Fair Start Movement

Category: Climate Crisis & Ecocide

Wealthy Public Interest Organizations Helped Ensure the Climate Crisis. Now They Are Hiding Liability.

It’s common to see public interest organizations and governments challenging greenwashing or humanewashing as a means of protecting the environment. But are they using arbitrary criteria for what is green, or humane? Relative to what standard have they been making progress if we have arrived at the current polycrisis?

At FairStartMovement.org (FSM) our research has shown that growth – and hiding the impacts of growth through growthwashing – are easily the largest driver of harm to animals and the environment.

Our research further shows that framing the issue as “growth” itself is inaccurate though helpful to begin to introduce audiences to the issues. Growth is not accurate because people are not reducible to numbers that ignore the more influential relations formed as children enter the world. Those relations present a primarily qualitative issue, one that first has to do with empowerment.

The growth of the past several decades was first enabled by antiquated “separate but equal” reproductive rights policies that illegally discounted and disenfranchised future lives by ignoring a “one person, one equal and influential vote” standard for intergenerational justice in favor of preserving status quo birth inequity and mostly white generational wealth – harming mostly lives of color. The codification of “separate but equal” between 1948-1968 by the emerging human rights regime represented a power grab by elites to protect generational wealth, and avoid intergenerational justice obligations.

The move removed any threshold for intergenerational justice that would have maintained empowering conditions, including birth equity, low climate emissions and reasonable representative-ratio levels. The move used a narrow misconception of what it means to be free from power – one that assumed political authority and existing entitlements rather than legitimating them by actually empowering the children born into the world.

The policies, by ensuring unsustainable growth that diluted the average role one has in influencing the outcomes of their political systems, commercialized human freedom – basing the idea of freedom around free-market isolation and the disembedding of the person from their political systems, rather than empowerment.

To understand Illegal discounting / equitywashing we can simply ask: How are we accounting for empowering children as they came into the world at a “one person, one equal and influential vote” level – enough for them to simply vote to end the climate crisis, autocracy, inequity, etc? The notion that they have that level of influence – that they are anywhere near self-determining – is ludicrous. And the fact is, our assessing value and reporting impact without this accounting hid the daily decline, and made it all worse.

Forget words like sustainable, green, humane, etc. Organizations appear to have never met a basic standard of legitimacy,

The problem thus goes beyond growthwashing, into something called equitywashing (or illegal discounting) – the act of 1) assuming children deserve what they are born with rather than what measureable empowerment and political legitimacy requires, and 2) omitting the role of inequitable growth in value assessments and impact claims.

The alternative was, and is, to treat children entering the world beneath a recognized threshold of measurable empowerment as a constitutionally impermissible cost. It’s treating no child as worth more than another.

Constitutions and treaties don’t create legal obligations, only actually empowering others does that.

And that empowerment depends on whether we account for its costs, assess value, and report impact accordingly – and thus engage in a truly constitutional discourse. One either accounts for the benefits one enjoys as requiring the measurable empowerment of others, or one does not – and the things we say give away whether we do that, or not.

We can use the things we say we test whether we are accounting for legitimacy, and AI-assisted tools can help that process.

Can you think of and describe conditions in which those relations would form that does not involve that accounting? No – that’s impossible, as is being self-determining without truly empowering others.

The fix? Because they do not do that, equitywashing leads to false claims that disvalue human and nonhuman lives, and by metrics we all use like safe temperatures, influence over our political systems, equality of opportunity, etc.

Anyone impacted by those false claims can use consumer protection law to target the claims, and because the underlying business model that causes the claims often violates civil rights and other laws, advocates can use those laws to block use of the underlying model itself. These equity actions trigger something unique: They force governments to decide whether they are are interpreting their laws and own authority as contingent on the measurable empowerment of those subject to that authority – on a one person, one equal and influential vote standard – or choose to use some other standard.

Those willing to pay the costs of legitimacy could never compete against those who refuse to, but the former don’t have to compete: governance requires empowering those subject to it, and interpreting laws to require the same.

In 2023 I published several Newsweek articles on illegal baselining / illegal discounting at U.S. nonprofits. I published the article after resigning from the Animal Legal Defense Fund, which had engaged in illegal discounting / equitywashing, and had withdrawn federal litigation that would have forced the organization to deal with the issue.

Again, the practice of illegal discounting derives from historic subversion of racial justice movements described above, and exponentially reduce environmental damage evaluations, a move that enriches some children – like the children of those funders driving nonprofit agendas – at illegal and deadly cost to the most vulnerable communities in the world.

The practice is part of a historical trend of nonprofits setting low environmental standards and engaging in performative work, something that now exposes them to liability as the climate crisis unfolds. The situation is exacerbated by a lack of accountability mechanisms – like market forces or constituencies – in philanthropy.

As part of a 2024 fellowship I did with the MAHB at Stanford University, and based on extensive peer-reviewed research, FSM began to publish popular articles on interventions to end the equitywashing/ illegal discounting, and using animal liberation (where one finds the most falsifiable claims) as a vector for change.

In 2024 my employer, the University of Denver, consistent with their funders’ illegal discounting, retaliated by removing me from a grant I had developed for the University, including extensive planned litigation, and I resigned my position. The animal law programming, including how it assesses and reports value, represents the use of wealth made through a birth-inequity system to create a charade version of animal liberation, one that by preserving the status quo, does vastly more harm to animals than the program does to benefit them.

It provides a window into how the polycrisis formed, and at the most fundamental level: How we value others, and assess and report our impacts on the world.

In 2025 around litigation I helped bring against Coca Cola, Inc. for equitywashing, I began a fellowship at Emory University based on a forthcoming book on using a “preemptive constitutional discourse” about what it means to empower future generations as a requirement for national legitimacy. The research is built into a tool: FalseClaimsChecker.org. This work is designed to use clearly out-of-context impact claims to get at and preempt the underlying modeling using a simple “one person, one vote” standard to block the illegal discounting and equitywashing under state law, using unfair competition litigation.

Said simply, the tool looks for fake numbers in claims, which originate from the false assumption that there is any form of freedom outside of being birth-empowered to a level of political self-determination. It’s accurate to call those numbers “fake” or “false” because they derive from the legal fiction that having children is more determinative for the parents than the children born or communities they come to comprise, with no level of infant-health-as-enfranchisement (relative to a neutral or zero position) required. Infants arbitrarily born into deprivation relative to others – racially, generationally, nationally, etc. – are not constitutionally positioned to be relatively self-determining, or part of a legitimate, inclusive, and empowering system.

Our research now shows false claims by prominent public interest advocates dating back decades.

In 2026 the funder I had brought on at the University of Denver and various allies made public demands on the University of Denver – including threatening the first ever political equity /constitutional injunction litigation.

In 2026 the Coke litigation terminated in-part because of a lack of funding from animal protection philanthropists avoiding the equitywashing issue, but the University of Denver returned key donor funds, and TruthAlliance.global is now making renewed public demands on the school to end its illegal discounting – in part because it constitutes unfair competition, and violates state and federal civil rights laws.

This work has now culminated in an open letter and forthcoming campaign to urge Coca-Cola, Inc. to end illegal discounting.

The efforts, unlike other campaigns, account for how the the public interest sector – from government, to philanthropy, to nonprofits – enabled many of the current crises because the sector used no fixed baseline or goalpost in assessing public interest outcomes and equitywashed by failing to adhere to the legal “floor”of a one person, one equal and influential vote standard. This is evident in looking at simple metrics like permissible climate emissions, minimum standards for early childhood development, functional representative ratios for political systems, etc. against the legitimacy, or legitimacy/child empowering, standard.

Instead public interest organizations use and have used constantly moving goalposts to ensure the ability to claim progress, and justify their positioning. That’s illegal, and flows from the racist “separate but equal” standard and policy embedded in near-universal reproductive rights systems which acted to protect generational wealth (particularly at foundations), and which accepted as a given that children of color deserve fewer resources, more risk, and diminished influence in their political systems.

Performative public interest interventions, equitywashing, and illegal discounting are costing lives.

Key public interest organizations face serious liability for decades of false claims, and are now taking actions to hide it. FSM activists have been removed from public interest fora, seen Wikimedia pages deleted, have had funders drop their funding, have seen their social media posts censored – and many other forms of retaliation – all for raising these questions.

Our experience has shown that like any sector, public interest entities will not only avoid admitting their mistakes, and as detailed in current proceedings before the African Union, will in many cases attempt to sabotage revelations of those mistakes.

TAKE ACTION: If you are supporting a public interest organization, assess their claims using FalseClaimsChecker.org and urge them to end illegal discounting.

In most cases, the discounting does more to harm their stated missions than they do to further them. An easy way to start the process is through the Tell the Truth and Commit Campaign – in which we simply admit that illegal discounting did more to harm our values than we did to further them, and commit to treating children entering the world beneath a threshold of legitimating empowerment as constitutionally impermissible.

July 11, 2026
New York’s Climate Battle and Success? Letters Included
There is a growing feeling across the world that something is not adding up.

People see climate campaigns, sustainability branding, corporate pledges and public-interest initiatives everywhere. We are constantly told progress is being made. Yet at the same time, forests continue disappearing, species continue vanishing, temperatures continue rising and inequality continues deepening across entire generations.

So naturally, people are beginning to ask a difficult question:

If all this progress is happening, why does the world still feel like it is moving toward crisis?

That is the wider issue explored in the recent article published by the Fair Start Movement titled “New York Helped Create a Fantasy World of Climate Progress — Fair Start Is Taking Action to Show the Truth.” The article forms part of the organization’s broader “Tell the Truth” campaign, which argues that many institutions, nonprofits and public-interest organizations may be measuring success inside incomplete frameworks that fail to account for the larger systems driving harm.

Importantly, this conversation should not be viewed as an attack on people trying to do good.

Many individuals inside environmental organizations, charities, universities and advocacy groups genuinely care deeply about protecting people, animals and the planet. Many dedicate their lives to helping others. But the Fair Start argument is that good intentions alone are not enough if the systems used to measure “impact” fail to include the baseline realities shaping outcomes in the real world.

Person giving food to another

And that distinction matters enormously.

The core concern raised by Fair Start is that institutions often celebrate downstream victories — projects completed, emissions reduced, forests protected, animals rescued, policies passed — without fully accounting for the larger upstream conditions continuing to worsen overall outcomes. According to the campaign, this creates what they describe as a “fantasy world of progress,” where isolated successes are publicly highlighted while wider ecological and social deterioration continues in the background.

