Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Tarek Farag, Petitioner v. Climate United Fund, et al.

APPENDIX

TABLE OF CONTENTS OF APPENDIX

ORDER Denying F arag’s Motion to Intervene. ApDCC #

25-5122, 6/9/25

MOTION TO INTERVENE AS AN APPELLANT,

ApDCC # 25-5122, 5/21/25

ORDER DENYING Amended Motion to Intervene as a

Defendant and NOTICE OF APPEAL, DstDC # 1:25-

CV-698-TSC, 4/18/25

Farag’s Notice of Appeal, DstDC # 1:25-cv-698-TSC.

4/17/25

ORDER GRANTING Plaintiffs’ 33 Motion for

Preliminary Injunction and DENYING EPA Defendant's

75 Contingent Emergency Motion for Stay Pending

Appeal [D80]. DstDC # 1:25-cv-698-TSC, 4/15/25 ;

Motion to intervene as a defendant (corrected). DstDC #

1:25-cv-698-TSC, 4/15/25 ; ee

ORDER DENYING F arag’s Motion to Intervene asa

Defendant. DstDC # 1 :25-CV-698-TSC, 4NS/25 a

State Green Bank Plaintiffs’ Opposition To Tarek Farag’s

Motion To Intervene, DstDC # 1:25-cv-698-TSC,

4/14/25 — ee

Motion to Intervene as a Defendant (inissing the even

numbered pages), DstDC # |:25-cv-698-TSC, 4/9/25 |

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (relevant:

parts), DstDC # | :25-cv-820-TSC, 3/19/25

Letter from SCOTUS about not docketing the

Extraordinary Writ of Certiorari, 5/13/25 _

USCA Case #25-5122 Document #2119776 Filed: 06/09/2025 Page 1 of 1

United Stales Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

NO. 25-5122 September Term, 2024

. 1:25-cvy-00698-TSC

Filed On: June 9, 2025 [2119776]

Climate United Fund, et al.,

Appellees

V.

Citibank, N.A.,

Appellee

Environmental Protection Agency and Lee

M. Zeldin, in his official capacity as

Administrator, United States Environmental

Protection Agency,

Appellants

Consolidated with 25-5123

BEFORE: Pillard, Katsas, and Rao, Circuit Judges

ORDER

Upon consideration of the motion of movant Tarek

Farag, for leave to intervene as appellant, it is

ORDERED that the motion be denied.

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT:

Clifton B. Cislak, Clerk

BY: /s/

Michael C. McGrail

Deputy Clerk

No. 25-5122

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT _

| CLIMA Tk: UNITED FUND, Consolidated Case No:

ET AL.. _

| Plaintifi's-Appellees, 1:25-ev-00698 (TSC)

Vv.

| CITIBANK. N.A., ET AL.

| Defendants-Appellants.

Case No:

1:25-cv-00820

MOTION TO INTERVENE AS AN APPELLANT

Tarek Farag (hereinafter Farag) (pro se), states the following

under oath:

1- In summary, Farag doesn’t see any justification for the

parties to continue this case without disputing and proving

that the facts he provided (proving that the Hoax is a hoax)

are wrong, instead of trying to find a legal way to distribute

fraudulent money.

2- Farag filed almost the same exact motion to intervene as

a defendant in case No: 1:25-cv-820 that was consolidated,

with other cases, in case No. 1:25-cv-698 [Docket 72, 85]

(United States District Court, For The District Of

Columbia) that HJ Chutkan denied on 4/18/25 [has no

Docket number], and further obstructed Farag’s notice of

appeal (filed 4/17/25) and his future filings.

3- On 5/7/25, Farag filed a petition for an Extraordinary

Writ of Certiorari, to The Supreme Court. Farag was

notified that it was returned without filing on 5/13/25.

4- HJ Chutkan’s denial of Farag’s intervention on 4/15/25

failed to acknowledge its missing pages or its substance,

suggesting a lack of review. Her subsequent denial on

4/18/25, ignored Farag’s concrete interest, as he is

incurring costs enforcing “zero emission”, “carbon free

energy”, “renewable portfolio- ”, and “environmental cost

recovery’ as Farag’s receipt showed, which are tied to

2

“low- and zero-emission products, technologies, and

services” as the plaintiffs stated, which constitutes an

injury-in-fact sufficient for intervention as of right. The

EPA’s claims that the funds’ allocation involved

“criminal” misconduct, further supports l'arag’s right to

intervene to protect public interests. HJ Chutkan’s failure

to consider these factors and its denial without substantive

reasoning, constitute reversible error. See R & G Mortg.

Corp. v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp., 584 F.3d 1, 7 (Ist

Cir. 2009) (denial of intervention as of right is appealable).

5- During the past years, especially after Farag couldn’t

convince the politicians that the Hoax is a hoax, or to get

disputing facts from them, and after resorting to courts to

stop the destructive effect of the Hoax, no one ever

disputed any of his facts that proved it to be a hoax.

6- Farag’s motion to intervene in District Court included

simple undisputed arguments challenging the scientific

basis of the claims that CO2 emissions cause harmful

global warming, which he asserts that they are

unsupported and fraudulent. HJ Chutkan failed to engage

with these arguments, despite their relevance to the case.

She had a duty to evaluate these claims, given their impact

on public funds and policy, particularly in light of the

EPA’s allegations of fraud.

