Musk’s acknowledgment of these significant losses comes as X is also claiming — without evidence — that many major brands have returned to advertise on the platform.

The #StopToxicTwitter coalition has documented the significant missteps Musk has made since taking over the platform last October. His mismanagement began at the outset when he lied to civil-rights leaders about his content-moderation plans. Musk then laid off key staff charged with ensuring brand and user safety while granting a “general amnesty” to thousands of previously banned accounts, including those belonging to neo-Nazis, white supremacists, homophobes, transphobes, conspiracy theorists and others spouting hate and disinformation. As a result, #StopToxicTwitter coalition members, including the Center for Countering Digital Hate and Media Matters for America, have repeatedly shown that major brands’ ads are appearing next to extremist, bigoted and antisemitic content.

Since Musk took over the platform, #StopToxicTwitter members have doggedly tracked the impact of Musk’s reckless abandonment of content-moderation standards. More than 600 advertisers had abandoned X by the start of 2023, fearing that their brands wouldn’t be safe under Musk’s erratic leadership. Their departure contributed to a 70-percent drop in platform revenue over the previous year, according to Standard Media Index. By midyear, Fidelity Investments reported that the platform was worth just one-third of the $44 billion Musk paid for it.

#StopToxicTwitter member ADL is among Musk’s chief critics, repeatedly calling out his amplification of antisemitic voices and memes. While X CEO Linda Yaccarino met with ADL to hear their concerns, Musk lashed out, amplifying antisemitic attacks on the organization and vowing to sue. X has already attempted to silence a critic by suing the Center for Countering Digital Hate, another #StopToxicTwitter member that has documented the explosion of hate speech on the platform since Musk took over.

“The #StopToxicTwitter coalition exists to shine a light on Musk’s mismanagement of X, and on how Musk’s decisions to replatform white supremacists and conspiracy theorists have harmed people and the brands that advertise on the platform,” said Free Press Co-CEO Jessica J. González. “That the wealthiest man on the planet is using his money, influence and even legal action to threaten and silence critics, including our coalition partners, is reprehensible. Musk bought an advertising platform and advertisers have made themselves clear: They want no part of the toxic stew of hate and lies that Musk has enabled. The only one Musk has to blame for X’s declining fortunes is himself.” 

“Elon Musk’s professed commitment to free speech is nothing more than fig leaf flapping in the wind,” said Media Matters Chairman and CEO Angelo Carusone. “For Musk, it’s always been about morphing Twitter into a free for all that enables extremists and promotes his red-pilled worldview. Rarely does a day go by where Musk does not further expose himself as a volatile and petty hypocrite. “We know that Musk is going to continue to ratchet up the temperature on the simmering cauldron of deceit and hate that Twitter has become. Accordingly, the most important question isn’t what Musk will do next, it’s what will Twitter’s few remaining big-name advertisers and business partners do now? Continuing to support Twitter in its current state is akin to actively financing hate. It’s also a truly bizarre decision given that it’s only a matter of time before they inevitably get scorched by the noxious stew that Musk is cooking.”

“Advertisers have fled Twitter because Musk’s takeover cost the company its legitimacy by welcoming hate, extremism and disinformation, which no respectable brand wants to be associated with,” said Accountable Tech Policy and Advocacy Director Kaili Lambe. “Twitter’s downward spiral is due to Musk’s complete contempt for community standards and the safeguards that both users and advertisers demand. It’s the ultimate hypocrisy that Musk still masquerades as a free-speech absolutist when he’s made it clear he will pull every lever at his disposal to silence his critics. It should go without saying that his tactics are bad for business as well as an internet that allows for true democratic engagement and community conversations.”

-30-

Read the full text of the letter here, which includes the full list of signatories

CCDH has previously said it views the lawsuit as a move “straight out of the authoritarian playbook.” Musk is now showing that he will stop at nothing to silence anyone who criticizes him for his own decisions and actions, the group added. 

The letter, published today and signed by 64 organizations and individuals – including Amnesty International, GLAAD, and Friends of the Earth – describes the legal action as a “threat to the right to the freedom of expression, resulting in a dangerous chilling effect on civil society, experts, and advocates – and ultimately the public, which deserves to know how X and similar platforms are spreading hate and disinformation.”

