Fighting Drummond Company’s SLAPP Suits
In 2001, the AUC paramilitary group murdered three union leaders at a Colombian coal mine. Willing to fight for human rights against all odds, IRAdvocates’ Executive Director Terry Collingsworth did what no one else would: he took the case.
For over two decades, Terry pursued justice against Drummond, Inc. — one of the largest privately-held coal companies in the world — on behalf of clients who alleged the company paid to have those union leaders killed.
Drummond's response? Sue him. Twice.
CASE BACKGROUND
After Terry filed a human rights complaint against Drummond for its alleged role in the union murders, Drummond sued him personally for defamation and sued him and International Rights Advocates for US civil RICO violations in Alabama. Drummond claimed that Terry fabricated the entire story.
Since then, Terry has fought a fifteen-year legal campaign he believes was orchestrated by Drummond to exhaust, silence, and bankrupt him.
The five-week trial started in Alabama on December 1, 2025, and from Terry’s perspective, was never a fair fight. The court barred most of Terry's witnesses and evidence.The jury never heard key context like the ongoing Colombian criminal trial of Drummond executives for the very crimes Drummond called lies fabricated by Terry. Then, mere weeks before trial, Terry's lead lawyer suffered a medical emergency and his co-defendants settled — leaving his new team a mere 2 weeks to get to speed while Drummond's team had spent fifteen years preparing. The Alabama court refused to grant a continuance for Terry’s new lawyers to get up to speed.
In January 2026, the jury returned a verdict. Justice was not included in the result.
But the fight isn't over. Terry and International Rights Advocates have just filed three post-trial motions seeking judgement or a new trial based on the numerous legal errors that made the trial anything but fair. You can read them here, below, in full. If the unfair verdict is not overturned, Terry and IRAdvocates will appeal to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
This case is bigger than Terry. It's about whether corporations can deploy unlimited resources to punish anyone who challenges them — lawyers, journalists, organizers, advocates, anywhere in the world.
Justice should not be for sale.If you agree, stand with Terry. Donate to the legal defense fund today.
The 3 Key Post-Trial Motions Explained
Terrence P. Collingsworth and IRAdvocates' Rule 59 Motion for a New Trial or for Remittitur
1.
What is it?
A motion filed today asking the judge to either hold a brand-new trial — or at least slash the massive damages award — in Drummond vs. Collingsworth.
The verdict, according to the defendants in the motions filed, makes no sense and shows jury confusion, prejudice, and unfairness:
Drummond only asked for ~$26M in actual damages
The jury handed down $120 million
The breakdown they claim is pure confusion:
$26M for defamation — with allegedly zero evidence of defamation damages presented
Another $26M in punitive damages for defamation
A "seemingly random" $68M for RICO — when Drummond only asked for $26M
What do they want?
A full new trial. If the Court does not order the new trial, this Motion sets the foundation for appeal to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
What are their 21 reasons for a new trial?
Any one of these is grounds enough for a new trial. Here are some of the big ones:
🔀 Two totally different cases, one trial — They claim mashing the defamation and RICO cases together confused the jury into just copy-pasting the same $26M figure across both cases, then inventing $68M for RICO on top.
🇨🇴 A parallel criminal trial in Colombia was hidden from the jury — Colombian prosecutors are criminally prosecuting Drummond executives for allegations of the exact same conduct they claimed was made up by Collingsworth. The defendants claim the Court not only refused to wait for that verdict, but barred the jury from even hearing the Colombian case existed — letting Drummond claim Collingsworth "completely fabricated" everything, unchallenged.
⚖️ No fair fight on legal representation — Their lead attorney suffered a debilitating health emergency two weeks before trial, leaving him unfit for trial. The Court still refused to delay. The new legal team reportedly had less than two weeks to prepare against Drummond lawyers who'd been on the case for 15+ years.
👨⚖️ Alleged judicial bias — The motion explicitly claims the judge showed open contempt for Collingsworth throughout and improperly refused to step aside: “With all due respect, Defendants contend that many of the issues identified are attributable to the long history in this case of judicial bias against Mr. Collingsworth… However justified, the Court’s contempt for and bias against Mr. Collingsworth impacted virtually every subsequent decision made by the Court.” (page 38)
🚫 Key witnesses and evidence blocked — the Court excluded an eyewitness to the murders, a federal judge, and multiple key experts, including the real-life DEA agent Javier Peña that Narcos was based on
Collingsworth's Rule 50 Motion for Judgment or New Trial
2.
His two arguments
⚖️ On defamation — To win a defamation case like this one, Drummond had to prove Collingsworth knew his statements were false when he made them. The defendants claim Drummond never came close to proving that. Collingsworth argues he genuinely believed Drummond funded the AUC — and says he had the witnesses and evidence to back it up, listing 13 separate pieces of evidence in this motion alone supporting why he believed what he said.
🏛️ On RICO — The defendants claim Drummond simply failed to prove the required legal elements to make the RICO charge stick. Collingsworth doesn't mince words, calling Drummond's RICO claim "the epitome of the misuse of the RICO statute in SLAPP suits" — essentially alleging it was a legal weapon used to silence him, not a legitimate case.
What is it?
A motion filed today asking the judge to throw out the jury's verdict against Collingsworth — or order a brand-new trial.
What is he seeking?
Toss the verdict and rule in his favor, OR
Order a brand new trial
IRAdvocates' Rule 50 Motion for Judgment or New Trial on RICO Claims
3.
What happened at trial?
The jury got so confused they sent the judge a note mid-deliberation asking "when evaluating IRA, who does that include?" (page 4 of the motion). The judge replied that Collingsworth was its Executive Director — and the jury apparentsly took that as enough, finding IRAdvocates equally liable simply because Collingsworth ran it.
IRAdvocates says that's not how the law works. A boss doing something wrong doesn't automatically make it the organization's legal problem.
The three ways Drummond allegedly could have proven IRAdvocates liable — and didn't:
🚫 Show Collingsworth was acting within the scope of his job — not proven
🚫 Show IRAdvocates actually controlled his actions — not proven
🚫 Show IRAdvocates was just Collingsworth's alter ego (basically a fake shell company) — not proven
Drummond allegedly never even asked the jury to be instructed on any of these legal standards.
What is it?
A motion filed today by IRAdvocates asking the judge to throw out the RICO verdict against it specifically.
The core argument — one simple point:
IRAdvocates argues Drummond simply failed to prove the organization itself did anything wrong — and that a boss's actions don't automatically become his organization's legal liability.
What do they want?
Throw out the RICO verdict against IRAdvocates entirely, OR
Grant a brand-new trial