7- Upon the information Farag collected during his long

research on the claims that “burning fossil fuel could cause

harmful global warming” (hereinafter a Hoax), he believes that

there is an International Criminal Enterprise that use the Hoax

to enrich themselves, and sometimes just to cause destruction.

It includes politicians, officials, lawyers, judges, business

people. etc.

8- The dollars disputed are $27 billion (not million) that can

spoil most people. and once these billions are distributed,

they will be gone forever. The plaintiffs claim “EPA can

terminate a grant only if the grantee violates the grant’s terms

and conditions, engages in certain illegal activity, or

misrepresents its eligibility status. None of these conditions is

satisfied with respect to any Plaintiff—and EPA does not claim

otherwise”. which is not true. The defendant Mr. Zeldin

found that the billions in dispute are the result of fraud,

waste, and abuse. Just inserting these billions that will

cause inflation in the Inflation Reduction Act is wrong. In

addition, it is based on fraud and deception, and every one

involved in recommending or approving the money should

be investigated and prosecuted. In spite of referring this

fraud to the FBI and DOJ, nothing happened.

9- Farag is an engineer having worked in many engineering

fields. and did many scientific researches including his Masters

and PhD in nuclear engineering. Was certified as a PE in

Illinois in 1994, and have a few patents. However, he disputes

the Hoax with simple logic that a six-year-old can

understand. /'arag devoted most of his time to research the

effect of increasing CO2 after Obama’s declaration that CO2

increasc is causing harmful global warming. Farag finished his

scientific studies, analysis, and calculations, using mainly the

data contained in the technical reports generated by IPCC and

NASA. which revealed serious fraud.

10- Farag proved that there is no scientific basis for the

Hoax. Ile published his findings on May 2022. and on

November 17, 2022, sent an open letter to UN Secretary

General asking him to stop pushing countries into disasters due

to the Hoax. However, he didn’t receive any response and the

push for the hoax continued. Around February 14, 2023, Farag

sent another letter to him and to many politicians and decision

makers, and complained to US AG Merrick Garland, and to

IL. AG Kwamie Raoul. However, he didn’t get any disputes to

his findings. or response.

11- FARAG IS ENTITLED TO INTERVENE AS OF

RIGHT

Farag meets the requirements to intervene under Rule 24(a),

which provides that “the court must permit anyone to

intervene” only if the person:

(1) is given an unconditional right to intervene by a

federal statute; or

(2) claims an interest relating to the property or

transaction that is the subject of the action, and is so

situated that disposing of the action may as a practical

matter impair or impede the movant's ability to protect

its interest, unless existing parties adequately represent

that interest.

Under the first scenario, Farag has unconditional right and duty

to intervene to protect the public interests and stop the fraud; in

addition. without his intervention those billions will be lost

forever. Under the second scenario, a petitioner must meet four

criteria to intervene as of right: “(1) timely application; (2) an

interest relating to the subject matter of the action: (3) potential

impairment. as a practical matter, of that interest by the

disposition of the action; and (4) lack of adequate

representation of the interest by the existing parties to the

action.” Reich v. ABC/York-Estes Corp.,64 F.3d 316, 32! (7th

Cir. 1995). Consistent with all other federal courts of appeal,

the Ninth Circuit applies this test broadly in favor of

intervention:

A liberal policy in favor of intervention serves both

efficient resolution of issues and broadened access to

the courts. By allowing parties with a practical interest

in the outcome of a particular case to intervene, we

ofien prevent or simplify future litigation involving

related issues: at the same time, we allow an additional

interested party to express its views before the court’”.[

United States v. City of L.A., Cal., 288 F.3d 391, 397-98

(9h Cir, 2002)].

Thus. courts assess a motion to intervene “primarily by

practical considerations, not technical distinctions.” |Sw. Ctr.

for Biological Diversity v. Berg, 268 F.3d 810. 818 (9th Cir.

5

2001)]. As discussed below, Farag meets each of the

requirements for intervention as of right.

(1) Farag’s motion to intervene is timely. There is no time

limit to prevent or reduce the damage of a crime, even after it

is completed.

(2) Farag has an interest relating to the subject matter of

the action. The interest requirement of Rule 24(a) is

“primarily a practical guide to disposing of lawsuits by

involving as many apparently concerned persons as is

compatible with efficiency and due process.”| Nuesse v. Camp,

385 F.2d 694. 700 (D.C. Cir. 1967); see Wilderness Soc’y v.

U.S. Forest Serv., 630 F.3d 1173, 1179 (9th Cir. 2011)].

Accordingly, no specific legal or equitable interest need be

established for the Rule 24 test to be satisfied. Because those

billions belong to the public and Farag, not to the politician or

the plaintiffs. and the real issues are the Hoax’s fraud and

corruption that Farag has the right and duty to intervene and

fight them. Additionally, to satisfy the relationship

requirement (interest), an applicant must show that resolution

of the plaintiff's claims will affect the applicant. The impact of

these cases, goes far beyond its parties. One simple

TAXES & FEES $23.

Re

oS

—

590 kWh X 0.x

Ware 9G kWh X 6.00507

980 kWh ¥ 06019

580 kWh X OO1She

90 KWh X (1) 00266

BSIOKWh X (1.x

843.81X 29

example for Farag’s damages due to enforcing the Hoax, he is

paying about 16% on top of his electric bill for zero

emission, carbon free energy, etc., as shown here. Farag

believes that the EPA, under the previous administration,

was wasting our money to phony organizations to enforce

the Hoax.

