US Court of Appeals

Addenum to existing Complaint

Darrell Prince : Case Number 17-1042

v. USA

Plaintiffs Direct Plea to the Court

Your honor(s). With the permission of the Court, I will address it directly. As the Court is no
doubt aware, the Constitution is conspicuously sparse on anything that can be construed as
environmental, nor the Commons (air, water) nor anything about any resource management at
all- representative of the problems with basing the core root of a bureaucracy now similar in
size(2.8 million) to the Constitutions citizenry (3.9 million) the 1790 census enumeration. Not as
surprising when at the time, Manhattan was still home to lush original forest, and served
lobsters from the Hudson Bay. California and Texas were years away from the floods of illegal
immigrants that would come, Americans sneaking across the border into Mexico to steal
Mexican prosperity. To be honest though, it was not even unknown at the time our common trust
doctrine is pretty much adopted as stare decisis from the English common law
Despite this very serious deficiency in a foundational document, this document will, very
eloquently, demonstrate passages both oft-used and novel in the text that responsibility of the
government is to protect its people from great threats, and the government itself has already
determined that this is a great threat, and this complaint is simply asking the Court to do its
part, necessary at this critical juncture,to determine the governments status in terms of dealing
with this threat on a reasonable focus to the scope and the scale of the threat that may threaten
the species of Homo sapiens.
For the motivation for the people of this Court, I would ask, for your relief, that you instead of
looking to find reasons not to act, that you look for reasons to act. As this is a test for you, for
the function for which you have sworn an oath to the United States, and more importantly, to its
people. You have become, literally one of the most powerful human beings on the planet Earth
These are facts:

It is 70 degrees in February, after the 3rd consecutive hottest year on record.

Scientists, who are on a mission for truth that can be proven, who predict the weather days and
weeks in advance, have been saying that this was going to happen for decades, and in fact, it
turns out that the less vocal its way worse people, are more right than the over exposed its not
a big deal people.

1
Snake oil- excuse me, your honor, Oil salesman, who are focused, and on a mission to make
sure oil sales are as high as they can be, and all words truth or otherwise exist to serve that
goal, as are all of the people they work with, or contribute money to stand on the other side of
those scientists. Once there was no change, and now, its always been changing, much like the
story.

It is, at this moment, more likely that catastrophe is coming, that we will not be able to stop it,
and that either global warming is here early, or the apocalyptic end of days is upon us or both.

In either event, I would suggest erring on the side of positive action to the best of your abilities
and choosing actual powers over standard conventions. Because when someone asks about
what is going on right now, this time this era, whether it turns out for good or for bad, I would like
you to be able to say you took action to preserve your country, your people your family and
friends, rather than court conventions.

Because to have a real chance, we must cut through the nonsense, now, and focus 100% on
what must be done.

Questions
1. Can the government issue permits, or continue to allow behavior, found to be very risky
to citizen health?
2. Do citizens have a positive right, to expect the US government to take positive action,
and any and all steps to guarantee the safety of the Republic itself? Is there a threshold
for guaranteed action?
3. What is the allowable standard for permitting risky behavior by the federal government,
that includes the deaths of millions, and the loss of trillions of dollars in public property?
1%? 5%? 50%?
4. What constitutes definitive appropriate action to protect preventable death, in terms of
legal coverage, and budget applied?
5. What percentage of consensus amongst the experts, constitutes facts, or actionable
intelligence that no competent member of the government should question?
6. What constitutes dereliction of duty, or treason, in terms of actions taken, or refusal to
act in the clear best interests of the country, at the paid, or unpaid bequest of another
party or parties?

Summary
CO2 releases since the industrial revolution have increased CO2 to a level not found since 10 to
15 million years ago, when the global average surface temperature was up to 11F warmer than

2
now and almost all ice had melted, raising world sea-levels to about 100 feet higher than
today's.[26]

Jurisdiction
This action is brought pursuant to the United States Constitution. It is authorized
by Article III, Section 2, which extends the federal judicial power to all cases arising in equity
under the Constitution. It is a Controversy directly involving the United States The identification
and protection of fundamental rights is an enduringpart of the judicial duty to interpret the
Constitution. Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ____, slip.op. at 10 (2015). That grant of equitable
jurisdiction requires Article III courts to apply theunderlying principles of the Constitution to new
circumstances unforeseen by the framers, such. An actual controversy has arisen and exists
between Plaintiffs and Defendants because Defendants have placed Plaintiffs in a dangerous
situation, continue to infringe upon Plaintiffs constitutional rights, and have abrogated their duty
of care to ensure Plaintiffs reasonable safety, among other violations of law. Plaintiffs have no
adequate remedy at law to redress the harms herein, which are of a continuing nature and
which, if left unresolved, will be irreversible.
This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 (federal question), 28
U.S.C. 2201 (creation of a remedy), and 28 U.S.C. 2202 (further relief)
28 U.S. Code 1651(all writs) as this action arises
under the laws of the United States.

