Speaker 1: A theme that comes up over and over again if
Speaker 1: you look at environmental protest throughout history is the way
Speaker 1: it often intersects with the fight for indigenous sovereignty and
Speaker 1: the way that makes the backlash to protest more severe.
Speaker 1: From Ochetti Chakwan people in the US to the Wetsuweten
Speaker 1: in Canada, the link of people in Honduras the Tuhoi
Speaker 1: in New Zealand. Indigenous led efforts to stop environmentally harmful
Speaker 1: projects often help drive wider movements for Native people's rights,
Speaker 1: and when the backlash comes, efforts to repress environmental activism
Speaker 1: end up targeting indigenous rights movements too.
Speaker 2: This is Nick ASTs I am an assistant professor American
Speaker 2: Indian Studies at the University of Minnesota, co founder of
Speaker 2: That Nation. I'm also an Enrold member of the Lower
Speaker 2: Brules Siu tribe.
Speaker 1: Nick Astes was deeply involved in protests at the Standing
Speaker 1: Rocksioux Indian Reservation against the Dakota Access Pipeline, which a
Speaker 1: lot of people pinpoint as a key starting point of
Speaker 1: the modern climate movement in the US, and it was
Speaker 1: a really big deal. Thousands of people from all over
Speaker 1: the world showed up in North Dakota to protest the
Speaker 1: pipeline and stand up for Indigenous land and water rights.
Speaker 1: There were celebrities there too, politicians. Alexandria Okazio Cortes has
Speaker 1: cited it as the moment that sort of radicalized her
Speaker 1: in the climate fight. People camped out for months, They
Speaker 1: participated in multiple direct actions, and the police response was intense.
Speaker 1: There was militarized gear and helicopters, attack dogs, private security
Speaker 1: forces from the pipeline company, and even counter insurgency tactics
Speaker 1: that were being used to try to deter and suppress protest.
Speaker 1: Standing Rock protests were also explicitly cited when politicians started
Speaker 1: to pass laws criminalizing protests in the years following it.
Speaker 1: It became a verb people said they didn't want to
Speaker 1: get Standing rocked. Despite its significance, Es does sees Standing
Speaker 1: Rock as more of a continuation of a century's long
Speaker 1: battle for indigenous sovereignty.
Speaker 2: This country not only exported war, but had been sort
Speaker 2: of founded on a longer war called the US Indian
Speaker 2: Wars the nineteenth century. I would argue that it continued
Speaker 2: very much into the twentieth century, and the manifestations of
Speaker 2: which are also very prevalent. In the way that police
Speaker 2: agencies throughout the country track, surveil and police Indigenous led movements.
Speaker 1: He also sees it as the culmination of a more
Speaker 1: recent fight to protect Native land and water rights that
Speaker 1: have been going on for several years. Before the Standing
Speaker 1: Rock protest began in twenty sixteen.
Speaker 2: Back in the early twenty tens, I had been getting
Speaker 2: involved in local tribal politics and things that were happening
Speaker 2: on the reservations. There were other protests that were going on.
Speaker 2: The IRS threatened to seize land from the Crow Creek
Speaker 2: Sioux Tribe, and it was in the middle of winter.
Speaker 2: I remember Brandon Sazu, who was a tribal chairman at
Speaker 2: the time. He later went to Standing Rock. You know,
Speaker 2: he was in a trailer by himself in the middle
Speaker 2: of a snowstorm, and we used to go and bring
Speaker 2: him coffee, and he was on a trailer on that
Speaker 2: land that they were supposed to seize.
Speaker 1: Sazu camped out in that trailer to block the IRS
Speaker 1: from seizing the land it was on. And during those
Speaker 1: same years there were various fights over tribal water rights too.
Speaker 2: There was always a question around the jurisdiction over the
Speaker 2: River control of the river and water rights, especially for
Speaker 2: the Lakota To and Dell Khota reservations on Mini Shoche
Speaker 2: the Missouri River, and there was a consciousness around it
Speaker 2: because the Army corp of Engineers kind of abolished our
Speaker 2: jurisdiction and then asserted its own and then sort of
Speaker 2: has say over flowage and what kind of erosion prevention
Speaker 2: are put on the river. And it may seem like
Speaker 2: sort of a mundane kind of thing, but back in
Speaker 2: twenty eleven there was massive flooding in the Missouri River
Speaker 2: basin and the Army Coorp of Engineers sort of patted
Speaker 2: itself on the back and said, hey, we did a
Speaker 2: really good job managing the floods and had it not
Speaker 2: been for these dams, we would have lost lives. And
Speaker 2: there were no lives lost. But that's actually not true.
