WolfeNotes.com

Federalist Society, Corporate Hired Gun, Defender Of Corruption

[Update: 4/15/25 – In the Supreme Court’s remand to the District Court, the Trump Department of Justice is filing briefs that quote a foreign fascist dictator.

Check out the bio of the lawyer who signed that statement: Joseph N. Mazzara.

A Christian conservative (authoritarian? fascist?) catholic University undergrad and a far right Koch Brothers funded law school (Scalia Law at George Mason University). For an in depth understanding of the role of George Mason in the Koch Brothers funded Federalist Society staffed right wing conspiracy, read Nancy MacLean’s book “Democracy In Chains”.

The Trump regime is not a “meritocracy”, it’s a conspiracy and fascist consolidation. ~~~ end update.]

Sometimes the facts are stranger than dystopian Surrealism

The Trump Justice Department just locked into a Constitutional crisis by explicitly defying an Order of a federal District Court judge – NY Times reports that this defiance has created a Constitutional crisis regarding the separation of powers:

The Trump administration on Friday defied a federal judge’s order to provide an explanation for how it intended to bring back to the United States a Maryland man who was unlawfully deported to El Salvador last month. ‘…..

The administration’s refusal to comply with Judge Xinis’s directives put it on a collision course with the judge and threatened to erupt into a showdown between the executive and judicial branches.

The Supreme Court set up this crisis by ruling that the federal judge hearing the case must (read the Court’s Order)

clarify its directive, with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs

That no doubt signals that the Court will limit the scope of judicial review to exclude Commander in Chief AND foreign policy and further empower Trump’s already dictatorial powers and immunity previously created by the Supreme Court.

The Times’ story cited and linked to an “aggressive two page brief”, so of course I had to read it.

With all the recent focus on legal ethics and multiple resignations at the Trump Justice Department, I noted the Acting Assistant Attorney General who signed the brief was one Yaakov M. Roth.

A quick Google of Mr. Roth tells an incredible story of corruption – including a perfect illustration and validation of US Senator Whitehouse’s multiple reports on how corporate right wing money and the Federalist Society have corrupted the Supreme Court. You can’t make this stuff up.

So, here’s a thumbnail sketch of Mr. Roth’s “works”. We’ll start with his links to New Jersey’s dirty political corruption.

Mr. Roth argued and won the Bridgegate case before the US Supreme Court and bragged about it:

“Describe your biggest win or accomplishment in practice.

My biggest accomplishment was convincing the Supreme Court to review my client’s convictions arising out of the “Bridgegate” scandal, and then to reverse those convictions unanimously on the legal theory I had developed. It was a major victory for both my client and the rule of law.”

https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/2020/08/03/dc-rising-stars-yaakov-roth-35/?slreturn=20250411192335

In case you forgot, here’s a analysis of the Supreme Court’s Bridgegate decision:

https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/05/opinion-analysis-unanimous-court-throws-out-bridgegate-convictions/

Mr. Roth was a corporate hired big gun before joining the Justice Department as an Assistant Attorney General:

“Yaakov Moshe Roth is a partner in the Washington D.C. office of Jones Day. His goal is to strategically develop and effectively present the key legal arguments that will secure victory for clients through appellate advocacy and dispositive motions.”

https://www.ali.org/profile/1523

The Federalist Society lists him – where he cites vindication of Virginia Gov. from corruption charges as a key accomplishment:

https://fedsoc.org/contributors/yaakov-jacob-roth

He argued the case that killed EPA climate regulations. The Reuters bio story on Roth doesn’t mention the Bridgegate case or the Federalist Society, but it does mention how he killed EPA climate regulations:

“At Jones Day, Roth argued and won three cases at the U.S. Supreme Court. In one, he convinced the high court in 2022 to limit the power of federal agencies to curb fossil fuel emissions.”

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-justice-department-taps-another-jones-day-lawyer-senior-role-2025-02-22/

Roth clerked at the Supreme Court, so perhaps he’s had beers with Jersey Boy Justice Sam Alito and his flag flying wife.

According to his bio, Roth was raised in Toronto and attended York University in Canada and Harvard Law School.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/yaakov-roth-a94375106/

Ironically, while I found strong support for him from Israeli groups, I can find no evidence that he is a US Citizen.

And all that is Quite the background of someone leading the legal attacks on the US Constitution’s First Amendment and due process, as well as birthright citizenship and illegal deportation of legal migrants to concentration camps in defiance of federal Court Orders.

Perhaps he’ll wind up as a colleague of “torture memo” author John Yoo at Berkeley Law School.

