I can’t say that this is how all overreaching government authorities should be answered, but it does set an inspirational example. At the Daily Caller Michael Bastach explains:
Alex Epstein had a terse response to a subpoena sent by Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey Wednesday.
Healey demanded the oil giant ExxonMobil hand over 40 years of documents, including information pertaining to the company’s dealings with about a dozen think tanks and trade associations, which have been targeted by environmental groups for opposing left-wing global warming policies.
Healey’s subpoena targeted the Center for Industrial Progress (CIP), a for-profit think tank founded by Epstein. Epstein wasn’t exactly happy about being targeted for disagreeing with Healey on global warming, so he sent the AG’s office the following response…
Here is the response:
My response to Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey. pic.twitter.com/lFFhIPFMls
— Alex Epstein (@AlexEpstein) June 15, 2016
The Massachusetts Attorney General is in bad company. Healey is running in a crowd that includes Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson, as Center of the American Experiment’s Tom Steward notes here. Swanson is keeping her head down on her misadventures but Bastach identifies a few others who are not so shy.
ExxonMobil has responded to Healey’s subpoena the old-fashioned way, filing suit against her to bar enforcement of the subpoena. The Washington Times leads off its account of ExxonMobil’s response with Epstein’s response.
The Boston Herald also reports on ExxonMobil’s response to Healey’s subpoena. ExxonMobil has filed suit against Healey in federal court in Texas, protesting that the subpoena exceeds the authority of the attorney general. ExxonMobil contends that the law Healey uses carries a 4-year statute of limitations, and that the company hasn’t sold fuel, owned a retail location, or sold securities in Massachusetts in that time. Epstein’s response cuts to the chase in a way that ought to ring a bell in the home of the Boston Tea Party (1773 edition).
Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.