September 23, 2025 • 45 mins
Two leading voices in the fight for environmental and human rights justice are Steven Donziger and Paul Paz y Miño. Steven Donziger is an attorney and activist known for his decades-long legal battle against Chevron on behalf of Indigenous peoples and rural communities in the Ecuadorian Amazon. His work has drawn international attention to issues of corporate accountability, climate justice, and the criminalization of human rights defenders. Paul Paz y Miño is the Associate Director of Amazon Watch, a nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting the rainforest and advancing the rights of Indigenous peoples in the Amazon. For over 20 years, he has worked to build international solidarity, expose corporate abuses, and amplify the voices of frontline communities resisting environmental destruction. Together, Donziger and Paz y Miño discuss their work for environmental justice, the ongoing struggles of affected communities, and the broader fight to hold corporations accountable for human rights and ecological harms.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
This is Alec Baldwin and you're listening to Here's the
Thing from iHeart Radio. My guests today are two of
the leading voices in the fight for environmental justice, advocacy
for indigenous communities and the protection of their homeland. Paul
Pasaminho is a human rights and environmental justice advocate. Is
(00:24):
also the deputy director of Amazon Watch, a nonprofit organization
that works to protect the Amazon rainforest and support indigenous
peoples in South America. Pasaminho has also worked for Amnesty
International and directed human rights programs for indigenous communities in
Mexico and Guatemala. Pasaminho joined Amazon Watch in two thousand
(00:48):
and seven to oversee its clean Up Ecuador campaign. It
was during this cleanup campaign that he met Stephen Donziger,
a human rights and environmental lawyer who has famously been
fighting the Chevron case for over thirty years.
Speaker 2 (01:05):
Hi, I'm Stephen Donziger.
Speaker 3 (01:07):
Hi I'm Paul Pasiminho.
Speaker 4 (01:10):
We met in two thousand and seven when I began
working at Amazon Watch as the I Think Managing director
at the time, and one of the campaigns I was
overseeing was the clean Up Equador campaign. Stephen came into
our offices in San Francisco and shook my hand and said,
it's really great to meet you. You're joining at a
(01:30):
great time. This case is just about to be wrapped up.
Speaker 3 (01:34):
We're going to win.
Speaker 1 (01:35):
Famous last words, right, famous last words? And where was
the case at at that time, Stephen, where was the
case at?
Speaker 2 (01:42):
Well, it was we were in trial in Ecuador and
I completely, all of us completely underestimated how long it
would take to do the case. So the trial started
in two thousand and three. That was four years later.
We were winding down. But you know, Chevron had a
lot of tricks up at sleeve to keep delaying the
trial because they never really wanted the trial to end.
(02:02):
They were very comfortable paying their lawyers lots of money
to keep litigating the case because they knew once it
ended they were going to lose. So, you know, the
case was in a procedural posture where we really had
put in a bunch of evidence, thousands of chemical and
water samples proving their pollution. And at that point they
(02:24):
started again engaging in all sorts of dirty tricks to
delay the end of the trial.
Speaker 1 (02:29):
So we were on the cusp.
Speaker 2 (02:31):
Of ending it and winning it, and we eventually did
win it, but at that point it would be another
four more years.
Speaker 1 (02:38):
Now, I want to just clarify a couple of things.
What year was Caplain shoved into your life?
Speaker 2 (02:44):
Caplan appeared in two thousand and nine. The lawsuit was
filed the way back in nineteen ninety three in New York.
Chevron wanted the case moved to Ecuador. They succeeded. That
took ten years, so the case, the trial began in
Ecuador in two and won, and then we litigated for
eight years. They were about to lose. They then sued
(03:06):
me in New York under civil of civil rico theory,
and that's when Kaplan came into my life.
Speaker 1 (03:13):
Explain to people how the mechanism of how Caplin is
injected into this process, meaning you win, they want to
go back to New York and appeal that decision. How
are the captains of the world enabled to function in
that in that role you want a case, I'm assuming
you're going to go to an appeal, but then the
gates of hell opened. How were they able to install
(03:34):
that judge that way?
Speaker 2 (03:36):
Well, first of all, I believe the whole entry of
Captain into the case was not an accident. I think
it was by design, and I think the way it
happened is Caplan is known for being very pro corporate,
very anti Planist lawyer. It doesn't like lawyers like me.
And I think Chevron's law firm at Gibson, Dunn and
Crutcher steered the case to him from behind the scenes,
(03:59):
and I think he totally in on it. The case
was not assigned randomly, and WOI la. They sued me
for sixty billion dollars and he's the judge and like
to this day, I don't know the details of how
that happened, other than to say that the case was
not assigned through random lot. Kaplan had overseen a minor
aspect of an action against Joe Berlinger, the filmmaker that
(04:23):
Chevron had filed, and he used the fact that he
presided over that very minor discovery matter to claim jurisdiction
over this major, major, major lawsuit they were filing against me.
And I'll say it was against me, but I was
really a stand in for the communities in Ecuador in
the Amazon rainforest who had won the judgment. They were
trying to destroy me so they didn't have to pay
(04:45):
the communities they poisoned. But Kaplan's entry was not an accident.
He's always been a very pro corporate judge, and I
think it was all part of a design by Chevron.
Speaker 1 (04:55):
There was the discussion the notion that you were allowed
to ultimately sue Chevron in any country they did business. Correct. Yes.
Speaker 2 (05:03):
In other words, once we won the judgment and the
amount of ten billion dollars, and it was affirmed on
appeal by Ecuador Supreme Court, we meaning the communities and
their lawyers had a right to go try to see
Chevron's assets wherever they existed, anywhere in the world. As
people know, Chevron is a huge global company. They have
assets and dozens and dozens of countries. The irony is
(05:25):
the one place where we were legally barred from pursuing
their assets is right here at home in the United States,
because Judge Caplan, at the outset of the case issued
what to me is a baseless nationwide injunction.
Speaker 4 (05:39):
What's fascinating about the Caplain Gibson Dunns situation is it's
similar to what we're seeing in the Greenpeace case. The
process of filing the RICO charges preemptively against Stephen and
the Ecuadorians. One, blocked the Ecuadorian people from seeking access
(06:00):
to justice in the United States. It basically served to
make the indigenous people and the communities invisible. That's what
they've done in the Green Peace case.
Speaker 2 (06:08):
Two.
Speaker 4 (06:09):
And what they did was before the judgment was finalized
in Ecuador, they sued to prevent a judge in the
United States from looking at the Ecuadorian judgment. Now, any
fair judge would have looked at Chevron's claims and said, well,
they've just got a judgment in Ecuador.
Speaker 3 (06:26):
Presumably they're going to bring it to the United States
to enforce it.
Speaker 4 (06:29):
At that time, you can bring up your claims of
fraud or anything else, and a judge will make a
determination is that legit or is it fraud, and then
the Ecuadorians can either get their payday or not. But
by suing preemptively under Rico and going after Stephen, they
said these people don't matter, this is a fraud and
(06:49):
we shouldn't ever look at the evidence of what happened
in Ecuador. And that was the caplain piece that is
so diabolical, prevented the real crime of Chevron's admitted contamination
from seeing the light of day. In the US courtroom,
which was the Gibson Dunn's strategy. And that's what they
did in the green Peace case too. Instead of going
(07:11):
after Standing Rock, instead of saying these are the indigenous
peoples that have protested, these are the people that have
caused the harm quote unquote in their eyes to energy
transfer partners. They targeted green Peace, who had virtually nothing
to do with it, and they make the Indigenous people invisible,
which is part of Gibson Dune's strategy and one of
the reasons that they should be identified as a diabolical
(07:33):
law firm.
Speaker 1 (07:34):
Now, Gibson Done wasn't involved in the Dakota.
Speaker 4 (07:37):
They were the lead lawyers and the trial against green Peace.
Speaker 1 (07:41):
Oh they were. And yes, so you're saying that Gibson
done this. So this is you only name two cases,
not that you need to name more, but you name
Dakota and you name Ecuador. Is this their playbook? Do
they do a lot of this kind of thing?
Speaker 3 (07:53):
It is their playbook. And that's just two cases.
Speaker 4 (07:56):
They actually pro bono have been taking a case to
try to undermine the Indian Child Welfare Act. So this
is a pattern of this law firm. There's actually a
report people can read on the website license to spill
dot org, which goes through all of these what they
call legal thuggery, and judges have called them legal thugs,
(08:18):
not just people that they've targeted.
Speaker 3 (08:20):
This is their pattern, this is what they've built their reputation.
Speaker 1 (08:23):
Are they're assuming that they have a better chance at
achieving their goals now that Trump is in office. Is
that a part of that playbook as well.
Speaker 4 (08:30):
Well, certainly in the energy transfer case because he's buddies
with the CEO of Energy Transfer.
Speaker 1 (08:37):
Now what did they say? What did they maintain that
they proved in court that Greenpeace had done or orchestrated
or organized What was the damage or whatever? It was defamation?
How can you avoid a conversation about environmental disaster without
the perception you're going to talk down about somebody? But
they wasn't defamation? Was that the main complaint? Were there
(08:58):
other things they said that they did?
Speaker 4 (09:00):
There was defamation, trespass, and I believe was property destruction.
Speaker 1 (09:07):
What was the property that was destroyed?
Speaker 4 (09:09):
Well, all of basically everything that took place during the
Standing Rock protests they said Greenpeace was responsible for.
Speaker 3 (09:18):
So at some.
Speaker 4 (09:18):
Point during the protests things were set on fire. Green
Peace sent lock boxes allowing people to essentially chain themselves
to equipment to prevent that equipment from operating, which delayed
their work, and then they were eventually cut off and
were continued. That was really the only thing green Peace did.
(09:38):
But they said because Greenpeace did that, everything that happened
during the entire protests at Standing Rock was Greenpiace's responsibility,
including Greenpeace International, green Pieace, Inc. And Greenpeace Fund, three
different entities, one of which didn't have any staff in
North Dakota, and the other which didn't have any staff
at all.
Speaker 3 (10:00):
Fund.