Jurisdiction will come from of course, as always from Article III powers as interpreted from
(Marbury v Madison). The relevant portions of the Constitution are due process from the 5th and
14th amendments- no citizen should be harmed by U.S. or state action, directly or indirectly.
Finally most importantly and directly, article 4 section 4- the Guarantee clause. It is one of the
few positive rights listed in the Constitution. There is a standard from Luther v. Borden of saying
it is non enforceable as a political question, and refers complainants back to Congress. Good
idea. Lets keep the courts on non political matters like, religion in schools, desegregation,
abortion, but dont wander into controversial political topics people might be hardened against
reasonable debate on and could potentially come up with an out of control Congress. Especially
when the complainants want a ruling on something completely outside what federal courts do,
like judge from the bulk of American history and documents, what the definition of what a
republican government is, and the duties of the federal government in enforcing that guarantee
to the citizens of every state. The dominant and countervailing argument is in the given name of
the clause- the GUARANTEE clause. If you talk to a car salesman, and he says he guarantees
a car will operate for 10 years, and you ask well, in the event of the break down, what would be
the process, and he says, oh, not my department, Plaintiff makes the recommendation that you
buy elsewhere, and humbly suggests a higher standard for the American Republic It is the
strongest language in the Constitution, and names the entire government, not just Congress,

3
with the responsibility of providing a republic government, and to protect the country from
external destruction, naming specifically invasion. Its easy to see why this portion has never
been used- the United States is nearly uninvadable by foreign powers; the last time a foreign
soldier at war with the United States set foot in the United States was 1812, or perhaps, a
careful study might yield a debatable scenario that occurred in the Spanish American war. In
any event, 3000 miles of ocean to each side, nuclear weapons and satellite technology make
foreign military invasion approximately as likely as alien invasion, for the near immediate future,
without serious treason and dysfunction of the elected officials.
The important part, is that the entire US government is committed, by law, to preserve the shape
of a republic, in form and in function and to maintain it against dissolution.
This is remarkably consistent, and provides a straight line from providing for the common
defense, domestic tranquility, and the role of government, being, to protect the fundamental
rights of the people, amongst those being life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, with a
requisite duty of the people to alter or abolish said government should it fail to do so.

Plaintiff claims that climate change is the single greatest threat to the American Republic that it
has ever encountered.
Plaintiff claims that the US government has knowingly, aided and abetted in the permitting,
technology development, subsidization of the fossil fuel industry.
Plaintiff alleges that the US government has clearly acted, and spent more in defense of
potential future sources of fossil fuels, than it would have taken to develop renewable sources of
the same energy quantity that would produce dozens if not hundreds of times the energy out
put.
Plaintiff accuses the US government of being the largest single emitter in the world, and
spending more on fossil fuel expenditures than it does on renewable technology development.
Plaintiff claims much of Congress fails to act due to illegal emoluments in the form of campaign
finance.

Plaintiff claims that to the best of his knowledge the timeframe, the window to act, to preserve is
now, after more than 40 years of inaction, small enough that all urgency is due to this and all
actions.
Plaintiff claims that the Guaranteee Clause, the Preamble, and the Declaration of Independence
state a clear responsibility and definition of government as that body empowered by the will of
the people to defend the people from any harms it finds restraining the life, liberty or pursuit of
happiness, or property.

____________ _________ _________________

Darrell Prince Date

4
Exhibit A Arrhenhius publishing a Global Warming book 1906

Vrldarnas utveckling (1906) (German: Das Werden der Welten [1907], English: Worlds in the
Making [1908]) directed at a general audience, where he suggested that the human emission of
CO2 would be strong enough to prevent the world from entering a new ice age, and that a
warmer earth would be needed to feed the rapidly increasing population:

"To a certain extent the temperature of the earth's surface, as we shall presently see, is
conditioned by the properties of the atmosphere surrounding it, and particularly by the
permeability of the latter for the rays of heat." (p46)
"That the atmospheric envelopes limit the heat losses from the planets had been suggested
about 1800 by the great French physicist Fourier. His ideas were further developed afterwards
by Pouillet and Tyndall. Their theory has been styled the hot-house theory, because they
thought that the atmosphere acted after the manner of the glass panes of hot-houses." (p51)
"If the quantity of carbonic acid [ CO2 + H2O H2CO3 (carbonic acid) ] in the air should sink to
one-half its present percentage, the temperature would fall by about 4; a diminution to one-
quarter would reduce the temperature by 8. On the other hand, any doubling of the percentage
of carbon dioxide in the air would raise the temperature of the earth's surface by 4; and if the
carbon dioxide were increased fourfold, the temperature would rise by 8." (p53)
"Although the sea, by absorbing carbonic acid, acts as a regulator of huge capacity, which takes
up about five-sixths of the produced carbonic acid, we yet recognize that the slight percentage
of carbonic acid in the atmosphere may by the advances of industry be changed to a noticeable
degree in the course of a few centuries." (p54)
"Since, now, warm ages have alternated with glacial periods, even after man appeared on the
earth, we have to ask ourselves: Is it probable that we shall in the coming geological ages be
visited by a new ice period that will drive us from our temperate countries into the hotter
climates of Africa? There does not appear to be much ground for such an apprehension. The
enormous combustion of coal by our industrial establishments suffices to increase the
percentage of carbon dioxide in the air to a perceptible degree." (p61)
"We often hear lamentations that the coal stored up in the earth is wasted by the present
generation without any thought of the future, and we are terrified by the awful destruction of life
and property which has followed the volcanic eruptions of our days. We may find a kind of
consolation in the consideration that here, as in every other case, there is good mixed with the
evil. By the influence of the increasing percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere, we may
hope to enjoy ages with more equable and better climates, especially as regards the colder
regions of the earth, ages when the earth will bring forth much more abundant crops than at
present, for the benefit of rapidly propagating mankind." (p63)

