SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
March, 05 2020, 11:00pm EDT
Contact:
Jen Nessel, Center for Constitutional Rights, (212) 614-6449, jnessel@ccrjustice.org
Palestinian Rights Organization Challenges Meritless Lawsuit Filed Against It
Attorneys Say Case Is Part of Broader Assault on Human Rights Defenders
WASHINGTON
Last night, the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights (USCPR) moved to dismiss a meritless lawsuit filed against it by the Jewish National Fund (JNF) and several individuals. Human rights attorneys say the lawsuit targets USCPR's support of Palestinian rights and is intended to chill them from engaging in constitutionally protected advocacy.
"The fact that we're under attack is no surprise: human rights defenders around the world are under attack from repressive regimes and their allies. This lawsuit is part of this global, right-wing assault on civil society and movements seeking to build a better future for all," said Ramah Kudaimi, US Campaign for Palestinian Rights Deputy Director. "We will not be intimidated, and our work dedicated to the rights of the Palestinian people--work that is grounded in the principles of equal rights, justice, and freedom for all--will continue."
Attorneys say the lawsuit makes outlandish claims, casting collective activism and expressions of solidarity as unlawful. Plaintiffs base their far-fetched accusations of conspiracy and material support for terrorism on USCPR's support for Palestinian rights, including for boycotts, divestment, and sanctions against Israel until it complies with international law. Their claims also rely on USCPR's criticism of Israel's unlawful use of force against Palestinian demonstrators in Gaza who are demanding their internationally recognized right of return to their homes, as well as its participation in the Stop the JNF Campaign aimed at exposing and challenging the JNF's role in dispossessing Palestinians of their land.
In arguing for dismissal of JNF's lawsuit against USCPR, attorneys emphasized the threat to free speech and association if a group of activists can be sued on such tenuous theories of liability.
"Anyone who cares about civil liberties and human rights should be deeply concerned by the frivolous and malicious lobbing of accusations of conspiracy and terrorism at a human rights organization," said Diala Shamas, a staff attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights. "This case is part of a broader and well-resourced effort to attack advocates for Palestinian rights--whether through anti-boycott legislation, university administrations silencing student activists, or meritless lawsuits filed against supporters of Palestinian human rights. We will continue to support movements as they advocate for rights and dignity."
The JNF, or Keren Kayemeth LeIsrael, is a quasi-state institution in Israel that acquires and administers land for the sole benefit of Jewish people. The JNF has been instrumental in the Israeli state's dispossession of the Palestinian people. While the JNF has been the target of lawsuits for its discriminatory policies, this is the first time it has tried to use US courts to silence critics.
Lawyers say the lawsuit is part of a broad and growing pattern of suppressing activism in support of Palestinian rights, a phenomenon that the Center for Constitutional Rights and Palestine Legal have documented and called the "Palestine Exception" to free speech. The organizations report the widespread use of administrative disciplinary actions, harassment, firings, legislative attacks, false accusations of terrorism and antisemitism, and baseless legal complaints. Palestine Legal has responded to 1,494 incidents of suppression targeting speech supportive of Palestinian rights between 2014 and 2019. See 2019 Year in Review.
The Center for Constitutional Rights is counsel in JNF v. US Campaign for Palestinian Rights with cooperating counsel Judith Chomsky, Beth Stephens, and Michael Deutsch.
For more information, visit the Center for Constitutional Rights' case page.
The Center for Constitutional Rights is dedicated to advancing and protecting the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. CCR is committed to the creative use of law as a positive force for social change.
(212) 614-6464LATEST NEWS
The Biggest Delegation at Plastic Treaty Talks? Plastic Industry Lobbyists
"Allowing fossil fuel and petrochemical companies to exert their influence in these negotiations is like letting foxes guard the henhouse," said one campaigner.
Nov 27, 2024
At the fifth and final session of the United Nations Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee to finalize a global plastics treaty in Busan, South Korea, one anti-pollution campaigner noted on Wednesday that "waste pickers, Indigenous peoples, youth leaders, and frontline community members have left their families to travel thousands of miles to be here, not to protect their business interests, but because they are fighting for survival."