DEP Strategy To Enroll 100,000 Acres Of Forest In “Carbon Market”

Public Trust Managed Like A Wall Street Commodity

Wall Street Billionaire Influencing DEP Forest Management Policy

Lately, it seems like under every rock I turn over in the Murphy DEP’s backyard I find lofty goals and appealing slogans used to justify toothless or flat out rotten policies and programs.

Working on a forestry issue this morning, I came across and scanned the Murphy DEP’s Natural And Working Lands Strategy (May, 2024).

But who are those lands really working for?

Under the guise of the climate emergency and promotion of carbon sequestration, that strategy sets policies and goals for managing NJ’s last remaining natural landscape.

I only briefly scanned the document – which I’ll try to review in a future post – and one of the policies and goals that jumped off the page were the goals for forested lands (see table on page 6).

My goodness, DEP’s “target” is to “maintain” the loss of 4,000 acres of forest per year!

Minimize Conversion of Forested Lands Targets (F5)

• Maintain annual forest conversion rate of 4,000 acres converted to non-forest cover until 2030, then reduce forestland converted to non-forest cover to 2,000 acres per year, by 2050

That is a totally unacceptable loss rate and nothing close to “minimization” of loss. The loss rate target should be ZERO!

In contrast, the “afforestation” “targets” are pathetically minuscule and limited to existing forests, not farmland and other barren lands:

Afforestation Target (F1)

• Afforest 200 acres per year, for a total of 1,600 acres through 2030 and 4,000 acres through 2050.

Here is DEP’s explanation of that small goal:

As acres of urbanization and development in our state continue to increase annually, acres of forest wetlands, and agriculture have continued to decrease over the past 29 years. ….. With buildout anticipated in some counties in the near future, there is limited land remaining within the state that is appropriate for afforestation or reforestation, and the targets aim to reflect that limitation.

I draw exactly the OPPOSITE conclusion from that data.

Because NJ is so densely populated and is losing the little that is left, it is imperative that we preserve the little remaining forests!

(you don’t have to be a math major to understand that if NJ is losing 4,000 acres of forest per year (long term trend, real data) and only adding 200 (hypothetical, never been done before), that’s a formula for total loss.)

The DEP strategy is based on “active forest management“, which is code for more logging under the guises of “carbon storage and sequestration”, habitat creation, wildfire risk reduction, and forest health:

Plan ecological forest management to sequester carbon while mimicking natural processes and diversity in forest systems on 100,000 acres by 2030 and 200,000 acres by 2050.

Active forest management can improve carbon sequestration, while enhancing forest resilience, health, and ecological benefits. Forest management helps ensure the longevity of native forests while providing age and structural diversity.

But the policies and “targets” that really set me off were these: (page 32)

• • Enroll approximately 75,000 acres of state forest lands in a carbon market.

  • Encourage enrollment of private lands in carbon markets.

  • Enroll 75,000 acres of forest lands into a carbon market by 2030 and 100,000 acres by 2050.

DEP provided the following justification for that huge and controversial policy:

Voluntary carbon offset markets allow landowners to sell the carbon sequestered in their forest to another entity to offset emissions made elsewhere. The income from state land carbon credits could be used to fund forest management activities and potentially the conservation of additional lands to forested use.

The boldface text is the tell: the money will fund “forest management activities”.

DEP is again seeking revenues to support the Department’s staff. We’ve already seen how this funding structure creates conflicts of interest and incentivizes poor management, so let’s not let DEP repeat this problem!

DEP seems committed to this market trading scheme. And it its a scheme which has been proven to be flawed and corrupt, see:

• Scientists Report: Market Based Carbon Trading Scheme Fails To Protect Forests

Market-based approaches to forest conservation like carbon offsets and deforestation-free certification schemes have largely failed to protect trees or alleviate poverty, according to a major scientific review published on Monday.

The global study—the most comprehensive of its kind to date—found that trade and finance-driven initiatives had made “limited” progress halting deforestation and in some cases worsened economic inequality.

Ignoring that science, the DEP nonetheless is plowing ahead with this flawed scheme. DEP’s strategy pledges to:

Near-term actions

• Release a Request for Expression of Interest (RFEI) for a carbon market on state land.

• Conduct exploratory research on the viability of carbon markets on privately held forested lands appropriate to the distribution and size of these lands in New Jersey.

• Educate non-profits and other natural resource-based organizations on carbon markets – how they work, barriers to entry, etc.

The non-profits, who clearly know better, have the same financial interests as DEP in this trading scam.