Instead of using scare tactics to shut down independent research and evade accountability, the letter calls on X — and all major social media platforms — to embrace independent researcher access, transparency and accountability.

“Civil society organizations have joined together and shown that they will not be intimidated from undertaking or supporting independent research that is clearly in the public interest. CCDH and these groups and leaders are sending a message to Elon Musk and every social media company that we will not be bullied into silence,” said Imran Ahmed, founder and chief executive officer of CCDH.

Organizations and leaders who signed the open letter include: Amnesty International, Friends of the Earth; GLAAD; Union of Concerned Scientists; Free Press; Center for Digital Democracy; Ekō (formerly SumOfUs); Fairplay; Fight for the Future; Institute for Strategic Dialogue; News Media Association; HateAid; Coalition for Independent Tech Research Board; Reset; Accountable Tech; The Tech Oversight Project; Mozilla; MediaJustice; Global Project Against Hate and Extremism; ‘NEVER AGAIN’ Association; PFLAG National; Reproaction; Antisemitism Policy Trust; Public Interest News Foundation; Roger McNamee; Sander van der Linden, University of Cambridge; Stephan Lewandowsky, University of Bristol.

Since Musk completed his takeover of X/Twitter in October 2022, CCDH has monitored the increase of hate speech and disinformation on the platform.

CCDH’s research has shown that the volume of tweets containing the n-word rose by up to 202% in the month after Musk’s takeover; shown that tweets mentioning LGBTQ+ people in connection with “child grooming” more than doubled in the four months after the takeover. We also found that the platform failed to act on 99 out of 100 hateful tweets posted by Twitter Blue subscribers.

“By forcing the US Army Corps to essentially refute its own conclusions and end its review, President Trump effectively ordered it to grant the Lake Oahe easement,” said Bruce Afran, lead counsel on Jumping Eagle v. Trump. “This is direct interference by the President into the authority and mission of an independent expert agency.”

Running DAPL beneath Lake Oahe ignores the serious risks noted by pipeline-construction experts and places a disproportionate burden on historically marginalized populations. The plaintiffs claim that DAPL construction underneath Lake Oahe threatens their fundamental religious rights and rights of freedom from racial and environmental discrimination.

This suit joins an existing legal action by the Cheyenne River and Standing Rock Sioux tribes and claims that President Trump violated Federal Law by denying proper review of environmental and religious rights issues surrounding the controversial pipeline, effectively preventing affected tribal members from submitting expert reports on the environmental and cultural risks associated with the pipeline’s crossing of sacred Sioux Nation lands and beneath Lake Oahe. The lawsuit thus seeks damages from President Trump for illegally blocking the due process rights of tribal members.

Oral arguments for an injunction halting construction and transfer of oil under Lake Oahe are expected to be heard at 11am tomorrow, February 28, 2017, in front of Judge James E. Boasberg in US District Court.

Documents
Read the Motion to Intervene filed in US Court HERE
Read Exhibit A; Proposed Complaint of Intervenors HERE
Read Exhibit B; Declaration of Chani Phillips HERE
Read Exhibit B1; Declaration of Maxine Brings Him Back Janis HERE

As detailed in an exclusive report by Natasha Lennard for Vice News, through their FOIA request and lawsuit, Leopold and Shapiro seek to shed light on a critical yet little-understood ongoing controversy frequently described as a possible constitutional crisis.

Jason Leopold is an investigative journalist covering counterterrorism and human rights. He has been called a “FOIA Terrorist” by federal employees for his aggressive use of the Freedom of Information Act, which includes successfully suing the FBI to force changes to Bureau FOIA practices.

Ryan Shapiro, a FOIA specialist, is an historian of the political functioning of national security and the policing of dissent. Shapiro’s pathbreaking FOIA work has already led the FBI to declare his MIT dissertation research a threat to national security.

Leopold and Shapiro are represented by Washington, DC-based FOIA specialist attorney Jeffrey Light.

Three key elements of Shapiro and Leopold’s FOIA request and lawsuit:

1. The records at issue pertain directly to a possible ongoing constitutional crisis:

As editorialized by a leading newspaper opining on the matter, “Government spying from Washington has become government spying on Washington and may have escalated into a full constitutional crisis.”

