I'm not aware of any conspiracy theorists who paid United States federal taxes during the Apollo project, so none of them would have standing.
It is possible to sue in civil court for the tort of fraud, as opposed to the criminal act of fraud. The standard of evidence is lower there than for criminal cases but the penalty is limited to civil damages, i.e. money.
In the defense, the claimant's own possibly fraudulent activity (i.e. selling for profit defamatory materials that may be shown to be either negligently researched or deliberately fabricated) may play a part, however I believe that defense applies only to activities attendant to the allegedly tortious act, not to subsequent activity.
I am not aware of any such case brought against an agency of the federal government, nor do I have the legal understanding to know whether such a civil action is even allowed under U.S. law. I believe that agencies of the executive enjoy a certain immunity from civil court action. The customary means of investigating the executive itself is by appointment of a special prosecutor.
One could attempt to bring civil suit against the astronauts themselves alleging tortious fraud for the selling of autographs, books, and other materials and for fees charged for personal appearances. Again, they cannot bring suit on behalf of others; they must themselves demonstrate standing by having been personally harmed as a result of the astronauts' activities.
Thereupon a suitable defense might mention the contributory actions of NASA, pointing out that the astronauts' ability and propensity to do such things would not have existed but for the actions of NASA in masterminding the alleged fraud and encouraging the astronauts' participation in it. In effect it is to argue that the claimant is suing the wrong person -- someone perhaps easier to prevail against than the real perpetrator.
The best defense, of course, is simply to let the claimants fall down the various legal pits that await them. A court trial is not about the impassioned arguments before the jury, but about the pre-trial wrangling over what evidence is admissible. What is presented before the jury is an orchestrated, negotiated stage play. And I would love to see the look on, say, Bart Sibrel's face when he learns that his "lethal" radiation claim will have to be proven in court, and the only experts that will be admitted to the stand are those with academic and professional qualifications in astrophysics.
|