I suspect that Sussex County Wall Street billionaire Peter Kellogg is behind this corrupt carbon market scheme for forests.

Kellogg is politically powerful and well connected to DEP .  This billionaire, already has enrolled his Hudson Farm lands in a private carbon credit – trading program.

Kellogg provided over $300,000 to fund NJ Audubon’s “forest stewardship” logging project at Sparta Mountain – a joint project with DEP.

Kellogg also paid for $5,000 per week DEP managers junkets.

Kellogg is a former Wall Streeter like our NJ Governor Phil Murphy, so his money, his land, and his connections have had undue influence on DEP’s flawed forestry policy.

As I previously wrote:

Given the DEP statement about developing a carbon credit program, Kellogg’s support for such a program,and the availability of significant RGGI funding, it is very possible if not likely that Senator Smith will amend his current proposed forestry legislation to authorize the Murphy DEP’s carbon credit schemes.

DEP could also attempt to adopt such a carbon credit program via regulations or informal guidance in the absence of authorizing legislation. DEP currently implements a “14 step process” to manage NJ’s forests on public lands in the absence of authorizing legislation and regulation, so anything is possible from the arrogant pro-logging bureaucrats at DEP.

I urge readers to contact Smith and DEP Commissioner LaTourette to tell them to avoid going down this failed market based path and instead pursue real planning and regulatory measure to preserve all of what’s left of NJ’s forests, on public and private land.

Over and out, with a letter to DEP Commissioner:

Dear Commissioner LaTourette:

I write regarding the Department’s “Natural And Working Lands Strategy” (May 2024)

https://dep.nj.gov/wp-content/uploads/climatechange/nwls-final-2024_09_19.pdf

That strategy adopts policies and goals for, among other things, to:

• Enroll forest land in a carbon market – (75,000 acres per year by 2030 and 100,000 acres by 2050)

As you know, the protection and preservation of NJ’s forest resources enjoy widespread and strong public support.

As you also know, the role of markets in public policy is an extremely controversial and complex policy field. The science and management frameworks to govern carbon markets is not well developed, perhaps the least so for carbon markets for forested lands.

The Department has no legislative authority I am aware of to “enroll forest land in a carbon market”.

The Department has no regulations that govern any program to “enroll forest land in a carbon market”.

The Department has no scientific basis or technical support documents to “enroll forest land in a carbon market”.

The Department has no public process to oversee any carbon market for forests.

Given the lack of legislative authorization and legislative policy direction – compounded by the controversial policy issues and lack of adequate scientific basis, management control, and public participation – please delete the policy and targets to “enroll 75,000 – 100,000 acres of forested land in a carbon market” from the Strategy.

Frankly, I find the Department’s over-reach absolutely stunning.

Thank you.

Bill Wolfe

Jasper Francis Cropsey (1823 – 1900)

Note: This work depicts Pollepel’s Island on the Hudson, looking north. The island, now part of Hudson Highlands State Park, is located 50 miles north of New York City and features the abandoned military structure of Bannerman’s Castle.

Cropsey made two excursions in 1880 that resulted in sketches, then watercolors and oils of this area; in July with the “Artist’s Excursion” sailing up the Hudson River to Albany, then by rail to Schenectady, and in September up the Hudson to the Highlands._[1]

Murphy DEP Petitioned To Adopt Biden EPA Proposal

Will DEP Walk The Talk On “Forever Chemicals”?

Or Will Chemical Industry Block Protections?

One of the many environmental regulations killed by the Trump barrage of Executive Orders was an important Biden EPA proposed rule to limit the chemical industry’s discharge of toxic “forever chemicals” into our rivers and streams and drinking water.

The proposal was technically known as:

• “Clean Water Act Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for PFAS Manufacturers Under the Organic Chemicals, Plastics and Synthetic Fibers Point Source Category”

The Biden EPA proposed that regulation back in March of 2021, but could not get the proposal across the finish line before Trump took Office. For the full story, read this excellent piece by the Environmental Working Group:

• Trump EPA withdrawal of PFAS effluent limits is setback for public health, EWG warns

We provide warnings, but we also propose solutions.

In February, I wrote to urge DEP Commissioner LaTourette to simply propose and adopt the Biden EPA proposal as a NJ DEP State regulation.

I threatened to file another petition for rulemaking to force DEP to act, but because slogging through by individual rule – by rule petitions is not feasible, I suggested a broader strategy and easier path:

A comprehensive NJ DEP regulatory strategy could be one way to defend against the Trump EPA rollbacks and protect the public health and environment of NJ.

