To: Montana candidates for the June 3, 2026, primary election, including candidates for the Montana Supreme Court, and all elected Republicans.
From: Edwin X Berry, PhD, Bigfork, Montana: ed@edberry.com and this post here.
Date: May 18, 2026
Subject: The Held v Montana (HvM) climate lawsuit was fraudulent because AG Knudsen deliberately and illegally lost HvM.
Impact: Montana’s deliberate loss of HvM threatens President Trump’s ability to defend his executive orders on energy and climate, Montana’s ability to use its natural resources to power its economy and electrical grid, and Montana’s ability to teach true climate science to all its students.
Requested action: Please solve this problem:
- Make a legislative ruling on HvM.
- Make a legal ruling to reverse HvM.
Barhaugh v. Montana, 2011 (BvM)
BvM was in the Montana Supreme Court and is relevant because HvM is a carbon copy, even listing former AG Bullock as AG in 2020.
The Intervention led by Dr. Edwin X Berry of Bigfork, Montana, presented evidence that contradicted the Petition’s assumptions.
Montana AG Bullock wrote:
- This disputed record is just one example of the factual determinations this Court would need to make to rule for Petitioners.
- In addition, it would need to address, among other issues, the current state of climate change science; the role of Montana in the global problem of climate change; how emissions created in Montana ultimately affect Montana’s climate; whether the benefits of energy production must be balanced against the potential harm of climate change; and the concrete limits, if any, of the alleged “affirmative duty.”
The Montana Supreme Court ruled:
- As the State points out, the petition incorporates factual claims such as that the State “has been prevented by the Legislature from taking any action to regulate [greenhouse gas] emissions.”
- The State posits that the relief requested by Petitioners would require numerous other factual determinations, such as the role of Montana in the global problem of climate change and how emissions created in Montana ultimately affect Montana’s climate.
- This Court is ill-equipped to resolve the factual assertions presented by Petitioners. We further conclude that Petitioners have not established urgency or emergency factors that would preclude litigation in a trial court followed by the normal appeal process.
The Intervenors’ attorney wrote:
Quentin Rhoades, Attorney for the Intervenors, wrote that the Montana Supreme Court ruled against the Petitioners because,
“There is no scientific consensus that is sufficiently well-settled to allow a court to decide the case purely as a matter of law.”
“This establishes once and for all, at least as far as Montana law is concerned, climate science is decidedly not settled.
“And not only is it the highest court of a sovereign state, but it ruled that there is no scientific consensus that is sufficiently well-settled to allow for them to decide the case purely as a matter of law.”
Held v. Montana, 2023
The Held v. Montana climate lawsuit (HvM) could have been easily defeated by using the climate science available since 2020.
AG Knudsen did not use the above Montana Supreme Court ruling on BvM, even to try to dismiss HvM. In fact, AG Knudsen censored the science and the scientists who would have defeated HvM.
Even worse, AG Knudsen’s assistant attorney stipulated at the beginning of the HvM trial on June 12, 2023:
“For the purposes of trial, there is a scientific consensus that Earth is warming as a direct result of human GHG emissions, primarily from the burning of fossil fuels.”
AG Knudsen’s stipulation contradicted the Montana Supreme Court ruling on BvM and instantly gave away Montana’s possible defense of HvM. The stipulation even gave credibility to a claimed “consensus” which contradicts the scientific method.
During the trial, AG Knudsen produced NO defense, NO relevant expert witness, and NO challenge to the plaintiffs’ expert witness claims.
Judge Seeley made the correct decision based on the evidence presented at trial because Montana AG Knudsen presented NO evidence on the defense’s behalf.
Senators Daines and Sheehy lied by telling their constituents that AG Knudsen lost because the judge was a “liberal.”
The Held v. Montana climate lawsuit (HvM) is based on the plaintiffs’ fundamental claim that human CO2 emissions caused the plaintiffs’ declared damages.
This fundamental claim requires that these three assumptions be true:
- Human CO2 emissions have caused most of the CO2 increase above 280 ppm.
- This human-caused CO2 increase causes global warming.
- This human-caused global warming caused the plaintiffs’ declared damages.
It is easy to prove in court that assumptions (1) and (2) are false. The defense did not allow these proofs to be made in court.
In May 2022, I explained to an assistant AG how to defeat HvM. This assistant AG was very interested, and he planned to hire me as an expert witness. However, I mentioned my participation in HvM to a man whom I thought was my friend at the Kalispell Pachyderm meeting on Friday, June 3, 2022. This man became very angry at the news and left the meeting in a hurry.
When I returned to my office, I found that AG Knudsen had cut off all my communications with his office. Knudsen has not even honored my invoice for the work I did to help his assistant AG make a winning case.
Knudsen used none of the information I gave to his assistant AG.
Knudsen deliberately lost HvM at the demand of his puppet master.
Thank you Dr. Ed for speaking up about this travesty that is very destructive to the health and freedom of all of us. Hopefully your shining light on this will proved an opportunity to reverse the deliberate deception in Montana, and that is “climate change.”
Ed,
Your problem is that even the lawyers see the holes in your so-called “science”. Can you try explaining to me again how natural processes, which we agree remove more carbon from the atmosphere than they add, are still (by your reckoning but no one else’s) the cause of the dangerous increase in atmospheric CO2 thst we are witnessing?