Along these lines, SSCI Chairwoman Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) herself flatly accused the CIA of obstructing and surveilling her Senate committee’s review of the CIA’s RDI program. Highlighting the “grave implications of Executive Branch personnel interfering with an official congressional investigation[,]” Senator Feinstein declared the CIA’s actions “may well have violated the separation of powers principles embodied in the United States Constitution, including the Speech and Debate clause. It may have undermined the constitutional framework essential to effective congressional oversight of intelligence activities or any other government function.” Feinstein continued that the CIA’s actions, “may also have violated the Fourth Amendment, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, as well as Executive Order 12333, which prohibits the CIA from conducting domestic searches or surveillance.” Feinstein concluded by remarking that the outcome of this affair will determine whether the Senate “can be effective in monitoring and investigating our nation’s intelligence activities, or whether our work can be thwarted by those we oversee.”

In like fashion, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) characterized the CIA’s actions as “Richard Nixon stuff” “dangerous to the democracy” and that “heads should roll, people should go to jail if it’s true.”

2. The public war of words between the Senate and the CIA, as well as the continuing inability of the American people to know the truth about confirmed CIA torture and alleged CIA spying on its Congressional overseers, led Leopold and Shapiro to file a wide-ranging Freedom of Information Act request to the CIA seeking:

a) A copy of all written agreements and correspondence between the SSCI (including Senators on the committee, their staff, and committee staff) and the CIA (or its agents, including contractors) which set forth the terms under which SSCI staffers would be permitted to access CIA documents at the secure CIA facility in Virginia.

b) A copy of all records documenting any CIA investigation into the search of SSCI’s computers at the secure facility in Virginia, including any records generated by the CIA’s Inspector General in the course of any investigation; records referring the incident(s) to the Department of Justice for investigation; and correspondence between the SSCI (including Senators on the committee, their staff, and committee staff) and the CIA (or its agents, including contractors) which discuss the event.

c) A copy of all records documenting any CIA investigation into the removal of the Panetta Review, including any records generated by the CIA’s Inspector General in the course of any investigation; records referring the incident(s) to the Department of Justice for investigation; and correspondence between the SSCI (including Senators on the committee, their staff, and committee staff) and the CIA (or its agents, including contractors) which discuss the event.

d) For any CIA contractor responsible for reviewing records relating to the CIA’s former Detention and Interrogation Program before access was provided to SSCI staff, a copy of the contract, the request for proposal, proposal, bid solicitation, and bid.

e) A copy of any and all talking points (in draft and final form) and any and all guidance issued to the CIA’s Office of Public Affairs about the ongoing dispute between the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) over the SSCI’s review of the CIA’s former Detention and Interrogation Program.

3. The CIA has failed to comply with Leopold and Shapiro’s FOIA request and is now in violation of the Freedom of Information Act. Consequently, Leopold and Shapiro have filed a lawsuit to compel CIA compliance with their FOIA request for records on this affair.

According to Shapiro:

“The U.S. intelligence community is notorious for its profound hostility to transparency. In the present case, the CIA appears to have spied upon the very Senate intelligence committee tasked with overseeing the CIA’s torture program, while at the same time smearing that Senate committee’s review with unsupported allegations of criminality. Now, the CIA is further flouting transparency by refusing to comply with our FOIA request for records on this troubling affair. The democratic process cannot meaningfully function without an informed citizenry, and such a citizenry is impossible without broad public access to information about the operations of government. It’s time for the CIA and the rest of the U.S. intelligence community to recognize transparency not as a threat, but rather as an essential component of viable democracy.”

A complete copy of the complaint filed in court this morning can be viewed HERE

To arrange an interview with Jason Leopold and Ryan Shapiro, please email or text Andy Stepanian at andy@sparrowmedia.net or 631.291.3010. You can follow Jason Leopold on twitter at @JasonLeopold and Ryan Shapiro on twitter at @_rshapiro

The AETA is a federal criminal statute ushered through Congress in 2006 by powerful lobbyists for the fur, pharmaceutical, and meat industries. It criminalizes a broad swath of free speech activities and has cast a chill over the animal rights community. CCR filed the first civil challenge to AETA, Blum v. Holder, in support of five animal rights activists who have censored themselves and limited their lawful advocacy out of fear that their work could subject them to prosecution as terrorists.