Speaker 2: There were at least half a dozen lives lost in
Speaker 2: my reservation because of infrastructure being damaged because of floods.
Speaker 1: So there were these long standing issues between the tribes
Speaker 1: and the US government over water rights. And then in
Speaker 1: twenty eleven, the Keystone Excel pipeline united indigenous opponents in
Speaker 1: the US and Canada.
Speaker 2: You had tribes coming from our first nations, coming from
Speaker 2: Canada and talking about the destruction of their homelands from
Speaker 2: Tarzan's extraction that was happening in Alberta, and they signed
Speaker 2: a treaty to protect the sacred down in the Hunkdawah
Speaker 2: country on the Inkton Reservation, where they all committed, including
Speaker 2: the Great Plains Tribal Chairman's Association which our tribe is
Speaker 2: Party two, as well to prevent Tarzan's transportation cross a
Speaker 2: treaty territories. But that's a pretty bold move. I mean,
Speaker 2: there's like very few things in Indian country that unite
Speaker 2: grassroots people and tribal chairmans like that we can all
Speaker 2: kind of agree on.
Speaker 1: That fight was ultimately successful, but it went back and
Speaker 1: forth for a decade. I and just finally canceled the
Speaker 1: permit for the Keystone Excel pipeline in twenty one, and
Speaker 1: of course five years before that, Standing Rock began.
Speaker 2: Standing Rock is an interesting case because Standing Rock, you know,
Speaker 2: historically has been united in the sense that it allies itself,
Speaker 2: The council allies itself with the grassroots people, and so
Speaker 2: they were you know, inviting people in. We didn't just
Speaker 2: show up uninvited. There was a public invitation and there's
Speaker 2: a public sort of hosting of people in this particular space,
Speaker 2: and they found land that was belonging to the Core
Speaker 2: of Engineers that you know, we we had never formally
Speaker 2: ceded to the Core of Engineers. So when we look
Speaker 2: at Standing Rock in that in that context, just by
Speaker 2: asserting treaty authority, just by asserting our right to exist
Speaker 2: and to you know, live by the laws that we
Speaker 2: determined for ourselves, not somebody from the outside, that becomes
Speaker 2: a criminal act. It's actually just like criminalizing Deocheti Shakoye
Speaker 2: train to make being a water protector in an illegal act.
Speaker 1: The intense push by the fossil fuel industry to criminalize
Speaker 1: protest in the wake of Standing Rock was very much
Speaker 1: in line with how the industry has dealt with indigenous
Speaker 1: protests in other countries, so much so that it was
Speaker 1: a topic of conversation around the fire at one of
Speaker 1: the Standing Rock protest camps.
Speaker 3: So in twenty sixteen, I visited Standing Rock during the
Speaker 3: height of the protests against the Code Access pipeline.
Speaker 1: This is Lindsay Ophrius, an anthropologist and documentary filmmaker who's
Speaker 1: making a film about how laws are used to suppress protests.
Speaker 1: She traveled to Standing Rock with two land defenders and
Speaker 1: leaders of the Sequoia people in Ecuador who had been
Speaker 1: fighting first Texaco and then Chevron over oil spilled and
Speaker 1: dumped throughout the Amazon there for decades.
Speaker 3: So two of those people, Umberto Piaguaffe and Hornman zan Brano.
Speaker 3: I went with them to Standing Up in twenty sixteen.
Speaker 1: Part of the idea was for coalition building.
Speaker 3: And also trying to think about what is possible outside
Speaker 3: or beyond the whole wartex of the law that kind
Speaker 3: of sucks everything into it. And so something that I
Speaker 3: will always remember is that around the fire went evening
Speaker 3: where you know, everybody would come and sider around the
Speaker 3: fire and share stories, and Bertha and Carmon gave kind
Speaker 3: of like a warning about what they had gone through,
Speaker 3: and you know that it's likely to come to pass
Speaker 3: once again now that this RICO precedent has been set.