In simple terms, the question becomes:

Are we measuring genuine net progress, or are we measuring selective progress inside systems that continue driving larger harm overall?

Fair Start argues that many public-interest organizations, governments and institutions have relied on what they call incomplete or distorted “baseline” assumptions when presenting impact claims to the public. Their concern is not merely about data, but about transparency. They argue that audiences deserve to understand the full context behind institutional claims of success, particularly where larger structural conditions may be undoing much of the progress being celebrated publicly.

The campaign places significant focus on climate change, inequality and intergenerational justice. It argues that ecological destruction and social inequality are deeply interconnected, and that the most vulnerable communities — especially children and future generations — often bear the heaviest consequences of systems designed around growth without long-term balance or equity.

Whether one agrees fully with every aspect of Fair Start’s framework or not, the wider questions being raised are important.

How should institutions measure impact honestly?

How do we distinguish between meaningful systemic change and isolated wins that may be outweighed elsewhere?

And how do we ensure that public trust is built on transparency rather than carefully managed narratives?

These are not small questions anymore.

Across conservation, climate policy and public-interest advocacy, there is increasing recognition that outcomes cannot simply be measured through branding, fundraising success or headline achievements alone. More organizations are now being asked to disclose the assumptions, modelling limits and broader systems behind their public-facing impact claims. That conversation is growing globally. (fairstartmovement.org)

At its heart, this is really a conversation about integrity.

Because the world does not need more polished marketing around sustainability while ecosystems continue collapsing. It does not need more carefully crafted narratives around compassion while inequality and environmental instability intensify underneath the surface.

What people are looking for now is honesty.

Honesty about what is working.

Honesty about what is failing.

And honesty about whether current systems are truly creating a livable future for both humanity and the natural world.

For those of us working directly with wildlife, conservation and communities on the ground, these realities are impossible to ignore. We see humans and animals increasingly pushed into conflict over shrinking resources. We see ecosystems under pressure. We see vulnerable communities struggling to survive. And we know that protecting nature and protecting humanity cannot be separated from one another.

Because without healthy ecosystems, there is no long-term future for any of us.

David Goldman / Associated Press via LA TImes

That is why transparency matters so much moving forward.

Not to tear down good people.

Not to destroy institutions.

But to ensure that the work being done in the name of justice, sustainability and protection is genuinely aligned with reality — and capable of creating the future the world so desperately needs.

Letter-

May 8, 2026

The Honorable Letitia James
Office of the New York State Attorney General
The Capitol
Albany, NY 12224-0341

Re: Submission Requesting Baseline-Disclosure Addendum and Settlement-Messaging Guardrails – JBS USA Climate and Sustainability Matter (Assurance of Discontinuance No. 25-067)

Attorney General James:

This submission asks the Office to close a disclosure gap that can survive enforcement itself: absent plain-language baseline disclosure, settlement messaging in a greenwashing matter can operate as an implied credibility signal for the very class of “net” climate representations whose ambiguity gave rise to the enforcement action.

At issue is not a disagreement over values, nor a claim that nothing beneficial may have occurred. The issue is narrower and more administrable. When public-facing impact claims are communicated without the baseline conditions necessary to interpret them, the public is left to rely on an incomplete account of what is being represented. In that setting, settlement communications themselves can become a reliance event.

Purpose and Posture

Purpose. Convert settlement legitimacy into a baseline-integrity requirement. Enforcement outcomes should not function as implied validation of net-benefit narratives unless settlement communications require baseline disclosure that makes the claim falsifiable to the public.

Posture. This is not a dispute about intent, ideology, or whether any emissions-related progress occurred. It is a consumer-protection submission framed around plausibly material omissions and corrective disclosure remedies. The concern is preemptive. It applies at the point at which claims are made and repeated to the public, not only after reliance has already hardened or harm has already diffused.

Factual Posture

On November 3, 2025, your Office announced a $1.1 million settlement with JBS USA Food Company and JBS USA Food Company Holdings arising from alleged misleading climate marketing tied to “net zero” messaging, and stated that JBS USA agreed to reform marketing practices and report annually to OAG for three years.

The Assurance of Discontinuance identifies the covered “Net Zero by 2040” statement and resolves claims under Executive Law § 63(12) and General Business Law §§ 349–350, and includes monetary relief totaling $1.1 million.

Consumer Deception by Omission

Deception analysis turns on the net impression created and whether missing information is material to a reasonable audience’s understanding and decision-making. Material omissions can mislead even absent proof of motive.

In climate “net” claims, baseline omissions are often decisive. The missing information that matters here is not abstract disagreement over climate values. It is the set of plausibly material conditions that determine what a reasonable audience is actually being asked to believe: what is counted, what is excluded, what “net” depends on, how uncertainty is treated, how time horizons and discounting choices affect meaning, and whether the claim reflects a present, verified condition or a contingent future aspiration.

Where those baseline conditions are incomplete, narrowed, or omitted, the resulting representation may not satisfy the minimum conditions necessary for meaningful public evaluation. What appears to be a concrete climate achievement may instead rest on unstated accounting choices, offset assumptions, exclusions, and contingencies that materially alter the claim’s significance. In that setting, the omission is not peripheral. It is part of the claim’s meaning.

Settlement-Optics Reliance Risk

When the State resolves a greenwashing matter, the public naturally treats the resolution as a credibility signal. That is especially true where the resolution is public, formal, and issued by an enforcement authority charged with protecting consumers from misleading representations.

This submission does not claim that OAG endorsed JBS. The point is narrower. Settlement communications are themselves a public reliance event. Without a baseline-disclosure addendum, they can still leave reasonable audiences with an inference of validated net-outcome meaning that the enforcement action was meant to correct.

That risk matters because public-facing claims influence more than immediate purchasing behavior. They shape institutional trust, commercial reputation, counterpart relationships, policy discourse, and the broader public understanding of what counts as climate progress. If enforcement is to preserve its corrective function, it should not allow settlement optics to become a vehicle for credibility laundering through unresolved ambiguity.

Requests

Request 1: Baseline-Disclosure Addendum as a Condition of Ongoing Settlement Messaging

Ask OAG to publish, and require JBS to host and maintain, a plain-language baseline-disclosure addendum that must accompany any continued “net zero” or emissions-reduction messaging covered by, adjacent to, or reasonably derivative of the settled representations.

The addendum should be structured as a checklist completion for each flagship claim:
1. A) Claim Translation
  State what the claim implies to a reasonable audience versus what is actually promised.
2. B) Accounting Boundary
  Specify Scope 1, Scope 2, and Scope 3 treatment, supplier boundary rules, land-use change treatment, and which entities and brands are in scope.
3. C) Net Mechanism
  Disclose the share of reductions versus offsets or removals, offset types, quality criteria, permanence and leakage assumptions, retirement mechanics, and double-count safeguards.
4. D) Time and Metric Choices
  Disclose the baseline year, interim milestones, time horizon, and metric choices that materially change meaning.
5. E) Verification and Audit Trail
  Name the verifier, frequency, standard used, substantiation availability, and what triggers correction.
6. F) Decision Thresholds
  State what would cause the claim to be treated as no longer supportable, requiring correction or withdrawal.
Request 2: Standardized “What This Does Not Mean” Disclaimers

For statements that could imply verified net outcomes, require short standardized disclaimers that constrain inference, including:

Goal-versus-guarantee language,
Reliance limits describing what audiences should not infer,
Dependency disclosures, including Scope 3 dependence and offset-quality dependence,
Correction triggers identifying what changes the claim’s supportability.

Request 3: Verification Hooks Tied to Existing Settlement Compliance Mechanics

Use the settlement’s existing monitoring infrastructure, including annual compliance reporting and review mechanics, as verification hooks by tying compliance certification to completion and maintenance of the baseline-disclosure addendum for each flagship claim, not solely to phrasing edits.

Request 4: Settlement Communications Guardrail for Similar Cases

Adopt a settlement-communications protocol for greenwashing matters under which no official language is used that can reasonably be read as net-outcome validation unless baseline disclosures and substantiation availability are in place and correction triggers are stated.

Legal Support for a Disclosure-Forward Remedy

This submission seeks compelled, factual, uncontroversial baseline disclosures reasonably related to preventing deception in consumer-facing marketing and settlement-adjacent communications. The requested relief does not require the Office to endorse any ideological position on climate policy. It asks only that where public-facing claims invite reliance, the baseline conditions necessary to interpret those claims are disclosed clearly enough for the public to understand what is being asserted and what is not.

That is consistent with the core consumer-protection concern here. Where a representation depends on unstated boundaries, exclusions, dependencies, or contingent assumptions, the omission of those conditions can materially distort the net impression received by a reasonable audience.

Ripeness

Ripeness is strong because the covered climate claims and settlement communications are already public, the requested relief concerns disclosure and verification mechanics rather than speculative damages quantification, and the settlement already contains compliance infrastructure that can be upgraded into baseline disclosure without departing from ordinary consumer-protection logic.

Requested OAG Actions

Acknowledge intake and identify the bureau or division assigned for review.

Publish an OAG baseline-disclosure addendum template for “net” climate claims and require JBS to host it for covered claims.

Require standardized disclaimers for any “net zero” or emissions-reduction statements that could imply verified net outcomes.

Tie annual compliance reporting to baseline-disclosure completion, maintenance, and correction triggers for each flagship claim.

If settlement communications leave unresolved the baseline conditions that determine what a “net” claim means, enforcement risks correcting deceptive phrasing while preserving deceptive inference. The minimal fix is to require baseline disclosure wherever official resolution may influence public reliance.

About the www.FairStartMovement.org: Unless a person or company claiming to “add value” can prove their impact accounts for the full, preemptive cost of equitably empowering every child at birth, the claim collapses under scrutiny. That means showing conditions where each child enters the world with the health, resources, and real-world influence required to withstand climate risk, systemic inequity, and political exclusion. If those conditions are not measured, disclosed, and met, the claim is built on a distorted baseline. It shifts real costs onto the most vulnerable while preserving benefits for the claimant—turning impact reporting into a mechanism that can obscure harm rather than demonstrate it.

Respectfully Submitted,

Carter Dillard
Carter@fairstartmovement.org
516-725-3157
Fair Start Movement / TruthAlliance.global
May 15, 2026
Recognizing Grassroots Power for Birth Equity, Climate Repair, and Justice in Women Care Groups in Africa.
Summary – “Across Africa, groups of women are coming together in their communities to tackle poverty, hunger, and inequality in simple but powerful ways—supporting families, sharing knowledge, caring for the land, and standing by the belief that every child matters equally”

Across Africa, some of the most powerful solutions to poverty, hunger, and inequality are not coming from large institutions or global conferences. They are coming from women gathered in small circles in villages, under trees, in homes, and in community meeting spaces.

