On Wednesday, North Dakota judges awarded hundreds of millions of dollars in damages for the energy transfer of a Texas-based pipeline company.
The verdict was a major blow to the renowned environmental organization. Greenpeace claimed he only played minor roles in demonstrations led by the Standing Rock Sioux. It portrayed the lawsuit as an attempt to curb critics of the oil industry, but the Ju Court apparently opposed it.
Nine ju apprentices at Morton County Courthouse in Mandan, about 45 minutes north of where the protests were held, returned the verdict after about two days of deliberation.
Kelsey Warren, co-founder and chairman of the Energy Transfer, Trump’s ally and donor, Kelsey Warren, was openly in his criticism of the protesters, and had his final words during the plaintiffs’ closing discussion on Monday, when his lawyer made comments he made in the ju-degree video deposition.
“We have to stand up for ourselves,” Warren said, claiming that the protesters had created a “completely false story” about his company. “That was time to fight back.”
Energy Transfer is one of the largest pipeline companies in the country. Protests over the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline attracted public attention in 2016 and 2017 months of camping.
Protesters gathered in and around Standing Rocksoo bookings and argued that the pipeline could sweep through sacred land and put water supply at risk. The Standing Rock tribe was sued to stop the project, and other tribes, environmentalists and celebrities were among the many people gathered in the rural areas, including two people who are now members of Trump’s cabinet, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Tarcigabad.
However, protests erupted in acts of vandalism and violence at some point, alienating people from the surrounding communities in the Bismarck Manda area.
Greenpeace argued that the lawsuit was a threat to First Amendment rights brought about by deep, out-of-pocket plaintiffs that have a dangerous impact on organizations speaking about a wide range of issues. Greenpeace calls the case a “strategic lawsuit against public participation” or a slapsuit. Many states have laws that are not North Dakota, but make it difficult to pursue such cases.
Trey Cox, head of energy transfer lawyer Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, was caught up in Greenpeace during the final discussion on Monday. The company accused Greenpeace of supporting attacks and protests that delayed construction of the pipeline, increased costs and damaged energy transfer reputation.
Cox said the ju umpire had the “privilege” to tell the group that the action was “unacceptable by American methods.” He showed the costs incurred, tallying up to approximately $340 million, and sought punitive damages on top of that.
“Greenpeace had a small, confused local issue and misused it to close the Dakota Access Pipeline and promote its own selfish agenda,” he said. “I thought they would never get caught.”
The 1,172-mile underground pipeline has been in operation since 2017, but is awaiting final permission for a small section across federal territory under Lake Oahe on the Missouri River near Standing Rock. The tribe is still trying to close the pipeline in another lawsuit.
Greenpeace’s lawyers have called cases against the group “silly” attempts to pinpoint the blame against everything that happened during the months of raucous protests, including federal delays in issuing permits. Greenpeace says the $300 million ruling can force it to close its operations in the US.
Three Greenpeace entities were named in the lawsuit: Greenpeace Inc., Greenpeace Fund and Greenpeace International. Greenpeace Inc. is the arm of a group that hosts public campaigns and protests. Like the Greenpeace Fund, it is based in Washington, D.C., where it collects money and provides grants.
The third entity named in the lawsuit, Amsterdam-based Greenpeace International, is the coordinating body of 25 independent Greenpeace groups around the world.
It was primarily the actions of Greenpeace Inc., which was at the heart of the trial that began on February 24th. They dispatched “Rolling Sunlight” solar panel trucks to train and power protest tactics people, providing funds and other supplies. Greenpeace International alleged that its sole involvement was signing a bank that stated its opposition to the pipeline. This is a document signed by hundreds and drafted by a Dutch organization. The Greenpeace Fund said it was not involved.
Cox claimed that all three entities were in fact working together as “one company.”
Greenpeace International is also opposed to energy transfer in the Netherlands and is calling new European Union directives against Dutch law as well as SLAPP lawsuits.
Everett Jack Jr. of Davis Wright Tremaine, the lead lawyer at Greenpeace, is a study in contrast to Cox. Both men wore dark suits and red ties for the closing discussion. But their attitude was against it.
Mr. Cox d d and d d d during his rebuttal, had been running a cart stacked with boxes of evidence to claim that he had proved his case. Jack was measured calmly and chronologically described how the protests developed to claim they had bulged before Greenpeace was involved.
Given the months of chaos caused locally by the protests, the area’s ju-seeker pool was widely expected to support energy transfer.
Among the court observers was a group of lawyers known as the Court Supervisory Board. He criticized the Greenpeace petition for refusing it to move its Greenpeace petition, which was not affected by the protests, to a larger city in Fargo. The group included Martin Garvas, a well-known First Amendment lawyer, and Stephen Donziger, famous for his long-standing legal battle with Chevron over Ecuador’s pollution.
The committee had issues with the number of ju umpires with ties to the oil industry and expressing negative views of the protest during the election of ju umpires. However, Suja A. Thomas, an expert on ju umpire and law professors at the University of Illinois, said that the North Dakota court precedent is not to use “ju umpire blanket disqualification” whether based on experience or opinion, “only because they may have financially disqualification of ju umpire blankets.”
Rather, judges need to determine whether individual ju judges are fair or not. “It could be interested. They need to determine whether interest is important enough to ensure that the person is not fair,” Thomas said.
Natali Segovia is the executive director of Water Protector Legal Collective, an indigenous legal and advocacy nonprofit that grew from the Standing Rock protests. Segovia, who is also a member of the Court Supervision Committee, said her organization is involved in around 800 criminal cases arising from the protests. The majority were rejected, she said.
What was lost at the Greenpeace trials, she said, was concern over the water that spurred so many protests. She saw a bigger dynamic in play. “At the heart of that, it’s a proxy war against indigenous sovereignty using international environmental organizations,” she said.