Speaker 4 (10:00):
They're not activists, they fund other groups doing work.
Speaker 1 (10:04):
And Standing Rock refers to a reservation of Indigenous.
Speaker 4 (10:07):
People, Yes, exactly, their traditional lands were violated by the
Dakota and still are by the Dakota Access Pipeline.
Speaker 1 (10:15):
How is that so it.
Speaker 4 (10:17):
Crossed over what the Standing Rocks Sioux tribe believe, according
to their treaties is their territory. Now the reservation line
which was accepted by the state is slightly different, but
that doesn't negate that in the eyes of the Standing
Rocks Sioux and in the eyes of the United Nations,
this is all Indigenous land and indigenous water that they're protecting,
(10:40):
and so the pipeline crossed and violated their territory. It spilled,
it polluted their lands. It was done without their consent,
and when they protested, it delayed the construction of the
pipeline until Trump came into power, and then he gave
the go ahead and it went through. Ultimately, the pipeline
is operating. Energy Transfer has made billions of dollars. But
(11:03):
they wanted to send a message to Standing Rock, to
indigenous people's, to environmental justice activists, and to angeos like
Greenpeace that they don't want to accept this kind of
protest against the fossil fuel industry. And that's what that
case was about. And now it's six hundred and sixty
I believe million dollars and there's a trial. There's a
(11:24):
hearing actually today right after we finished talking about the amount,
because it's clearly an absurd amount, and Greenpeace has been
requesting that the judge reevaluate that award and reduce it
because it's absurd on its face, but also it's well
above the damages that were even claimed by Energy Transfer.
Speaker 1 (11:43):
Is the entity that's been of green Peace that they're
referring to when they litigation. Is it green Peace of US,
Greenpeace North America? Which exactly which green piece is it?
Speaker 4 (11:52):
In the United States? There are two entities for Greenpeace.
There's green Pieace Incorporated and green Piece Fund five one
C three and five one, And so green Peace Fund
just redirects funds to Greenpeace and to other environmental activities.
Speaker 1 (12:08):
Is it's safe to assume from what you and I
have discussed in recent weeks that they're facing potential bankruptcy.
Speaker 4 (12:13):
Absolutely? Yeah, it's six hundred and sixty million dollars.
Speaker 1 (12:17):
But that doesn't apply to other green Piece.
Speaker 4 (12:19):
It applies to green Peace Inc. In the US and
green Peace Fund in the US that's collectively referred to
as Greenpeace US eight, but also green Peace International.
Speaker 1 (12:29):
Oh, they are going after Internetional.
Speaker 3 (12:30):
Yes, which was also defendant in that case.
Speaker 1 (12:33):
I didn't know that. I thought it was just the
restricted to the US only and therefore if they went
bankrupt it wouldn't affect their international funds. But the international
was siddered as well.
Speaker 3 (12:41):
Yes, and green Peace Inc.
Speaker 4 (12:42):
And Greenpeace Fund also helped support the global green movement
of green Peace that the various Greenpeace entities because they're
the largest body there, So if they're damaged, it does
damage the entire movement.
Speaker 1 (12:55):
So my question becomes, is it safe to assume that
in the Ecuador case is green Peace they dumped it
all on one guy, as opposed to in Dakota they
dumped it on a company. They were always looking for
a scapegoat, someone to blame, and so as Greenpeace in
the United States those two entities and also internationally, is
the fall guy in the Dakota case. Was Donziger alone
(13:18):
or was there another organization, a similar organization like Greenpeace
involved in the Ecuador case.
Speaker 4 (13:25):
Yeah, that's the way it is. Donzinger is the green
pieace in this case. Because one of the things Stephen
was most successful at doing was raising financial support for
the Chevron case. He continued to be even after the
Rico judgment in order to pursue that enforcement that we
mentioned in other countries, right, which is part of the
(13:46):
reason not only was he targeting the Rico case, but
the subsequent contempt of court attacks that led to his
house arrest and incarceration. Those were to prevent him from
moving forward, raising some to keep trying to enforce the
Ecuador judgment, which is valid anywhere in the world outside
(14:06):
of the United States, and the other thing that that
was the challenge obviously for Gibson Dunn is Steven's the
only one based in the US, so they could try
all they want to go after the Ecuadorians and their
lawyers based in Ecuador. But Kaplan has no jurisdiction there,
there's nothing he could do. The person he could target
was Stephen. But one of the other elements of that
Rico case was targeting Steven's allies, not necessarily by making
(14:30):
them plaintiffs, by identifying them like Amazon Watch. I was
served at my home as a non party co conspirator.
So were their journalists, journalists that worked on the case, bloggers,
other NGOs, shareholder activists, all targeted during discovery as co conspirators,
and we had to go Amazon Watch into court in
(14:52):
San Francisco to defend ourselves against their absurd subpoenas. All
of our documents for that point almost twenty years. They
were trying to get us to have to turn over,
which is really meant to intimidate, like a slapsuit and
scare us into dropping out of the case. So these
to send us boxes of legal documents weekly saying if
(15:14):
you continue to work on this case, you're going to
be in violation of federal law. We have a lawsuit
against Stephen Donzinger trying to intimidate us. So at the
end of the case, I dumped all of those boxes
there at their San Francisco offices and left them there
in their waiting room.
Speaker 1 (15:28):
How did that work?
Speaker 4 (15:29):
Yeah, they weren't too happy that day. I think it
was like forty five boxes.
Speaker 1 (15:37):
Paul Passamino and Stephen Donziger. If you enjoy conversations about
the environment and environmental activism, check out my twenty fifteen
conversation with Antonia Hujas about her reporting on the deep
Water Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.
Speaker 5 (15:56):
There are places like the bottom of the ocean where
natural releasing oil actually lives over thousands of years in
harmony with the environment. What this industry has done is
taken a natural resource and turned it into a weapon
of mass destruction. So I say, do we really want
them because they've done such a bang up job with oil?
Do we really want to give them the wind and
(16:17):
the sun? Do we really want them doing alternative energy?
So my answer is no.
Speaker 1 (16:23):
To hear more of my conversation with Antonio Jujas go
to Here's the Thing dot org. After the break, Paul
Passimino and Stephen Donzigger talk about the similarity between the
Chevron case in Ecuador and the current green Peace case
in North Dakota and their impact on indigenous lands. I'm
(16:54):
Alec Baldwin, and this is Here's the Thing. An unfortunate
truth facing environmental and human rights activists fighting big corporations
is legal retaliation. Many of these lawsuits are designed to intimidate, silence,
or exhaust activists and stifle their freedom of speech. The
(17:14):
legal term is called a slapsuit, which stands for strategic
lawsuits against public participation. I wanted to know more about
how these lawsuits worked and whether any states in the
US had protections against them.
Speaker 2 (17:30):
A slap suit is very simply a lawsuit designed to
intimidate in silence someone from expressing their views, rather than
to actually litigate meritorious legal claims. It's essentially a powerful entity,
like a corporation in this case Chevron, or a government
a municipality, uses the process of the law to so
(17:54):
burden the target that they can't even keep up, and
they just bow out and stop advocate even if the
lawsuit never gets resolved. So it's a law. It's really
a weaponization of the legal procedure to intimidate and silence
your opponent. It's illegal, it violates the First Amendment, but
far too many corporations still use it and judges let
(18:17):
it happen because I think half the judges don't even
know what it is. So that's a slapsuit. It's designed
to shut people up.
Speaker 1 (18:24):
So it's not a federal statute, it's it's a state
by stated.
Speaker 2 (18:27):
No, it can be I'm sorry. A slap suit can
be brought under federal law or state law, or any
any law.
Speaker 1 (18:33):
It was the claim of a slapsuit Paul, brought by
Greenpeace's lawyers in accordance with what happened in North Dakota.
Speaker 4 (18:39):
Yeah, so Energy Transfer First tried to sue green Peace
in federal court and it was thrown out because it
was so obviously a slap But the problem is in
North Dakota there's no anti slap legislation protecting people like
green Peace or entities like green Peace from these kinds
of suits. There's actually legislation being proposed, hopefully this Congress
(19:03):
to have federal anti slap legislation that would have protected
greenpeace in a state like North Dakota, but only some
states have those laws on the books. California actually has
a slap back statute that says that if you are slapped,
and you can prove that you are slapped, you can
actually go after the slap fur and get them to
pay for having brought a frivolous lawsuit against you. It's
(19:26):
very rarely used, but some cases. Some states are seeing
this problem and taking action. But we need federal protection
so that they can't just forum shop like they did
in North Dakota. And you know, if we get into
the case in North Dakota, it's absurd on its face.
There's not a single person listening to this podcast who
would sit in that courtroom and not realize that that
was a sham trial. It was a complete joke. There
(19:49):
was no justice happening there. And that's the scary thing
when you have a rich litigant like Energy Transfer or
Chevron and lawyers like Gibson dun that are willing to
play dirty in North Dakota or in Kaplan's core.
Speaker 1 (20:04):
Would you say is it comparable that I don't know
the facts of this in terms of what was spilled
or what damage was caused by energy transfer. But is
it safe to say that, just as the indigenous people
of Ecuador were damaged by the water pollution Texico or Chevron,
whoever was responsible for that pollution, was there a similar
victim of that in the energy transfer case? Was there leakage?
(20:26):
Was there damage? Was there toxicity?
Speaker 4 (20:28):
Yes, the pipeline has leaked already and construction caused environmental damage.
And when you add what it's pumping and being burned,
the destruction of our climate is much worse because of
the amount of oil that continues to flow from North
Dakota through the Dakota Access Pipeline to be refined and burned.
(20:49):
But the sacred sites, the lands, the rights, the water,
all that area in North Dakota has been abused and
violated by energy transfer Endicota pipeline, and it's still happening
to this day. The Standing Rock Zoo Tribe is still
in court fighting against the Dakota Access Pipeline and energy transfer,
(21:10):
but that wasn't even brought up in this case because again,
this is about invisibilizing the indigenous people and targeting another
entity and trying to punish them.