5
Exhibit B Global Warming Feedback loops

Understanding Positive (increasing warming) Feedback Loops

That May Promote Runaway Global Warming

Rather than define feedback loops (or reciprocal associations), and positive versus
negative feedback loops in general terms, below are simplified, key examples of
positive (increasing warming) feedback loops that may promote runaway global
warming.

Note: For these purposes, where the term "posivitive feedback loop" is used, it indicates
"positive (increasing warming) feedback loop.

(Key for reading the diagrams: an arrow pointing up = increase; an arrow pointing down =
decrease; a horizontal gray or curved blue arrow = causes)

Positive Feedback Loop: Example #1

Our burning of coal and oil releases CO2 which traps heat in the atmosphere. That extra heat
puts more water into the atmosphere in two ways: the warming accelerates the evaporation of
surface waters and, also, as the air warms, it holds more water thus creating a positive feedback
loop between water vapor and temperature, initiated by an increase in atmospheric CO2.

Example #1 Diagram

6
Positive Feedback Loop: Example #2
As the increase in atmospheric CO2 increases air temperature, it promotes the thawing of the
permafrost (frozen ground in the tundra) which contains large quantities of CO2 from the
bacterial decomposition of previously frozen vegetation and animal life. Briefly, any increase in
atmospheric CO2 leads to an increase in temperature which leads to further increase in
temperature due increase release of CO2 from the thawing permafrost thus creating a positive
feedback loop between increased atmospheric CO2 and temperature.

Example #2 Diagram

Positive Feedback Loop: Example #3

A related feedback loop from the warming atmosphere and the thawing of the permafrost is the
release of previously frozen methane into the atmosphere. Methane traps about 30 times more
heat than CO2, although it stays in the atmosphere for on the order of decades as opposed to
centuries for CO2 -thus atmospheric warming initiates a feedback loop involving previously
frozen methane.

7
Example #3 Diagram

Positive Feedback Loop: Example #4

Another feedback loop involves the release of methane from the deep sea beds. At sufficient
depths, large amount of frozen methane are stored on the sea beds as methane clathrates frozen
clumps of methane. But as the atmosphere and, hence, the seas warm, they will eventually melt
the clathrates which will escape into the atmosphere, further warming the atmosphere thus
atmospheric warming initiates a feedback loop involves the release of previously frozen methane
clathrates.

Example #4 Diagram

8
Positive Feedback Loop: Example #5
A different type of positive feedback loop coming into play as the atmosphere and bodies of
water warm involves the melting of the north polar ice (and land glaciers) that reflects 90% of
radiant energy to expose water that absorbs 94% of the solar energy and thus increases warming
which in turn reduces arctic ice and so on. The same sort of decreasing reflectivity loop is
occurring where land ice glaciers are melting and exposing much more heat absorbent surfaces
which in turn increase atmospheric warming and so on.

Example #5 Diagram

Positive Feedback Loop: Example #6

Another different kind of positive feedback loop coming into play as the earth warms is the
decline of forests which absorb CO2 from the atmosphere , i.e. constitute CO2 sinks, reducing
warming, because (i) of die offs once the temperature exceeds a species thermal maximum, (ii)
increasing forests fires caused by increasing storms lightning especially for dead forests,
drought affected forests, and insect infestations that kill off forests or otherwise make them more
vulnerable to burn more easily.

9
Example #6 Diagram

Positive Feedback Loop: Example #7

A unique case of a warming feedback loop promoting forest decline that can cause rapid,
dramatic warming involves warming to a level that will result in the collapse/disappearance of
the Amazonian forest and release of CO2 because of increased bacterial decomposition at the
floor of the great forest. The Amazon rain forest is such that it fosters its own precipitation
level to sustain the forest. As warming increases, it reduces the rainfall in the Amazon and forest
will, effectively, begin to dry out and take less CO2 out of the atmosphere. When temperature
has increased enough the Amazon rain forest (and great CO2 sink) will collapse and the
warmed soil and bacterial decomposition will yield an amount of carbon (CO2) greater than that
in all living vegetation.

Example #7 Diagram

10
11