Want to fight the silencing of a movement? Do it directly by listening to and amplifying the voices of these activists. Please watch, share, and tweet (using #AETAspeakout) this new, two-minute video by CCR, featuring the plaintiffs in Blum v. Holder. Also check out Rachel Meeropol’s accompanying blog on the Huffington Post.

The plaintiffs are animal rights activists from across the country who are chilled from continuing their lawful and important advocacy work based on the broad reach of the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act…

Sarahjane Blum
lives in Minneapolis, Minnesota, where she runs a small business with her husband. In 2003, Sarahjane co-founded GourmetCruelty.com, a grassroots coalition dedicated to exposing the abuse of ducks and geese raised for foie gras. The following year, the group released a short film, Delicacy of Despair, Behind the Closed Doors of the Foie Gras Industry, documenting their investigation of deplorable conditions on foie gras farms, and featuring the “open rescue” of a number of ducks. Sarahjane would like to continue her anti-foie gras work in Minnesota, which has become a significant foie gras producer, without breaking the law. But she is limited in her ability to do so, as the AETA criminalizes campaigns like hers that could cause a foie gras farm to lose profit, or hire extra security.

Ryan Shapiro
lives in Cambridge, Massachusetts, where he is completing a PhD at MIT. Ryan’s research focuses on disputes over animals and national security. In particular, his work explores the use of the rhetoric and apparatus of national security to marginalize animal protectionists as threats to American security from the late nineteenth century to the present. A longtime grassroots animal rights activist, Ryan co-founded GourmetCruelty.com with Sarahjane, and has focused much of his activism on factory farming issues. Ryan’s work, along with that of Sarahjane and the rest of the coalition, was instrumental in the 2004 passage of a California State law banning all foie gras production within the State. Ryan holds a degree in film and used these skills to direct Delicacy of Despair. Ryan wishes to further utilize his expertise to document and expose animal exploitation and abuse on factory farms. He is chilled from engaging in this important work, however, because documenting and distributing evidence of animal exploitation and abuse risks prosecution as a terrorist under the AETA. Read Ryan’s recent piece, Is Freeing a Duck Terrorism? on Truthout.

Lana Lehr
lives in Bethesda, Maryland. She is a licensed psychotherapist, and has been seeing patients in private practice for over 20 years. After adopting a rescued rabbit, Lana became interested in rabbit care and advocacy issues, eventually co-founding RabbitWise, a public charity devoted to preventing the irresponsible acquisition and care of companion rabbits, improving retention rates of rabbits already living in homes, educating people who live with or treat rabbits to give them the best possible care, and advocating for the broader welfare of rabbits in general. Lana used to supplement her rabbit advocacy by organizing and attending lawful, peaceful anti-fur protests in DC, but she is now afraid to attend such protests out of fear that even a lawful protest, which causes a fur store to lose money, would violate the AETA and risk prosecution as a terrorist.

Lauren Gazzola
lives in Brooklyn, New York, where she works in the communications department of a non-profit legal organization. Lauren served almost three and a half years in federal prison after being convicted, along with five others, under a prior version of the AETA – The Animal Enterprise Protection Act of 1992. Lauren’s arrest and prosecution arose from her leadership role in Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC), a grassroots campaign devoted to exposing and ending horrific animal abuse at Huntingdon Life Sciences, a corporation made infamous after undercover investigators disclosed footage of researchers dissecting a conscious monkey, repeatedly punching beagle puppies in the face, and other abuse. Lauren and the other SHAC defendants were not prosecuted for personally damaging Huntingdon property but, rather, for running a website that reported on and endorsed legal and illegal protests that caused the company to lose money. Now that she is out of prison, Lauren would like to engage in lawful animal rights work, but she cannot tell what is protected by the First Amendment and what is not, due to the broad reach and vague language of the AETA.