Speaker 2 (21:20):
These cases. The similarity between the Greenpeace case in North
Dakota and the Chevron problem in Ecuador. They both have
two fundamental components. One is massive in case of Ecuador,
massive environmental pollution the case of North Dakota leaky pipeline.
But equally is important in both cases is the desecration
(21:40):
of indigenous ancestral lands and the violations of indigenous cultural
rights and the uprooting of really decades centuries of you
know of practices by indigenous peoples and energy transfer didn't
give a flying hoot about the land that the Sandy
(22:02):
rockcho Sandy Rock Sioux Tribe has in North Dakota. They
just ram their pipeline right over it. And just as
in Chevron and Ecuador, really did not care about the
indigenous peoples in the Northern Amazon. They just built all
these waste pits and oil operations and dump stuff into
rivers and streams that people were drinking out of. And
(22:22):
it's the same deep arrogance by corporations toward indigenous peoples
that I think both that outrageous. People like Paul and I.
Speaker 1 (22:30):
Just at a curiosity, is there a terminus in the
country for this pipeline. Does it end yea in some
midsection of the countries that go all over down to Louisiana.
Speaker 2 (22:41):
It starts way in the top of North Dakota in
the Bakan oil fields and crosses multiple states, and it terminates.
The terminus is in Illinois on the Mississippi River. So
the ideas of the oil flows from North Dakota down
to the river, it's loaded onto barges, it's taken down
to the Gulf of me for either refining or export.
Speaker 1 (23:03):
Who is I'm always curious in terms of my ceaseless
hope for some heroism in terms of enforcement appointments, which,
of course that's a dead issue now with Trump. But
members of Congress, members of the Senate, anybody beyond NGOs
and your colleagues and other organizations. Who are people who
you think are sensitive to your issues in the government now?
(23:24):
Who are political leaders and the Senator of the House
that you have their ear.
Speaker 2 (23:29):
Well, there's not a lot, honestly, But I would say
look on the health side. Jim McGovern, representative from Massachusetts
human rights champion, is the only member of Congress ever
who have visited Chevron's cancer zone and equator, he's really
led so many other members and caring about this issue,
(23:50):
you know. And then others including Sheldon Whitehouse, Ed Markey,
Elizabeth Warren, you know, Pat Leahy retired, was very helpful
when he was in office, Barack Obama when he was
a senator way back.
Speaker 1 (24:04):
In the day.
Speaker 2 (24:05):
So we've had champions in the Congress for this particular cause.
But if you're looking for like a real environmental champion
in the Congress, it's difficult to find.
Speaker 1 (24:17):
To be frank, they might have the sympathy, but they
don't have a voice for it right now.
Speaker 2 (24:21):
Well, I think that the structure of the Congress in
our political system is in my opinion, I think it's
been so degraded over the last fifteen twenty years by
corporate money that it's very hard to get any of
these individuals to form enough of a critical mass of
people to really get anything significant done. It's like you
(24:42):
have a lone voice here and a lone voice there,
and it's very hard to get movement on a lot
of these issues now in the Congress, and particularly hard
under Trump for obvious reasons.
Speaker 3 (24:53):
There's two people to add in there.
Speaker 4 (24:54):
One Jamie Raskin is the lead on that anti slap
legislation that I talked about. And the other thing I
think is important to say, and I know Steven's not
going to say this himself, but his representative, Jerry Nadler,
didn't respond to a single call. We sent him thousands
of emails when Steven was under house arrest. He's walking
(25:16):
distance from him. Did he send a staff person to visit?
Did he respond no?
Speaker 3 (25:21):
For years? Nothing?
Speaker 1 (25:23):
And why do you think that is somebody who's been
typically on average or reliable colleague of your concerns. Why
do you think he turned around and ran and.
Speaker 2 (25:31):
Hit I think that it had to do with his
lack of courage. I think is a lot of it's personal.
And also it turns out that his son is a
major lawyer, Gibson Dunn, the Dingo you know, Gibson Done.
Is a lot of lawyers there donate money to Nadler,
and I don't think he wanted to know they were
making a lot of money off attacking me. But again,
(25:54):
it really shows a lack of courage, you know, lack
of integrity. I was very disappointed in Jerry Nadler. I mean,
Alec I was trying to get support in Congress, and
I was detained in my apartment and I can't say
the number of Congress persons and said, well, what about
what's Nadler doing? Like if Nadler, who's if my own
guy wouldn't do anything? They were like, well why should
I do anything? So it really cost me. It's a
(26:17):
lot of support the fact that Jerry wouldn't move on it,
but ultimately others did move despite Jerry and help me
a lot.
Speaker 1 (26:25):
Paul, what's next in terms of are we at the
stage now where the appeal of the decision against Greenpeace
is coming or is it going to be a while?
Speaker 4 (26:34):
Well, like I said, today, there's a hearing about the
award amount, so we'll find out whether or not it's
going to be adjusted or will still remain.
Speaker 1 (26:43):
At single or judge would adjust that.
Speaker 4 (26:44):
I'm out yes, in this case, it could be Judge Gion.
This is a name who is as he said himself,
I thought I was going to be handling divorce cases.
I never thought I'd have a case like this. So
he's way in over his head on this. Then it
will be appealed for sure, but that will go to
the North Dakota Supreme.
Speaker 1 (27:00):
Court, you think they're in the bag for energy transfer.
Speaker 3 (27:04):
Well, they have not proven very helpful.
Speaker 4 (27:06):
For example, during the trial, we were trying to get
access to send the video and the audio out to
the world so everyone could witness what was happening here,
and the North Kota Supreme Court denied the Washington Post,
major news outlets requests just get access to the live
stream of the trial. They want this to be done
(27:27):
in the shadows. This is the North Dakota Supreme Court.
So I don't have a lot of faith that there's
going to be a good judgment coming down from them.
Speaker 1 (27:35):
Who is in possession of that footage the state?
Speaker 4 (27:38):
You have to pay what is it, Stephen, twenty thousand
dollars if you want to buy the trends, if you
want to buy the transcript of what happened in that courtroom,
which is why Stephen and I and others were there
every day taking notes to have our own accounting of
what happened in order for the truth to come.
Speaker 1 (27:54):
Were you were allowed to release your note?
Speaker 4 (27:55):
We were, we were, But you know, trying to write
that fast and capture every word, it's quite a challenge.
Speaker 2 (28:00):
Look, normally a trial has a court reporter and it's public,
especially post COVID, like a lot of trials you can
watch on zoom, I would say, especially at State Court
like this energy transfer went and the Gibson dun lawyers
went out of their way to prevent people from watching
this trial. I mean it is unbelievable, for example, that
(28:21):
there's a live fee of the proceedings but they kept
at private and a journalist, say in Washington to cover
the trial had to travel all the way to Bismarck,
North Dakota and the dead of winter and sit in
court for three weeks and it really limited the coverage,
limited the scrutiny, and that's what it was designed to do.
What's aggravating. I get why Energy Chanser wanted to shroud
(28:43):
it in secret. See they're embarrassed, you know, they want
to go after green Peace quietly. What is more mystifying
to me is why the judge went along with it.
But again we're seeing sort of a mini version of
Kaplan in the green Peace trial in terms of his
willingness to just give the big fossil fuel company what
it wants to go after, you know, an activist group
(29:06):
that was fighting, you know, fighting the abuses that were
being visited upon indigenous people. So it's very disappointing. You know,
not every judge is bad. Let me be clear, right,
most judges are not bad, you know, but I think
Gibson Doune is expert at finding those judges when they
bring these types of cases, who are going to facilitate them.
Speaker 1 (29:30):
Paul Pasimino and Stephen Donziger. If you're enjoying this conversation,
tell a friend and be sure to follow Here's the
Thing on the iHeartRadio app, Spotify, or wherever you get
your podcasts. When we come back, Paul Pasimino and Stephen
Donziger talk about how the current Trump administration's policies will
(29:51):
affect future slapsuits, climate activists, and environmental legislation. I'm Alec
Baldwin and you're listening to Here's the Thing. Stephen Donziger
(30:13):
traveled to Ecuador to represent indigenous communities. The plaintiffs were
accusing Texaco and their parent company, Chevron, of severe environmental
damage and pollution. This lawsuit continued for thirty years, leading
to Chevron suing Donziger in the United States for fraud
(30:33):
and racketeering. The lawsuit culminated with Donziger's disbarment and a
two year house arrest in his Manhattan apartment. I first
spoke with Stephen Donziger on the podcast almost ten years
ago about the Chevron case. In March of twenty sixteen,
I was curious for an update on how things stood
(30:55):
for him now and what his career is focused on today.
Speaker 2 (31:00):
I had no idea, just as a frame of reference
at that point, no idea, not in my wildest imagination,
not in my most you know, you game out negative scenarios, right,
you're going up against all. I never thought such a
thing could possibly happen. It was a shock to me
and my family. My son at the time was thirteen,
(31:20):
and he came home one day and his dad had
an ankle brace and couldn't leave the apartment. And you know,
I thought it did last a week. It lasted two
years and two months. So, you know, we had to adjust,
and we made a couple of vows, my wife and I,
my wife, Laura Miller and I. One vow was that
we would not let them steal our happiness, but we
(31:42):
would maintain within the walls of our homes joy and
we wouldn't just obsess over this and talk about it
all the time. We would live continue to live to
the extent that we could. And we also refused to
let a trauma because it was very traumatic turn into
a pathology. We're like, we're not going to let that happens.
(32:04):
And even though we had to sort of endure a
lot of pain, I think in the end of the day,
we grew from it and got bigger, better and stronger.
And one of the reasons is Paul posse Minho sitting
here on this podcast, really kept the cause alive in
the environmental community, and many other people stepped up, you
(32:25):
know you being among them, Alec Roger Waters, another one,
Susan Sarandon, and just the ecuador and diaspora in New York.