Speaker 1: RICO, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, was created
Speaker 1: to prosecute the mafia in the US. It's been used
Speaker 1: in civil cases too, to go after white collar crime
Speaker 1: and prosecute corporate corruption. It had some surprising usage in
Speaker 1: legal battles around climate change and protest as well. It
Speaker 1: was used against Umberto and Carmen and their co plaintiffs
Speaker 1: in Ecuador to block them from collecting a settlement after
Speaker 1: they defeated Chevron in court. That case stemmed from a
Speaker 1: decades long fight with first Texaco and then Chevron. It
Speaker 1: began all the way back in the nineteen sixties when
Speaker 1: the American oil company Texico brought the oil business deep
Speaker 1: into the Ecuadorian Amazon, disrupting centuries of indigenous culture and tradition.
Speaker 4: The indigenous peoples in the Amazon, the Warani, the Kofar,
Speaker 4: and other indigenous peoples. They lived in a pristine rainforest
Speaker 4: environment prior to the arrival of Texaco and the oil
Speaker 4: boomen in Ecuador in the nineteen sixties and early nineteen seventies.
Speaker 1: This is Marcos Oriana, an international law expert, professor at
Speaker 1: American University and the UN Special Rapperture on Toxics and
Speaker 1: Human Rights.
Speaker 4: The extraction of oil by tex and Petro Ecuador was
Speaker 4: without regard to the protection of the environment. It was
Speaker 4: without regard to the rights of affected indigenous peoples. First
Speaker 4: operated by Texaco as I mentioned, and then taken over
Speaker 4: by Petro Ecuador. Oil operations severely impacted indigenous people's traditional lands.
Speaker 4: The oil boom in Ecuador has imposed loss of life, health, territory,
Speaker 4: and culture. Indigenous peoples have not received reparation for the
Speaker 4: violation of their rights.
Speaker 1: When the Sequoia and Kofan tribes banded together with local
Speaker 1: farmers to sue Texaco, which later became Chevron, for the
Speaker 1: damage that had been caused in the Amazon, they won,
Speaker 1: and then the oil company immediately accused them of corruption
Speaker 1: and collusion and held up the settlement. In a decades
Speaker 1: long RICO case back in the United States, they have
Speaker 1: still not collected that settlement. It turns out Umberto and
Speaker 1: Carmen's warning was prescient. Some twenty years after their ordeal began,
Speaker 1: a similar thing happened to Standing Rock protesters. Energy Transfer Partners,
Speaker 1: the pipeline company, tried to use RICO against individual water
Speaker 1: protectors and nonprofits like Greenpeace.
Speaker 5: In August of twenty seventeen, of student was filed by
Speaker 5: Energy Transfer, the company behind the Dakota Access pipeline, and
Speaker 5: this was for three hundred million dollars for allegedly orchestrating
Speaker 5: their resistance at Standing Rock.
Speaker 1: DEEPA. Padmanaba is Deputy General Counsel for Greenpeace USA.
Speaker 5: Energy Transfer brought claims under the Federal Racketeer, Influenced and
Speaker 5: Corrupt Organizations Act or RICO, and as many no. RICO
Speaker 5: was a law that was created to go after the
Speaker 5: mafia for organized crime. And what made RICO even more
Speaker 5: dangerous was that it allowed for the recovery of treble damages.
Speaker 5: So we were suddenly looking at an almost one billion
Speaker 5: dollar lawsuit. An energy Transfer was alleging that our advocacy
Speaker 5: worked to uplift Indigenous voices at Standing Rock constituted organized crime.
Speaker 1: But all the court cases and laws that were passed
Speaker 1: in the week of Standing Rock could not stop the
Speaker 1: one thing that oil company executives and right wing politicians
Speaker 1: seemed absolutely terrified of Indigenous people and allies of all
Speaker 1: kinds rising up against them.
Speaker 2: The subversive nature being a water protector isn't just because
Speaker 2: you know, the Ocheti Shakoi was leading this resistance again
Speaker 2: against a pipeline, but they were also creating a sort
Speaker 2: of universal identity that was grounded in Indigenous values but
Speaker 2: didn't necessarily mean it was just for Indigenous people, because
Speaker 2: anybody who walked through the gates of you know, o
Speaker 2: chet Tischau Coin Camp or Secret Stone Camp, became a
Speaker 2: water protector by default.
Speaker 1: Esta says this sort of resistance was prophecied a long
Speaker 1: time ago.