J Johnson
also lives in Brooklyn, New York, where he is an undergraduate at The New School. J moved to New York recently, from his native Chicago, where he spent close to a decade organizing protests and educating the public as a leader in the Chicago-area SHAC campaign. He left Chicago due in large part to the erosion there of long standing animal rights networks and his resulting inability to effectively organize demonstrations. Upon arriving in New York, he hoped to connect with others involved in sustainable and strategic animal rights campaigns, but has had trouble finding advocates to work with, due to a chill throughout the animal rights community as whole, based on the targeting of that community as would-be terrorists under the AETA.

The AETA criminalizes a broad swath of protected First Amendment activities and is so vague as to fail to give people notice of whether or not their conduct falls under the statute’s prohibitions.

In 2011, CCR filed the first civil challenge to the law. The case was dismissed on standing by the District Court in 2012, and CCR has since filed an appeal to the First Circuit. To learn more about the CCR’s legal challenge to the AETA please visit » http://ccrjustice.org/AETA

Shapiro, a FOIA specialist, is an historian of the policing of dissent and the political functioning of national security. His pathbreaking FOIA work has already led the FBI to declare his MIT dissertation research a threat to national security. Shapiro also has FOIA requests for records on Mandela in motion with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Defense Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency. Shapiro is represented by FOIA specialist attorney Jeffrey Light.

Two Key Issues Regarding Today’s Filing Against the CIA:

1) The CIA is widely and credibly believed to have been involved in Mandela’s 1962 arrest that led to his decades-long incarceration. Yet, the Agency has never admitted its role in this affair, and little specific public information exists on the matter. Shapiro’s FOIA efforts will begin to fill this massive hole in public knowledge of U.S. intelligence operations.

2) Despite longstanding public knowledge of U.S. intelligence assistance to apartheid South Africa in general, and in Mandela’s arrest in particular, much of the U.S. and world press has paid distressingly little attention to these issues. Even in the wake of Mandela’s death, these issues, including the fact that Mandela remained on the U.S. terror watch list until 2008, have for the most part remained ignored or discounted. Shapiro’s efforts will bring much-needed attention to these vital topics, as well as to the U.S. intelligence community’s continued outrageous aversion to transparency.

According to Shapiro:

“Though the U.S. intelligence community is long believed to have been involved in Mandela’s arrest, little specific public information exists regarding this involvement. Similarly, though the U.S. intelligence community is long understood to have routinely provided information to the South African regime regarding the anti-apartheid movement, little specific public information exists about these activities either. Further, despite now being universally hailed as a hero and freedom fighter against gross injustice, Mandela was designated a terrorist by the United States government and remained on the U.S. terror watch list until 2008.

In bringing suit against the CIA to compel compliance with my Freedom of Information Act request, I seek access to records that will begin answering the following questions:

What was the extent and purpose of the U.S. intelligence community’s surveillance of Nelson Mandela prior to his arrest? What role did the U.S. intelligence community play in Mandela’s arrest and prosecution? What role did the U.S. intelligence community play in the broader effort to surveil and subvert the South African anti-apartheid movement? To what extent, and for what objectives, did the U.S. intelligence community surveil Mandela following his release from prison? To what extent, if any, did the U.S. intelligence community continue providing information regarding Mandela to the apartheid regime following Mandela’s release from prison? What information did the U.S. intelligence community provide American policymakers regarding Mandela and the South African anti-apartheid movement? To what extent, and to what ends, did the U.S. intelligence community surveil the anti-apartheid movement in the United States? How did the United States government come to designate Nelson Mandela a terrorist threat to this country? How did this designation remain unchanged until 2008? And what was the role of the U.S. intelligence community in this designation and the maintenance thereof?”

You can read the full text of today’s court filing against the CIA HERE.

To arrange an interview with Ryan Shapiro please email or text Andy Stepanian at andy@sparrowmedia.net or 631.291.3010. You can follow Shapiro on twitter at @_rshapiro

The motion details how Chevron’s monetary and non-monetary compensation package clearly runs afoul of the federal Anti-Gratuity statute, as well as the Rules of Professional Conduct of New York, has provided an overwhelming incentive to lie and exaggerate in order to gain a better bargaining position with Chevron, as he testified he did repeatedly in court last week.

The motion notes the view of prominent legal scholar and law professor Erwin Chemerinsky in a sworn declaration for the Defendants 

“if a party or its counsel were permitted to pay a testifying witness for physical evidence, beyond the reasonable value of that evidence, and to pay the witness a salary in exchange for an agreement to testify, there would be little left of the rule against compensating fact witnesses.”