But a new analysis from the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) raises questions about how marginalized communities fighting plastic pollution will ensure their voices aren't drowned out by the fossil fuel and chemical industry lobbyists in attendance.
"The fact that they are forced to compete for the ear of their representatives with the very industry that is poisoning their communities is a serious injustice," said Ana Rocha, director of the global plastics program at the Global Alliance for Incinerators Alternatives.
CIEL's analysis finds that more lobbyists with a vested interest in continuing plastic production are attending the talks, with 220 fossil fuel and chemical lobbyists represented.
That number makes the industries the biggest delegation at the negotiations, where advocates are pushing for a final treaty that includes legally binding caps on plastic production—not just provisions dictating plastic waste management, which the industry has promoted.
Under the status quo, plastic production is set to triple by 2060. Approximately 460 million tonnes of plastics are currently produced each year.
From 2000-19, plastic waste more than doubled to 353 million tonnes, and only 9% was recycled, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
According to more than 900 independent scientists who signed a declaration demanding an ambitious plastics treaty aimed at ending plastic pollution by 2040, improvements in waste management alone cannot protect the planet and public health from pollution.
But in Busan, industry lobbyists outnumber representatives of the Scientists' Coalition for an Effective Plastics Treaty by 3-to-1.
Only 89 delegates represent the Pacific small island developing states, where the average waste generation per person is 48% higher than the global average due to heavy reliance on packaged imports.
The entire Latin American and Caribbean region has only 165 delegates, and the European Union and its member states combined sent 191 delegates.
Sixteen countries—China, the Dominican Republic, Egypt, Finland, Iran, Kazakhstan, and Malaysia—have included plastic industry lobbyists within their official delegations.
"Allowing fossil fuel and petrochemical companies to exert their influence in these negotiations is like letting foxes guard the henhouse," said Von Hernandez, global coordinator for Break Free From Plastic. "Their oversized presence threatens to turn a critical environmental agreement into a charade, undermining serious efforts to curb plastic production and pollution. Government negotiators must stand firm and ensure these talks are not hijacked by those with vested interests in maintaining the status quo."
CIEL noted that with each Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee meeting, it has observed an increase in the number of fossil fuel and petrochemical industry lobbyists included in the talks. Environmental scientists have reported intimidation and harassment by lobbyists at the meetings.
The oil and gas industry watchdog group Fieldnotes published a report last week showing that in addition to sending lobbyists to Busan, the National Association for PET Container Resources (NAPCOR) has embarked on a yearslong campaign to mislead consumers about the recyclability of disposable plastic products. The coordinated effort has included an infomercial hosted by actor Dennis Quaid and paid deals with TikTok influencers who repeat industry talking points in their videos.
"We have watched industry lobbyists surrounding the negotiations with sadly well-known tactics of obstruction, distraction, intimidation, and misinformation," said Delphine Levi Alvares, global petrochemical campaign coordinator at CIEL, on Wednesday. "Their strategy—lifted straight from the climate negotiations playbook—is designed to preserve the financial interests of countries and companies who are putting their fossil-fueled profits above human health, human rights, and the future of the planet."
"The mandate for this treaty is very clear: ending plastic pollution. Ever-growing evidence from independent scientists, frontline communities, and Indigenous peoples clearly shows that this won't be achieved without reducing plastic production," she added. "The choice is clear: our lives or their bottom line."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Watchdog Demands Trump Release Report on Probe of 'Pay-for-Play' Scheme
Public Citizen's co-leader argues that if such an operation "has corrupted the political appointment process in the Trump transition, as seems to be the case, the full facts must be disclosed to the American people."
Nov 27, 2024
The watchdog Public Citizen on Wednesday demanded that U.S. President-elect Donald Trump's transition team release a report from an internal investigation into allegations that aide Boris Epshteyn asked potential nominees to pay him monthly consulting fees in exchange for pushing for them to get jobs in the next administration.
"If a pay-for-play operation has corrupted the political appointment process in the Trump transition, as seems to be the case, the full facts must be disclosed to the American people," said Public Citizen co-president Robert Weissman in a statement. "If one of Mr. Trump's close advisers has been compromised by personal monetary considerations, then the personnel selection process itself has been compromised."