(3) Without Farag’s intervention there will be a serious

potential irreparable harm to his interests. The test for

impairment under Rule 24 focuses on practical effects. “Jf'an

absentee would be substantially affected in a practical sense by

the determination made in an action, he should, us a general

rule, be entitled to intervene - -.” [| Fed. R. Civ. P. 24 advisory

committee's note. quoted in Citizens for Balanced Use, 647

F.3d at 898]. Farag’s intervention is to stop paying extra

money on his electric bill, or subsidize other energy sources, to

enforce the I loax.

(4) There is a lack of adequate representation of Farag’s

interests by the existing parties. The burden of demonstrating

inadequate representation is minimal. Farag needs only to show

that his interests are different from the existing parties’

interests such that their representation may be inadequate. The

Court must consider:

(1) whether the interest of a present party is such that it

will undoubtedly make all the intervenor’'s arguments;

(2) whether the present party is capable and willing to

make such arguments; and

(3) whether the would-be intervener would offer any

necessary elements to the proceedings that other parties

would neglect.| Citizens for Balanced Use. 647 F.3d at

898: Trbovich v. United Mine Workers of Am., 404

U.S. 528. 538 n.10 (1972); Sw. Ctr. for Biological

Diversity, 268 F.3d at 823; Nuesse, 385 F.2d at 703].

Farag is interested in eliminating his payments to enforce the

Hoax and to stop the fraud. Citibank is interested in

following the banking rules. The EPA’s lawyers are pursuing

a dangerous direction as shown in their opposition in case

7

=m

1:25-cv-698 [Doc 16. pg 8, 9, 22]. Instead of attacking the

fraud. which is the root of the problem as Mr. Zeldin stated.

they are opening a window for the plaintiffs to snatch those

billions, and more, and fly with them. They are weakening

the position of the EPA as if it is interested only in having

control. This is also evident from Mr. Sacks refusal to receive

Farag’s evidence to prove the fraud. They even assert the right

of the plaintiffs to get those fraudulent billions. Which would

help the plaintiffs prove that they could succeed on the

merits. [ere are some statements of the EPA’*s lawyers: “EPA

explained that the existing grants lacked adequate controls and

should he re-awarded under new agreements that ensure the

EPA retains adequate oversight’, “EPA has announced that it

intends to redeploy that money consistent with Congress's

authorization", “EPA has concluded that the existing regime

Provides inadequate oversight and controls”, and “EPA's

directive to Citibank was not a final agency action”.

Additionally. in their brief in this court [filed 5/5/25, pg. 2]

“but EPA has been very clear, both in and out of court, that it

intends to act expeditiously to_re-obligae the grant funds

under new agreements "(not to eliminate wasting $27 billions),

]2- ALTERNATIVELY, FARAG IS ENTITLED TO

PERMISSIVE INTERVENTION,

As with intervention as of right, permissive intervention is

construed liberally in favor of the moving party [ City of L.A.,

288 F.3d at 397-98]. Permissive intervention should be

allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b) as long as the applicant for

intervention establishes that “(/) it shares a coiinon question

of law or fact with the main action; (2) its motion is timely, and

(3) the court has an independent basis Jor jurisdiction over the

applicant's claims.” [Donnelly, 159 F.3d at 412]. Under this

standard. neither the inadequacy of representation nor a direct

interest in the subject matter of the action need be shown,[

Kootenai Tribe of Idaho vy. Veneman, 313 F.3d 1094, 1108 (9th

Cir. 2002). overruled in part on other grounds by Wilderness

Soc’y. 630 F.3d at | 178]. Farag shares a common question of

fact “burning fossil fuel does not cause global warming”, and

8

of law as to the fraud in allocating those billions. His motion is

timely as explained before. Farag’s intervention will save the

Court’s time and resources by ending the cases before their

start. which is by itself, a reason for the Court to grant his

motion to intervene. Once Farag is allcwed to intervene, the

Court can hold a hearing to find the scientific facts about the

Hoax. He believes that within few minutes, after the plaintiffs

clarify their meanings of global warming. greenhouse gases,

CQ2 absorption, etc.. Farag will prove to the Court, beyond

any doubt. that the Hoax is a hoax. Additionally. Farag would

be the entity in this litigation with scientific knowledge that

will aid the Court’s understanding of the issues in these cases

that may not be made by other parties.

13- If this Court were to deny Farag’s motion to intervene

as of right, permissive intervention should be granted

[Freedom from Religion Found., Inc. v. Geithner, 644

F.3d 836, 844 (9th Cir. 201 1).

14- For the foregoing reasons, Farag respectfully requests

that this Honorable Court grant his intervention as of right

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a); and/or as a permissive

intervention under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b); and for other

relief as proper.

Respectfully submitted this 21st day of May 2025,

TAREK FARAG, pro se.

41) N Warwick Ave. Westmont, IL. 60559

630 709 3965

tarekfarag@comeast.nel

No. 25-5122

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

CLIMATE UNITED FUND. ETAL. Consolidated Case No:

Plaintiffs-Appellees, 1:25-ev-00698 (TSC)

v.

CITIBANK. N.A.. ET AL.

Defendants-A ppellants.

Case No:

1:25-cv-00820

——————— —$—___

FARAG’S PLEADINGS TO ACCOMPANY HIS

MOTION TO INTERVENE

The Movant Tarek F arag, pro se (hereinafter F arag), states

the following:

I- Farag is in complete agreement with the current EPA’s

Director Mr. Lee Zeldin’s findings that the billions in

dispute are the result of fraud, waste, and abuse. Mr.