These women care groups are made up of mothers, grandmothers, farmers, caregivers, and community organizers. They work quietly, often without recognition, yet their impact is profound. At the most basic level of society the household and the village they are strengthening families, protecting children, and rebuilding community resilience. In many ways, their work reflects the core values of Truth Alliance and the Tell the Truth Campaign: the belief that real justice begins with honesty about inequality, and with the simple but powerful principle that no child is worth more than another.

Birth Equity Begins at Home

Birth equity means that every child no matter where they are born—should enter the world with equal dignity and a fair chance to live a healthy life. In many African communities, women care groups are the first line of protection for that principle. They share knowledge about maternal health, safe pregnancy, breastfeeding, and child nutrition. They support pregnant mothers, check on newborns, and help families understand how to keep children healthy during their earliest and most vulnerable stages of life.

But their work goes beyond health education. Women care groups challenge the quiet assumption that some lives matter less than others simply because of where they are born. Through their care and solidarity, they affirm a truth reflected in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that every human life has equal worth.

Starting from a Zero Baseline

A powerful idea sits at the center of this grassroots work: every child should start from the same moral baseline.

This “zero baseline” does not mean every family begins with the same resources. Rather, it means that no child should be considered less valuable or less deserving of opportunity.

Women care groups put this idea into practice every day. They create shared food gardens, savings circles, and community support networks so that families facing hardship are not left alone. When crops fail or a child becomes sick, neighbors step in to help.

This spirit of collective care helps prevent the deep inequalities that often grow when families are isolated. It strengthens communities and protects children who might otherwise fall through the cracks.

Climate Repair through Local Action

Africa contributes only a small share of global emissions, yet African communities often suffer some of the harshest impacts of climate change drought, flooding, crop failure, and rising food insecurity.

Women care groups are responding in practical ways. Many organize kitchen gardens, plant trees, conserve water, and teach climate-resilient farming methods. These small actions improve soil health, increase food production, and protect local ecosystems.

Organizations such as Rejoice Africa Foundation have shown how these community-led efforts can tackle both environmental and social challenges at once. When women grow food locally and restore the land, they reduce hunger while strengthening resilience against climate shocks.

In this sense, their work represents a form of climate repair not only through funding or policy, but through restoring the conditions that allow communities to survive and thrive.

Addressing the Root Causes of Poverty

Too often, development programs focus only on immediate problems distributing food, treating illness, or responding to emergencies. While these efforts are important, they do not always address the deeper causes of poverty and inequality.

Women care groups take a more holistic approach. They work to tackle underlying challenges such as:
- Poor household nutrition
- Limited health knowledge
- Environmental degradation
- Economic vulnerability
- Social pressures that contribute to large family sizes
Through open conversation, shared learning, and mutual support, women encourage healthier birth spacing, improved nutrition. They also strengthen women’s voices in household decisions.

Through focusing on causes rather than symptoms, these groups help communities move toward long-term stability.

Reducing Hunger and Preventable Disease

One of the clearest impacts of women care groups is improved nutrition and health.

Community gardens provide vegetables and fruits that enrich family diets. Nutrition education helps mothers prepare balanced meals for children. Hygiene and sanitation practices are shared through trusted relationships, allowing life-saving knowledge to spread quickly from one household to another.

These simple steps help reduce malnutrition and prevent diseases that continue to affect millions of children worldwide.

The result is powerful: healthier mothers, stronger children, and more resilient communities.

A Movement Rooted in Truth

The experience of women care groups teaches an important lesson: lasting change rarely begins in distant offices or international meetings. It begins where life itself begins—in families, neighborhoods, and villages.

By caring for one another and protecting the next generation, these women are already practicing the vision promoted by Truth Alliance and the Tell the Truth Campaign.

Their work quietly exposes a global contradiction. Many systems speak about equality while allowing deep inequalities at birth to persist.

Women at the grassroots are showing that a different path is possible.

No Child Is Worth More than Another

The principle is simple: every child has equal worth.

But if that truth is taken seriously, it has profound implications for how the world organizes its resources, policies, and priorities.

Climate policy, health systems, development funding, and economic opportunity must all reflect that same commitment to human equality. African women working through care groups are already living this truth through everyday acts of cooperation, compassion, and resilience. Their leadership offers a powerful blueprint for a more just world.

The responsibility now is not to replace their efforts but to recognize, support, and learn from them.

When communities begin with the understanding that no child is worth more than another, justice stops being a distant idea. It becomes something real grown in gardens, shared across households, and protected by women determined to secure a better future for the next generation.
May 4, 2026
New York Helped Create a Fantasy World of Climate Progress. Fair Start is Taking Action to Show the Truth.

NY JBS “Net Zero” Settlement Risk: FairStartMovement.org and TruthAlliance.global Ask New York Attorney General to Require Baseline Disclosures So Enforcement Does Not Become Implied Climate-Claim Certification

Fair Start Movement and TruthAlliance.global announced today that they submitted a formal process request to the New York Attorney General and to JBS seeking baseline-disclosure requirements for any continued “net zero by 2040” or emissions-reduction messaging tied to New York’s publicly announced enforcement resolution involving JBS’s climate and sustainability representations.

The request asks New York to close a disclosure gap that can survive enforcement itself: absent plain-language baseline disclosure, settlement messaging in a greenwashing matter can operate as an implied credibility signal for the very class of “net” climate representations whose ambiguity gave rise to the enforcement action.

We simple ask: relative to what was any of the progress made?

Fact: Inequitable growth that enriched mostly wealthy, white children at deadly cost to countless children of color did exponentially more harm to climate than the state or JBS ever did good. Use of an inaccurate valuation and reporting model hides liability for the deaths of tens of millions as the climate crisis intensifies, and reflects the academic and public interest practice that ensured the polycrisis: Constantly moving goalposts away from the absolute infant-health-as-enfranchisement standard necessary for political legitimacy in order to falsely claim truth, or victories, and to thus raise funds.

Relative to that harm, on many levels, the work was insignificant and thus performative – and in terms of the underlying business model – mimics Coca-Cola’s model of discounting future lives, especially lives of color, at exponential levels.

Backgrounder on Equity Fraud

The fundamental unit of moral currency is the influence one has over the outcomes of their political system, or what is loosely understood as political equality / equity though common conceptions are incomplete. Other currencies, like welfare, cannot exist outside of systems of political and legal obligation or “oughtness” and the primacy of how people are positioned relative to others and Earth’s ecologies at birth.

This equity is consistent with an objective “one person, one equal and influential vote” (equal offsets of influence relative to zero) standard, empowering persons to limit the influence others have – including ecologically and socially – over them. This is also consistent with more collective systems of family planning in which no child is treated as worth more than another, an outcome ensured through a threshold or level of empowering birth and development conditions and relations outside of which no child should be born.

While world leaders after World War Two were obligated by the emerging human rights regime to use this standard as the fundamental baseline for governance, this was functionally blocked by use of the dominant “separate but equal” standard in universal reproductive rights regimes – in the birth and development-based creation of actual power relations. This system reversed the concept of freedom by treating the act of having children as more self-determinative of the parent than other-determinative of the children and the communities they would comprise – determining political equity for all in the process.

This physically disembedded persons from any effective role in their political systems. It also allowed those in power, both with political authority and entitlements to wealth defended by that authority, to avoid having to legitimate their power by actually, and measurably empowering those subject to it. Rather than seeing the creation of actual (relative to the legal baseline) empowering relations as the source of political authority, nations treated symbolic or representative instruments like treaties and constitutions as themselves authoritative.

While civil rights movements made headway in areas like housing, employment, and education, the notion of autonomy without equity amounted to the privatization of the creation of power relations, and the totally arbitrary basis for the concentration of extreme levels of generational white wealth – over the span of decades – that drives many of the outcomes we see today. That wealth never had to pay the costs of legitimacy – and the full impacts are now being revealed.

Within less than a few generations the regime caused unsustainable growth, vast political, social, and ecological inequity, the destruction of world ecologies, and the decline of democracy. This inequitable and disenfranchising growth breached political, ecological and social thresholds for objective values we all share like comfortable temperatures, equality of opportunity,

Public interest work and outcomes during these decades and into today have generally oriented from arbitrary, ever-changing and illegal (both because they disenfranchise and otherwise harm children, relative to a host of accepted legal standards usually only applied to existing rather than future children) baselines that violate the “one person, one equal and influential vote” standard. High levels of climate emissions championed by “environmental” organizations that enrich some at deadly cost to others, still permitted and defended by coercive authority of nations, are an example.

Use of these baselines represents an undemocratic, diluted and commercial form of freedom, rather than values consistent with political freedom, that is more akin to “free market” choice” of a shopping mall more than the political influence of a functional town hall.

Public interest interventions to challenge greenwashing and humanewashing have failed because they themselves did not account for the massively countervailing impacts of growth on the interventions themselves – growth that for instance has created more climate emissions than the interventions removed, while bringing children into the world without the resources or political influence to deal with them.

And yet accounting for growth by itself would not account for the inequity of the relations formed by that growth.cIt would not account for how some benefit at deadly cost to others based simply on their birth and developmental positionality, with benefits defended by nations on the false premise that all are empowered equally at birth. One of the false assumptions at work was that some children were magically born poor and others rich, instead of the reality of a policy choice to elevate family autonomy (and not in the sense of being free of the climate crisis, but free in a “free market” sense) over family equity and political legitimacy.

Today women “liberated” by this reproductive rights regime, as well as their children, are dying in growth-based heat waves, living in poverty, with no way to use their political influence to save themselves or their children. They are subject to top-down abstract rules, not rules derived from the inclusive creation of power relations by those subject to them.

Worse yet, wealthy funders benefiting from that inequitable growth – like Tim Midura – have helped conceal this with the downstream charade interventions discussed above, and low standards for defining terms like “green,” “humane,” and “equitable” designed to enrich their own children at deadly cost to others.

For example, Fair Start activists were funded by such funders in their work with prior organizations, and prominent activists turned business owners today benefit from having used assessment and reporting models that each year allowed them to claim progress for vulnerable entities – like animals – that was easily being undone on exponential levels by birth-inequity based growth. The hallmark of equity fraud involves the fraudster omitting from evaluation and reporting the largest driver of the relevant outcome – the birth-based creation of power relations – in order to exploit that process.

The solution?