I urge your immediate efforts along these lines and appreciate your timely and favorable reply.

Perhaps we can forgo the work of drafting and DEP response to a petition for rulemaking.

The Commissioner (and Senate Democrats) failed to have the professional courtesy to reply.

So today, I filed another petition for rulemaking to DEP (see text below).

DEP always denies these petitions, and typically claims that they lack sufficient monitoring data and science to support a regulatory proposal and that it will take several years to collect that data. Sometimes they claim they lack legislative authority to regulate.

But they can’t claim those excuses on this one, because the Biden EPA collected the data and assembled the science to support a rule proposal. DEP could simply cite all that EPA technical work to support a NJ DEP regulatory proposal.

DEP’s clean water regulations have always been more stringent than EPA’s minimum national regulations, so all we are asking for is that they at least adopt the Biden EPA federal minimums. So this is not a heavy left.

To their credit, DEP has done a lot of scientific and regulatory work on “forever chemicals”, but that has come with a lot of over the top self promoting press releases.

So, let’s see if Commissioner LaTourette will walk the talk – I’m giving 10 – 1 odds he won’t. Here it is, come and get it: (please excuse the font errors)

PETITION FOR RULEMAKING – Submitted VIA EMAIL

This petition for rulemaking is submitted in accordance with the NJ Administrative Procedure Act and in substantial compliance with NJAC 7:1D-1 PETITIONS FOR RULES

April 10, 2025

NJ Gov. Murphy And His DEP Have Failed To Act

States Can Adopt Federal Programs Under State Law To Prevent Rollbacks

During Trump’s first term, he rolled back over 120 environmental regulations.

During the 2024 campaign, Trump’s Project 2025 targeted hundreds of more regulations across the federal government, under a comprehensive strategy to “dismantle the administrative state”.

So, as they say, the writing was on the wall.

On his first day in Office, Trump issued a barrage of Executive Orders to implement that strategy.

Many of these Executive Orders dealt very fine grain targeted blows to eliminate very specific regulations, policies, and programs – even federal Guidance documents, NEPA decisions, scientific reports, and databases. Some examples from Unleashing American Energy:

(i) the Presidential Memorandum of January 27, 2021 (Restoring Trust in Government Through Scientific Integrity and Evidence-Based Policymaking);

(ii) the Report of the Greenhouse Gas Monitoring and Measurement Interagency Working Group of November 2023 (National Strategy to Advance an Integrated U.S. Greenhouse Gas Measurement, Monitoring, and Information System);

(iii) the Technical Support Document of February 2021 (Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates under Executive Order 13990); and

(iv) estimates of the social cost of greenhouse gases, including the estimates for the social cost of carbon, the social cost of methane, or the social cost of nitrous oxide based, in whole or in part, on the IWG’s work or guidance.

So, the Project 2025 Team really did their homework, worked closely with the Trump Transition Team, and hit the ground running.

All of this obviously should have been no surprise to anyone paying attention.

Yet despite the openly touted Trump attack plans, during this entire period, the Murphy administration and the DEP did virtually NOTHING to prepare for or reduce the damage from this assault (other than a handful of lawsuits filed after the fact).

The Murphy DEP could have done the same kind of detailed homework that the Trump Transition Team did – but they failed to do so and have still failed to respond effectively.

Since before the election, I’ve been trying to get NJ State policymakers to finally respond.

I have been recommending a strategy to block the Trump rollbacks whereby the DEP could adopt the federal regulations and programs and scientific and technical information under NJ State law as NJ State regulations.

To highlight that strategy and force DEP’s hand, I submitted a formal petition for rulemaking. The petition is provided as a MODEL for a strategy. It is narrowly focused on the Trump EPA’s “Presidential Exemption” program. That program is a disaster nationally, but it may have limited impact on NJ, due to the number of regulated industrial emission sources and existing DEP clean air regulations adopted under state law. But the strategy can be expanded across the board to all the other proposed and pending Trump EPA regulatory dismantling.

Last week, the Murphy DEP issued a Public Notice to accept the petition. It will be published in the May 5, 2025 edition of the NJ Register.

I again publish this petition in hopes that someone might take it and run with it:

NOTE: THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS NOTICE. THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL BE PUBLISHED IN THE MAY 5, 2025 NEW JERSEY REGISTER. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THIS TEXT AND THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE NOTICE, THE OFFICIAL VERSION WILL GOVERN.

