Corporate SLAPP suits Against Forest Protesters Begin

[ bach home | newsletter | updates | press releases | email list | links ]
updates /

Maxxam/PL Has Filed Numerous Lawsuits to Quell Protests

The trial of Pacific Lumber (PL) and Scotia Pacific (ScoPac) Corporations versus Kim Starr (Verbena) began with opening statements last Thursday (see below) in Judge Watson's Superior Court in Humboldt county. It took an astounding 8 days to seat a jury in a jury selection process that weeded out anyone who seemed passionate about the earth and people unhappy
with 'corporate personhood'.

This is the first of three civil lawsuits, known as S.L.A.P.P suits, filed by the timber company against forest activists. "S.L.A.P.P" stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation and are a strategy employed by corporations, usually those in the extractive industries, to quell opposition against their practices. Verbena, a well known local forest activist, is representing herself against the harassment lawsuit for alleged civil trespass related to a protest at PL headquarters in Scotia in 2002, to call attention to damaging logging in the Mattole River watershed. The case number is DR020478, Pacific Lumber et al v. Jonathan Laine, Kimberly Starr et al.

A second SLAPP suit filed against people involved in forest protests that took place in the Mattole area itself in 2001 is in discovery phase. The third SLAPP suit is focused on the Freshwater watershed protests of March 2003, when treesitter Remedy and others were removed from high up in ancient redwoods they had occupied for up to a year alongside Greenwood Heights Road. Over forty people were arrested at that time during intense public protests. Large crowds turned out to witness and protest the cutting of the ancient trees as well as the sometimes brutal and always reckless extractions performed by Eric Schatz of Schatz Tree Service and his employees, under contract to PL.

Maxxam/PL has filed at least six of these SLAPP harassment lawsuits against critics of their liquidation logging practices, the first in 1987. The suits currently in court were filed between 2001 and 2003.
For those too far away to offer support in person in the courtroom, send prayers and magic. It is always needed.

Verbena's opening statement to the jury:
Please know that the court has already forbidden me from talking about
almost anything that matters (logging, etc), but I'm going to keep getting
it in there as much as possible-- they can try to shut me down...

--Verbena

Opening Statement

GOOD MORNING

Plaintiffs have been talking about Pacific Lumber/Scotia Pacific headqtrs in the Company town of Scotia.

WHOíS IN THAT BUILDING?

Executives, corporate officers, accountants, people who hire subcontractors, planners of logging operations, people strategizing finances, deciding what to buy or sell-the POLICY MAKERS.

THE BOSSES.

The bosses are in that building and with the direction from the big boss in Texas, they are everyday making decisions regarding the fate of the forests, the watersheds, the wildlife, the rivers, the local economy, the availability of jobs in the woods and the mills. 

Theyíre making a lot of big decisions:
Layoffs, lawsuits, deals, the cheapest places to process timber.

And PL/Scopac headqrtrs. Is in the middle of a town that the company owns.

The evidence in this case, examined with common sense and time-honored values of this country, will show that while the company owns the whole town of Scotia, the logical and obvious place to protest, if you have something to protest, is at the headqrtrs of the company-the town seat.

It makes sense--kind of like protesting at the White House or other places where they make decisions and we need to tell them what we think--express ourselves. Be heard and considered.

While this case is not supposed to be about why I protested, I will tell you about how I chose to be heard.

The evidence will show that the Plaintiffs gave implied consent for my entry onto co. headqrtrs. in Scotia ---thru 2 separate conscious decisions:

Regarding the first decision, evidence will show that President of Pacific Lumber, Robert Manne, publicly invited critics and protesters, like me, to dialogue with him, talk about our differences-call him up to meet with him. He made the invite to discuss with him why I think his decisions are unreasonable, why I think the companyís logging practices are UNSUSTAINABLE, ILLEGAL, AND DEVASTATING. (Judge got tiffy)

BUT- Manne repeatedly refused to participate in any such forum about mine and othersí concerns. 

The evidence will show FURTHER that the Companyís long-standing decision to maintain a headqrtrs in their company-owned town- Makes the space analogous to a town hall-the ONLY appropriate forum in a privately-owned town.

Youíll see video of the incident and hear about protesters being refused to talk to or make an appt. with Manne after numerous attempts.

You will hear evidence from the Lt. Sheriff who was on the scene on August 5, 2002 saying my conduct did not interfere with Plaintís normal business operations.

Video evidence will show no blocking of free movement and that business continued in headqrtrs on Aug. 5, 2002.

You will see people laughing and taking the protest lightly.

The evidence will also affirm that my protest took place in a public forum with healthy debate and dialogue between protesters and onlookers. Youíll see that it inspired people in Scotia to hold their own signs, empowered them to make their protests and express their beliefs.

The evidence will show that based upon the circumstances, the demonstration was ordinary and reasonable.

Despite the claims by Plaintiffs, you will neither hear nor see any documented or undocumented evidence that there was damage to Plaintiffs as a result of my conduct on Aug. 5, 2002.

And evidence will be clear throughout this case that my purpose in protesting was done neither with malice nor did I ever have any intention to do harm-- And I didnít.

I locked my body to two other protesters and to something heavy and immobile to assure lengthy dialogue and certain attention from the company, while as youíll see, establishing a physical focal point for the larger, quite musical rally.

Evidence will show that Plaintiffs have alleged conspiracy -with the idea that YOU will help them criminalize free expression.

I expect to bring evidence to you of the unlawfulness of the Plaintiffsí business at the time of the protest, at the time this lawsuit was filed, and at the current time.

The corporation was, at a minimum, irresponsible in its communication with its critics and now it comes to court crying with claims of damages it cannot prove.


More Updates



updates /

[ bach home | newsletter | updates | press releases | email list | links ]