The FalseClaimsChecker.org accounts for this minimum necessary condition of political equity by replacing those assumptions – and the illegal baselining – with a base assumption that political authority and the entitlement to wealth it can generate must be derived from a “one person, one equal and influential vote” / “no child is worth more than another standard,” thus situating those making the value assessments and impact reporting themselves as part of, or outside of, a discourse legitimacy moving towards a just future. This accounts, at a most fundamental level – at a constitutional or basic system of obligation level, for the driver of the polycrisis.

This allows us to begin to see the creation of actual (relative to the legal baseline) empowering relations as the source of political authority, and treat how each person assesses value and report impacts to determine the alternative baseline from which they proceed.

These claims situate them in their political system, and allow us to assess how they arbitrarily benefit from, or suffer the costs, of the “separate but equal” standard.

When someone makes a value assessment and impact claim, we should ask: Relative to what?

You will find rampant use of shifting baseline – moving goalposts – that allow claimants to appear to create value and beneficial impact with no functional protections for the most vulnerable, infants and animals, as the climate crisis, autocracy, and massive inequity worsens. That means the impact is being undone relative to the minimum legally required threshold, or an illegal baseline – illegal because it does not account for legitimacy, or the need to measurably empower those subject to the legal system, including ensuring minimum levels of health-as-enfranchisement for all infants.

This is called growthwashing, or more accurately equitywashing. Why the latter? Because to treat humans quantitatively as numbers is less accurate than to see them as living in complex qualitative relations, and because past certain ecological, social, and political thresholds, growth has devastating nonlinear impacts – with climate emissions triggering things like ecological feedback loops.

We can use these claims to demonstrate the problem, that the values and impact they claimed would have been undone relative to the legal / preemptive as opposed to arbitrary baselines, and encourage reforms towards the legal baseline and their becoming part of an empowering system of truly self–determining persons by realigning fundamental authority and entitlements around a system of fair birth positionality, consistent with the values that they are signaling in their claims This is a state of autonomy through political equity by rearranging constitutional entitlements, sufficient to ensure Dasgupta’s optimality, but in the qualitative sense of empowering relations.

Given that few if any use the legal “one person, one equal and influential vote” standard, this exercise generally entails their having to admit benefiting from arbitrary birth and developmental positionality (national, racial, intergenerational, etc.) at deadly cost to others, and having disparate influence over others defended by unlegitimated authority, and threat of coercion, of the state.

We admit: Being part of a system of birth inequity that treats children of color as deserving fewer resources and influence, including omitting this as a countervailing factor in our value assessments and impact reporting, by overshooting ecological, political and social thresholds does more harm to our values than we do to further them.

This “Tell the Truth” discourse creates an opportunity for permanent resistance to oppression because it protects, through the use of an intergenerational justice threshold, the most vulnerable, Infants and animals and identifies those who reject that protection, and systems of mutual self-determination with it.

See the fallacious claims by prominent food entrepreneur Paul Shapiro, who ironically started his work as an animal rights activist climbing to a level of national influence on a false advertising campaign against egg producers for humane washing, His claims to have saved animals while explicitly refusing to back equity reforms or qualify his claims, make them inaccurate and out of context because he omits how he chose underlying policies that did vastly more harm to animals than he did good. His omission enables him to exploit financial systems – as lead at a profitable food company with military contracts – that in turn growth exploit animals and elevate his voice above those pursuing on-balance reforms.

Initial attempts, in other scenarios, by Fair Start Movement and Truth Alliance advocates to implement this preemption were met with sabotage by public interest entities hiding liability for decades of inaccurate claims, usually for micro interventions undone – relative to a true system of empowerment – by macro forces that enriched those involved, and their funders, at deadly cost to others.

As a practical matter one can challenge illegal baselining, or political equity and impact fraud, using inexpensive and widely available consumer protection and unfair competition laws to enjoin public and private business valuation, and impact reporting, that don’t comply with the minimum baseline of inclusive legitimacy.

Given that political authority, including to entitle wealth, derives from having to empower those subject to the authority, these cases get to the ultimate question of political freedom: Are we obligated to a political system that does not empower us? And what are the limits of self-defense against such a system?

After 1948 and the inception of universal human rights that limited national authority, nations were obligated to derive their authority and any entitlements protected under it from the equitable empowerment of their subjects. This requirement is widely reflected in the Bill of Human Rights instruments and their references to the right to self-determination – and one person, one equal and influential vote. This requirement should have created an interpretation of the collective pronoun that premises those documents, like the reference to “we the people,” treating a level of influence in one’s political system (“oughtness” or an “influl” that precedes a “util”) as a fundamental currency that precedes utility and welfare.

The textual basis for this interpretive rule is clear – these pronouns are the linguistic premise of the language that follows. Such a currency and universal linguistic rule of interpretation would have entailed a harsh principle: Each person in a system of law and obligation would be owed the level of public protection, or oughtness, they would account to the most vulnerable: Infants, and the animals whom the infants would impact. The value of self, versus other, determination would require it. Again, a racist system of self-determination blocked this change.

Regardless, the principle creates a textual basis to interpret law as requiring the inclusion and empowerment of those subject to it, consistent with standards for intergenerational justice, and ensuring equal offsets of influence relative to a zero baseline and the idea that no child is worth more than another. At a policy level this would have required a fundable, minimum threshold of empowerment beneath which no child should be born, with future children holding entitlements sufficient to create collective family planning systems based on readiness, delay, and the equitable distribution of levels of influence among children. The threshold ensures equal offsets relative to zero, or the preemptive costs of having to measurably empower all children equitably as they enter the world – and at a standard where those children could protect themselves from things like a climate crisis, autocracy, deadly inequity, etc.

Put simply:

If it’s illegal to use a business model that prohibits hiring or housing persons of color, it’s illegal to structure cost/benefit business models to enrich some children at deadly cost to children of color. Use of that model hides liability for the deaths of tens of millions as the climate crisis intensifies, and reflects the academic and public interest practice that ensured the polycrisis: Constantly moving goalposts away from the infant-health-as-enfranchisement standard necessary for political legitimacy in order to falsely claim truth, or victories, and to thus raise funds.

Unless a person or company claiming to add value to the world can show they were evaluating and reporting by accounting for the preemptive costs of having to measurably empower all children equitably as they enter the world – and at a standard where those children could protect themselves from the climate crisis, autocracy deadly inequity, etc. – the person or company making the claims has been using an illegal baseline, a Ponzi/equity-fraud standard that benefits them at deadly cost to others, and mostly children of color.

Those willing to pay the costs of a legitimate political system that avoids arbitrary benefits of birth positionality and conditions authority on empowerment could never compete against those willing to exploit others, and they need not given that any authority to govern or assign wealth derives from first empowering those subject to these things. The other solution to inequity-gained wealth backed by state violence – as the oppression it is – is to treat that violence as illegitimate and triggering the right to self-determinative self-defense against “trolley targets” who benefit themselves at deadly cost to others.

It’s this truthful and obligation-creating discourse, a Tell the Truth campaign, that is most preemptive and legally authoritative over all conflicting obligations, including treaties and constitutions.

May 4, 2026
Joseph Chamie, More Than Most, Helped Ensure the Climate Crisis and Deadly Inequity. Hold Him Accountable?

World leaders, not everyday people, created a climate and inequity crisis that is killing millions. And they did it by valuing some children over others, and in ways that were illegal.

Joseph Chamie is a prolific writer in the area of population and development, and recently wrote that: “Inequalities in human mortality are evident worldwide. Premature death is particularly prevalent in low-income regions due to limited access to healthcare, poverty, and conflict.”

He should know, having served as Director of the United Nations Population Division and the deputy secretary-general for the 1994 UN International Conference for Population and Development.

He is directly responsible for use of the United Nations fraudulent reproductive rights system, and illegal baselining, that acts as the fundamental driver of the “limited access to healthcare, poverty, and conflict” he now decries.

And he did so in violation of human rights law.

By ensuring no threshold for intergenerational justice, the system created extreme concentrations of wealth and power at cost to democracy, nature, and child welfare. To avoid that all Chamie had to do was take the logical step of extending child welfare entitlements, including to political equity, to future children. Instead he chose to maintain a privatized process that exploited children for growth, even as the climate crisis became known.

That meant he did not even try to legitimate the political authority he claimed, and exercised over others, by measureably empowering those subject to it. He knowingly used a system that enriched white children at deadly cost to mostly children of color, and that commercialized political freedom.

That’s a serious example of public corruption. Understand this: Chamie embraces and helped build a system that allows wealth and political authority to use the state’s threat of, and application of, official violence to defend themselves without empowering those everyday people subject to these things. It’s obscure, but tyranny nonetheless, and on a scale that dwarfs others.

Chamie is, in some ways, a trolley target because of this.

While human rights activists are accustomed to targeting for retribution acute and palpable abusers like war criminals, on volume of suffering Chamie has done more harm than most, albeit in a subtle way that is hard for humans to perceive. That does not make him any less culpable.

And Chamie has declined to admit fault, or support a clear and easy change that would reset the reproductive rights and family planning regimes.

Today the costs of his mistakes are becoming clear as the climate crisis claims millions of lives. Why should Chamie live well why so many die?

Chamie declined to debate Fair Start activists regarding his role, and what he owes the victims. And he continues to promote the fraudulent model.

Take action:

As a first step contact him at chamiej@gmail.com and urge him to admit the truth:

He oversaw a reproductive rights and family planning regime – from which he and others benefitted – that did more to exploit future generations than protect them from the ecological, political, and inequity crises that are now unfolding. And he did so in violation of human rights laws, including the simple rule that wealth and political authority must be derived from the measurable empowerment of those subject to such things.

If people really constitute their own political systems through truthful discourses about what we owe future generations, then it’s up to everyone to engage those at the top who are responsible to admit their failures, and their obligations to fix them. This act literally decentralizes influence – the first step to a future that is more just and free.

April 7, 2026
Factchecking Professor Justin Marceau. His Animal Advocacy Does Not On Balance Liberate Animals. It’s a Facade That Hides Liability for the Climate and Inequity-Driven Deaths of Millions.

Did the University of Denver really spend millions of dollars to create charade of animal liberation, saving a few here and there, while embracing an underlying model of animal propertyhood, birth inequity, and unsustainable growth that kills countless more, and harms vulnerable children?

“Today’s animal rights movement is hindered by an unmet need: While relying heavily on activists and insiders to uncover wrongdoing and urge systemic reform, there has historically been a dearth of available legal support. The Animal Activist Legal Defense Project fundamentally alters this state of affairs, with significant and distinctive benefits for the future of the animal rights movement and for the future of animal well-being.”