PUBLIC NOTICE

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

OFFICE OF LEGAL AFFAIRS

Notice of Receipt of Petition for Rulemaking

Petition to Adopt Rules to Not Recognize United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Exemptions Issued Pursuant to Section 112(i)(4) of the Clean Air Act (CAA)

Petitioner: Bill Wolfe

Take notice that on March 28, 2025, the Department of Environmental Protection (Department) received a petition for rulemaking from Bill Wolfe (Petitioner). As discussed below, the Department does not and cannot acknowledge the petition on behalf of the Governor’s Office or the Office of the Attorney General, to the extent the petition asks for relief from either office

The Petitioner requests that the Department utilize emergency or normal rulemaking procedures to promulgate rules to incorporate by reference the following nine EPA rules (collectively referred to as “the EPA Rules”):

•National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Coal- and Oil-FiredElectric Utility Steam Generating Units Review of the Residual Risk and Technology Review (89 FR 38508; May 7, 2024) (MATS Rule);

•New Source Performance Standards for the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry and NESHAP for the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry and Group I & II Polymers and Resins (89FR 42932; May 16, 2024) (HON rule)

•National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Ethylene Oxide Emissions Standards for Sterilization Facilities Residual Risk and Technology Review (89 FR 24090; April 5, 2024) (Sterilizer Rule);

•National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Rubber TireManufacturing (89 FR 94886; November 29, 2024) (Rubber Tire Rule);

•National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Primary Copper Smelting Residual Risk and Technology Review and Primary Copper Smelting Area SourceTechnology Review (89 FR 41648; May 13, 2024) (Copper Rule);

•National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities Technology Review (89 FR 23294; April 3, 2024) (Iron andSteel Rule);

•National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Lime Manufacturing Plants Technology Review (89 FR 57738; July 16, 2024) (Lime Rule);

•National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks, and Coke Oven Batteries; Residual Risk and Technology Review, and Periodic Technology Review (89 FR 55684; July 5, 2024) (Coke Ovens Rule); and

•National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Taconite Iron Ore Processing (89 FR 16408; March 6, 2024) (Taconite Rule).

The Petitioner also requests the Department promulgate rules to not recognize any permit or related exemptions issued by the EPA pursuant to section 112(i)(4) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7412(i)4, which sets forth conditions for a Presidential exemption for stationary sources (“Federal exemption”).

Additionally, the Petitioner requests that the Department take the following non-rulemaking actions to block implementation of any Federal exemption:

• issue permit or enforcement guidance for air pollution sources and permits regulated under the EPA Rules to provide that the Department will not recognize any Federal exemption and otherwise put permittees on notice that a Federal exemption does not apply in the State;

• issue a Governor’s Executive Order or declaration of a public health emergency that puts permittees on notice that a Federal exemption does not apply in the State;

• issue a Commissioner’s Administrative Order that puts permittees on notice that a Federal exemption does not apply in the State; and

• issue an Attorney General legal opinion that a Federal exemption does not apply in the State.

In support of the petition, the Petitioner cites the authority of the Air Pollution Control Act (N.J.S.A. 26:2C-1 et seq.) and the general powers of the Department (N.J.S.A.13:1B-1 et seq. and N.J.S.A. 13:1D-1 et seq.).

As justification for the need for the requested action, the Petitioner incorporates by reference the administrative records for the EPA Rules, including the basis and background documents and scientific basis, and states that the EPA Rules established requirements based on science and law to protect the public health, environment, and welfare from air pollution, including emissions of hazardous air pollutants known to cause cancer.

The Petitioner states that the EPA under the Trump Administration established a program that would exempt air pollution sources from the requirements of the EPA Rules, including many air pollution sources in the State (“exemption program”). See https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/clean-air-act-section-112presidential-exemption-information

According to the Petitioner, the exemption program would create unacceptable risks to public health if implemented in the State and the Department must act to prevent the harm that would result from implementation.

The Petitioner also states that the exemption program is an abuse of authority under the Clean Air Act; is arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion because it contradicts the best available science and EPA’s own scientific and regulatory findings relied on to support adoption of the EPA Rules; and violates the public’s due process rights because of the lack of public participation.

Neither the Air Pollution Control Act nor the Department’s enabling legislation authorizes the Department to issue an Executive Order or an Attorney General’s legal opinion. Accordingly, the Department does not acknowledge receipt of the petition to the extent that the Petitioner requests relief that is beyond the Department’s authority.

This notice and the full text of the petition filed in this matter are available on the Department’s website at http://www.nj.gov/dep/rules/petition.html.

In accordance with N.J.A.C. 1:30-4.2, the Department will subsequently mail to the Petitioner and file with the Office of Administrative Law a notice of action on the petition.