I got huge support. I had people coming by our
two bedroom apartment almost every day to visit or to
express support or to have dinner. My wife and I
were like laughing because like our social life ironically got
(32:48):
so much better when I was detained, because everyone wanted
to come talk to us and see me and find
out what was happening. But the crazy part is the
maxim penalty I could get under captain's contempt, charged with
six months in prison, I served over four times that
amount before I could even get a trial at home.
(33:09):
And when I told the judge that Caplin appointed Judge Prescott,
I said, you got to let me free because I've
already served over four times my sentence. And she's like, actually,
you are free. She gave me this Kafka esque response,
you are free. I let you go home. You're not
in jail, and all I did was impose some conditions
on you. So she called my two year, two month
(33:29):
home detention freedom And you know, that's sort of how
they tried to justify it legally. But right now we're well,
I mean moving on. I'm writing a book, doing some speaking.
My son's in college, he's doing great. You know, we're good.
But it has made a huge dent in aspects of
our life that can never be recovered. Right, what else
(33:52):
do you work?
Speaker 1 (33:53):
Are there similar? I mean a country under Trump? This
country under Trump? Is it seems like every day, you know,
this something to be dismayed about and upset about. Do
you feel like this is the time we're going to
see more of this kind of thing? Are you going
to see corporations moving toward slap and other kinds of
activities on a greater scale in the coming three and
(34:15):
a half years.
Speaker 2 (34:16):
I do so this is my quick take on that
the slap threat comes from both government and private corporations.
We're seeing more and more of it from government. I mean,
it existed prior to Trump, but it's intensified greatly with
the politicization of the Department of Justice, you know, slapping
political opponents of Trump, crazy cases happening, investigations of climate
(34:39):
after this and that sort of thing. But you know,
if you look at what happened to me back in
twenty thirteen, you look at what's happening, you know, to Greenpeace,
you look at all of the people Chevron tried to
sweep up in the attack on me, including Paul and
Amazon Watch. I think we are seeing a real danger
(35:00):
out there that this is going to happen more and more.
All we can do is keep talking about it, keep
educating when people ask me what do they do if
they get slapped. I just spoke last night, by the way,
to a group of animal rights activists who are you know,
rescuing animals from poultry farms.
Speaker 1 (35:18):
You know that are whatever.
Speaker 2 (35:19):
I mean, It's not my world so much, except that
these people are facing enormous slap attacks from like Purdue
and some of these poultry companies, And what I tell
people is A, don't be intimidated. B make sure you
have a good legal team. C Build solidarity, and DE
(35:43):
build your own power. You know a lot of people
who get hit with these cower because they don't know
who to turn to. And they got to look at
this battle as a multi front battle, a multi platform
advocacy exercise. You know, as a lawyer, I never really
thought of my Oh, I'm just a lawyer. I'm going
to solve the equitor problem in the four walls of
(36:03):
the courtroom. Never thought that way. I'm like big oil company,
huge money, huge power. My clients have nothing but their
moral claims and their you know, their right to life.
And we are going to raise hell about this in
every corner of the world that we can that will
listen to us, through the media, through social media, through shareholders,
through the state attorney generals who can investigate chevrons. So
(36:27):
it's very important that when people deal with these slabs,
they build broad based advocacy campaigns to beat them back,
and they really take the offensive and go after the
entities that are bringing them and for that you need
you know, you need a team of people, good lawyers
and the like. But you can people can build this.
(36:48):
So it's very important to fight back. But really look
at it as a broad based effort involving lots of people,
lots of angles. So these companies or law firms like
get in this case Gibson dumb which by the way,
Chevron used against me in energy transfers using the same
law firm against Greenpeace that they also pay a price.
(37:10):
You know, they're in it for the money.
Speaker 1 (37:12):
Yeah, they make.
Speaker 2 (37:13):
I mean, I can't even tell you the hundreds of
millions of dollars of fees that Gibson done is charged
Chevron and energy Transfer and energy transfer case has gone
on eight years. My case has gone on fifteen years.
These are the biggest fees this firm has ever collected.
Speaker 1 (37:29):
They don't want to end.
Speaker 2 (37:31):
They don't want it to end.
Speaker 3 (37:32):
Yeah, and they need.
Speaker 1 (37:34):
To be called out. Now, Paul, let me ask you.
There's slapsuits and your name is Slapsuit. Where the villain
with the energy transfer if you will, or the Chevron
where they lost where they were challenging this. Was there
any big cases you know of were they lost.
Speaker 4 (37:48):
Oh sure, There's a case called the Weed nine, which
was a case brought against local activists I believe in
Oregon who were fighting a company to try protect the
rights to their water and they were slapped for a
conspiracy alleged conspiracy against this corporation, and they fought and
won at the case thrown out. And there are multiple
(38:12):
cases like that. Sum Devin Nunez cow right, this was
the Twitter a fake Twitter account. Devin Nunez slapped him
for making jokes about it, and that case was thrown out.
Speaker 3 (38:22):
So at times, when this comes.
Speaker 4 (38:26):
Before a judge who's reasonable, you have a chance to win,
but you've already had to defend yourself. So it's done
part of its job just by being able to bring
the slapsuit. But I did want to add that the
thing about Trump now is that free speech, as we
all know, is completely under attack. It's being literally criminalized.
(38:46):
So this unholy alliance between a federal government that will
make speech illegal and in corporations who will sue on
top of that to say, yeah, what you did was
illegal even according to the government, We're going to sue
you on top of that more money. So when Greenpeace
locks down a protest or stops a bank from operating
(39:07):
by protesting in front without using any violence or any
property destruction that can be determined illegal, and then that
bank is going to go and sue those activists for
stopping their operations and prevent them from the next protest.
Speaker 1 (39:21):
You can't rule it anything with this administration. Yeah, no
matter how nefarious and amount of complicated and kind of insane,
you can't rule it at it. And I'm thinking they're
going to get closer and closer and closer to you know,
sequestering and corralling people in terms of their rights, to
where they're going to declare martial law in order to
kill the election in twenty twenty eight.
Speaker 2 (39:41):
Where this is really moving, and I think what we
have to be most concerned about, it's already started. It's
trying to equate activism with terrorism. That's where this is heading. Think, Okay,
if you look at the pro Palestinian students essentially snatched
off the streets with no warrant in New York, the
Food Khalil case, the Rumesa Osturk case at Tufts University,
(40:04):
the Columbia students and others. Okay, the justification for that
according to Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, is
that these are terrorist sympathizers, that the mere fact of
protesting peacefully as protected by the Constitution in the First Amendment,
somehow turns them into terrorist sympathizers. And once you throw
(40:27):
around the word terrorist.
Speaker 1 (40:28):
Well that's what they did to the animal rights people
in the years exactly totally.
Speaker 2 (40:33):
And even someone Jessica Resisk, who's someone I've gotten to know,
who protested the Dacode access pipeline that Greenpeace protested. She
ended up vandalizing the pipeline in an act of nonviolent
civil disobedience. She faced a maximum three year term. She
got to court, the judge not only gave her the
maximum three year term, put a five year enhancement on
(40:56):
it by calling her a terrorist. She called her a
terrorist for trying to vandalize an oil pipeline. That's not terrorism.
You know, protesting the policies of the Israeli government is
not terrorism. I'm sorry, but this is where they're trying
to shove all this stuff. So you know, we start
as these slap cases. Oh, I'm suing Steven Donziger for
(41:17):
defamation or I'm going to I'm suing Greenpeace under a
civil racketeering theory, and then it goes from there. It's
a very short hop to trying to criminalize all the
people involved as terrorists, and of course once that happens,
you're facing twenty thirty year jail terms, life in prison.
(41:38):
And you know, look, I'm not necessarily necessarily saying they're
going to get away with that much, but it's it's
looming on the horizon, and it really is intended as
an intimidation mechanism. It's intended to shut people up by
instilling fear in the populace, and we have to really
understand what it is.
Speaker 1 (41:56):
Would you say, Paul Pasn mean that the path now
is whatever my you can give to donate to Greenpeace,
donate for their legal defense fund. Is that accurate or no?
Speaker 4 (42:05):
I'm not sure about Greenpeace's legal defense fund. I think
they actually have a lot of support they've gotten internationally
to come together. But what you need to do, in
my opinion, is look for the local groups that are
challenging who do need your support. If you look around
at what issues are happening where you are locally, you
will find a group, an environmental justice group or a
(42:27):
civil rights group that is challenging those actions and needs
support locally to be in the streets and needs to
know one that you have their back and two that
you're going to financially support them.
Speaker 3 (42:39):
Because with the cutbacks.
Speaker 4 (42:41):
That we've seen from the federal government, everybody is turning
to nonprofits, they're turning to foundations. USAID disappearing has put a.
Speaker 3 (42:49):
Burden on Amazon Watch.
Speaker 4 (42:50):
For example, in Peru, we have indigenous allies who've been
threatened because of their work against illegal activity in the
proving Amazon USAID helping keep them alive. They're getting death threats.
All that money is gone, and now they're turning to
NGOs there, attorneys to nonprofits, attorney to foundations. So there's
an increased need to step up to fill the gap
(43:12):
where the government was in some way supporting.
Speaker 1 (43:15):
Well in this country, where forever a turney to NGOs
to do things the government used to do.
Speaker 2 (43:19):
Yeah, in other civilized countries the government does do and yeah,
totally true. But I would say people want to help.
I would suggest donating to Amazon Watch. We're always frontline
defenders in the Amazon The other thing I would recommend
is take a look at the civil liberties Defense Center
and Eugene organ It came to my rescue when I
(43:42):
was under attack. You know, in this trial Lauren Reagan
as their executive director. They are probably the leading group
in the country sort of protecting people who were hit
with these slaps in the protest context. It's the Civil
Liberties Defense Center and Eugene organ but they operate on
a national scale and they do amazing stuff in the courtroom,
(44:06):
and they could use more support. And I really like
them and they helped me. So it's the Civil Liberties
Defense Center and Amazon Watch. This is really about us,
the people banding together to protect those of us who
are on the front lines, speaking out and facing the
brunt of these attacks. And you know, we want to
get this to a place where we're not just on
(44:28):
the defensive. We take offense to really try to create
the world we all deserve.