—Professor Justin Marceau, Director, Animal Activist Legal Defense Project

That statement is not accurate.

Relative to what standard does Marceau, or those like Paul Shapiro, benefit animals? Factor in the inequitable growth that put vastly more animals into suffering than they saved, and you find them moving the goalposts away from on-balance protecting animals in order to to appear to win, and appear so for those who use growth-based wealth to fund the efforts. That well-funded charade drowns out the voices of those who engage in fundamental reforms, and it costs lives as the climate crisis intensifies and women and children go without the resources they need to respond to it.

I co-founded the Animal Activist Legal Defense Project with Justin, in the wake of serious misconduct at the Animal Legal Defense Fund, including illegal baselining skewing how courts evaluate harm to the environment, the Board paying a settlement to the former executive director Stephen Wells to hide this, and continued illegal baselining that hides liability for philanthropists’ and nonprofits’ role in exacerbating the climate crisis. Part of the founding of the clinic at Denver, in records now removed from the school’s website, was a commitment to total liberation that accounted for many forms of justice. That quickly changed – consistent with funders’ growing concern about what the commitments would reveal and require.

When I mentioned to Justin the book “Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World,” he responded: “This is a story as old as time. I admire the fact that you think you can solve it.” The work we did, if anything, exacerbated this phenomenon.

In the years that I served with the program we never implemented that standard, but used the same illegal, racist (it starts with the assumption children of color deserve less than white children) and anthropocentric standard for evaluating the value and impact of our work that fundamentally caused the climate crisis, the standard the Animal Legal Defense Fund has used and still uses.

In fact, leadership at the school removed me from a grant project involving a funder I had brought in to the process, one willing to address the macro issues (or what he calls the “necro”), and then repurposed the grant towards low-impact, charade-level work, keeping part of the grant even after the funder broke from the school and asked that it be returned.

Justin’s statement above reflects a fantasy world that hides the liability of those who benefited from decades of anthropocentric, inequitable and disenfranchising growth – those who fund his work.

Fact: Inequitable growth that enriched mostly wealthy, white children at deadly cost to countless children of color did exponentially more harm to animals than we, at the program, ever did good. Use of that valuation and reporting model hides liability for the deaths of tens of millions as the climate crisis intensifies, and reflects the academic and public interest practice that ensured the polycrisis: Constantly moving goalposts away from the absolute infant-health-as-enfranchisement standard necessary for political legitimacy in order to falsely claim truth, or victories, and to thus raise funds.

Relative to that harm, on many levels, our work was insignificant and thus performative – and in terms of the underlying business model – mimics Coca-Cola’s model of discounting future lives, especially lives of color, at exponential levels.

Marceau’s work is a facade meant to create the impression of animal rights and law, while maintaining an illegal anthropocentric standard from which he benefits. While originally part of Animal Legal Defense Fund litigation that would have reset the baseline around the unity of interests between nonhumans and vulnerable persons, Marceau dropped out after leadership caved to Julia Olson and Our Children’s Trust – an anthropocentric environmental group – pressured the organization to drop the case. His advocacy since derives from illegal baselining that, like the advocacy of Tim Midura at the Brooks Institute for Animal Rights Law and Policy, does more to protect wealth and white privilege than on balance benefit animals.

How could that happen? For decades reproductive rights systems built on “separate but equal” ideology enabled inequitable growth that – absolved from having to pay the costs of equitizing birthrights – created extreme concentrations of wealth. That wealth now funds downstream, micro, and charade-level interventions that hide the macro process and create a fantasy world of progress that hides liability for the polycrisis.

That wealth, not on-balance values like the full measure of protecting animals, accounts for public interest policy and interventions.

Animal liberation can entail the symbolic rescuing a handful of animals and doing a few show trials, while growth drives the harm of trillions of more animals than activists protect.

To protect animals – to practice animal law actually capable of that – requires accounting for the relations they have with humans, relations that start as humans enter the world. But that entails accounting for things like racist child inequity, the countervailing impact of growth, questions of what we owe future children harmed by the climate crisis and whether that debt overrides competing interests, etc.

We, like the Brooks Institute for Animals Rights Law and Policy that funds the animal law program Justin manages as well as his title, chose greater harm to animals than we as animal lawyers could ever do good with our downstream and micro interventions, a choice made we made in order to evade difficult questions around birth inequity, while benefitting ourselves and those funding us, at cost to animals. It was a deliberate choice of macro (human / nonhuman indivisible) animal propertyhood over macro personhood, and in contravention of the wishes of Brooks McCormick Jr. to protect animals – a fact that Fair Start will show in the years to come.

Following the true intent of Brooks McCormick Jr. to protect animals requires the funding of reforms at the level of the creation of power relations between humans and animals. Based on what I saw at the University of Denver, Tim Midura and his daughters – whom he hired to lead the Institute – will have spent more on lavish events than on developing and implementing a norm that could on-balance protect animals by rearranging entitlements at the most fundamental level, accounting for and reversing overshoot and the inequitable and disenfranchising growth that causes it.

Relative to inequitable and disenfranchising growth, Midura’s use of the money had a negligible beneficial impact on animals – and he made that choice, to not even take the first necessary step of altering his conception of animal law and its basic content.

Trump did not simply win. The public interest sector became corrupt, and they and those they fund are betting they can use their wealth to suppress these truths, and that audiences will simply not hear them nor act upon them. The programming is further evidence that public interest interventions often do more to protect the growth-based wealth that funds low-impact charades, made at cost to children’s and animals’ rights, than to actually further those rights.

The baseline for progress in the programming, and the school in general, was set closer to growth economics based on treating children of color as deserving less that white kids, a standard that has nothing to do with animal welfare, exacerbating situations like the ejiao trade in equines and it’s projected growth. Original intent in the founding of the programming aside, that standard used is illegal because it violates a host of laws, including the fundamental rule that persons obligated to a legal system should first be empowered by it.

Marceau, instead of dealing with animal rights in the context of the subject-level relations of reproductive rights, intentionally chose to silo the issue away from birth equity in order to triple-dip: 1) benefit from his arbitrary but very privileged national/racial/class birth positionality, 2) benefit from growth-based wealth unimpeded by the rights of future children, and 3) pretend to be an animal savior while ensuring a comfortable life for him and his children at cost to animals. Pushed to do animal law as reforming the express or implied “we” reference that is the premise of all fundamental legal instruments like constitutions and covenants, their concern for animals fades relative to their desire to preserve their children’s unearned privileges.

Macro animal personhood and rights, the sort that accounts for the actual lived experience of all nonhumans, marked from the birth-creation of their relations with humans, is designed to prevent this sort of charade-level work and distractivism.

The lives animals experience cannot be separated from the creation of the humans with whom they will interact. Justin divides the two issues to get the benefit of appearing to be a hero, while using an underlying system – and its funds – that does much more harm to animals than he does good.

That’s a charade. And it’s illegal.

What Marceau did – part of a larger example of public interest advocates selling out, cost macro reforms that on-balance benefit animals substantial funding and time. And that cost the lives of mostly persons of color.

The University of Denver, and its funders, now have an opportunity to change the way it assesses value and report impacts – to eventually be able to substantiate its claims of furthering animal rights and liberation, the highest standard of environmental protection one can imagine and something that cannot be separated from the future prospects and lives of all children.

Fair Start and Truth Alliance activists have called upon the University to join the Tell the Truth campaign, and back preemptive standards for human rights and constitutional reforms that would truly liberate all animals.

The University has done the micro version of animal liberation and personhood. Now it can do the macro.

If it’s illegal to use a business model that prohibits hiring or housing persons of color, it’s illegal to structure cost/benefit business models to enrich some children at deadly cost to children of color. Use of that model hides liability for the deaths of tens of millions as the climate crisis intensifies, and reflects the academic and public interest practice that ensured the polycrisis: Constantly moving goalposts away from the infant-health-as-enfranchisement standard necessary for political legitimacy in order to falsely claim truth, or victories, and to thus raise funds.

Unless a person or company claiming to add value to the world can show they were evaluating and reporting by accounting for the preemptive costs of having to measurably empower all children equitably as they enter the world – and at a standard where those children could protect themselves from the climate crisis, autocracy deadly inequity, etc. – the person or company making the claims was using an illegal baseline, a Ponzi/equity-fraud standard that benefits them at deadly cost to others, and mostly children of color.

What do we do about it?

Use of that illegal baseline constitutes unfair and illegal (actually uniquely unconstitutional) competition. Entities willing to pay the costs of legitimacy by refusing valuation and reporting models that don’t actually empower children as they enter the world at a measurable level of “one person, one equal and influential constitutional vote” could never compete against those who refuse to do that, those who triple dip on their arbitrary birth positionality in an unsustainable system of growth to benefit from a system that quietly does more harm to their professed cause than they do to further it.

And the just need not be subjected to unfair and unconstitutional competition: Because governments’ authority, including to entitle /incorporate private entities and assign wealth, derives uniquely from the obligation to empower those subject to that authority and those entitlements, governments are under a preemptive obligation to prioritize the elimination, through things like consumer protection actions that can enjoin the underlying business models, of illegal baselining.

“National legitimacy is, and should have always been, contingent on measurable birth equity or
the empowerment of each child to eventually control the outcomes of their political systems. The
Tell the Truth campaign, which is a universal discourse in which all admit wrongly assuming
children legally deserve with the prospects they are born with rather than what racial justice,
their rights, and political equity require, and commit to prioritizing those things, is the best
pathway to that legitimacy. Ensuring this change, especially in post-reconstruction scenarios, is
the first order of business for everyone, and a discourse of our birth-equity obligations – in which
it takes a village to plan for a child – is preemptive.”

– Pierrette Kengela

March 17, 2026
How did the climate crisis, autocracy, and massive inequity we see today fundamentally come about? Ask Tim Midura and the Brooks Institute for Animal Rights Law and Policy.

Those claiming to prevent such threats – especially lawyers – used a deceptive system of moving goalposts to constantly assess progress and raise funding. But relative to the fixed standard – child/political equity – that was necessary to actually prevent the threats, the progress was being undone daily by inequitable growth – growth that benefited those lawyers and the funders backing them. In the case of those tasked with and claiming to protect animals, their work is the most easily falsifiable – dealing with the most vulnerable class of entities and the legitimacy of the system they use.

A close examination shows a cadre of lawyers creating the illusion of legitimacy for their own benefit at deadly cost to the animals they claimed to benefit, and many vulnerable humans as well.