Zeldin didn’t get the time to collect enough evidence to

criminally prosecute the perpetrators, and was right to

refer the investigations to the DOJ and the FBI. Now, all

the parties had already all the undisputed evidence that

proved that the Hoax is a hoax and no one should

continue supporting the Hoax, and Causing serious

damage to the public’s interests.

2- The Congress allocated those billion based on a big lie

(Hoax) that “burning fossil fuel is causing harmful global

warming”, and wrongfully characterizing CO2 as a

pollutant, which were disputed by two distinguished

professors in their testimonies before Congress April

2022.

3- During his research, Farag submitted a FOIA request

to the EPA | Tracking Number EPA-2022-001766,

Requester Name Dr. TAREK FARAG, Submitted Date

01/05/2022], requesting the following (the format js

exactly the same):

10

"Please provide all the SCIENTIFIC: data, reports,

analysis, experiments, studies, etc. that show the GOOD

und BAD effects of the: "MAN-MADE-CLIMATE-

CHANGES", and support its existence or its future

existence, according to which the agency und the US

government concluded and/or recommended and/or

ACTED and/or joined national or international

organizations to COMBAT this man-made climate

changes.

Note: Most of the requested materials could be in

electronic format, I accept its delivery by email lo save

time and money."

EPA responded on 1/31/2022 (hopkins.daniel@epa.gov)

that they have ZERO scientific proofs to support the

Hoax.

4- Farag’s scientific studies, analysis, and calculations

using mainly the data contained in the tech nical reports

generated by IPCC (UN Intergovernmental Panel on

Climate Change) and NASA revealed serious errors. No

one should be misguided by the large number of the

people (or their degrees) that participated in those reports.

As Galileo said “/n questions of science, the authority of

a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single

individual”.

5. The main greenhouse gas is water vapor, which is

impossible to remove and necessary for life. CO2 is nota

pollutant, and is necessary for plant growth, without it,

life will die.

6- The theory that CO2 traps (absorbs) most of the IR

(Infra-Red) energy emitted from the earth’s surface is

flawed. The earth emits a wide spectrum of IR most of its

energy is in the 3 to 100 micrometer range. CO2 has

limited absorption bands at (2, 2.7, 4.3, and 15 pm).

Water vapor, which has much more concentration,

11

absorbs 30 times the IR energy as CO2. CO? is

continuously absorbed and recycled by the plants, storing

Sun’s energy, producing carbohydrates (food), and

releasing Oxygen.

7- The data on page 935 of IPCC’s “Earth’s Energy

Budget, Climate Feedbacks and Climate Sensitivity”,

stated “4s a result, there is a radiative imbalance at the

TOA in the clear-sky energy budget (Figure 7.2, lower

panel), suggesting that the Earth would warm

substantially if there were no clouds”. Which reveals that

increasing greenhouse gases will reduce Sun’s energy

reaching the Earth’s surface, causing Global Cooling not

warming, in direct contravention of its own stated global

warming theory. IPCC stated “4 comparison of the upper

and lower panels in F. igure 7.2 shows that without clouds,

47 W m-2 less solar radiation is reflected back to space

globally (53 +2 Wm-2 instead of 100 + 2 W m-2), while

28 Wim—2 more thermal radiation is emitted to Space (267 + 3

W m—2 instead of 239 + 3 W m—2). As aresull, there is q 20W

m2 radiative imbalance at the TOA in the clear-sky energy

budget (Figure 7.2, lower panel), Suggesting that the Earth

would warm substantially j ‘there were no clouds”. The 20

W/m2 IPCC estimated is a factual number not a feeling

and IPCC should not use the word “suggesting”. In

contrast, on page 1022, IPCC stated “Scientists have

made significant Progress over the past decade and are

now more confident that changes in clouds will amplify,

rather than offset, global warming in the future”. There is

no basis for their statement of “more confident” since it

did not specify the magnitude or the direction of their

predicted changes, and the Statement by itself is not

scientific because there is always uncertainty.

- IPCC is showing two diagrams in page 934 (shown

here as Fig 1 and Fig 2) that represent gross scientific

12

errors:

@.| The Earth’s surface in “All Sky” receives 160

W/m2 of the Sun’s energy while emitting 398

W/im2 (not adding evaporation and sensible heat),

which is more than the stated Sun’s incoming

energy of 160 W/m2 at the Earth’s surface and the

340 W/m2 at TOA. This is not logically or

scientifically possible, it is fraud (a child wouldn’t

miss).

9-2. The Earth’s atmosphere absorbs a total of 399

W/m2 (80+160+ 398-239 = 399), which means that

the Earth is dangerously HEATING with energy

MORE THAN THE INCOMING SUN’S

ENERGY, which is not logically or scientifically

possible.

8-3. Having this incorrect information for many

years without correction or explanation is highly

unprofessional, because it misleads people to wrong

conclusions and actions. Many people trusted these

reports and used their data without contirming its

veracity.

9- Both IPCC and NASA manipulated 10 years data to

prove their Global Warming Hoax, instead of changing

their models to agree with the measurements [IPCC (935)

“is not sufficient lo quantify - -, the CERES EBAF reflected

solar and emitted thermal TOA fluxes were adjusted, - - lo

ensure that the net TOA flux for July 2005 to June 2015 was

consistent with the estimated Earth's energy balance for the

same period - -"].

10- Most of the references IPCC uses are its own that

could be similarly misstated.