Speaker 2: The black snake prophecy comes from several sources, but one
Speaker 2: of them it has to do with the mini shoche
Speaker 2: the Missouri River, and there were ideas that what they
Speaker 2: call it inchegular uti, which are like essentially water monsters,
Speaker 2: snakes were kind of banished to the river and then
Speaker 2: also sort of promised their return and they would come
Speaker 2: back as a black snake. And you know, I don't
Speaker 2: think a lot of people really fully understood it. And
Speaker 2: but LaDonna brab bol Aller told me is that at
Speaker 2: one point people thought it was the Interstates because they
Speaker 2: were using a lot of asphalt. But then when the
Speaker 2: oil pipelines are being built, it was like, oh, yeah,
Speaker 2: this is like in some ways like dinosaur blood.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 2: So the prophecy, as it was told during these times,
Speaker 2: would actually unite people in a kind of historic resistance,
Speaker 2: and it would unite all people, not just the Ochetti Shakoi.
Speaker 2: So as Phyllis Jung said, the Hung Papa oyaate was,
Speaker 2: you know, the horn of the buffalo or the horn
Speaker 2: of the camp circled the Ochetti shaky, and they would
Speaker 2: be sort of the vanguard of the nation. But also
Speaker 2: this movement, I think there's you know, some truth to that.
Speaker 1: The connection of the pipeline fights to the fight for
Speaker 1: indigenous sovereignty really seemed to supercharge the industry's response, which
Speaker 1: makes sense if you look at how entwined the industry's
Speaker 1: history has been with colonialism. In his book Anointed by Oil,
Speaker 1: historian Darren Dochuk at Notre Dame University chronicled how US
Speaker 1: oil mean dealt with indigenous nations both in the US
Speaker 1: and when they first started to look beyond the country's
Speaker 1: borders for oil. One key tactic was to connect fossil
Speaker 1: fuel extraction with religion.
Speaker 6: These missionaries are pushing into the jungles of the Amazon.
Speaker 6: They are coming in direct contact with petroleum geologists, for instance,
Speaker 6: the Standard Oil Company, and they are going to collaborate.
Speaker 6: They are going to partner in terms of the flow
Speaker 6: of information, and the information is going to be about
Speaker 6: the environment. It's going to be about the ecology that
Speaker 6: they're encountering. It's also going to be anthropological. Both classes
Speaker 6: of explorers are going to be deeply invested in trying
Speaker 6: to understand the people that they are encountering in these
Speaker 6: regions and all with hopes of trying to get information
Speaker 6: from them to be able to kind of plumb the
Speaker 6: earth in a profitable way. So it really accelerates in
Speaker 6: the nineteen twenties and moving into the nineteen fifties in
Speaker 6: the Cold War period, this pursuit of gold is going
Speaker 6: to be all the more intensified against the backdrop of
Speaker 6: the Cold War and the fight with communism, in the
Speaker 6: fear that Latin America might lose itself to the great
Speaker 6: secular communist threat of the Soviet Union. So oil and
Speaker 6: pursuit of souls is going to become all the more important.
Speaker 1: Author lawyer and law professor Judith Kimberling documented similar behavior
Speaker 1: in the Ecuadorian Amazon in the nineteen seventies.
Speaker 7: One of the groups the by WAYETI. They had no
Speaker 7: contact with the outside world until nineteen seventy, and they
Speaker 7: were subjected to a program a forced contact because after
Speaker 7: Textco discovered commercial quantities of oil and Lago Lagrio, the
Speaker 7: company knew that it.
Speaker 8: Would want to expand its operations into War II territory,
Speaker 8: and the war Any who lived in those areas had
Speaker 8: no contact with the outside world. The company collaborated with
Speaker 8: US missionaries and Nequwar's government to subject the Warani to
Speaker 8: a forced contact. The missionaries would get into planes Texico's plans,
Speaker 8: they would fly over the forest, they would look for
Speaker 8: Warani houses. I've actually heard reports too that they threw
Speaker 8: dynamite out of the planes to try to scare the
Speaker 8: Warani away. And of course the missionaries wanted the Waronis
Speaker 8: to come live with them in settlements because the Warani
Speaker 8: were nomadic semi nomadic people, so the missionaries wanted them
Speaker 8: to live in permanent settlements with the missionaries and the
Speaker 8: cam Christian Texico just wanted them out of the areas
Speaker 8: where they wanted to operate, and you know, the government
Speaker 8: of wanted Texico to be able to find more oil
Speaker 8: and extract more oil.
Speaker 1: What we've seen from Ecuador to Standing Rock, India, to
Speaker 1: Saudi Arabia, Nigeria to British Columbia is that when indigenous
Speaker 1: peoples fight back against the plundering of their land, the
Speaker 1: backlash is swift, often violent, and comes with a huge
Speaker 1: side of colonialist entitlement. Today, we're going to travel to
Speaker 1: the Brazilian Amazon, where the uru Wahwau people are trying
Speaker 1: to defend the last of their territory from agribusiness and logging.