Speaker 1 (44:37):
My thanks to Paul Pasaminho and Steven Donziger. This episode
was recorded at CDM Studios in New York City. We're
produced by Kathleen Russo, Zach MacNeice, and Victoria de Martin.
Our engineer is Frank Imperial. Our social media manager is
Danielle Gingrich. I'm Alec Baldwin, here's the thing that is
(44:58):
brought to you by Art Radio
This is Alec Baldwin and you're listening to Here's the
Thing from iHeart Radio. My guests today are two of
the leading voices in the fight for environmental justice, advocacy
for indigenous communities and the protection of their homeland. Paul
Pasaminho is a human rights and environmental justice advocate. Is
(00:24):
also the deputy director of Amazon Watch, a nonprofit organization
that works to protect the Amazon rainforest and support indigenous
peoples in South America. Pasaminho has also worked for Amnesty
International and directed human rights programs for indigenous communities in
Mexico and Guatemala. Pasaminho joined Amazon Watch in two thousand
(00:48):
and seven to oversee its clean Up Ecuador campaign. It
was during this cleanup campaign that he met Stephen Donziger,
a human rights and environmental lawyer who has famously been
fighting the Chevron case for over thirty years.
Speaker 2 (01:05):
Hi, I'm Stephen Donziger.
Speaker 3 (01:07):
Hi I'm Paul Pasiminho.
Speaker 4 (01:10):
We met in two thousand and seven when I began
working at Amazon Watch as the I Think Managing director
at the time, and one of the campaigns I was
overseeing was the clean Up Equador campaign. Stephen came into
our offices in San Francisco and shook my hand and said,
it's really great to meet you. You're joining at a
(01:30):
great time. This case is just about to be wrapped up.
Speaker 3 (01:34):
We're going to win.
Speaker 1 (01:35):
Famous last words, right, famous last words? And where was
the case at at that time, Stephen, where was the
case at?
Speaker 2 (01:42):
Well, it was we were in trial in Ecuador and
I completely, all of us completely underestimated how long it
would take to do the case. So the trial started
in two thousand and three. That was four years later.
We were winding down. But you know, Chevron had a
lot of tricks up at sleeve to keep delaying the
trial because they never really wanted the trial to end.
(02:02):
They were very comfortable paying their lawyers lots of money
to keep litigating the case because they knew once it
ended they were going to lose. So, you know, the
case was in a procedural posture where we really had
put in a bunch of evidence, thousands of chemical and
water samples proving their pollution. And at that point they
(02:24):
started again engaging in all sorts of dirty tricks to
delay the end of the trial.
Speaker 1 (02:29):
So we were on the cusp.
Speaker 2 (02:31):
Of ending it and winning it, and we eventually did
win it, but at that point it would be another
four more years.
Speaker 1 (02:38):
Now, I want to just clarify a couple of things.
What year was Caplain shoved into your life?
Speaker 2 (02:44):
Caplan appeared in two thousand and nine. The lawsuit was
filed the way back in nineteen ninety three in New York.
Chevron wanted the case moved to Ecuador. They succeeded. That
took ten years, so the case, the trial began in
Ecuador in two and won, and then we litigated for
eight years. They were about to lose. They then sued
(03:06):
me in New York under civil of civil rico theory,
and that's when Kaplan came into my life.
Speaker 1 (03:13):
Explain to people how the mechanism of how Caplin is
injected into this process, meaning you win, they want to
go back to New York and appeal that decision. How
are the captains of the world enabled to function in
that in that role you want a case, I'm assuming
you're going to go to an appeal, but then the
gates of hell opened. How were they able to install
(03:34):
that judge that way?
Speaker 2 (03:36):
Well, first of all, I believe the whole entry of
Captain into the case was not an accident. I think
it was by design, and I think the way it
happened is Caplan is known for being very pro corporate,
very anti Planist lawyer. It doesn't like lawyers like me.
And I think Chevron's law firm at Gibson, Dunn and
Crutcher steered the case to him from behind the scenes,
(03:59):
and I think he totally in on it. The case
was not assigned randomly, and WOI la. They sued me
for sixty billion dollars and he's the judge and like
to this day, I don't know the details of how
that happened, other than to say that the case was
not assigned through random lot. Kaplan had overseen a minor
aspect of an action against Joe Berlinger, the filmmaker that
(04:23):
Chevron had filed, and he used the fact that he
presided over that very minor discovery matter to claim jurisdiction
over this major, major, major lawsuit they were filing against me.
And I'll say it was against me, but I was
really a stand in for the communities in Ecuador in
the Amazon rainforest who had won the judgment. They were
trying to destroy me so they didn't have to pay
(04:45):
the communities they poisoned. But Kaplan's entry was not an accident.
He's always been a very pro corporate judge, and I
think it was all part of a design by Chevron.
Speaker 1 (04:55):
There was the discussion the notion that you were allowed
to ultimately sue Chevron in any country they did business. Correct. Yes.
Speaker 2 (05:03):
In other words, once we won the judgment and the
amount of ten billion dollars, and it was affirmed on
appeal by Ecuador Supreme Court, we meaning the communities and
their lawyers had a right to go try to see
Chevron's assets wherever they existed, anywhere in the world. As
people know, Chevron is a huge global company. They have
assets and dozens and dozens of countries. The irony is
(05:25):
the one place where we were legally barred from pursuing
their assets is right here at home in the United States,
because Judge Caplan, at the outset of the case issued
what to me is a baseless nationwide injunction.
Speaker 4 (05:39):
What's fascinating about the Caplain Gibson Dunns situation is it's
similar to what we're seeing in the Greenpeace case. The
process of filing the RICO charges preemptively against Stephen and
the Ecuadorians. One, blocked the Ecuadorian people from seeking access
(06:00):
to justice in the United States. It basically served to
make the indigenous people and the communities invisible. That's what
they've done in the Green Peace case.
Speaker 2 (06:08):
Two.
Speaker 4 (06:09):
And what they did was before the judgment was finalized
in Ecuador, they sued to prevent a judge in the
United States from looking at the Ecuadorian judgment. Now, any
fair judge would have looked at Chevron's claims and said, well,
they've just got a judgment in Ecuador.
Speaker 3 (06:26):
Presumably they're going to bring it to the United States
to enforce it.
Speaker 4 (06:29):
At that time, you can bring up your claims of
fraud or anything else, and a judge will make a
determination is that legit or is it fraud, and then
the Ecuadorians can either get their payday or not. But
by suing preemptively under Rico and going after Stephen, they
said these people don't matter, this is a fraud and
(06:49):
we shouldn't ever look at the evidence of what happened
in Ecuador. And that was the caplain piece that is
so diabolical, prevented the real crime of Chevron's admitted contamination
from seeing the light of day. In the US courtroom,
which was the Gibson Dunn's strategy. And that's what they
did in the green Peace case too. Instead of going
(07:11):
after Standing Rock, instead of saying these are the indigenous
peoples that have protested, these are the people that have
caused the harm quote unquote in their eyes to energy
transfer partners. They targeted green Peace, who had virtually nothing
to do with it, and they make the Indigenous people invisible,
which is part of Gibson Dune's strategy and one of
the reasons that they should be identified as a diabolical
(07:33):
law firm.
Speaker 1 (07:34):
Now, Gibson Done wasn't involved in the Dakota.
Speaker 4 (07:37):
They were the lead lawyers and the trial against green Peace.
Speaker 1 (07:41):
Oh they were. And yes, so you're saying that Gibson
done this. So this is you only name two cases,
not that you need to name more, but you name
Dakota and you name Ecuador. Is this their playbook? Do
they do a lot of this kind of thing?
Speaker 3 (07:53):
It is their playbook. And that's just two cases.
Speaker 4 (07:56):
They actually pro bono have been taking a case to
try to undermine the Indian Child Welfare Act. So this
is a pattern of this law firm. There's actually a
report people can read on the website license to spill
dot org, which goes through all of these what they
call legal thuggery, and judges have called them legal thugs,
(08:18):
not just people that they've targeted.
Speaker 3 (08:20):
This is their pattern, this is what they've built their reputation.
Speaker 1 (08:23):
Are they're assuming that they have a better chance at
achieving their goals now that Trump is in office. Is
that a part of that playbook as well.
Speaker 4 (08:30):
Well, certainly in the energy transfer case because he's buddies
with the CEO of Energy Transfer.
Speaker 1 (08:37):
Now what did they say? What did they maintain that
they proved in court that Greenpeace had done or orchestrated
or organized What was the damage or whatever? It was defamation?
How can you avoid a conversation about environmental disaster without
the perception you're going to talk down about somebody? But
they wasn't defamation? Was that the main complaint? Were there
(08:58):
other things they said that they did?
Speaker 4 (09:00):
There was defamation, trespass, and I believe was property destruction.
Speaker 1 (09:07):
What was the property that was destroyed?
Speaker 4 (09:09):
Well, all of basically everything that took place during the
Standing Rock protests they said Greenpeace was responsible for.
Speaker 3 (09:18):
So at some.
Speaker 4 (09:18):
Point during the protests things were set on fire. Green
Peace sent lock boxes allowing people to essentially chain themselves
to equipment to prevent that equipment from operating, which delayed
their work, and then they were eventually cut off and
were continued. That was really the only thing green Peace did.
(09:38):
But they said because Greenpeace did that, everything that happened
during the entire protests at Standing Rock was Greenpiace's responsibility,
including Greenpeace International, green Pieace, Inc. And Greenpeace Fund, three
different entities, one of which didn't have any staff in
North Dakota, and the other which didn't have any staff
at all.
Speaker 3 (10:00):
Fund.
Speaker 4 (10:00):
They're not activists, they fund other groups doing work.
Speaker 1 (10:04):
And Standing Rock refers to a reservation of Indigenous.
Speaker 4 (10:07):
People, Yes, exactly, their traditional lands were violated by the
Dakota and still are by the Dakota Access Pipeline.
Speaker 1 (10:15):
How is that so it.