11- Increasing CO2 will increase vegetative growth on

the earth, which is a very desirable thing. According to

13

25_=«reflected

123.26) Surface

Fig |- IPCC’s schematic representation of the global mean

energy budget of the Earth

Clear sky

reflected

(82, &)

Fig 2- IPCC’s schematic representation of the global mean

energy budget of the Earth without considerations of cloud

effects

14

NASA “Studies have shown that higher concentrations of

atmospheric carbon dioxide affect crops in two important

ways: they boost crop yields by increasing the rate of

photosyithesis, which spurs growth, and they reduce the

amount of water crops lose through transpiration - - and thus

increased water-use efficiency”. The CO2- Coalition quantified

the increase in crop biomass, resulting from adding 300 ppm

CO2. to be from 41% to 77.8%.

12- Increasing CO2 levels from 400 to 800 ppm, will cool

the Earth. Assume that the average proficiency of

photosynthetic is 4.5%, the green land is 32% of Earth’s

land, which is 19% of Earth’s total surface area, and the

Sun’s energy reaching Earth’s surface is 160 W/m2. Then

the plants are storing about 0.668 W/m2 (.045 x .32 x

(0.29 x 160 = 0.668). Assuming that CO2 is doubled to

800 ppm, which would result in 55% to 104% increase in

biomass of plants of an average of 79.5%. This means

that increasing CO2 to 800 ppm would make the plants

store an additional 79.5% of energy, i.e., 0.53 W/m2

(0.795 x 0.668 = 0.53), which would cool the Earth’s

surface with a total amount of 1.198 W/m2. However, if

we assume that sea plants (planktons) will have growth

similar to land plants of an average 79.5%, and the entire

water surface is occupied with sea plants, we get an

energy storage of 5.1] W/m2 (0.045 efficiency x 0.71

water area x 160 = 5.11). Increasing CO2 to 800 ppm,

would give us additional storage of 4.06 W/m2 (5.11 x

795). Adding land and water extra storage; we get 4,73

W/m2. This would reduce the temperature by storing

those extra Sun’s energy, like a battery, instead of

becoming heat.

13- As Einstein said, "If you can't explain it to a Sixyear-old, you don't understand it yourself", Farag is

stating some facts here so that a six-year-old can

15

understand that the Hoax is a hoax:

a. Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere will result in

absorbing the IR radiated from the earth in a shorter

distance, not increase the amount of energy

radiated/absorbed, especially if we assume that COQ2

is a strong absorber. This is similar to the visible

distance when driving at night with little fog, using

car light. When the fog increases the vi sible distance

will decrease, due to the increase in the absorption,

not the car light intensity will increase.

b. One molecule of water vapor absorbs IR energy

much more than one molecule of CQ2. For each

CO2 molecule, there are about 2500 molecules of

other gasses, including water that could be about

1000. If you have 1000 gm of sugar with | gm of

salt, is adding additional | gm of salt can change the

taste? Similarly, doubling CO2 would have

negligible effect.

¢. NASA and IPCC are untruly saying that the

Earth’s surface receives about 160 W/m2, but emits

about 400 W/m2. Can J give you every morn ing

$160 and you give me every night $398? When you

expose your hand at night to the radiation coming

from the Earth’s surface, would you feel heat more

than twice that during the day (ratio 398:160)!

d. When I give you $159 and tell you that they are

$160, you count them many times with high

accuracy to tind them $159, would you believe that

I gave you $160, or you consider that I’m cheating?

This is what NASA and IPCC are doing, adjusting

the measurements to agree with their faulty models,

Additionally, if I tell you that millions of experts,

scientists, news sources, lawyers, judges, etc.

counted them and certified that the money is $160,

16

and we accuse you of lying, would you agree with

us or you become certain that we are ----?

14- Granting Farag’s intervention should not delay the

adjudication of the case, it will expedite it. The Court can

hold a hearing to find the scientific facts about the

Hoax, which will prove that the Hoax is a hoax, which

could end the litigations immediately.

15- Farag would like to ask the Court to allow him to file

his documents electronically, and receive the previous and

future filings electronically to his email:

tarekfarag@comcast.net.

WHEREFORE. Tarek Farag, respectfully requests that this

Honorable Court grant the following:

1) Declare that the claims that burning fossil fuel

generating CO2 could cause global warming has no

scientific basis, and the Man-Made-Global-Warming

and the Zero-Carbon emission are destructive nonscientific issues.

2) Invalidate all the administrative orders, laws,

subsidiaries, etc. to combat Man-Made-Global-

Warming, or promote Zero-Carbon emission, that are

not based on solid science.

3) Take any additional actions this Honorable Court sees

as proper and just.

Respectfully submitted May 21, 2025,

eae f—,

TAREK FARAG

Proposed Intervener, pro se.

411 N Warwick Ave, Westmont, IL 60559

630 709 3965

tarekfarag(@comeast.net

17

U.S. District Court

District of Columbia

Notice of Electronic Filing

The following transaction was entered on 4/15/2025 at 10:38

PM and filed on 4/18/2025

Case Name: CLIMATE UNITED FUND V. CITIBA NK, N.A. etal

Case Number: 1:25-cv-00698-TSC

Filer:

Document Number: No document attached

Docket Text:

MINUTE ORDER: DENYING [85] Amended Motion to

24(a) because he (1) is not given an unconditional right to

intervene by any federal statute, nor does he identify one, and

(2) does not claim an interest relating to any property of

transaction that is the subject of the action and is not so

situated that disposing of the action may as a practical matter

without further action or court order. The Clerk of the Court

shall send a copy of this Minute Order to pro se Movant.