Those like Trump did not simply win. The progressive systems meant to block him were corrupted.

Fair Start Movement confronts the illegalbaselining and false claims wealthy funders make about their public interest impacts, claims that hide liability for the climate crisis, decline of democracy, vast inequity, and other horrors facing us today. These claims skew the standard for climate policy and life-saving reparations, enriching white children at deadly cost to children of color.

The Brooks Institute for Animal Rights Law and Policy – and those they fund – are an example of the problem.

I know, having worked in entities they funded for many years, and they are aware of the criticism of prior funders in the animal law space whose funding framed the discipline in ways that benefitted them and their children at cost to animals.

Hundreds of millions of dollars were left by Brooks McCormick for the protection of animals.

Instead of using the funds to actually protect animals, the lead Tim Midura hired his own daughters and used an anthropocentric growth standard for assessing and reporting value – an illegal baseline that moves the goalposts to allow Midura to claim beneficial impact for animals easily undone by inequitable growth – that did more to benefit himself and those he funded than animals.

What Midura does is not animal law, or obligatory systems determining the actual lives and experiences of animals. It’s human law that refers to animals, a conception that does more to benefit Midura than animals.

Every benefit the Institute claims to have created for animals was easily undone by a birth inequity-based system that assumes political authority and entitlements to wealth rather than legitimating them through child rights-based limitation of power relations.

Midura and the Institute talk about animals in the current anthrocentric legal system – they do not reform that system to on-balance protect animals, which was the intent of Brooks McCormick. Midura’s omissions, and his misconception of animal law, were deadly. They are the fundamental reason we have billionaire kids like Barron Trump on one hand, and infants dying of dehydration in wealth-driven heat waves on the other.

In fact Midura was advised by Fair Start Activists in 2018, based on peer-reviewed research, that he was using an illegal baseline, and later in different widely circulated articles that described the use of the baseline at the Animal Legal Defense Fund which Midura had funded (one of which pointed out that when the correct equity measure was used, the Fund has spent more on union busting than on developing and implementing principles of animal law actually benefitting animals).

Midura, instead of dealing with animal rights in the context of the subject-level relations of reproductive rights, chose to silo the issue away from birth equity in order to triple-dip: 1) benefit from his arbitrary but vey privileged national/racial/class birth positionality, 2) benefit from growth-based wealth unimpeded by the rights of future children, and 3) pretend to be an animal savior while living a lavish life at cost to animals.

Why is that so bad? If we are to be free we have to be measurably self-determining, rather than determining of others – through things like wealth-based ecocide killing infants in the Sahel. And that first gets determined in reproductive rights policies that determine who we should be.

Who knew that benefits in a political system should be geared to paying the costs of others being empowered to participate in that system!? This is nutty stuff for those like Midura.

Midura thus intentionally did more to maintain the largest driver of animal suffering and ecocide than reform it. He’s intentionally choosing models that push us closer to Donald Trump’s vision for a future defined by an inequitable population, rather than Partha Dasgupta’s vision of a biodiverse future.

And Midura’s doing it spending money meant to save animals.

One can easily see this by assessing his quotes on impact in the context of growth, growth that is based on the anthropocentric and “separate but equal” reproductive rights system / baseline that creates commercialized and disenfranchising relations, rather than the legitimate fundamental baseline of “no child is worth more than another / one person, one equal and influential vote” that underlies legitimacy.

Even simple AI systems can detect this, and it manifests as manufactured numbers in his claims, where the on-balance benefit to animals is easily undone by assumptions and policies – like high permissible levels of climate emissions and a commercialized and disenfranchising conception of human freedom where Midura’s family benefits at the constitutional level of who we should be, and at deadly cost to others – that undo the benefit claimed.

More specifically, Midura used the funds to further cement the nonsensical concept of anthropocentric animal law: Animal law as the current legal system’s reference to animals, with no need to fundamentally change how we form human/animal relations to actually / on balance protect animals. But you cannot help animals on balance without accounting for their relations with humans. Helping them requires the same fundamental change children of color need – reforming fundamental illegitimacy – but that’s the last thing those who made their wealth on illegitimacy want to deal with.

Why? Inverting preemptive power from documents like constitutions to collective family planning discourses – to account for the actual creation of power relations and the lives animals will experience – nullifies all of the assumed and unlegitimated authorities and entitlements Midura’s family relies on to live well while others suffer.

Midura funded his misconception in premier law schools to brand it with their mystique – much the way philanthroscammer Brad Goldberg did. Those schools all make false claims about their impacts on animals, and have been named in actions before the United Nations.

This shows a horrible thing: In the middle of the polycrisis, wealth could buy and further false ideologies at top schools – like the idea that freedom is about “free markets” that harm animals rather than measurable political empowerment for humans which helps animals, or the idea that performative public interest work – in which the performer quietly chooses policies that undo the work on balance, and benefit them – are acceptable.

Seeing this does not require inside knowledge – just ask Midura to report impacts in the context of inequitable growth or run the zer-baseline tests with AI described above. The problem is hidden in plain sight. He won’t see the problem because he assumes it’s acceptable that some children benefit at deadly cost to others through inequitable birth positionality, capital growth unimpeded by the rights of future children, and omissive reporting.

The academics he funds do not speak out because they want the money he controls.

The fix? Anyone can challenge illegal baselining – through things like complaints to states attorneys generals under consumer protection law – because it hurts everyone.

More at:

https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/fair-start-movement-urges-california-attorney-general-to-recognize-full-justice-standard-as-preemptive-of-fraud-claims-1035104323

and

http://einpresswire.com/article/880223770/africa-led-petition-challenges-global-climate-and-corporate-harm-standards

Unless a person or company claiming to add value to the world can show they were evaluating and reporting by accounting for the preemptive costs of having to measurably empower all children equitably as they enter the world – and at a standard where those children could protect themselves from the climate crisis, autocracy, inequity, etc. – he person or company making the claims was using an illegal baseline.

Those willing to account for those costs, to legitimate political systems and engage in the most just and effective reforms possible, cannot compete with those who do not, and can simply use money made at inequitable growth-cost to infants and animals to fund omissive modeling and claims that violate a variety of state and federal laws.

Governments are obligated to block illegal baselining, and equity fraud, because their authority derives from having to measurably empower those subject to it.

Some are now taking legal action against the entities Midura funds.

Take Action: Contact Midura – https://www.linkedin.com/in/timothy-midura-4845a214/ – and ask him to join the Tell the Truth campaign and admit a simple truth and act on it. Inequitable growth and illegal baselining did more to harm animals than he did to protect them, and that he is obligated to change standards.

Background:

What is Fair Start? Legitimate Public Interest Work Can’t Compete Against Illegitimate Charade–Level Work. And It Does Not Have To.

Unless a person or company claiming to add value to the world can show they were evaluating and reporting by accounting for the preemptive costs of having to measurably empower all children equitably as they enter the world—and at a standard where those children could protect themselves from the climate crisis—the person or company making the claims was using an illegal Ponzi/equity-fraud standard and benefiting at deadly cost to others, mostly children of color.

Those willing to account for those costs, to legitimate political systems and engage in the most just and effective reforms possible, cannot compete with those who do not – but they don’t have to. Those benefiting from particular values must pay the costs, and limit their fundamental entitlements, if we are to ensure governance by the people.

Recent litigation against Coca-Cola revealed a surprising result: A business model that illegally discounts and disenfranchises future lives, enriching mostly white children at deadly cost to children of color. How is that possible?

In the middle of the Twentieth Century world leaders used the prevailing “separate but equal” standard to treat the act of having children as a matter of parental bodily autonomy, rather than political equity for all. Governments, in the wake of WW2, were supposed to use objective standards to protect the vulnerable. They did the opposite. This blocked the measurable empowerment of each child – the measurable political equity that is a necessary condition of being free – and ensured a privatized, commercialized version of freedom, and unsustainable and inequitable growth that created extreme concentrations of wealth, disenfranchised citizens, and irreparable harm to the environment. It allowed those with authority, wealth and other entitlements to assume them, rather than legitimate them though protective limits on the birth-creation of power relations.

Today women “liberated” by this reproductive rights regime, as well as their children, are dying in growth-based heat waves, with no way to use their political influence to save themselves or their children. Worse yet, wealthy funders benefiting from that inequitable growth masked it for decades with the downstream charade interventions discussed above, and moving goalposts / low standards for defining terms like “green,” “humane,” and “equitable” designed to enrich their own children at deadly cost to others.

Law and justice were meant to eliminate arbitrary measures and outcomes – and yet with equity fraud, these systems start with a random “parental bodily autonomy” birth lottery ensuring inequitable and unsustainable growth that overshot ecological, political, and social thresholds.

Those using the Ponzi/equity-fraud standard are subject to legal and other action to block the use of the standard because all political authority derives from government having to empower those subject to its authority. Documents like constitutions don’t constitute free nations – communications that form empowering relations, including all birth and development, do. Our value assessments and impact reporting constitute such communications and situate us into a system of protective obligation, or they do not.

Illegal baselining assumes children deserve what they are born with, even as growth degrades their prospects, rather than what rights and political legitimacy require. There’s a false assumption behind most public interest work: That our political obligations are constituted by documents like constitutions instead of being constituted, or not, as children come into the world. Public interest work is performative if it is based on this assumption.

The deadly costs of “separate but equal” reproductive rights, versus “no child is worth more than another” will kill millions: https://www.kff.org/racial-equity-and-health-policy/disparities-in-access-to-air-conditioning-and-implications-for-heat-related-health-risks/

And if it’s illegal not to hire persons of color, it’s illegal to systematically enrich white children at deadly and disenfranchising costs to children of color. The largest driver of suffering in the world is the discounting of future life, enabled by a lack of a protective threshold/relations beneath which no child should be born, achieved through “legitimations” – funded collective family planning, entitlements to ensure equal opportunity, and parenting delay and assured readiness.

Will courts go along? Given that their authority derives from the empowerment obligation, they should.

There is a huge class of professionals – lawyers, academics, fundraisers, politicians, reporters/editors, etc. – funded by the wealth created through birth inequity. That wealth, more than the objective values that underlie public interest work, determine outcomes.

Relative to a zero-baseline in which people are actually empowered to control outcomes in the political system that impacts them, most public interest work after 1948 (when nations were meant to institute human rights universally) amounted to window-dressing to hide Ponzi, growth-based wealth.

They benefit from this high-stakes birth-lottery system, free-ride triple-dipping on birth positionality and omitting the impacts of inequitable growth from the fantasy world of value and impact they create.