We encourage you to read the motion in its entirety as it also highlights the admitted lies, the contradictions, and the suspect assertions in Guerra’s testimony, as well as the total lack of anything approaching corroborating evidence for his explosive allegations of ghostwriting and bribery.

Click here to read the motion [PDF document] & see below for additional comments.

Comment of Chris Gowen, spokesperson for Steven Donziger, and Professor of Legal Ethics at American University, Washington College of Law »

“The Chevron payments to Guerra constitute outright bribes that violate both criminal laws and the ethical rules governing the legal profession. As a practicing trial attorney, I know that if I ever put a witness like Mr. Guerra on the stand, the state bar would have every right to revoke my license to practice law.”

Comment of Han Shan, spokesperson for the Ecuadorian RICO Defendants »

“Guerra and his obsequious storytelling seem to Chevron a magic bullet to evade accountability for the destruction and suffering it has caused in Ecuador. But it won’t work; the District Court in New York cannot act as an appellate court to the Ecuadorian judiciary, and deny the communities of the Amazon the court victory they fought for and won.”

After the first four witnesses, several issues have come into sharp focus. First, Chevron is willing to give up major portions of its RICO claims to avoid compelling evidence of its environmental pollution and corrupt activities in Ecuador from coming out in court.

At the same time, Judge Lewis A. Kaplan is doing everything he can to assist the oil giant’s case. Kaplan has blocked most lines of questioning about environmental contamination, blocked evidence of Chevron’s surveillance of Donziger, granted Chevron a trial preparation room five times the size of that used by Donziger and Ecuadorian defendants Hugo Camacho and Javier Piaguaje, and most notably, has twice taken over the questioning of Chevron witnesses.

“I don’t think there’s a lawyer in the world who would guess that this is a RICO case had they sat through the first week of trial,” said Christopher Gowen, the spokesman for Donziger. “Chevron clearly wants to retry the Ecuador case that it lost in its preferred court”.

Gowen said Chevron’s case rests largely on a veritable parade of witnesses “who seem to personally dislike Steven Donziger” but have little information relevant to the legal claims in the case. “Chevron will continue to use this proceeding to try to destroy Donziger’s reputation by distorting facts about him, which seems to be central to their strategy,” he added.

The most stunning development occurred the first day when Chevron dropped a key predicate RICO act alleging that Donziger and his colleagues pressed for prosecutors in Ecuador to file “bogus” criminal charges against Ricardo Reis Veiga, a top Chevron lawyer. Just as lawyers were about to confront Reis Veiga with evidence that the charges were based on scientific proof that he designed and supervised a fraudulent remediation, Chevron agreed to drop that issue.

That move “completely validates everything Steven Donziger has been saying about this issue for years.” said Gowen. “It was manufactured by Chevron to put pressure on Donziger and harm his reputation, and it was false.”

“We were prepared to prove that Veiga orchestrated a major fraud in Ecuador to try to get Chevron out of its huge liability, and that the criminal charges against him had a valid basis,” Gowen continued. “You may draw your own conclusions about why Chevron dropped this claim.”

Another of Chevron’s key witnesses, a former technical consultant for the rainforest communities named David Russell’s written testimony, authored by Chevron’s lawyers, stated that Donziger pressured him to put out an inflated damages estimate in 2003 to pressure the company into a settlement. Curiously, Mr. Russell had a much different tone during a 2003 interview with The Wall Street Journal where, in his own words, he called the Ecuadorian contamination “larger than the Chernobyl disaster”.

Under cross-examination on the stand, Russell testified that he spent days putting together the assessment based on assumptions then available from limited data, and did so with no interference from Donziger.

Whether the thousands of dollars Mr. Russell has made from Chevron for his “testimony prep” influenced his testimony is rather obvious. Russell even admitted that Chevron lawyers at Gibson Dunn & Crutcher wrote his testimony for him in the first person.

Chevron scientist Sara McMillen was caught having to admit that the company’s technical experts were told to only look for “clean” soil samples during the judicial inspections. Donziger has long accused Chevron of engaging in junk science to defraud Ecuador’s court. (For a copy of his own claims against Chevron that Judge Kaplan would not let go forward, see here).