Signed by J udge Tanya S. Chutkan on 4/18/2025, (Icer)

18

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA -

CLIMATE UNITED FUND, ET AL., Case No. 25-cv-698 (TSC)

Case No. 25-cev-735 (TSC)

Plaintiffs,

Case No. 25-cv-762 (TSC)

V. Case No. 25-cv-820 (TSC)

CITIBANK, N.A., ET AL. Case No. 25-cv-938 (TSC)

Case No. 25-cv-948 (TSC)

Defendants.

(Consolidated Cases)

NOTICE OF APPEAL

Pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), and Rule 3 of the Federal Rules of

Appellate Procedure, Proposed Intervenor Defendant Tarek

Farag. pro se. hereby join the Government Defendants and

appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of

Columbia Circuit from the Denial of his Motion to Intervene

as a Defendant as of right, and other orders the Defendants

are appealing.

Respectfully submitted this 17" day of April 2025,

Sik,

TAREK FARAG, pro se.

A411 N Warwick Ave, Westmont, IL 60559

630 709 3965

tarekfarag@comeast.net

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

[hereby certify that on April 17, 2025, this Notice of Appeal will be filed

through the Court's electronic system assigned to pro se participants.

which will be served electronically by the ECF system to all participants.

Respectfully submitted, /

TAREK FARAG, pro se

tarekfarag@comeast.net

19

- Case 1:25-cv-00698-TSC Document 80 Filed 04/15/25 Page | of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

CLIMATE UNITED Civil Action No. 25-cv-698 (TSC)

FUND Civil Action No. 25-cv-735 (TSC)

Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 25-cv-762 (TSC)

V. Civil Action No. 25-cv-824) (TSC)

CITIBANK, N.A., etal. Civil Action No. 25-cv-938 (TSC)

Defendants. Civil Action No. 25-cv-948 (TSC)

(Consolidated Cases)

ORDER

For the reasons set forth in the forthcoming

Memorandum Opinion, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary

Injunction, ECF No. 33, is GRANTED. It is further

ORDERED that EPA Defendants’ Contingent Motion for

Stay Pending Appeal, ECF No. 75, is DENIED without

prejudice.1 It is further

ORDERED that Defendants the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency ( “EPA”), Administrator Lee Zeldin, in

his official capacity as Administrator of EPA, Deputy

Administrator W.C. McIntosh, in his official capacity as

1 EPA Defendants filed their motion prematurely, filing a

“contingent” motion before the court ruled on the pending motions

for preliminary injunction. ECF No. 75. If after reviewing the

court's Order and forthcoming Memorandum Opinion. EPA

Defendants believe that a Stay pending appeal is warranted. they

may make a request consistent with Federal Rule of Appellate

Procedure 8. In consideration of EPA Defendants’ position and

Defendant Citibank’s silence on the issue, Defendant Citibank is

ORDERED 10 refrain from releasing any funding disbursements

until Thursday, April 17, 2025, at 2:00PM EST.

20

Acting Deputy Administrator of EPA, (collectively, “EPA

Defendants”), and others in active concert or participation

therewith, are ENJOINED from effectuating EPA’s March

11, 2025 “Notice of Termination”; it is further

ORDERED that EPA Defendants, and others in active

concert or participation therewith, are ENJOINED from

unlawfully suspending or terminating Plaintiffs’ grant

awards, including by issuing a Notice of Exclusive

Control, effectuating a Notice of Termination, or limiting

access to funds in accounts established in connection with

Plaintiffs’ grants, including funds in accounts established

by Plaintiffs’ subgrantees, except as permitted by the

applicable Account Control Agreement (“ACA”), the

grant award, the relevant regulations, and applicable law,

including any administrative procedures mandated by the

Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”); it is further

ORDERED that EPA Defendants, and others in active

concert or participation therewith, including officials at the

U.S. Department of the Treasury, are ENJOINED from

directly or indirectly impeding Defendant Citibank or from

causing Defendant Citibank to deny, obstruct. delay, or

otherwise limit access to funds in accounts established in

connection with Plaintiffs’ grants, including funds in

accounts established by Plaintiffs’ subgrantees, except as

permitted by the applicable ACA, the grant award, the

relevant regulations, and applicable law, including any

administrative procedures mandated by the APA; it is

further

ORDERED that Defendant Citibank is ENJOINED

from transferring or otherwise moving funds out of

accounts established in connection with Plaintiffs’ grants,

including funds in accounts established by Plaintiffs’

subgrantees, except as permitted by the applicable ACA,

the grant award, the relevant regulations, and applicable

21

law, including any administrative procedures mandated by

the APA; it is further

ORDERED that Defendant Citibank must disburse

any funds properly incurred before the mid-February

Suspension of Plaintiffs’ funds;

ORDERED that the bond requirement of Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 65(c) is waived and that this

preliminary injunction is effective upon service; it is

further

ORDERED that Defendants sha'| file a status report

with the court, within 24 hours of entry of this Order,

confirming their compliance with the preliminary

injunction; it is further

ORDERED that this preliminary injunction remains

in effect pending further orders from this Court.

Memorandum Opinion to follow.