The triple-dipping involves the:

– privileges of birth (nationality, race, generational, etc.),

– growth income unimpeded for decades by equity and empowerment-based reproductive rights, and

– charade public-interest heroism that omits countervailing impacts of growth.

Out them with one question: Your value and impact is relative to what? The answer will not be relative to illegitimacy: one person, one equal and influential vote:

https://fairstartmovement.org/what-is-birth-equity-and-why-cant-we-be-free-without-it/

Those maintaining and benefitting from the illegitimacy – the lack of a protective check on the birth-creation of power relations. Their lives are worth no more than the infants dying in climate-crisis heat waves caused by the wealth bubble they helped create. They accept a growth arc based on entitlements that contradict their own values, assuming as permissible high levels of harm in a list of variables (this claimant takes credit for “saving animals” for decades), rather than zeroing out the harm – an assumption that quintuple or more discounts the harm caused by birth inequity.

In the context of animal liberation, the macro framework is disfavored by funders because while food law and even criminal law reforms can ensure good media that support existing entitlements and investments, the family law and other reforms that the macro entails pose potential preemptive liability for value assessments and impact reporting around micro, downstream-level interventions undone by macro, upstream-level forces that illegally enriched some at deadly cost to others.

Under our lead counsel, Esther Afolaranmi, the TruthAlliance.org and Fair Start Movement will run a Tell the Truth and Commit (TTTC) campaign backed by legal, grassroots and corporate certification efforts that divides binarily between those who admit use of the standard and commit to changing it, and scammers who do not and instead engage in hypocritical babble and value-signaling devoid of legitimating obligations—many of whom have used the standard for decades. The focus is not on the claims, but the numbers behind the claims.

We admit: We were part of a system of unsustainable birth inequity that did more harm to our own values than we did to further them, and we owe the victims compensation. We admit we omitted key facts, and back universally applicable injunctions against doing so as a matter of ensuring political legitimacy.

The TTTC campaign leverages the costs of tens of millions of deaths from equity fraud to enjoin the use of the standard as unfair competition inside key public and private institutions in the U.S. and Europe. These institutions are using it to assume entitlements rather than legitimate them, and to pursue growth that slowly dilutes and commercializes the average level of political influence. Some of the institutions actually participated in the creation of the standard and constantly framed their public interest work as charity or investment, rather than the obligation of deriving entitlements from the measurable empowerment of others.

The injunction would limit entitlements and other benefits by the true or objective costs to others, based on things we all value—like safe temperatures, equality of opportunity, and limits on who has control over what we experience. TTTC is a truth and reconciliation process involving universal admission of our having benefited deadly costs to others based on equity fraud.

March 9, 2026
The Ecocide We See in the World Today Was Ensured Through Decades of Public Interest Fraud: The Case of Carney Anne Nasser

Those claiming to prevent such threats – especially lawyers – used a deceptive system of moving goalposts to constantly assess progress and raise funding. But relative to the fixed standard – child/political equity – that was necessary to actually prevent the threats, the progress was being undone daily by inequitable growth – growth that benefited those lawyers and the funders backing them. In the case of those tasked with and claiming to protect animals, their work is the most easily falsifiable – dealing with the most vulnerable class of entities and the legitimacy of the system they use.

A close examination shows a cadre of lawyers creating the illusion of legitimacy for their own benefit at deadly cost to the animals they claimed to benefit, and many vulnerable humans as well.

Are you getting scammed by people claiming to do public interest work?

As an animal protection attorney I was paid for decades by wealthy foundations to create a fantasy world of progress for animals and the environment that was being easily undone, every day, by inequitable growth. That growth did more to more harm to animals than we did good, and because it was inequitable, it enriched mostly white children at deadly cost to children of color.

That’s fraud by omission, or illegal baselining. And now some are calling it out.

I was not alone.

Attorneys like Carney Anne Nasser intentionally omitted information, for well over a decade, about the actual impacts of her work – especially in her role defining what “animal law” means as a Fellow at Harvard.

People like Nasser got paid to play the hero. But it was an illusion. On balance, Nasser did more to privilege her children, at cost to others, than help animals. Even as the climate crisis exacerbated conditions for animals and the most vulnerable, and growth killed off vastly more wildlife than humans could save, Nasser fronted as constantly protecting animals – moving the goalposts each time away from a standard that would have actually protected them in order to falsely claim victory.

Nasser, instead of dealing with animal rights in the context of the subject-level relations of reproductive rights, chose to silo the issue away from birth equity in order to triple-dip: 1) benefit from her arbitrary but very privileged national/racial/class birth positionality, 2) benefit from growth-based wealth unimpeded by the rights of future children, and 3) pretend to be an animal savior while ensuring a comfortable life for her and her children at cost to animals.

Why is that so bad? If we are to be free we have to be measurably self-determining, rather than determining of others – through things like wealth-based ecocide killing infants in the Sahel. And that first gets determined in reproductive rights policies that determine who we should be.

One can easily see this by assessing her quotes on impact in the context of growth, growth that is based on the anthropocentric and “separate but equal” reproductive rights system / baseline that creates commercialized and disenfranchising relations, rather than the legitimate fundamental baseline of “no child is worth more than another / one person, one equal and influential vote” that underlies legitimacy. Even simple AI systems can detect this, and it manifests as manufactured numbers in her claims, where the on-balance benefit to animals is easily undone by assumptions and policies – like high permissible levels of climate emissions and a commercialized and disenfranchising conception of human freedom – that undo the benefit claimed.

More specifically, Nasser helped cement the nonsensical concept of anthropocentric animal law: Animal law as the current legal system’s reference to animals, with no need to fundamentally change how we form human/animal relations to actually / on balance protect animals. But you cannot help animals on balance without accounting for their relations with humans. Helping them requires the same fundamental change children of color need – reforming fundamental illegitimacy – but that’s the last thing those who made their wealth on illegitimacy want to deal with.

Why? Inverting preemptive power from documents like constitutions to collective family planning discourses – to account for the actual creation of power relations and the lives animals will experience – nullifies all of the assumed and unlegitimated authorities and entitlements Nasser relies on to live well while others suffer.

Her work was a charade hiding wealth made at cost to the things she claimed to value. It did more to hide climate harm and other liabilities than benefit animals.

Even after multiple conversations with Fair Start activists Nasser insisted on excluding birth inequity impacts from her work – even though they are the largest driver of animal suffering. But it went beyond that – Nasser intentionally ignored obvious evidence legal system she was using was itself becoming increasing illegitimate as the average person was disenfranchised – and she chose to ignore it, currying favor with funders whose wealth was built on that illegitimacy.

Honest lawyers will derive legal systems back to and condition them on the empowerment of those subject to them – not assume entitlements to the wealth that funds them.

That deriving is the macro, upstream form of animal rights that makes micro, downstream interventions actually – or on balance – effective.

And the Fair Start Movement and TruthAlliance.global are now pushing back on performative public interest work.

The Tell the Truth campaign allows us to admit that choosing inequitable growth policies that treat children of color as deserving less, and that disenfranchise them, did more harm to our proclaimed values than we did good.

And it let’s us fix that problem by backing a universal injunction against equitywashing, which is fraud by omission about how we assess and report value.

The injunction is based on unfair competition law. Legitimate entities willing to tell the truth about their impacts – to put them in context – and to factor in the costs to ensuring all children are empowered could never compete against funders and advocates who shift their costs to infants and animals – those they claim to protect.

If it’s illegal not to hire persons of color, it’s illegal to maintain a business model that enriches white children at deadly cost to children of color. It’s a no-brainer. Whether governments back the injunction raises a key question: Is political authority and the wealth it entitles – it national legitimacy – conditioned on the measurable empowerment of those subject to those things?

Who knew that benefits in a political system should be geared to paying the costs of others being empowered to participate in that system!? This is nutty stuff for those like Nasser.

This shows a horrible thing: In the middle of the polycrisis, wealth could buy and further false ideologies at top schools – like the idea that freedom is about “free markets” that harm animals rather than measurable political empowerment for humans which helps animals, or the idea that performative public interest work – in which the performer quietly chooses policies that undo the work on balance, and benefit them – are acceptable.

Take action: Urge Nasser, at cnasser@law.harvard.edu, to Tell the Truth and admit using an illegal baseline to asses and report her impacts on animals, and to back a legal injunction that would prohibit it.

Also contact leadership at Dillard University – kvazdeville@dillard.edu. where Nasser is employed, to urge the same.

Background:

What is Fair Start? Legitimate Public Interest Work Can’t Compete Against Illegitimate Charade–Level Work. And It Does Not Have To.

Unless a person or company claiming to add value to the world can show they were evaluating and reporting by accounting for the preemptive costs of having to measurably empower all children equitably as they enter the world—and at a standard where those children could protect themselves from the climate crisis—the person or company making the claims was using an illegal Ponzi/equity-fraud standard and benefiting at deadly cost to others, mostly children of color.

Those willing to account for those costs, to legitimate political systems and engage in the most just and effective reforms possible, cannot compete with those who do not – but they don’t have to. Those benefiting from particular values must pay the costs, and limit their fundamental entitlements, if we are to ensure governance by the people.

Recent litigation against Coca-Cola revealed a surprising result: A business model that illegally discounts and disenfranchises future lives, enriching mostly white children at deadly cost to children of color. How is that possible?

In the middle of the Twentieth Century world leaders used the prevailing “separate but equal” standard to treat the act of having children as a matter of parental bodily autonomy, rather than political equity for all. Governments, in the wake of WW2, were supposed to use objective standards to protect the vulnerable. They did the opposite. This blocked the measurable empowerment of each child – the measurable political equity that is a necessary condition of being free – and ensured a privatized, commercialized version of freedom, and unsustainable and inequitable growth that created extreme concentrations of wealth, disenfranchised citizens, and irreparable harm to the environment. It allowed those with authority, wealth and other entitlements to assume them, rather than legitimate them though protective limits on the birth-creation of power relations.

Today women “liberated” by this reproductive rights regime, as well as their children, are dying in growth-based heat waves, with no way to use their political influence to save themselves or their children. Worse yet, wealthy funders benefiting from that inequitable growth masked it for decades with the downstream charade interventions discussed above, and moving goalposts / low standards for defining terms like “green,” “humane,” and “equitable” designed to enrich their own children at deadly cost to others.

Law and justice were meant to eliminate arbitrary measures and outcomes – and yet with equity fraud, these systems start with a random “parental bodily autonomy” birth lottery ensuring inequitable and unsustainable growth that overshot ecological, political, and social thresholds.