In a letter to Trump transition co-chairs Howard Lutnick and Linda McMahon, Weissman and Public Citizen co-president Lisa Gilbert noted that "media accounts indicate that the internal report discovered at least two specific incidents where Mr. Epshteyn made inappropriate demands for payment, so the concerns appear far beyond speculative."
Multiple outlets, including Just the News and CNN, reported on the existence of the internal review on Monday.
"One of those who was pitched by Epshteyn for both a consulting contract and an investment opportunity was Scott Bessent, the hedge fund manager named Friday night by Trump as his nominee for Treasury secretary. Bessent rejected the overtures and eventually, when asked, reported concerns about them to the Trump transition team, including Vice President-elect JD Vance," Just the News detailed. "Trump late last week ordered an internal inquiry into the consulting arrangements of Ephsteyn and other contractors to be conducted by lawyer David Warrington with the results to be delivered to his incoming Chief of Staff Susie Wiles."
Just the News continued:
Former Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens, a retired Navy SEAL who previously hired Epshteyn for consulting on an unsuccessful Senate candidacy in 2022, reported to the transition team in a sworn statement that he had an uncomfortable conversation this month with Epshteyn when he inquired about whether he should apply for the job of Navy secretary. "It is too early for that, let's talk business," Greitens quoted Epshteyn as telling him.
"Mr. Epshteyn's overall tone and behavior gave me the impression of an implicit expectation to engage in business dealings with him before he would advocate for or suggest my appointment to the president," Greitens wrote in a statement that was submitted Friday to the Trump transition office and obtained by Just the News. "This created a sense of unease and pressure on my part."
Greitens immediately alerted his lawyer to the concerns, who arranged for the statement to be sent to Warrington, the lawyer named by Trump and Wiles to probe the issue, according to interviews and documents.
While
CNN reported that the claims "prompted those looking into the matter to make an initial recommendation that Epshteyn should be removed from Trump's proximity and that he should not be employed or paid by Trump entities," the aide broadly denied the alleged behavior.
"I am honored to work for President Trump and with his team," Epshteyn said in a statement. "These fake claims are false and defamatory and will not distract us from Making America Great Again."
In a statement to both outlets, Trump spokesperson Steve Cheung said that "as is standard practice, a broad review of the campaign's consulting agreements has been conducted and completed, including as to Boris, among others. We are now moving ahead together as a team to help President Trump Make America Great Again."
Trump himself told Just the News that "I suppose every president has people around them who try to make money off them on the outside. It's a shame but it happens."
"But no one working for me in any capacity should be looking to make money. They should only be here to Make America Great Again," he added. "No one can promise any endorsement or nomination except me. I make these decisions on my own, period."
Weissman and Gilbert wrote Wednesday: "No doubt Mr. Trump makes his own decisions on personnel. But advisers frame decisions, push for candidates they like, make the case against those they disfavor, and sometimes act as gatekeepers influencing who gets consideration at all. No one doubts that close advisers are impactful."
"The American people have a right to know the facts your internal review has found," the watchdog leaders concluded.
The probe into Epshteyn is part of a flood of ethics problems with Trump's transition team and future administration. Another issue has been a delay in signing transition agreements with the Biden administration. Wiles announced Tuesday that the team finally signed a memorandum of understanding with President Joe Biden's White House.
Wiles also signaled that rather than signing a separate agreement with the General Services Administration to access federal funding, government office space, and cybersecurity support, Trump's transition team will run a privately funded operation. Politicoreported that the team did not respond to a question about another agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice that enables the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to run background checks and start processing security clearances for Cabinet nominees.
U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who has criticized the delays in the transition process that is laid out in federal law, said Tuesday that "this announcement fails to answer key questions about national security threats and FBI vetting of nominees, and increases concerns about corruption. There appear to be serious gaps between the Trump transition's ethics agreement and the letter of the law."