Date: April 15, 2025

S// Tanya S. Chutkan

TANYA S. CHUTKAN

United States District Judge

mae

Case 1:25-cv-00698-TSC Document 85 Filed 04/15/25 Page 1 of 14

[CLIMATE UNITED FUND, ET AL., |

Plaintiffs, Consolidated Case No:

V. 1:25-cv-00698 (TSC)

CITIBANK, N.A., ET AL. Case No:

Z Defendants. 1:25-ev-00820

a

MOTION TO INTERVENE AS A DEFENDANT

(CORRECTED)

Tarek Farag, (hereinafter Farag) (pro se), states the

following under oath:

1- Farag was going to intervene in case No: 1:25-cv-

00820 filed 3/19/25, after he knew about it around

3/24/25, he immediately started preparing his motion to

intervene. The Court consolidated it with other similar

cases, hence, his intervention could apply to the other

cases.

2- Farag didn’t confer with the Plaintiffs about his

intervention due to the urgency and his belief that they

must oppose it. However, he called Mr. Mare Sacks

(attorney for DOJ), on 3/26/25 at 12:29 PM, on his phone

number: 202-307-1104, to offer him the information to

support the EPA’s position and avoid intervening in the

case. However, Mr. Sacks was not interested, indicating

that the government lawyers will not expose the huge

fraud involved in the Billions at stake.

3- Upon the information Farag collected during his long

23

research on the claims that “burning fossil fuel could cause

harmful global warming” (hereinafter a Hoax), he believes

that there is an International Criminal Enterprise that use

the Hoax to enrich themselves, and sometimes just to

cause destruction. It includes politicians, officials,

lawyers, judges, business people, etc.

4- The dollars disputed are $27 billion (not million) that

can spoil most people, and once these billions are

distributed, they will be gone forever. The plaintiffs

claim “EPA can terminate a grant only if the grantee

violates the grant’s terms and conditions, engages in

certain illegal activity, or misrepresents its eligibility

status. None of these conditions is Satisfied with respect to

any Plaintiff—and EPA does not claim otherwise”, which

is not true. The defendant Mr. Zeldin found that the

billions in dispute are the result of fraud, waste, and

abuse. Just inserting these billions that will cause inflation

in the Inflation Reduction Act is illegal. In addition, it is

based on fraud and deception, and every one involved in

recommending or approving the money should be

investigated and prosecuted by the AG Pam Bondi

personally and the FBI Director Kash Patel,

5- Farag is an engineer having worked in many

engineering fields, and did many scientific researches

including his Masters and PhD in nuclear engineering.

Was certified as a PE in Illinois in 1994, and have a few

patents. However, he disputes the Hoax with simple

logic that a six-year-old can understand. Farag devoted

most of his time to research the effect of increasing CO2

after Obama’s declaration that CO2 increase is causing

harmful global warming. Farag finished his scientific

studies, analysis, and calculations, using mainly the data

contained in the technical reports generated by IPCC and

NASA, which revealed serious fraud.

24

6- Farag proved that there is no scientific basis for the

Hoax. He published his findings on May 2022, and on

November 1!7, 2022, sent an open letter to UN Secretary

General asking him to stop pushing countries into disasters

due to the Hoax. However, he didn’t receive any response,

and the push for the hoax continued. Around February 14,

2023, Farag, sent another letter to him and to many

politicians and decision makers, and complained to US

AG Merrick Garland, and to IL AG Kwamie Raoul.

However, he didn’t get any disputes to his findings, or

response.

7. FARAG IS ENTITLED TO INTERVENE AS OF

RIGHT

Farag, meets the requirements to intervene under Rule

24(a), which provides that “the court must permit anyone

to intervene” only if the person:

(1) is given an unconditional right to intervene by a

federal statute; or

(2) claims an interest relating to the property or

transaction that is the subject of the action, and is so

situated that disposing of the action may as a practical

matter impair or impede the movant's ability to protect

its interest, unless existing parties adequately represent

that interest.

Under the first scenario, Farag has unconditional right and

duty to intervene to protect the public interests and stop

the fraud; in addition, without his intervention those

billions will be lost forever. Under the second scenario, a

petitioner must meet four criteria to intervene as of right:

“(1) timely application; (2) an interest relating to the

subject matter of the action; (3) potential impairment, as a

practical matter, of that interest by the disposition of the

action; and (4) lack of adequate representation of the

interest by the existing parties to the action.” Reich v.

25

ABC/Y ork-Estes Corp.,64 F.3d 316, 321 (7th Cir. 1995).

Consistent with all other federal courts of appeal, the

Ninth Circuit applies this test broadly in favor of

intervention:

“A liberal policy in favor of intervention serves both

efficient resolution of issues and broadened access to

the courts. By allowing parties with a practical interest

in the outcome of a particular case to intervene, we

often prevent or simplify future litigation involving

related issues; at the same time, we allow an additional

interested party to express its views before the court’ |

United States v. City of L.A., Cal., 288 F.3d 391, 397-

98 (9th Cir. 2002)].

Thus, courts assess a motion to intervene “primarily by

practical considerations, not technical distinctions.” [Sw.

Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Berg, 268 F.3d 810, 818

(9th Cir. 2001)]. As discussed below, F arag meets each of

the requirements for intervention as of right.

(1) Farag’s motion to intervene is timely. Case No:

1:25-cv-820 was filed on 3/19/25, and Farag (pro se) knew

about it 3/24/25, and it was consolidated with other cases

on 3/25/25, and he tried to finish preparing his motion on

Friday 3/28/25, which is practically “instantaneous”.