Those using the Ponzi/equity-fraud standard are subject to legal and other action to block the use of the standard because all political authority derives from government having to empower those subject to its authority. Documents like constitutions don’t constitute free nations – communications that form empowering relations, including all birth and development, do. Our value assessments and impact reporting constitute such communications and situate us into a system of protective obligation, or they do not.

Illegal baselining assumes children deserve what they are born with, even as growth degrades their prospects, rather than what rights and political legitimacy require. There’s a false assumption behind most public interest work: That our political obligations are constituted by documents like constitutions instead of being constituted, or not, as children come into the world. Public interest work is performative if it is based on this assumption.

The deadly costs of “separate but equal” reproductive rights, versus “no child is worth more than another” will kill millions: https://www.kff.org/racial-equity-and-health-policy/disparities-in-access-to-air-conditioning-and-implications-for-heat-related-health-risks/

And if it’s illegal not to hire persons of color, it’s illegal to systematically enrich white children at deadly and disenfranchising costs to children of color. The largest driver of suffering in the world is the discounting of future life, enabled by a lack of a protective threshold/relations beneath which no child should be born, achieved through “legitimations” – funded collective family planning, entitlements to ensure equal opportunity, and parenting delay and assured readiness.

Will courts go along? Given that their authority derives from the empowerment obligation, they should.

There is a huge class of professionals – lawyers, academics, fundraisers, politicians, reporters/editors, etc. – funded by the wealth created through birth inequity. That wealth, more than the objective values that underlie public interest work, determine outcomes.

Relative to a zero-baseline in which people are actually empowered to control outcomes in the political system that impacts them, most public interest work after 1948 (when nations were meant to institute human rights universally) amounted to window-dressing to hide Ponzi, growth-based wealth.

They benefit from this high-stakes birth-lottery system, free-ride triple-dipping on birth positionality and omitting the impacts of inequitable growth from the fantasy world of value and impact they create.

The triple-dipping involves the:

– privileges of birth (nationality, race, generational, etc.),

– growth income unimpeded for decades by equity and empowerment-based reproductive rights, and

– charade public-interest heroism that omits countervailing impacts of growth.

Out them with one question: Your value and impact is relative to what? The answer will not be relative to illegitimacy: one person, one equal and influential vote:

https://fairstartmovement.org/what-is-birth-equity-and-why-cant-we-be-free-without-it/

Those maintaining and benefitting from the illegitimacy – the lack of a protective check on the birth-creation of power relations. Their lives are worth no more than the infants dying in climate-crisis heat waves caused by the wealth bubble they helped create. They accept a growth arc based on entitlements that contradict their own values, assuming as permissible high levels of harm in a list of variables (this claimant takes credit for “saving animals” for decades), rather than zeroing out the harm – an assumption that quintuple or more discounts the harm caused by birth inequity.

In the context of animal liberation, the macro framework is disfavored by funders because while food law and even criminal law reforms can ensure good media that support existing entitlements and investments, the family law and other reforms that the macro entails pose potential preemptive liability for value assessments and impact reporting around micro, downstream-level interventions undone by macro, upstream-level forces that illegally enriched some at deadly cost to others.

Under our lead counsel, Esther Afolaranmi, the TruthAlliance.org and Fair Start Movement will run a Tell the Truth and Commit (TTTC) campaign backed by legal, grassroots and corporate certification efforts that divides binarily between those who admit use of the standard and commit to changing it, and scammers who do not and instead engage in hypocritical babble and value-signaling devoid of legitimating obligations—many of whom have used the standard for decades. The focus is not on the claims, but the numbers behind the claims.

We admit: We were part of a system of unsustainable birth inequity that did more harm to our own values than we did to further them, and we owe the victims compensation. We admit we omitted key facts, and back universally applicable injunctions against doing so as a matter of political legitimacy

The TTTC campaign leverages the costs of tens of millions of deaths from equity fraud to enjoin the use of the standard as unfair competition inside key public and private institutions in the U.S. and Europe. These institutions are using it to assume entitlements rather than legitimate them, and to pursue growth that slowly dilutes and commercializes the average level of political influence. Some of the institutions actually participated in the creation of the standard and constantly framed their public interest work as charity or investment, rather than the obligation of deriving entitlements from the measurable empowerment of others.

The injunction would limit entitlements and other benefits by the true or objective costs to others, based on things we all value—like safe temperatures, equality of opportunity, and limits on who has control over what we experience. TTTC is a truth and reconciliation process involving universal admission of our having benefited deadly costs to others based on equity fraud.

March 8, 2026
A Quiet Driver of Climate Death? A Wealthy Professional Class Creating a Fantasy World of Social Justice Impact.
Fair Start reforms offer the most just and effective way to address many of today’s overlapping crises—but only if public-interest claims are evaluated using the right standard. Anyone claiming positive impact should be asked a basic question: How did your cost-benefit model account for children entering the world, and did it meet what those children’s legal rights, political equity, and national legitimacy require? In most cases, the answer is that it did not. Children are typically treated as economic inputs driving growth, while the ecological, political, and human costs of that growth are ignored or illegally discounted. This produces “free” wealth that depends on worsening conditions – especially for children of color – and contradicts the values advocates claim to hold, such as safety, equality, and sustainability. The result is continued overshoot of ecological and social thresholds that both humans and nonhumans need to survive.

How is such contradiction possible?

Between 1948 and 1968 world leaders effectively subverted the ongoing decolonial and racial justice movements with a human rights regime premised on a fraudulent standard: Autonomy or self-determination without the necessary condition of measurable political equity or empowerment. That fallacy fundamentally operates through an arbitrary and floating baseline present in almost all private and public cost/benefit modeling that illegally discounts future lives, and a universal but illegitimate reproductive rights regime devoid of children’s rights and political equity standards, which avoids applying limiting values to the birth-creation of power relations, and which has mostly protected long generations and growing concentrations of wealth.

The standard treated children, and thus future generations, as means rather than ends, and it ignored that persons not documents constitute nations, and almost inevitably through collective family planning efforts that ensure a minimum threshold of empowerment for all children. That threshold – a real border to replace the fictitious ones nations use today – enables consensual governance, avoiding each person’s loss of self-determination to the billions of others occupying and changing the planet. The real border makes consent possible.

Read more about threshold borders here, and to understand why Trump is a symptom and not the cause of all the harm he has done.

That wealth, which enables a form of white supremacy, was built by not having to be legitimated – by not having to pay the costs of child rights and equity, and thus legitimacy, and by ensuring unsustainable economic growth that has enriched a few at deadly and illegal cost to many, mostly children of color. The reproductive rights regime has lasted less than a few decades before causing catastrophic overshoot and degradation of multiple threshold conditions – ecological, social, and political – vulnerable children and animals need to survive and thrive, and it is impinging on the fundamental right of current and future generations to have children in safe and empowering conditions.

The wealth from that growth now funds a legion of professionals – lawyers, academics (many of whom do not account for birth positionality and thus lose neutrality in their work), reporters/editors, campaigners, and paid fundraisers – who act as decoys creating a fantasy world of social justice undone daily by intergenerational and fundamental injustice, and who protect and expand the wealth by omitting the countervailing impacts of children entering the world in conditions that violate the children’s rights and disenfranchise them, impacts that contradict the value assessments and public interest impacts the professionals claim.

Many benefit from this high-stakes birth lottery system, and then use their privilege to create the misleading appearance of solving it. Their lives are worth no more than the infants dying in the heat waves caused by the wealth bubble these professionals created.

That omission constitutes legally actionable equity and impact fraud (EIF) – using downstream and micro assessments and reporting to mask upstream and macro forces illegally enriching some at deadly cost to others. There is a preemptive right and cause of action to block EIF because governments authority derives from empowering those subject to it – and governments cannot redefine the object state of what it means to empower subjects just to avoid liability for the climate crisis. Widespread use of the standard – and the discourse that situates (or constitutes) each of us in the intergenerational body politic – makes it physically impossible to limit the power humans have over one another, so that each person can be self-determining. Fair Start activists have witnessed multiple attempts by this professional class to hide collective liability for the deaths of millions as the climate crisis accelerates.

If anyone used in their business or nonprofit work a valuation model premised on valuing as a benefit not hiring persons of color, they would be subject to civil rights injunction by state government. Using a model that generally enriches mostly white children at deadly climatological and other costs to mostly children of color, and doing so in part by disenfranchising them, is worse than a discriminatory hiring model, and is also illegal.

Constitutional discourse, about what we owe future generations, can bring change. For example, Fair Start is urging Paul Shapiro – an influential animal rights activist who helped defined policy for decades, now turned industrialist, to Tell the Truth about his impacts and to evade what many movement strategists see as the danger of interest convergence activism. Others are changing the world for the better by embracing the primacy of birth equity.

Our work is having an impact. We pointed out that Wikipedia used the EIF standard in reporting the misleading impact claims of one environmental organization. Wikipedia retaliated by deleting the Fair Start Movement page, hiding liability for low editorial standards that have exacerbated the climate crisis, and that hide editors’ individual conflicts of interests.

But taking our claimed values seriously, ensuring a future defined by them, requires fundamental change and not lying about one’s impacts while quietly undoing them for personal benefit.
- EIF and those who use it can be challenged by grassroots family reforms and demands for equity reparations via coalitions like TruthAlliance.global;
- a universal discourse called Tell the Truth that simply urges those making public impact claims to contextualize those claims around children entering the world;
- the standard can be enjoined in a variety of legal fora under the preemptive right all have to legal and political systems where authority, including the right to entitle wealth, is derived from and contingent on the measurable (measured from a zero harm baseline) empowerment of those subject to such systems;
- and the standard can be ended via a corporate certification programming that ensures businesses avoid the horrific costs of the failed reproductive rights standard.
Total liberation lies not in top-down power, constitutions that do not empower people, and disconnected leaders drawing fictitious borders on maps, but in decentralizing power through collective reproductive rights systems that are based on love – and proven by ensuring measurable political equity for all children and thus national legitimacy.

Fair Start – which now operates mostly as a limitless network of whistleblowers targeting those above them – is intent on showing EIF as the fundamental driver of the crises we face today, and preempting it at the federal level in the United States by 20028 via specific grassroots, legal and corporate reforms to ensure the United States (which has had a disproportionate impact using the standard to undercut freedom around the world) and other nations begin to fundamentally legitimate. This entails moving illegitimate wealth to save countless innocent lives as a fundamental form of universal resistance to oppression.

TAKE ACTION: Back TruthAlliance.global and this simple truth: No Child is Worth More Than Another.
December 24, 2025