Speaker 4 (10:17):
Crossed over what the Standing Rocks Sioux tribe believe, according
to their treaties is their territory. Now the reservation line
which was accepted by the state is slightly different, but
that doesn't negate that in the eyes of the Standing
Rocks Sioux and in the eyes of the United Nations,
this is all Indigenous land and indigenous water that they're protecting,
(10:40):
and so the pipeline crossed and violated their territory. It spilled,
it polluted their lands. It was done without their consent,
and when they protested, it delayed the construction of the
pipeline until Trump came into power, and then he gave
the go ahead and it went through. Ultimately, the pipeline
is operating. Energy Transfer has made billions of dollars. But
(11:03):
they wanted to send a message to Standing Rock, to
indigenous people's, to environmental justice activists, and to angeos like
Greenpeace that they don't want to accept this kind of
protest against the fossil fuel industry. And that's what that
case was about. And now it's six hundred and sixty
I believe million dollars and there's a trial. There's a
(11:24):
hearing actually today right after we finished talking about the amount,
because it's clearly an absurd amount, and Greenpeace has been
requesting that the judge reevaluate that award and reduce it
because it's absurd on its face, but also it's well
above the damages that were even claimed by Energy Transfer.
Speaker 1 (11:43):
Is the entity that's been of green Peace that they're
referring to when they litigation. Is it green Peace of US,
Greenpeace North America? Which exactly which green piece is it?
Speaker 4 (11:52):
In the United States? There are two entities for Greenpeace.
There's green Pieace Incorporated and green Piece Fund five one
C three and five one, And so green Peace Fund
just redirects funds to Greenpeace and to other environmental activities.
Speaker 1 (12:08):
Is it's safe to assume from what you and I
have discussed in recent weeks that they're facing potential bankruptcy.
Speaker 4 (12:13):
Absolutely? Yeah, it's six hundred and sixty million dollars.
Speaker 1 (12:17):
But that doesn't apply to other green Piece.
Speaker 4 (12:19):
It applies to green Peace Inc. In the US and
green Peace Fund in the US that's collectively referred to
as Greenpeace US eight, but also green Peace International.
Speaker 1 (12:29):
Oh, they are going after Internetional.
Speaker 3 (12:30):
Yes, which was also defendant in that case.
Speaker 1 (12:33):
I didn't know that. I thought it was just the
restricted to the US only and therefore if they went
bankrupt it wouldn't affect their international funds. But the international
was siddered as well.
Speaker 3 (12:41):
Yes, and green Peace Inc.
Speaker 4 (12:42):
And Greenpeace Fund also helped support the global green movement
of green Peace that the various Greenpeace entities because they're
the largest body there, So if they're damaged, it does
damage the entire movement.
Speaker 1 (12:55):
So my question becomes, is it safe to assume that
in the Ecuador case is green Peace they dumped it
all on one guy, as opposed to in Dakota they
dumped it on a company. They were always looking for
a scapegoat, someone to blame, and so as Greenpeace in
the United States those two entities and also internationally, is
the fall guy in the Dakota case. Was Donziger alone
(13:18):
or was there another organization, a similar organization like Greenpeace
involved in the Ecuador case.
Speaker 4 (13:25):
Yeah, that's the way it is. Donzinger is the green
pieace in this case. Because one of the things Stephen
was most successful at doing was raising financial support for
the Chevron case. He continued to be even after the
Rico judgment in order to pursue that enforcement that we
mentioned in other countries, right, which is part of the
(13:46):
reason not only was he targeting the Rico case, but
the subsequent contempt of court attacks that led to his
house arrest and incarceration. Those were to prevent him from
moving forward, raising some to keep trying to enforce the
Ecuador judgment, which is valid anywhere in the world outside
(14:06):
of the United States, and the other thing that that
was the challenge obviously for Gibson Dunn is Steven's the
only one based in the US, so they could try
all they want to go after the Ecuadorians and their
lawyers based in Ecuador. But Kaplan has no jurisdiction there,
there's nothing he could do. The person he could target
was Stephen. But one of the other elements of that
Rico case was targeting Steven's allies, not necessarily by making
(14:30):
them plaintiffs, by identifying them like Amazon Watch. I was
served at my home as a non party co conspirator.
So were their journalists, journalists that worked on the case, bloggers,
other NGOs, shareholder activists, all targeted during discovery as co conspirators,
and we had to go Amazon Watch into court in
(14:52):
San Francisco to defend ourselves against their absurd subpoenas. All
of our documents for that point almost twenty years. They
were trying to get us to have to turn over,
which is really meant to intimidate, like a slapsuit and
scare us into dropping out of the case. So these
to send us boxes of legal documents weekly saying if
(15:14):
you continue to work on this case, you're going to
be in violation of federal law. We have a lawsuit
against Stephen Donzinger trying to intimidate us. So at the
end of the case, I dumped all of those boxes
there at their San Francisco offices and left them there
in their waiting room.
Speaker 1 (15:28):
How did that work?
Speaker 4 (15:29):
Yeah, they weren't too happy that day. I think it
was like forty five boxes.
Speaker 1 (15:37):
Paul Passamino and Stephen Donziger. If you enjoy conversations about
the environment and environmental activism, check out my twenty fifteen
conversation with Antonia Hujas about her reporting on the deep
Water Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.
Speaker 5 (15:56):
There are places like the bottom of the ocean where
natural releasing oil actually lives over thousands of years in
harmony with the environment. What this industry has done is
taken a natural resource and turned it into a weapon
of mass destruction. So I say, do we really want
them because they've done such a bang up job with oil?
Do we really want to give them the wind and
(16:17):
the sun? Do we really want them doing alternative energy?
So my answer is no.
Speaker 1 (16:23):
To hear more of my conversation with Antonio Jujas go
to Here's the Thing dot org. After the break, Paul
Passimino and Stephen Donzigger talk about the similarity between the
Chevron case in Ecuador and the current green Peace case
in North Dakota and their impact on indigenous lands. I'm
(16:54):
Alec Baldwin, and this is Here's the Thing. An unfortunate
truth facing environmental and human rights activists fighting big corporations
is legal retaliation. Many of these lawsuits are designed to intimidate, silence,
or exhaust activists and stifle their freedom of speech. The
(17:14):
legal term is called a slapsuit, which stands for strategic
lawsuits against public participation. I wanted to know more about
how these lawsuits worked and whether any states in the
US had protections against them.
Speaker 2 (17:30):
A slap suit is very simply a lawsuit designed to
intimidate in silence someone from expressing their views, rather than
to actually litigate meritorious legal claims. It's essentially a powerful entity,
like a corporation in this case Chevron, or a government
a municipality, uses the process of the law to so
(17:54):
burden the target that they can't even keep up, and
they just bow out and stop advocate even if the
lawsuit never gets resolved. So it's a law. It's really
a weaponization of the legal procedure to intimidate and silence
your opponent. It's illegal, it violates the First Amendment, but
far too many corporations still use it and judges let
(18:17):
it happen because I think half the judges don't even
know what it is. So that's a slapsuit. It's designed
to shut people up.
Speaker 1 (18:24):
So it's not a federal statute, it's it's a state
by stated.
Speaker 2 (18:27):
No, it can be I'm sorry. A slap suit can
be brought under federal law or state law, or any
any law.
Speaker 1 (18:33):
It was the claim of a slapsuit Paul, brought by
Greenpeace's lawyers in accordance with what happened in North Dakota.
Speaker 4 (18:39):
Yeah, so Energy Transfer First tried to sue green Peace
in federal court and it was thrown out because it
was so obviously a slap But the problem is in
North Dakota there's no anti slap legislation protecting people like
green Peace or entities like green Peace from these kinds
of suits. There's actually legislation being proposed, hopefully this Congress
(19:03):
to have federal anti slap legislation that would have protected
greenpeace in a state like North Dakota, but only some
states have those laws on the books. California actually has
a slap back statute that says that if you are slapped,
and you can prove that you are slapped, you can
actually go after the slap fur and get them to
pay for having brought a frivolous lawsuit against you. It's
(19:26):
very rarely used, but some cases. Some states are seeing
this problem and taking action. But we need federal protection
so that they can't just forum shop like they did
in North Dakota. And you know, if we get into
the case in North Dakota, it's absurd on its face.
There's not a single person listening to this podcast who
would sit in that courtroom and not realize that that
was a sham trial. It was a complete joke. There
(19:49):
was no justice happening there. And that's the scary thing
when you have a rich litigant like Energy Transfer or
Chevron and lawyers like Gibson dun that are willing to
play dirty in North Dakota or in Kaplan's core.
Speaker 1 (20:04):
Would you say is it comparable that I don't know
the facts of this in terms of what was spilled
or what damage was caused by energy transfer. But is
it safe to say that, just as the indigenous people
of Ecuador were damaged by the water pollution Texico or Chevron,
whoever was responsible for that pollution, was there a similar
victim of that in the energy transfer case? Was there leakage?
(20:26):
Was there damage? Was there toxicity?
Speaker 4 (20:28):
Yes, the pipeline has leaked already and construction caused environmental damage.
And when you add what it's pumping and being burned,
the destruction of our climate is much worse because of
the amount of oil that continues to flow from North
Dakota through the Dakota Access Pipeline to be refined and burned.
(20:49):
But the sacred sites, the lands, the rights, the water,
all that area in North Dakota has been abused and
violated by energy transfer Endicota pipeline, and it's still happening
to this day. The Standing Rock Zoo Tribe is still
in court fighting against the Dakota Access Pipeline and energy transfer,
(21:10):
but that wasn't even brought up in this case because again,
this is about invisibilizing the indigenous people and targeting another
entity and trying to punish them.
Speaker 2 (21:20):
These cases. The similarity between the Greenpeace case in North
Dakota and the Chevron problem in Ecuador. They both have
two fundamental components. One is massive in case of Ecuador,
massive environmental pollution the case of North Dakota leaky pipeline.
But equally is important in both cases is the desecration
(21:40):
of indigenous ancestral lands and the violations of indigenous cultural
rights and the uprooting of really decades centuries of you
know of practices by indigenous peoples and energy transfer didn't
give a flying hoot about the land that the Sandy
(22:02):
rockcho Sandy Rock Sioux Tribe has in North Dakota. They
just ram their pipeline right over it. And just as
in Chevron and Ecuador, really did not care about the
indigenous peoples in the Northern Amazon. They just built all
these waste pits and oil operations and dump stuff into
rivers and streams that people were drinking out of. And
(22:22):
it's the same deep arrogance by corporations toward indigenous peoples
that I think both that outrageous. People like Paul and I.
Speaker 1 (22:30):
Just at a curiosity, is there a terminus in the
country for this pipeline. Does it end yea in some
midsection of the countries that go all over down to Louisiana.
Speaker 2 (22:41):
It starts way in the top of North Dakota in
the Bakan oil fields and crosses multiple states, and it terminates.
The terminus is in Illinois on the Mississippi River. So
the ideas of the oil flows from North Dakota down
to the river, it's loaded onto barges, it's taken down
to the Gulf of me for either refining or export.
Speaker 1 (23:03):
Who is I'm always curious in terms of my ceaseless
hope for some heroism in terms of enforcement appointments, which,
of course that's a dead issue now with Trump. But
members of Congress, members of the Senate, anybody beyond NGOs
and your colleagues and other organizations. Who are people who
you think are sensitive to your issues in the government now?
(23:24):
Who are political leaders and the Senator of the House
that you have their ear.
Speaker 2 (23:29):
Well, there's not a lot, honestly, But I would say
look on the health side. Jim McGovern, representative from Massachusetts
human rights champion, is the only member of Congress ever
who have visited Chevron's cancer zone and equator, he's really
led so many other members and caring about this issue,
(23:50):
you know. And then others including Sheldon Whitehouse, Ed Markey,
Elizabeth Warren, you know, Pat Leahy retired, was very helpful
when he was in office, Barack Obama when he was
a senator way back.
Speaker 1 (24:04):
In the day.
Speaker 2 (24:05):
So we've had champions in the Congress for this particular cause.
But if you're looking for like a real environmental champion
in the Congress, it's difficult to find.
Speaker 1 (24:17):
To be frank, they might have the sympathy, but they
don't have a voice for it right now.
Speaker 2 (24:21):
Well, I think that the structure of the Congress in
our political system is in my opinion, I think it's
been so degraded over the last fifteen twenty years by
corporate money that it's very hard to get any of
these individuals to form enough of a critical mass of
people to really get anything significant done. It's like you
(24:42):
have a lone voice here and a lone voice there,
and it's very hard to get movement on a lot
of these issues now in the Congress, and particularly hard
under Trump for obvious reasons.
Speaker 3 (24:53):
There's two people to add in there.
Speaker 4 (24:54):
One Jamie Raskin is the lead on that anti slap
legislation that I talked about. And the other thing I
think is important to say, and I know Steven's not
going to say this himself, but his representative, Jerry Nadler,
didn't respond to a single call. We sent him thousands
of emails when Steven was under house arrest. He's walking
(25:16):
distance from him. Did he send a staff person to visit?
Did he respond no?
Speaker 3 (25:21):
For years? Nothing?
Speaker 1 (25:23):
And why do you think that is somebody who's been
typically on average or reliable colleague of your concerns. Why
do you think he turned around and ran and.
Speaker 2 (25:31):
Hit I think that it had to do with his
lack of courage. I think is a lot of it's personal.
And also it turns out that his son is a
major lawyer, Gibson Dunn, the Dingo you know, Gibson Done.
Is a lot of lawyers there donate money to Nadler,
and I don't think he wanted to know they were
making a lot of money off attacking me. But again,
(25:54):
it really shows a lack of courage, you know, lack
of integrity. I was very disappointed in Jerry Nadler. I mean,
Alec I was trying to get support in Congress, and
I was detained in my apartment and I can't say
the number of Congress persons and said, well, what about
what's Nadler doing? Like if Nadler, who's if my own
guy wouldn't do anything? They were like, well why should
I do anything? So it really cost me. It's a
(26:17):
lot of support the fact that Jerry wouldn't move on it,
but ultimately others did move despite Jerry and help me
a lot.
Speaker 1 (26:25):
Paul, what's next in terms of are we at the
stage now where the appeal of the decision against Greenpeace
is coming or is it going to be a while?
Speaker 4 (26:34):
Well, like I said, today, there's a hearing about the
award amount, so we'll find out whether or not it's
going to be adjusted or will still remain.
Speaker 1 (26:43):
At single or judge would adjust that.
Speaker 4 (26:44):
I'm out yes, in this case, it could be Judge Gion.
This is a name who is as he said himself,
I thought I was going to be handling divorce cases.
I never thought I'd have a case like this. So
he's way in over his head on this. Then it
will be appealed for sure, but that will go to
the North Dakota Supreme.
Speaker 1 (27:00):
Court, you think they're in the bag for energy transfer.
Speaker 3 (27:04):
Well, they have not proven very helpful.
Speaker 4 (27:06):
For example, during the trial, we were trying to get
access to send the video and the audio out to
the world so everyone could witness what was happening here,
and the North Kota Supreme Court denied the Washington Post,
major news outlets requests just get access to the live
stream of the trial. They want this to be done
(27:27):
in the shadows. This is the North Dakota Supreme Court.
So I don't have a lot of faith that there's
going to be a good judgment coming down from them.
Speaker 1 (27:35):
Who is in possession of that footage the state?
Speaker 4 (27:38):
You have to pay what is it, Stephen, twenty thousand
dollars if you want to buy the trends, if you
want to buy the transcript of what happened in that courtroom,
which is why Stephen and I and others were there
every day taking notes to have our own accounting of
what happened in order for the truth to come.
Speaker 1 (27:54):
Were you were allowed to release your note?
Speaker 4 (27:55):
We were, we were, But you know, trying to write
that fast and capture every word, it's quite a challenge.
Speaker 2 (28:00):
Look, normally a trial has a court reporter and it's public,
especially post COVID, like a lot of trials you can
watch on zoom, I would say, especially at State Court
like this energy transfer went and the Gibson dun lawyers
went out of their way to prevent people from watching
this trial. I mean it is unbelievable, for example, that
(28:21):
there's a live fee of the proceedings but they kept
at private and a journalist, say in Washington to cover
the trial had to travel all the way to Bismarck,
North Dakota and the dead of winter and sit in
court for three weeks and it really limited the coverage,
limited the scrutiny, and that's what it was designed to do.
What's aggravating. I get why Energy Chanser wanted to shroud
(28:43):
it in secret. See they're embarrassed, you know, they want
to go after green Peace quietly. What is more mystifying
to me is why the judge went along with it.
But again we're seeing sort of a mini version of
Kaplan in the green Peace trial in terms of his
willingness to just give the big fossil fuel company what
it wants to go after, you know, an activist group
(29:06):
that was fighting, you know, fighting the abuses that were
being visited upon indigenous people. So it's very disappointing. You know,
not every judge is bad. Let me be clear, right,
most judges are not bad, you know, but I think
Gibson Doune is expert at finding those judges when they
bring these types of cases, who are going to facilitate them.
Speaker 1 (29:30):
Paul Pasimino and Stephen Donziger. If you're enjoying this conversation,
tell a friend and be sure to follow Here's the
Thing on the iHeartRadio app, Spotify, or wherever you get
your podcasts. When we come back, Paul Pasimino and Stephen
Donziger talk about how the current Trump administration's policies will
(29:51):
affect future slapsuits, climate activists, and environmental legislation. I'm Alec
Baldwin and you're listening to Here's the Thing. Stephen Donziger
(30:13):
traveled to Ecuador to represent indigenous communities. The plaintiffs were
accusing Texaco and their parent company, Chevron, of severe environmental
damage and pollution. This lawsuit continued for thirty years, leading
to Chevron suing Donziger in the United States for fraud
(30:33):
and racketeering. The lawsuit culminated with Donziger's disbarment and a
two year house arrest in his Manhattan apartment. I first
spoke with Stephen Donziger on the podcast almost ten years
ago about the Chevron case. In March of twenty sixteen,
I was curious for an update on how things stood
(30:55):
for him now and what his career is focused on today.
Speaker 2 (31:00):
I had no idea, just as a frame of reference
at that point, no idea, not in my wildest imagination,
not in my most you know, you game out negative scenarios, right,
you're going up against all. I never thought such a
thing could possibly happen. It was a shock to me
and my family. My son at the time was thirteen,
(31:20):
and he came home one day and his dad had
an ankle brace and couldn't leave the apartment. And you know,
I thought it did last a week. It lasted two
years and two months. So, you know, we had to adjust,
and we made a couple of vows, my wife and I,
my wife, Laura Miller and I. One vow was that
we would not let them steal our happiness, but we
(31:42):
would maintain within the walls of our homes joy and
we wouldn't just obsess over this and talk about it
all the time. We would live continue to live to
the extent that we could. And we also refused to
let a trauma because it was very traumatic turn into
a pathology. We're like, we're not going to let that happens.
(32:04):
And even though we had to sort of endure a
lot of pain, I think in the end of the day,
we grew from it and got bigger, better and stronger.
And one of the reasons is Paul posse Minho sitting
here on this podcast, really kept the cause alive in
the environmental community, and many other people stepped up, you
(32:25):
know you being among them, Alec Roger Waters, another one,
Susan Sarandon, and just the ecuador and diaspora in New York.
I got huge support. I had people coming by our
two bedroom apartment almost every day to visit or to
express support or to have dinner. My wife and I
were like laughing because like our social life ironically got
(32:48):
so much better when I was detained, because everyone wanted
to come talk to us and see me and find
out what was happening. But the crazy part is the
maxim penalty I could get under captain's contempt, charged with
six months in prison, I served over four times that
amount before I could even get a trial at home.
