AMY GOODMAN: We begin today’s show with a closely watched civil trial in North Dakota that could bankrupt the global environmental group Greenpeace. Testimony began last week in a Mandan courthouse just across the Missouri River from Bismarck in a $300 million lawsuit filed by Energy Transfer, the Big Oil corporation behind the Dakota Access Pipeline. The Texas company claims Greenpeace USA and Greenpeace International organized the mass protests and encampment at Standing Rock between 2016 and ’17 against the construction of the pipeline. Energy Transfer has accused Greenpeace of defamation and orchestrating criminal behavior. Greenpeace has described the trial as “one of the most consequential free speech cases in recent history.”

MONTGOMERY BROWN: This is about our fundamental First Amendment rights. And those rights are under attack. Even if you don’t care about climate change, you don’t care about Greenpeace, you should pay attention.

CHARLIE CRAY: Because what’s at stake isn’t just Greenpeace or environmentalism, but the fundamental right to freedom of expression.

AMY GOODMAN: Energy Transfer CEO Kelcy Warren, a major Trump donor since 2016, once referred to water protectors as people who should, quote, “be removed from the gene pool,” unquote.

Greenpeace had petitioned the North Dakota Supreme Court to move the trial out of Morton County, arguing the jury is not impartial. It was recently reported that more than half the jurors have ties to the fossil fuel industry, and most expressed negative views about anti-pipeline protesters and groups that oppose the fossil fuel industry.

For more, we go to Mandan, North Dakota, where we’re joined by Deepa Padmanabha, a senior legal adviser for Greenpeace USA who’s attending the civil trial.

Deepa, welcome back to Democracy Now! Why don’t you lay out what’s at stake?

DEEPA PADMANABHA: Thanks, Amy. It’s so great to be back with you.

So, as you mentioned, we’re in week two of our trial here in Mandan, North Dakota, where Energy Transfer alleges that Greenpeace offices orchestrated the entire resistance at Standing Rock through a misinformation campaign. And these legal attacks against Greenpeace have been going on for almost eight years. And as you mentioned, they are seeking $300 million in damages.

What’s really important to know is that this case is not just an obvious and blatant erasure of Indigenous leadership, of Indigenous resistance, but this case is also so much bigger than just Greenpeace. It is an attack on the broader movement and all of our First Amendment rights to free speech and peaceful protest.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Deepa, the use — Energy Partners tried to use a RICO lawsuit originally against Greenpeace. Could you talk about this, this tendency now of corporations to go after civil society groups with these lawsuits, especially RICO suits?

DEEPA PADMANABHA: Yeah, of course. So, the case that we’re currently in trial for is a state case, and it’s the second lawsuit that Energy Transfer filed against the Greenpeace entities. So, back in August of 2017, Energy Transfer filed a federal case in North Dakota federal court alleging RICO violations. And this was the second year in a row that the Greenpeace entities had been hit with civil RICO. And so, what these corporations were alleging was that our advocacy work was akin to mafia behavior. That’s what RICO, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, was originally intended to address. And so, at that time, the lawyers had actually publicly stated that this was the new playbook that they were developing. They were shopping this tactic around. And at that time, it was thought that civil RICO could really be the new tactic that was going to be used to shut down advocacy work.

And the really good news there is that we fought those cases head on, and in both cases, we actually got civil RICO dismissed, and so now there is precedent. And I want to note that civil RICO is different from criminal RICO, which is what folks are dealing with in Cop City. And unfortunately, that’s still a huge threat, and there is not the same precedent that we have with civil RICO. But we haven’t seen new civil RICO cases filed against advocacy groups in that way. But what happened in the Energy Transfer case is, when the RICO was dismissed, the federal court did not rule on the state claims. So, in 2019, Energy Transfer took those state claims and filed a case in North Dakota state court, and that’s the case that we’re currently trying right now in Mandan.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And in terms of the state case, the allegations that Greenpeace is accused of inciting and masterminding the uprising of 2016 and ’17, why have they chosen to go after Greenpeace, when the reality is that it was Native organizations who led that fight and who organized most of the fight?

DEEPA PADMANABHA: Yeah, that’s an excellent question. And, you know, I have been working on these cases, on the Energy Transfer legal attacks, for almost eight years. And anybody familiar with Standing Rock, the first question they always ask me is, “Was Greenpeace even there? We never heard about them. We never saw them. This makes no sense.” And therein lies the truth. It’s because Greenpeace recognized that this was an Indigenous-led fight. This was not a Greenpeace campaign. I mean, you all know Greenpeace for big, bold actions. That was not — that was not at play here, and that was very intentional. This was not our fight.

And so, I think that the question of “Why Greenpeace?” is kind of twofold. I mean, one, the original federal case using RICO, that was kind of a new tactic, and so Greenpeace was really the guinea pig in that RICO tactic. But second, you know, this is a lawsuit that’s really intended to silence, to intimidate and to scare people into silence. And so, the thought is: If we can silence Greenpeace, if we can make them scared, then who else is going to speak out? Who else is going to show up at protests? And so, kind of picking from the corporate side, you know, who is the target that can really help us address the rest of civil society? And we believe that that’s why they picked Greenpeace. And we don’t think that they ever anticipated that eight years later we would be here in court, clearly showing that we will not be silenced, and these attempts to make us weaker, to shut us down, have actually only made us stronger and made the movement more united.

AMY GOODMAN: In a minute, we’re going to talk to Winona LaDuke to talk about the Indigenous-led resistance. But, Deepa Padmanabha, before you go into court, for people who don’t understand what a SLAPP suit is, and talk about whether this is exactly what the corporations want, you to be in court and not on the street, not protesting pipelines around the country.

DEEPA PADMANABHA: Yeah, so, that’s exactly what the intent is. So, ”SLAPP” stands for “strategic lawsuits against public participation.” And in a nutshell, these are cases that are meant to silence, that are meant to scare, because the idea is not to actually win in court. The idea is that if you bring a massive lawsuit — I mean, any of us can imagine what — if we were hit with a $300 million lawsuit, the mere filing of the lawsuit has the intended impact of silencing.

And, you know, what I want to say is, to your point, we are absolutely focused on winning in the courtroom, but because we know that this case is so much bigger, we have to win outside of the courtroom, as well. And so, the way that Greenpeace is fighting this case is obviously not just for our offices, for our entities, but it’s for the broader movement, because we know that this is the test case. And so, winning outside of the courtroom, showing corporations that, you know, “It’s not just Greenpeace that you’re going after. You have brought all of civil society. This is a visible fight. We are all watching it. The world is watching. We’re all paying attention. And we’re going to support Greenpeace,” that is what is going to create a deterrent effect for other corporations that are looking at this tactic. So, winning in the courtroom, absolutely our priority. We know that the law is on our side. But we are approaching this in a much more holistic way, because we don’t want anyone else to have to go through what we have in these last eight years.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Deepa Padmanabha, we want to thank you for being with us, senior legal adviser for Greenpeace USA, speaking to us from Mandan, will be in court today, as she has been on the other days of this civil trial.