Speaker 1: The excellent team behind the national geographic documentary The Territory
Speaker 1: have shared footage with us to help tell that story
Speaker 1: that's coming up after this quick break. This has drilled
Speaker 1: the real free speech threat. I'm Amy Westervelt. Stay with us.
Speaker 1: In the heart of the Amazon, the urdu Wahwau people
Speaker 1: have seen their community decline from thousands to just around
Speaker 1: two hundred people. Those remaining descendants are trying to hold
Speaker 1: onto and protect the tribe's ancestral lands in the Amazon,
Speaker 1: which faces increasing threats from the country's large agricultural industry.
Speaker 1: The big agricultural companies know better than to go after
Speaker 1: indigenous rights directly. Instead, they pay small farmers to sneak
Speaker 1: into protected territory, slash and burn, and set up homesteads.
Speaker 1: Once they've made inroads, the big companies come in and
Speaker 1: take over, clearing large segments of the forest to either
Speaker 1: grow soybeans or graze cattle. The documentary The Territory documents
Speaker 1: the fight between farmers and the tribe, particularly under former
Speaker 1: Brazilian president JayR. Bosonato, who made undermining the rights of
Speaker 1: indigenous people part of his platform.
Speaker 9: Implifies open gen thank to hedge you mis can, It's okay,
Speaker 9: thank you, pog see, thank God, thank you the hubaba
Speaker 9: from ahad A Florida, Esta Pushiu and Osarkaso de Hichi Simonte.
Speaker 1: This is bita Te, a young Udawawaw leader. He says
Speaker 1: non indigenous people always say the same thing, that Indigenous
Speaker 1: people have too much land and that we should clear
Speaker 1: the trees and raise cattle. But I don't agree. He says,
Speaker 1: the forest and the rivers are our home. They support us.
Speaker 1: Alternating between footage of the Urduwahwau and some of the
Speaker 1: settlers and farmers trying to invade their land, the film
Speaker 1: highlights themes we see turning up in every environmental fight.
Speaker 1: After we hear from Bitaate, we meet Serhio, a farmer
Speaker 1: who talks about the forest as prime farmland that shouldn't
Speaker 1: just go to waste, and the indigenous people aren't doing
Speaker 1: anything with the land. Sergio says they're not planting, they're
Speaker 1: not producing. All they do is live there. Robert Miller,
Speaker 1: a citizen of the Eastern Shawnee Tribe and a professor
Speaker 1: of Indian law at Arizonia State University, says the tension
Speaker 1: between settlers and indigenous people over living in relationship with
Speaker 1: the land versus extracting from it has been going on
Speaker 1: since colonization began.
Speaker 10: The doctrine of discovery is one of the original international
Speaker 10: law doctrines that was developed in the fourteen hundreds to
Speaker 10: control the actions of European Christian nations. As Europeans began
Speaker 10: to sail outside the site of land, they began to
Speaker 10: be interested in acquiring empires in Africa and then into
Speaker 10: the Americas and into Asia. They very rarely found lands
Speaker 10: that were truly vacant. They were claiming the lands of
Speaker 10: indigenous peoples Africa, in the Americas, and in Asia. So
Speaker 10: it wasn't finders keepers, losers weeper. Here's a lost piece
Speaker 10: of property, I pick it up, I look around, there's
Speaker 10: nobody to claim it, so it's mine. No, they were
Speaker 10: mostly claiming settled lands where cultures and nations had lived
Speaker 10: for hundreds, if not thousands of years. The justification was
Speaker 10: Christianity and civilization, and it's hard to even understand what
Speaker 10: that means. But the civilization of Europe was somehow superior
Speaker 10: to that of every other indigenous peoples around the world.
Speaker 10: I mean, today it's ludicrous to even say that, but
Speaker 10: those were the justifications. That God wanted European Christians to
Speaker 10: own these lands, and that the Christian God intended that,
Speaker 10: and somehow Christian Europeans were superior to everyone around the world.
Speaker 1: As Europeans began colonizing various places, philosophers like John Locke
Speaker 1: also justified the taking of indigenous lands by describing it
Speaker 1: as empty land. According to Locke, if land was not
Speaker 1: being farmed or used in some other way, it was empty.