(33:09):
And when I told the judge that Caplin appointed Judge Prescott,
I said, you got to let me free because I've
already served over four times my sentence. And she's like, actually,
you are free. She gave me this Kafka esque response,
you are free. I let you go home. You're not
in jail, and all I did was impose some conditions
on you. So she called my two year, two month
(33:29):
home detention freedom And you know, that's sort of how
they tried to justify it legally. But right now we're well,
I mean moving on. I'm writing a book, doing some speaking.
My son's in college, he's doing great. You know, we're good.
But it has made a huge dent in aspects of
our life that can never be recovered. Right, what else
(33:52):
do you work?
Speaker 1 (33:53):
Are there similar? I mean a country under Trump? This
country under Trump? Is it seems like every day, you know,
this something to be dismayed about and upset about. Do
you feel like this is the time we're going to
see more of this kind of thing? Are you going
to see corporations moving toward slap and other kinds of
activities on a greater scale in the coming three and
(34:15):
a half years.
Speaker 2 (34:16):
I do so this is my quick take on that
the slap threat comes from both government and private corporations.
We're seeing more and more of it from government. I mean,
it existed prior to Trump, but it's intensified greatly with
the politicization of the Department of Justice, you know, slapping
political opponents of Trump, crazy cases happening, investigations of climate
(34:39):
after this and that sort of thing. But you know,
if you look at what happened to me back in
twenty thirteen, you look at what's happening, you know, to Greenpeace,
you look at all of the people Chevron tried to
sweep up in the attack on me, including Paul and
Amazon Watch. I think we are seeing a real danger
(35:00):
out there that this is going to happen more and more.
All we can do is keep talking about it, keep
educating when people ask me what do they do if
they get slapped. I just spoke last night, by the way,
to a group of animal rights activists who are you know,
rescuing animals from poultry farms.
Speaker 1 (35:18):
You know that are whatever.
Speaker 2 (35:19):
I mean, It's not my world so much, except that
these people are facing enormous slap attacks from like Purdue
and some of these poultry companies, And what I tell
people is A, don't be intimidated. B make sure you
have a good legal team. C Build solidarity, and DE
(35:43):
build your own power. You know a lot of people
who get hit with these cower because they don't know
who to turn to. And they got to look at
this battle as a multi front battle, a multi platform
advocacy exercise. You know, as a lawyer, I never really
thought of my Oh, I'm just a lawyer. I'm going
to solve the equitor problem in the four walls of
(36:03):
the courtroom. Never thought that way. I'm like big oil company,
huge money, huge power. My clients have nothing but their
moral claims and their you know, their right to life.
And we are going to raise hell about this in
every corner of the world that we can that will
listen to us, through the media, through social media, through shareholders,
through the state attorney generals who can investigate chevrons. So
(36:27):
it's very important that when people deal with these slabs,
they build broad based advocacy campaigns to beat them back,
and they really take the offensive and go after the
entities that are bringing them and for that you need
you know, you need a team of people, good lawyers
and the like. But you can people can build this.
(36:48):
So it's very important to fight back. But really look
at it as a broad based effort involving lots of people,
lots of angles. So these companies or law firms like
get in this case Gibson dumb which by the way,
Chevron used against me in energy transfers using the same
law firm against Greenpeace that they also pay a price.
(37:10):
You know, they're in it for the money.
Speaker 1 (37:12):
Yeah, they make.
Speaker 2 (37:13):
I mean, I can't even tell you the hundreds of
millions of dollars of fees that Gibson done is charged
Chevron and energy Transfer and energy transfer case has gone
on eight years. My case has gone on fifteen years.
These are the biggest fees this firm has ever collected.
Speaker 1 (37:29):
They don't want to end.
Speaker 2 (37:31):
They don't want it to end.
Speaker 3 (37:32):
Yeah, and they need.
Speaker 1 (37:34):
To be called out. Now, Paul, let me ask you.
There's slapsuits and your name is Slapsuit. Where the villain
with the energy transfer if you will, or the Chevron
where they lost where they were challenging this. Was there
any big cases you know of were they lost.
Speaker 4 (37:48):
Oh sure, There's a case called the Weed nine, which
was a case brought against local activists I believe in
Oregon who were fighting a company to try protect the
rights to their water and they were slapped for a
conspiracy alleged conspiracy against this corporation, and they fought and
won at the case thrown out. And there are multiple
(38:12):
cases like that. Sum Devin Nunez cow right, this was
the Twitter a fake Twitter account. Devin Nunez slapped him
for making jokes about it, and that case was thrown out.
Speaker 3 (38:22):
So at times, when this comes.
Speaker 4 (38:26):
Before a judge who's reasonable, you have a chance to win,
but you've already had to defend yourself. So it's done
part of its job just by being able to bring
the slapsuit. But I did want to add that the
thing about Trump now is that free speech, as we
all know, is completely under attack. It's being literally criminalized.
(38:46):
So this unholy alliance between a federal government that will
make speech illegal and in corporations who will sue on
top of that to say, yeah, what you did was
illegal even according to the government, We're going to sue
you on top of that more money. So when Greenpeace
locks down a protest or stops a bank from operating
(39:07):
by protesting in front without using any violence or any
property destruction that can be determined illegal, and then that
bank is going to go and sue those activists for
stopping their operations and prevent them from the next protest.
Speaker 1 (39:21):
You can't rule it anything with this administration. Yeah, no
matter how nefarious and amount of complicated and kind of insane,
you can't rule it at it. And I'm thinking they're
going to get closer and closer and closer to you know,
sequestering and corralling people in terms of their rights, to
where they're going to declare martial law in order to
kill the election in twenty twenty eight.
Speaker 2 (39:41):
Where this is really moving, and I think what we
have to be most concerned about, it's already started. It's
trying to equate activism with terrorism. That's where this is heading. Think, Okay,
if you look at the pro Palestinian students essentially snatched
off the streets with no warrant in New York, the
Food Khalil case, the Rumesa Osturk case at Tufts University,
(40:04):
the Columbia students and others. Okay, the justification for that
according to Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, is
that these are terrorist sympathizers, that the mere fact of
protesting peacefully as protected by the Constitution in the First Amendment,
somehow turns them into terrorist sympathizers. And once you throw
(40:27):
around the word terrorist.
Speaker 1 (40:28):
Well that's what they did to the animal rights people
in the years exactly totally.
Speaker 2 (40:33):
And even someone Jessica Resisk, who's someone I've gotten to know,
who protested the Dacode access pipeline that Greenpeace protested. She
ended up vandalizing the pipeline in an act of nonviolent
civil disobedience. She faced a maximum three year term. She
got to court, the judge not only gave her the
maximum three year term, put a five year enhancement on
(40:56):
it by calling her a terrorist. She called her a
terrorist for trying to vandalize an oil pipeline. That's not terrorism.
You know, protesting the policies of the Israeli government is
not terrorism. I'm sorry, but this is where they're trying
to shove all this stuff. So you know, we start
as these slap cases. Oh, I'm suing Steven Donziger for
(41:17):
defamation or I'm going to I'm suing Greenpeace under a
civil racketeering theory, and then it goes from there. It's
a very short hop to trying to criminalize all the
people involved as terrorists, and of course once that happens,
you're facing twenty thirty year jail terms, life in prison.
(41:38):
And you know, look, I'm not necessarily necessarily saying they're
going to get away with that much, but it's it's
looming on the horizon, and it really is intended as
an intimidation mechanism. It's intended to shut people up by
instilling fear in the populace, and we have to really
understand what it is.
Speaker 1 (41:56):
Would you say, Paul Pasn mean that the path now
is whatever my you can give to donate to Greenpeace,
donate for their legal defense fund. Is that accurate or no?
Speaker 4 (42:05):
I'm not sure about Greenpeace's legal defense fund. I think
they actually have a lot of support they've gotten internationally
to come together. But what you need to do, in
my opinion, is look for the local groups that are
challenging who do need your support. If you look around
at what issues are happening where you are locally, you
will find a group, an environmental justice group or a
(42:27):
civil rights group that is challenging those actions and needs
support locally to be in the streets and needs to
know one that you have their back and two that
you're going to financially support them.
Speaker 3 (42:39):
Because with the cutbacks.
Speaker 4 (42:41):
That we've seen from the federal government, everybody is turning
to nonprofits, they're turning to foundations. USAID disappearing has put a.
Speaker 3 (42:49):
Burden on Amazon Watch.
Speaker 4 (42:50):
For example, in Peru, we have indigenous allies who've been
threatened because of their work against illegal activity in the
proving Amazon USAID helping keep them alive. They're getting death threats.
All that money is gone, and now they're turning to
NGOs there, attorneys to nonprofits, attorney to foundations. So there's
an increased need to step up to fill the gap
(43:12):
where the government was in some way supporting.
Speaker 1 (43:15):
Well in this country, where forever a turney to NGOs
to do things the government used to do.
Speaker 2 (43:19):
Yeah, in other civilized countries the government does do and yeah,
totally true. But I would say people want to help.
I would suggest donating to Amazon Watch. We're always frontline
defenders in the Amazon The other thing I would recommend
is take a look at the civil liberties Defense Center
and Eugene organ It came to my rescue when I
(43:42):
was under attack. You know, in this trial Lauren Reagan
as their executive director. They are probably the leading group
in the country sort of protecting people who were hit
with these slaps in the protest context. It's the Civil
Liberties Defense Center and Eugene organ but they operate on
a national scale and they do amazing stuff in the courtroom,
(44:06):
and they could use more support. And I really like
them and they helped me. So it's the Civil Liberties
Defense Center and Amazon Watch. This is really about us,
the people banding together to protect those of us who
are on the front lines, speaking out and facing the
brunt of these attacks. And you know, we want to
get this to a place where we're not just on
(44:28):
the defensive. We take offense to really try to create
the world we all deserve.
Speaker 1 (44:37):
My thanks to Paul Pasaminho and Steven Donziger. This episode
was recorded at CDM Studios in New York City. We're
produced by Kathleen Russo, Zach MacNeice, and Victoria de Martin.
Our engineer is Frank Imperial. Our social media manager is
Danielle Gingrich. I'm Alec Baldwin, here's the thing that is
(44:58):
brought to you by Art Radio
Host
Alec Baldwin
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.