, asking the Court to issue an order mandating that the lower court reverse a decision.  If the Court of Appeals believes a Petition lacks merit, it may deny it without an answer.  However, in this case,<\/a>[2]<\/sup><\/a> the Court ordered BOEM and <\/em>South Fork Wind to respond to the Petition (which they did on March 27, 2023).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The D.C. Circuit must give a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus preference over ordinary civil cases.  The last time the D.C. Circuit heard such a petition was in 2020, regarding Michael T. Flynn making false statements to FBI agents (denied<\/em>)[3]<\/sup><\/a> and former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton involving a deposition request (granted<\/em>).[4]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

 Today\u2019s required reading is the Reply to Federal Defendants\u2019 Response to the Petition (attached).  The Reply is not long.  It is worth reading because it provides context (you\u2019ll understand when you read it).  Note that the Petition uses Federal Defendants, principally BOEM but includes the EPA and Department of the Interior.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

 Exhibits are available at www.oswSouthFork.info\/boem<\/a>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Please see the Organization Chart, \u201cOrg Chart\u201d (attached).  It shows the hierarchy of those responsible for approving and overseeing U.S. history\u2019s most significant construction program in largely undeveloped environments on the Outer Continental Shelf (up to 45.3 million acres, Exhibit 5<\/a>).  It shows that Deputy Secretary of the Department of the Interior, Tommy Beaudreau, earned $2.4 million in partnership income at Latham & Watkins (reported in 2020).  According to Mr. Beaudreau\u2019s Nominations Report (2020), he received compensation from many offshore wind companies, including \u00d8rsted and DE Shaw. <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

\n

DE Shaw owned South Fork Wind (formerly Deepwater Water Wind South Fork) before selling it to \u00d8rsted.  In 2021, BOEM approved South Fork Wind based on a fraudulent environmental review.  The Director of BOEM, now Elizabeth Klein (see below), also worked for Latham & Watkins but now reports to the Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management, Laura Daniel-Davis, who also worked for Latham & Watkins.  In this case, the three partners representing South Fork Wind work at Latham & Watkins. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Earlier this year, I had cause to file a complaint against those Latham & Watkins partners for knowingly providing false information (in this instance, lying) to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.  Latham & Watkins is a major law firm advising offshore wind developers.  Disturbingly, the case against BOEM concerning South Fork Wind proved beyond a reasonable doubt that BOEM acted in the interests of a private developer against <\/em>U.S. interests.  It appears the administration has handed over management of U.S. offshore resources on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf to a law firm representing foreign <\/em>offshore wind developers. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

For specific details about this case and the underlying facts, read Exhibit 11<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

 Finally, although it has been kept quiet, you may have heard that the Director of BOEM, Amanda Lefton, abruptly resigned (on January 19, 2023).<\/a>[5]<\/sup><\/a>  I cannot say for sure<\/em>, but it may<\/em> have had something to do with being explicitly named in reference to (seven) allegations of fraud.<\/a>[6]<\/sup><\/a>  Amanda Lefton resigned soon after testimony (Exhibit 11<\/a>) supporting the fraud allegations was filed in a related case (before the same court).<\/a>[7]<\/sup><\/a>  Also, I\u2019m sure it was a coincidence that Supervisor Peter Van Scoyoc and Councilwoman Sylvia Overby announced they would not seek re-election that same week.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

An update on recent developments regarding EMF emissions will follow soon, as well as PFAS contamination.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

A few paragraphs from the Reply to Federal Defendants.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

In July 2022, Petitioner filed a Complaint against Federal Defendants\u2013\u2013 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Department of the Interior (DOI), and Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) (22- v-02147, ECF 1). <\/em>The Complaint alleges reckless violations of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), and violation of petitioner\u2019s Constitutional rights to due process.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On November 2, 2022, Petitioner filed (as of right) First Amended Complaint (id.<\/em>, ECF 34-2) that includes eight new individuals working for BOEM and new claims regarding seven instances where BOEM falsified material facts in its environmental review. BOEM\u2019s fraudulent representations benefited the developer to the public detriment. The proposal is for an offshore wind farm with onshore transmission facilities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

USCA Case #22-5317 Document #1994449 Filed: 04\/12\/2023 Page 4 of 22, referencing original Claims alleged in Complaint (July 20, 2022)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Claim Violation Federal Defendants\u2019 failure to<\/strong>\u2013\u2013<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

1 NEPA Include adverse environmental impacts<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2 NEPA Assume responsibility for environmental analyses<\/p>\n\n\n\n

3 NEPA Evaluate and verify information<\/p>\n\n\n\n

4 CZMA Verify Federal Consistency Certification<\/p>\n\n\n\n

5 NEPA Specify an underlying purpose or need<\/p>\n\n\n\n

6 NEPA Consider viable alternatives<\/p>\n\n\n\n

7 OCSLA Guarantee safety and environmental safeguards<\/p>\n\n\n\n

8 OCSLA Ensure proper environmental safeguards<\/p>\n\n\n\n

9 OCSLA Ensure consistency with maintenance of competition<\/p>\n\n\n\n

10 EO 12898 Comply with Executive Order: environmental justice<\/p>\n\n\n\n

11 US Constitution: Comply with Due Process Clause<\/p>\n\n\n\n

12 FOIA Failure to comply with FOIA & NEPA<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

New claims alleged in First Amended Complaint (November 2, 2022)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Claim Violation<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Federal Defendants\u2019 Fraudulent statements<\/strong> regarding<\/strong>\u2013\u2013<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

13 FRAUD Adverse population-level impacts on Atlantic cod<\/p>\n\n\n\n

14 FRAUD Adverse socioeconomic impact: Project Cost ($2 bn)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

15 FRAUD Water quality: PFAS Contamination<\/p>\n\n\n\n

16 FRAUD The BOEM\u2019s Purpose and Needs Statement<\/p>\n\n\n\n

17 FRAUD The Sunrise Wind Alternative<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Mr. Kinsella repeats that the case is not about the construction methods of South West Wind, but rather is about the failure of BOEM (Bureau of Energy Management), to uphold legal principles of environmental review and oversight, water quality assurance, due process, and compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Relying on fraudulent materials, the permit was granted full sway.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A few more paragraphs outlining the denial to Justice and obfuscation of issues.<\/p>\n\n\n\n