McMillen also conceded that Chevron called its own paid experts “independent” – the exact same term used by Donziger and his colleagues that Chevron claims was inappropriate.

“Chevron’s witnesses have affirmed what the victims of Chevron’s contamination have known all too well for decades – that a huge area where Chevron operated is horrifically polluted,” said Han Shan, spokesperson for the Ecuadorians named in Chevron’s RICO suit. “Chevron’s attempts to run from this basic truth adds insult to injury for thousands of people who continue to suffer the impacts of the company’s reckless conduct.”

Chevron’s RICO has three main problems »

First, the main activity in the case took place outside the U.S. in Ecuador, while the statute only applies to acts in the country. Second, now that Chevron has dropped money damages claims to avoid a jury, there is no equitable relief remedy available (such as an injunction blocking enforcement). Third, and most notably, Mr. Donziger did not commit a “predicate act” as clearly required by the RICO Statute, according to Gowen.

“Chevron figured out how to avoid a jury because the company knew full well New Yorkers would have seen through its charade,” he added.

» The Sparrow Project was grateful to be able to assist the Ecuadorian pollution victims in securing favorable media coverage on Huffpost Live [HERE & HERE], as well as Democracy Now! and Breaking the Set in hopes to juxtapose much of the business-centric articles like this one in Bloomberg Businessweek.

In a landmark ruling last September the plaintiffs —former New York Times war correspondent Chris Hedges, RevolutionTruth founder Jennifer “Tangerine” Bolen, Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, linguist and author Noam Chomsky, Icelandic Parliamentarian Brigitta Jonsdottir, US Day of Rage founder Alexa O’Brien, and Occupy London activist Kai Wargalla— were awarded a permanent, worldwide injunction against the provision by Judge Katherine Forrest of the Southern District of NY (2nd Circuit).  In her ruling Judge Forrest, an Obama appointee, challenged the Justice Department attorneys for refusing to provide assurances that journalists and activists would not be indefinitely detained under the provision for exercising first amendment rights:

“Not once in any of its submissions in this action or at either the March or August hearings has the Government said, ‘First Amendment activities are not covered and could never be encompassed by § 1021(b)(2). This Court rejects the Government’s suggestion that American citizens can be placed in military detention indefinitely, for acts they could not predict might subject them to detention, and have as their sole remedy a habeas petition…That scenario dispenses with a number of guaranteed rights.”

Despite including a signing statement expressing deep reservations over the “indefinite detention provision” and promising not to use such powers against American citizens, President Obama immediately appealed Judge Forrest’s ruling, and sought an emergency stay on the injunction, claiming “irreparable harm” would be incurred by the US if the government lacked the ability to indefinitely detain civilians under section 1021.

“This is the final battle between the restoration of due process along with our most cherished civil liberties and the imposition of a military state,” said Chris Hedges, “if we lose this battle, will be vulnerable to being seized on American soil by the military, stripped of due process and held in indefinate detention in military facilities, including our off-shore penal colonies. It is up to federal judges now to pull us back form the brink.  Our legal challenge to section 1021(b)(2) of the NDAA is one of the defining moments of our era.”

The suit has been joined by over two dozen organizations and individuals who have filed Amicus Curiae briefs in support of the plaintiff’s claims that § 1021(b)(2) of the NDAA is over-broad and facially unconstitutional.  One such supporting brief, filed by Karen and Ken Korematsu (Children of Fred Korematsu & each Amici in this case), draws a chilling comparison between indefinite detention under the auspices of the war on terror and the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II:

“Korematsu remains on the pages of our legal and political history. As a legal precedent it is now recognized as having very limited application. As historical precedent it stands as a constant caution that in times of war or declared military necessity our institutions must be vigilant in protecting constitutional guarantees. It stands as a caution that in times of distress the shield of military necessity and national security must not be used to protect governmental actions from close scrutiny and accountability. It stands as a caution that in times of international hostility and antagonisms our institutions, legislative, executive and judicial, must be prepared to exercise their authority to protect all citizens from the petty fears and prejudices that are so easily aroused.”