(2) Farag has an interest relating to the subject matter

of the action. The interest requirement of Rule 24(a) is

“primarily a practical guide to disposing of lawsuits by

involving as many apparently concerned persons as js

compatible with efficiency and due process.”| Nuesse v,

Camp, 385 F.2d 694, 700 (D.C. Cir. 1967); see Wilderness

Soc’y v. U.S. Forest Serv., 630 F.3d 1173, 1179 (9th Cir.

2011)]. Accordingly, no specific legal or equitable interest

need be established for the Rule 24 test to be satisfied.

Because those billions belong to the public and Farag, not

to the politician or the plaintiffs, and the real issues are the

26

Hoax’s fraud and corruption that Farag has the right and

duty to intervene and fight them. Additionally, to satisfy

the relationship requirement (interest), an applicant must

show that resolution of the plaintiff's claims will affect the

applicant. The impact of these cases, goes far beyond its

parties. One simple example for Farag’s damages due to

enforcing the Hoax, he is paying about 16% on top of

his electric bill for zero emission, carbon free energy,

etc., as shown here. Farag believes that the EPA, under the

previous administration, was wasting our money to phony

organizations to enforce the Hoax.

TAXES & FEES $23.01

E mn recovery Ad 590 kWh X 0 GON: 2 80.33

Renewabie Poritclio Siandard 590 kwh X 0.G05C7

Zero En vandard 590 kWh X 0.001¢ 4

Ca y Resource AG 580 KH X OG 64

Eneray Elii gran 599 kWh X 000885

EnerayT 590 kWh x 0000.2

ae: 43.1 X 2G NY

Cis

Murr

Soslee Pents 5107.44

Thank you for your oayment of S78 89 on) January 8, 2024

(3) Without Farag’s intervention there will be a serious

potential irreparable harm to his interests. The test for

impairment under Rule 24 focuses on practical effects. “If

an absentee would be substantially affected in a practical

sense by the determination made in an action, he should,

as a general rule, be entitled to intervene - -. [ Fed. R.

Civ. P. 24 advisory committee’s note, quoted in Citizens

for Balanced Use, 647 F.3d at 898]. Farag’s intervention is

27

to stop paying extra money on his electric bill, or subsidize

other energy sources, to enforce the Hoax.

(4) There is a lack of adequate representation of

Farag’s interests by the existing parties. The burden of

demonstrating inadequate representation is minimal. Farag

needs only to show that his interests are different from the

existing parties’ interests such that their representation

may be inadequate. The Court must consider:

(1) whether the interest of a present Party is such

that it will undoubtedly make all the intervenor’s

arguments,

(2) whether the present party is capable and willing

to make such arguments, and

(3) whether the would-be intervenor would offer any

necessary elements to the proceedings that other

parties would neglect.[ Citizens for Balanced Use,

647 F.3d at 898; Trbovich v. United Mine Workers

of Am., 404 U.S. 528, 538 n.10 (1972): Sw. Ctr. for

Biological Diversity, 268 F.3d at 823; Nuesse, 385

F.2d at 703].

Farag Is interested in eliminating his payments to

enforce the Hoax and to stop the fraud. Citibank is

interested in following the banking rules. The EPA’s

lawyers are pursuing a dangerous direction as shown in

their opposition in case 1:25-cv-698 [Doc 16, pg 8, 9, 22].

Instead of attacking the fraud, which is the root of the

problem as Mr. Zeldin stated, they are opening a window

for the plaintiffs to snatch those billions, and more, and

fly with them. They are weakening the position of the

EPA as if it is interested only in having control. This is

also evident from Mr. Sacks refusal to receive Farag’s

evidence to prove the fraud. They even assert the right of

the plaintiffs to get those billions, which would help the

plaintiffs prove that they could succeed on the merits.

28

Here are some statements of the EPA’s lawyers: “EPA

explained that the existing grants lacked adequate controls

and should be re-awarded under new agreements that

ensure the EPA retains adequate oversight“, “EPA has

announced that it intends to redeploy that money

consistent with Congress's authorization, “EPA has

concluded that the existing regime provides inadequate

oversight and controls”, and “EPA’s directive to Citibank

was not a final agency action”. Farag is wondering if the

named EPA’s Attorneys: Yaakov Roth, Marc S. Sacks,

Kirk T. Manhardt, and Kevin P. Vanlandingham, all

agreed on the stated statements!

8- ALTERNATIVELY, FARAG IS ENTITLED TO

PERMISSIVE INTERVENTION.

As with intervention as of right, permissive intervention is

construed liberally in favor of the moving party [ City of

L.A., 288 F.3d at 397-98]. Permissive intervention should

be allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b) as long as the

applicant for intervention establishes that “(/) it shares a

common question of law or fact with the main action; (2)

its motion is timely; and (3) the court has an independent

basis for jurisdiction over the applicant’s claims.”

[Donnelly, 159 F.3d at 412}. Under this standard, neither

the inadequacy of representation nor a direct interest in the

subject matter of the action need be shown.| Kootenai

Tribe of Idaho v. Veneman, 313 F.3d 1094, 1108 (9th Cir.

2002), overruled in part on other grounds by Wilderness

Soc’y, 630 F.3d at 1178]. Farag shares a common question

of fact “burning fossil fuel does not cause global

warming”, and of law as to the fraud in allocating those

billions. His motion is timely as explained before, and will

not prejudice the existing parties. Farag’s intervention will

save the Court’s time and resources by ending the

29

[OCR skipped on page(s) 31-79]

[Read from a scan; the first 30 pages.]