Speaker 10: Terranellius is a Latin phrase meaning empty land. That's exactly
Speaker 10: what John Locke was writing about. That's exactly what most
Speaker 10: Europeans assumed. They assumed the lands around the world was vacant.
Speaker 10: They could come here and make it their own by
Speaker 10: applying their labor to it.
Speaker 1: In the territory, we watch as the udu Wawaw make
Speaker 1: use of the land too. They fish, they bathe in
Speaker 1: the river, they drink the water. They weave roofs and
Speaker 1: baskets out of palm fronds, but the forest remains intact.
Speaker 1: When settlers and farmers come in, they use chainsaws to
Speaker 1: chop down trees and light fire to large areas of
Speaker 1: land to clear it. It's really striking to see the
Speaker 1: visual contrast between these two opposing views of humanity's relationship
Speaker 1: with nature. When farmers illegally farm in protected indigenous regions,
Speaker 1: they claim it's because they are poor and need the land.
Speaker 1: But Nadinya, a local environmentalist who fights alongside the Uduwawau
Speaker 1: and has for decades, says the farmer stories are not
Speaker 1: entirely truthful.
Speaker 11: That's well so kid Bragla.
Speaker 3: The CPILO cisspsource in the boys.
Speaker 1: As a good, but they are often financed by Brazil's
Speaker 1: major agribusiness landowners, so once the small farmers complete the
Speaker 1: first invasion into the forest, these large landowners will take
Speaker 1: over and clear the rest. As invasions increase and the
Speaker 1: Indigenous Affairs Agency starts telling the news that nothing is happening,
Speaker 1: that the invasions are being made up by the indigenous people,
Speaker 1: the tribe's new young leader beat the they comes up
Speaker 1: with a novel idea, perhaps cameras are more powerful than
Speaker 1: arrows or machetes. Pulling together a tribal patrol, he sets
Speaker 1: out into the forest, using drones to track invasions, and
Speaker 1: then documents all the evidence. The patrol finds and arrests
Speaker 1: some thirty people that they call invaders that they tells them,
Speaker 1: we don't want to hurt you, but you can't be here.
Speaker 1: Everyone knows this is indigenous territory. The media picks up
Speaker 1: the story and the local group of farmers that had
Speaker 1: been trying to take over part of the territory loses
Speaker 1: its political support. They disband. Don't worry. I've left plenty
Speaker 1: of twists and turns out here because I think everyone
Speaker 1: see this film. This part of the documentary chronicles a
Speaker 1: huge win, which you don't always get in these sorts
Speaker 1: of stories. Despite that, the udu Wawa's future still feels
Speaker 1: pretty precarious. Bolsonaro is out of office now, but Bolsonarismo
Speaker 1: is going strong. At one point in the film, a
Speaker 1: settler references the Bible and his faith that this land
Speaker 1: is his. When his homestead is found and burned down
Speaker 1: by Betat's patrol, he vows to keep rebuilding it. Still,
Speaker 1: the country's new president does seem committed to supporting indigenous
Speaker 1: rights and stopping deforestation, and so far the numbers are promising.
Speaker 1: In President Lula de Silva's first six months in office,
Speaker 1: deforestation dropped by more than a third. Will it be enough,
Speaker 1: We'll have to watch and see. Drilled is an original
Speaker 1: Critical Frequency production. Our senior editor for this series is
Speaker 1: Allen Brown. Senior producer and sound designer is Martin Saltz Ostwick,
Speaker 1: who also composed much of the music in this episode.
Speaker 1: Additional music composed by Peter Duff, who mixed and mastered
Speaker 1: the episode.
Speaker 11: Fact checking by Woodan Jan Legal review by James Wheeton.
Speaker 1: The show is reported and written by me Amy Westerbolt.
Speaker 11: Our artwork is by Matt Fleming. Our theme song is
Speaker 11: Bird in the Hand by four Known. The show was
Speaker 11: created by Amy Westerveldt.
Speaker 1: You can find additional stories and reporting materials related to
Speaker 1: this episode and others in this series on our website
Speaker 1: at drill dot Media.
Speaker 11: You can also sign up for our newsletter there. If
Speaker 11: you'd like to support the show, you can give us
Speaker 11: a rating or review wherever you listen to podcasts.
Speaker 1: It really helps us find new listeners, share.
Speaker 11: Links to our stories, or upgrade to a paid newsletter
Speaker 11: or podcast subscription for access to add free early release
Speaker 11: episodes and bonus content.
Speaker 1: Thanks for listening, and we'll see you next week.