In opposition to the plaintiffs Senators John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Kelly Ayotte have utilized the Amicus process to file a brief in support of the government’s use of § 1021(b)(2) of the NDAA and have taken the unusual step of filing a motion requesting 10 minutes of oral argument time in the February 6th, 2012 proceedings, claiming the need for the Senate body to be represented in court when it comes to indefinite detention.  Plaintiff attorneys are awaiting word on whether the 2nd Circuit will grant this motion.

UPDATE: On Thursday, January 31st, 2012 attorneys for the plaintiffs received notice that McCain, Graham and Ayotte were awarded a 5 minute oral argument at the proceeding. To compensate for this the 2nd circuit also added 5 minutes onto the plaintiff argument (allowing for 20 minutes total).

A bipartisan coalition of groups backing this lawsuit, including Demand Progress, RevolutionTruth, the Bill of Rights Defense Committee and the Tenth Amendment Center, are calling on members and supporters to join the plaintiffs in court. Activists promoting a call to “Flood the Courthouse” have already received over 300 RSVP’s from activists and supporters of the plaintiffs

Plaintiff and lawsuit coordinator Tangerine Bolen will lead a press conference upon adjournment of the court session. Speakers will include Tangerine Bolen, Daniel Ellsberg, Chris Hedges, Bruce Afran, Alexa O’Brien, Cornel West, Thomas Drake, Jesselyn Radack and a number of others working to prevent indefinite detention and restore civil liberties.

To obtain video of the press conference or to arrange an interview with any of the plaintiffs or counsel please contact Andy Stepanian at andy@sparrowmedia.net or 631.291.3010.

COURT ARGUMENTS & ACTIVIST SOLIDARITY ACTION

WHAT: Oral Arguments in NDAA Court Ruling & Activist Solidarity Action
WHERE: 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, Thurgood Marshall Courthouse
(Room 1505, 15th floor), 40 Foley Square, NYC
WHEN: 10am Wednesday, February 6, 2013
INFO: Stop NDAA Lawsuit | Facebook RSVP

PRESS CONFERENCE

WHAT: Press Conference with Plaintiffs, Counsel, and Supporters
(Daniel Ellsberg, Chris Hedges, Bruce Afran, Tangerine Bolen, Alexa O’Brien, Cornel West)
WHERE: Foley Square, NYC (directly across from courthouse steps)
WHEN: After Court Adjourns (Approximately 11:30am Wednesday, February 6, 2013)
INFO: Stop NDAA Lawsuit | Facebook RSVP

• Suggested reading: Echoes of Korematsu by Noor Elashi

On Sunday, September 23rd this TARU footage, totaling over 60 hours, was released to the public by an unknown party. We have logged much of this footage on our wiki. Although heavily edited, this footage reveals widespread police misconduct including arbitrary arrests, physical abuse, and press suppression.

The behavior of “Bloomberg’s Army” has been condemned by the United Nations rapporteur on Human Rights, and well-documented by the NYU School of Law and Fordham Law School, which concluded: “‘All the case studies we collected show the police are violating basic rights consistently, and the level of impunity is shocking,’ said Sarah Knuckey, a professor of Clinical Law at NYU and one of the lead authors of the report. ‘The point needs to be made that NYPD does not exemplify international human rights law, it violates it.’”

We demand:

● The release of ALL unedited TARU footage pertaining to Occupy Wall Street protests. We plan on filing “right-to-know” requests to achieve this. We encourage others to do so as well. It is important that the NYPD not permitted to redact their crimes against peaceful protesters and journalists.

● A truly independent investigation by an agency (such as the investigation undertaken of the Oakland Police Department) outside New York City into the NYPD’s brutal and illegal behavior the night of November 15th, 2011, as well as the legality of Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s media blackout. All offending parties must be held accountable – from Mayor Bloomberg to rank-and-file police officers.

● An end to police oppression in minority communities and the abhorrent practice of “Stop-and- Frisk.”

We stand in solidarity with @ChangeTheNYPD, people of color and the LGBT community who are brutalized and wronged by police throughout New York City, the country and world.

Interview requests and media requests regarding the NYPDTapes Wiki should be directed at NYPDTapes@gmail.com.  You can follow the NYPDTapes project on twitter at @NYPDTapes