While Wiles said the team will disclose its funders and not take foreign money, Warren added that "the reliance on private donors to fund the transition is nothing more than a ploy for well-connected Trump insiders to line their pockets while pretending to save taxpayers money."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Musk Wants to Abolish Consumer Agency That Has Been a 'Model of Efficiency'
"This is systemic corruption at a grand and intolerable scale," one advocate said of the billionaire's call to "delete" the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Nov 27, 2024
President-elect Donald Trump's billionaire appointment to help lead the so-called Department of Government Efficiency said Tuesday that he wants to eliminate an agency that one consumer advocate described as "a model of efficiency and cost-effectiveness."
Tesla CEO Elon Musk wrote on X, the social media platform he owns, that he wants to "delete" the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), which has returned nearly $20 billion to members of the U.S. public in the form of monetary compensation, canceled debt, and other relief since its creation in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis.
"There are too many duplicative regulatory agencies," Musk declared.
Robert Weissman, co-president of the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, countered in a statement that the CFPB "was created specifically because none of the overlapping financial regulatory agencies prioritized consumer protection."
"But there's no reason to think facts or evidence have anything to do with Musk's views," said Weissman. "Asking the world's richest person, with a direct interest in a wide range of business lines, to run a project to review the federal government's overall operations is absurd and fundamentally corrupt—and this issue highlights exactly why."
Weissman noted that Musk has "reportedly obtained money transmitter licenses for X in more than three dozen states and still appears determined to turn X into an 'everything app' based around a payment service," an effort that "would be subject to regulation by the CFPB."
"In fact, the CFPB has just finalized a rule to supervise large tech companies offering digital funds transfer and payment wallet apps," he continued. "In short, Musk is calling for elimination of the consumer protection regulator over a business line he seems poised to enter... This is systemic corruption at a grand and intolerable scale."
The Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) also spoke out in defense of the consumer bureau.
"You want to talk about efficiency? For every $1 spent funding the CFPB, more than $4 have been put back in working people's pockets," the CPC wrote on social media. "It's only 'inefficient' to predatory corporations and billionaires with conflicts of interest."
The CFPB has been a target of Republican lawmakers and their corporate allies since its inception in 2011.
During Trump's first White House term, he attempted to gut the bureau from the inside by installing an opponent of the agency, Mick Mulvaney, to lead it. Mulvaney later backed a failed effort to challenge the constitutionality of the CFPB's funding structure.
But the CFPB has been active in defending consumers and combating corporate abuses under the leadership of Rohit Chopra, a consumer champion picked by President Joe Biden to lead the bureau.
Under Chopra, the American Economic Liberties Project noted in a recent report, "the CFPB has returned billions of Americans' hard-earned money to their bank accounts; fought back against Wall Street and Big Tech's discriminatory and anti-competitive behavior; ensured violating the law can no longer be written off as just a 'cost of doing business'; shuttered corporate scams; and restored financial freedom to millions of Americans held hostage by the credit reporting cartel."
"This is a test for MAGA types and the populist right to see whether they allow themselves to be lied to flagrantly by elites trying to manipulate them."
Musk's call to eliminate the agency came after fellow Trump-supporting billionaire Marc Andreessen, a venture capitalist, claimed in an appearance on the "Joe Rogan Experience" podcast that the CFPB's primary purpose is to "terrorize financial institutions."
Andreessen went on to falsely describe the CFPB as Sen. Elizabeth Warren's (D-Mass.) "personal agency that she gets to control" and suggest the bureau is involved in efforts to "debank" people over their political views.
But observers pointed out that Chopra has explicitly condemned politically motivated debanking and worked to prevent companies from unlawfully denying consumers access to financial accounts and services.
"This is a test for MAGA types and the populist right to see whether they allow themselves to be lied to flagrantly by elites trying to manipulate them," Drop Site's Ryan Grim wrote in response to Andreessen's comments. "The CFPB put out a legitimately good rule that went after banks over debanking users based on political views. Yes, a populist left-wing CFPB head stood up for the rights of conservatives."
"Now VCs and Musk, who don't like the CFPB for other reasons, are straight up lying to whip people into a frenzy and defang the CFPB," Grim added. "The message: They think you are stupid and can't read and are going to make your life worse in order to enrich themselves."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular